Abstract
The quantitative and qualitative research traditions can be thought of as distinct cultures marked by different values, beliefs, and norms. In this essay, we adopt this metaphor toward the end of contrasting these research traditions across 10 areas: (1) approaches to explanation, (2) conceptions of causation, (3) multivariate explanations, (4) equifinality, (5) scope and causal generalization, (6) case selection, (7) weighting observations, (8) substantively important cases, (9) lack of fit, and (10) concepts and measurement. We suggest that an appreciation of the alternative assumptions and goals of the traditions can help scholars avoid misunderstandings and contribute to more productive "cross-cultural" communication in political science.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 227-249 |
| Number of pages | 23 |
| Journal | Political Analysis |
| Volume | 14 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jun 2006 |
Funding
Authors’ note: Both authors contributed equally to this article. Mahoney’s work on this project is supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant No. 0093754). We would like to thank Carles Boix, Bear Braumoeller, David Collier, Scott Desposato, Christopher Haid, Simon Hug, Benjamin I. Page, Charles C. Ragin, Dan Slater, David Waldner, Lisa Wedeen, and the anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier drafts. We also thank students at the 2006 Arizona State Qualitative Methods Training Institute for feedback on a presentation of much of this material.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Sociology and Political Science
- Political Science and International Relations