Political Research Quarterly

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schwartz-Shea, P.
Right arrow Articles by Yanow, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 2, 457-486 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/106591290205500209
© 2002 University of Utah

"Reading" " Methods" "Texts": " How Research Methods Texts Construct Political Science

Peregrine Schwartz-Shea

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH

Dvora Yanow

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, HAYWARD

This article reports on an interpretive content analysis of fourteen research methods texts. We read them as a genre—exploring their structural and rhetorical features—to address two questions: To what extent do research methods texts reflect the breadth of methods used in political science and its fields? To what extent do they reflect contemporary ferment concerning questions of social reality and its "knowability?" These questions are intertwined with each other—epistemological positions on what counts as "science" affect the methods presented—and with the misleading distinction between "quantitative" and "qualitative" methods. Although these texts vary considerably in the degree to which they engage epistemologcal issues. all fourteen texts explicitly endorsed or implicitly assumed positivist definitions of science, which can be seen in their treatments of "qualitative" methods issues. Interpretive methods of data access and analysis are almost entirely "disappeared," and positivist qualitative methods of data access receive treatment that ranges from poor to excellent. This textual consensus on positivism as the mode of scientific research in political science has implications for professional practice in four areas: the possibility of field-neutral methods texts, student research agendas, disciplinary meanings associated with "method" and "methodology," and researchers' professional identity as political scientists.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?