Introduction to the Second Edition: A Sea Change in Political Methodology
Part I: A Debate on Methodology A. Framing the Debate
1. Refocusing the Discussion of Methodology
2. The Quest for Standards: King, Keohane, and Verba's Designing Social Inquiry B. Critiques of the Quantitative Template
3. Doing Good and Doing Better: How Far Does the Quantitative Template Get Us?
4. Some Unfulfilled Promises of Quantitative Imperialism
· · · · · ·
(
更多)
Introduction to the Second Edition: A Sea Change in Political Methodology
Part I: A Debate on Methodology A. Framing the Debate
1. Refocusing the Discussion of Methodology
2. The Quest for Standards: King, Keohane, and Verba's Designing Social Inquiry B. Critiques of the Quantitative Template
3. Doing Good and Doing Better: How Far Does the Quantitative Template Get Us?
4. Some Unfulfilled Promises of Quantitative Imperialism
5. How Inference in the Social (but Not the Physical) Sciences Neglects Theoretical Anomaly C. Linking the Quantitative and Qualitative Traditions
6. Bridging the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide
7. The Importance of Research Design D. Diverse Tools, Shared Standards
8. Critiques, Responses, and Trade-Offs: Drawing Together the Debate
9. Sources of Leverage in Causal Inference: Toward an Alternative View of Methodology Part II. Causal Inference: Old Dilemmas, New Tools Introduction to Part II E. Qualitative Tools for Causal Inference
10. Process Tracing and Causal Inference
11. On Types of Scientific Inquiry: The Role of Qualitative Reasoning
12. Data-Set Observations versus Causal-Process Observations: The 2000 U.S. Presidential Election Addendum: Teaching Process Tracing F. Quantitative Tools for Causal Inference
13. Regression-Based Inference: A Case Study in Failed Causal Assessment
14. Design-Based Inference: Beyond the Pitfalls of Regression Analysis?
Glossary
Bibliography
· · · · · · (
收起)
0 有用 江风吹酥眠 2023-11-25 11:06:12 北京
是我极其喜欢的写作风格:稳准狠,详细且结构清晰,时不时穿插幽默且到位的比喻和例子。和KKV的对话/辩论太有意思了,能够引发热烈的讨论和回应的学者是幸福的。如果作品无法引发质疑,那这个领域或许离死不远了
0 有用 wishyll 2018-06-24 00:24:13
此书较前一版的确有了很大的提升。在若干比较政治学必读的研究手法的作品当中,此书的业绩的确是相当大的。自然,和KKV的日译本所在学术界产生的反响一样,热度不超过两年,大概是某种常态。近些年英文和日文文献中形式模型和高度的计量方法所发表的论文都远远超过了有着明确研究设计的案例比较的作品,某种程度上来说,到底是这一领域的学者多大程度上有着比较政治的”比较“意义上的问题意识来从事研究的呢?现在仍旧是Naz... 此书较前一版的确有了很大的提升。在若干比较政治学必读的研究手法的作品当中,此书的业绩的确是相当大的。自然,和KKV的日译本所在学术界产生的反响一样,热度不超过两年,大概是某种常态。近些年英文和日文文献中形式模型和高度的计量方法所发表的论文都远远超过了有着明确研究设计的案例比较的作品,某种程度上来说,到底是这一领域的学者多大程度上有着比较政治的”比较“意义上的问题意识来从事研究的呢?现在仍旧是Nazo的感觉。不过,坦率地来说,随着实验手法和计量手法的先端化,事实上此书出版的时候,若干的解说就已经多少有些感觉过时了。定性研究的手法倘若想要生存,更明确的方法论意识绝对必要不可欠,没有这样的危机感,大概对于政治学的学生而言,究竟如何最大限的发挥定性研究的长所,多少是没有说服力的。期待着新版的更新。 (展开)
4 有用 Angela 2014-04-12 15:39:00
先看KKV那本,然后再看这个,最后再对比着看KKV,其实还蛮享受的。隐约记得有一章有逻辑错误,大概是讲hoop test之类的tests在qualitative研究中如何使用的那一章吧。
0 有用 Smouldering 2025-04-18 11:16:00 北京
读了第12节,data-set observations versus causal-process observations
1 有用 Bora Bora 2013-04-17 17:01:54
should read with KKV