Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T19:38:19.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perestroika Ten Years After: Reflections on Methodological Diversity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2010

Dvora Yanow  and
Peregrine Schwartz-Shea
Dvora Yanow
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Peregrine Schwartz-Shea
Affiliation:
University of Utah
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the primary concerns driving Perestroika was the hegemony of quantitative methods in American political science research, curricula, journals, and positions, to the exclusion of qualitative and interpretive approaches. In this article, we assess the contemporary methodological diversity of U.S. political science, at the APSA in particular, to see what, if anything, has changed over the last 10 years. This is an admittedly rough assessment, as the deadline for this symposium did not allow time to repeat the research projects that started Perestroika's and our own solo and joint efforts, the latter preceding and then intersecting with the former. We therefore give a broad overview of methods-directed activities, although we cannot help but see events through the lens of our own involvement in them, and that view is perforce partial.

Type
Symposium
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , October 2010 , pp. 741 - 745
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agar, Michael. 2010. “On the Ethnographic Part of the Mix.” Organizational Research Methods 13 (2): 286–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, Henry E., and Collier, David, eds. 2004. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Chronicle of Higher Education. 2007. “Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index.” Chronicle of Higher Education, November 16. http://chronicle.com/stats/productivity/page.php?primary=10&bycat.Google Scholar
Donovan, Gill. 2004. “Economics Split Divides Notre Dame: Creation of Two Unequal Programs Decried by Some as Threat to Academic Freedom.” National Catholic Reporter, April 9. http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2004b/040904/040904c.php.Google Scholar
Glenn, David. 2009. “Notre Dame to Dissolve the ‘Heterodox’ Side of Its Split Economics Department.” Chronicle of Higher Education, September 16. http://chronicle.com/article/Notre-Dame-to-Dissolve-Het/48460/.Google Scholar
Glynos, Jason, and Howarth, David. 2007. Logics of Critical Explanation in Social and Political Theory. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochschild, Jennifer. 2005. “Inventing Perspective on Politics.” In Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science, ed. Monroe, Kristen Renwick, 330–41. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kasza, Gregory. 2010. “Perestroika and the Journals.” PS: Political Science and Politics 43 (4): 733–34.Google Scholar
Katz, Jack. 2004. “Subterranean Fieldworkers' Blues: Scratching toward a Common Law of Social Research Ethics.” Paper presented to the Center for the Study of Law and Society, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley, February 17.Google Scholar
Locke, Karen, Golden-Biddle, Karen, and Feldman, Martha S.. 2008. “Making Doubt Generative.” Organization Science 19 (6): 907–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine, and Bennett, Andrew, eds. 2003. “Symposium—Methodological Pluralism in Journals and Graduate Education? Commentaries on New Evidence.” PS: Political Science and Politics 36 (3): 371–86.Google Scholar
Scott, James C., and Light, Matthew A.. 2003. “The Misuse of Numbers: Audits, Quantification, and the Obfuscation of Politics.” DeVane Lecture, Yale University (revised draft, January). yale.edu/terc/democracy/media/apr24text.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanow, Dvora. 2003. “Interpretive Empirical Political Science: What Makes This Not a Subfield of Qualitative Methods.” Qualitative Methods Newsletter 1 (2): 9–13.Google Scholar
Yanow, Dvora, and Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine, eds. 2006. Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Yanow, Dvora, and Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine 2008. “Reforming Institutional Review Board Policy: Issues in Implementation and Field Research.” PS: Political Science and Politics 41 (3): 483–94.Google Scholar