The Science in
Social Science
1.1 INTRODUCTION
THIS BOOK is about
research in the social sciences. Our goal is practical: designing research that
will produce valid inferences about social and political life. We focus on
political science, but our argument applies to other disciplines such as
sociology, anthropology, history, economics, and psychology and to non-disciplinary
areas of study such as legal evidence, education research, and clinical
reasoning.
This is neither a
work in the philosophy of the social sciences nor a guide to specific research
tasks such as the design of surveys, conduct of field work, or analysis of
statistical data. Rather, this is a book about research design: how to pose
questions and fashion scholarly research to make valid descriptive and causal
inferences. As such, it occupies a middle ground between abstract philosophical
debates and the hansom techniques of the researcher and focuses on the
essential logic underlying
all social scientific
research.
Two Styles of Research,
One Logic of
Inference Our main goal is to connect the traditions of what are
conventionally
denoted
“quantitative” and “qualitative” research by applying a unified logic of
inference to both. The two traditions appear quite different; indeed they
sometimes seem to be at war. Our view is that these differences are mainly ones
of style and specific technique. The same underlying logic provides the
framework for each research approach. This logic tends to be explicated and
formalized clearly in discussions of quantitative research methods. But the
same logic of inference underlies the best qualitative research, and all
qualitative and quantitative researchers would benefit by more explicit
attention to this logic in the course of designing research.
The styles of
quantitative and qualitative research are very different. Quantitative research
uses numbers and statistical methods. It tends to be based on numerical
measurements of specific aspects of phenomena; it abstracts from particular
instances to seek general description or to test causal hypotheses; it seeks
measurements and analyses that are easily replicable by other researchers.
The Science in
Social Science
Qualitative research,
in contrast, covers a wide range of approaches, but by definition, none of
these approaches relies on numerical measurements. Such work has tended to
focus on one or a small number of cases, to use intensive interviews or depth
analysis of historical materials, to be discursive in method, and to be
concerned with a rounded or comprehensive account of some event or unit. Even
though they
have a small number
of cases, qualitative researchers generally unearth enormous amounts of
information from their studies. Sometimes this kind of work in the social
sciences is linked with area or case studies where the focus is on a particular
event, decision, institution, location, issue, or piece of legislation. As is
also the case with quantitative research, the instance is often important in
its own right: a major change in a nation, an election, a major decision, or a
world crisis. Why did the East German regime collapse so suddenly in 1989? More
generally, why did almost all the communist regimes of Eastern Europe collapse in
1989? Sometimes, but certainly not always, the event may be chosen as an
exemplar of a particular type of event, such as a political revolution or the
decision of a particular community to reject a waste disposal site. Sometimes
this kind of work is linked to area studies
where the focus is on
the history and culture of a particular part of the world. The particular place
or event is analyzed closely and in full detail.
For several decades, political scientists have
debated the merits of case studies versus statistical studies, area studies
versus comparative studies, and “scientific” studies of politics using
quantitative methods versus “historical” investigations relying on rich textual
and contextual understanding. Some quantitative researchers believe that
systematic statistical analysis is the only road to truth in the social
sciences.
Advocates of
qualitative research vehemently disagree. This difference of opinion leads to
lively debate; but unfortunately, it also bifurcates the social sciences into a
quantitative-systematic-generalizing branch and a qualitative-humanistic-discursive
branch. As the former becomes more and more sophisticated in the analysis of
statistical data (and their work becomes less comprehensible to those who have
not studied the techniques), the latter becomes more and more convinced of the
irrelevance of such analyses to the seemingly nonreplicable and non-generalizable
events in which its practitioners are
Interested.
A major purpose of
this book is to show that the differences between the quantitative and
qualitative traditions are only stylistic and are methodologically and
substantively unimportant. All good research
can be
understood—indeed, is best understood—to derive from the same underlying logic
of inference. Both quantitative and qualitative research can be systematic and
scientific. Historical research can be analytical, seeking to evaluate
alternative explanations through a process of valid causal inference. History,
or historical sociology, is not incompatible with social science (Skocpol 1984:
374–86).
Breaking down these
barriers requires that we begin by questioning the very concept of
“qualitative” research. We have used the term in our title to signal our
subject matter, not to imply that “qualitative”
research is
fundamentally different from “quantitative” research, except in style.
No comments:
Post a Comment