The Three Logics of Qualitative Research: Epistemology, Ontology, and Methodology in Political Science

Kacper Grass

doi:10.29333/ajqr/14083

Kacper Grass ¹ ^*

More Detail

AM J QUALITATIVE RES, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp. 42-56

https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/14083

OPEN ACCESS 1037 Views 731 Downloads

Download Full Text (PDF)

Abstract

This essay reviews classic works on the philosophy of science and contemporary pedagogical guides to scientific inquiry in order to present a discussion of the three logics that underlie qualitative research in political science. The first logic, epistemology, relates to the essence of research as a scientific endeavor and is framed as a debate between positivist and interpretivist orientations within the discipline of political science. The second logic, ontology, relates to the approach that research takes to investigating the empirical world and is framed as a debate between positivist qualitative and quantitative orientations, which together constitute the vast majority of mainstream researchers within the discipline. The third logic, methodology, relates to the means by which research aspires to reach its scientific ends and is framed as a debate among positivist qualitative orientations. Additionally, the essay discusses the present state of qualitative research in the discipline of political science, reviews the various ways in which qualitative research is defined in the relevant literature, addresses the limitations and trade-offs that are inherently associated with the aforementioned logics of qualitative research, explores multimethod approaches to remedying these issues, and proposes avenues for acquiring further information on the topics discussed.

Keywords: qualitative research, epistemology, ontology, methodology

References

Baglione, L. A. (2020). Writing a research paper in political science: A practical guide to inquiry, structure, and methods. SAGE Publications.
Bates, R. H. (1993). Letter from the President: Area studies and the discipline. APSA-CP, 7(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1063-4584(05)80109-8
Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (2006). Foundations of multimethod research: Synthesizing styles. SAGE Publications.
Brooks, S. M. (2013). The ethical treatment of human subjects and the institutional review board process. In L. Mosley (Ed.), Interview research in political science (pp. 45–66). Cornell University Press.
Caramani, D. (2020). Introduction to comparative politics. In D. Caramani (Ed.), Comparative politics (5th ed., pp. 1–18). Oxford University Press.
Collier, D. (1993). The comparative method. In A. Finifter (Ed.), Political science: The state of the discipline II (pp. 105–119). APSA.
Collier, D. (2008). Introduction. In G. Goertz (Ed.), Symposium: Case selection, case studies, and causal inference (pp. 2–4). American Political Science Association.
Fearon, J. D., & Laitin, D. D. (2008). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods. In J. Box-Steffensmeier, H. E. Brady, & D. Collier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political methodology (pp. 756–776). Oxford University Press.
Freedman, D. (2008). Do the N’s justify the means? In G. Goertz (Ed.), Symposium: Case selection, case studies, and causal inference (pp. 4–6). American Political Science Association.
George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
Gerring, J. (2008). Techniques for case selection: A response to David Freedman. In G. Goertz (Ed.), Symposium: Case selection, case studies, and causal inference (pp. 7–10). American Political Science Association.
Goertz, G. (2017). Multimethod research, causal mechanisms, and case studies: An integrated approach. Princeton University Press.
Goertz, G., & Mahoney, J. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. Princeton University Press.
Hall, P. (2003). Aligning ontology and methodology. In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 373–404). Cambridge University Press.
Hanson, S. E. (2008). The contribution of area studies. In T. Landman & N. Robinson (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of comparative politics (pp. 35–41). https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857021083.n10
Hempel, C. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Prentice-Hall.
Johnston, J. (1984). Econometric methods. McGraw-Hill.
Kapiszewski, D., Maclean, L. M., & Read, Benjamin, L. (2015). Field research in political science: practices and principles. Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, A. (1998). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioural science. Routledge.
King, G. (1996). Why context should not count. Political Geography, 15(2), 159–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/0962-6298(95)00079-8
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Lane, R. (1996). Positivism, scientific realism and political science. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 8(3), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951692896008003003Lieberman, E. S. (2005). Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 435–452. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051762
Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view. Red Globe Press.
Lustick, I. (1996). History, historiography, and political science: Multiple historical records and the problem of selection bias. The American Political Science Review, 90(3), 605–618.
Lynch, J. F. (2013). Aligning sampling strategies with analytic goals. In L. Mosley (Ed.), Interview research in political science (pp. 31–44). Cornell University Press.
Mahoney, J. (2003). Strategies of causal assessment in comparative historical analysis. In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 337–372). Cambridge University Press.
Mahoney, J. (2007). Debating the state of comparative politics: Views from qualitative research. Comparative Political Studies, 40(1), 32–38. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429026393-7
Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. (2006). A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political Analysis, 14(3), 227–249. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpj017
Mill, J. S. (1843). A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive. John W. Parker.
Moore, B. (1966). The social origins of dictatorship and democracy: Lord and peasant in the making of the modern world (1st ed.). Penguin University Books.
Mosley, L. (2013a). Appendix: Sample materials for interview research. In L. Mosley (Ed.), Interview research in political science (pp. 245–269). Cornell University Press.
Mosley, L. (2013b). “Just talk to people?” Interviews in contemporary political science. In L. Mosley (Ed.), Interview research in political science (pp. 1–28). Cornell University Press.
Munck, G. L., & Snyder, R. (2007). Debating the direction of comparative politics: An analysis of leading journals. Comparative Political Studies, 40(1), 5–31.
Nagel, E. (1979). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. Hackett Publishing Company.
Pierson, P. (2003). Big, Slow-Moving, and...Invisible: Macrosocial processes in the study of comparative politics. In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 177–207). Cambridge University Press.
Popper, K. (1959/2002). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.
Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry: Comparative studies in behavioral science. Wiley-Interscience.
Ragin, C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. University of California Press.
Ragin, C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. University of Chicago Press.
Ragin, C. (2014). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. University of California Press.
Rueschemeyer, D. (2003). Can one or a few cases yield theoretical gains? In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 305–336). Cambridge University Press.
Seawright, J. (2016). Better multimethod design: The promise of integrative multimethod research. Security Studies, 25(1), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2016.1134187
Shively, W. P. (2013). The craft of political research. Pearson Education.
Shively, W. P., & Schultz, D. (2022). Power and Choice: An Introduction to Political Science (16thed.). Roman and Littlefield.
Skocpol, T. (1979). States and Social Revolutions: A comparative analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge University Press.
Small, M. L., & Calarco, J. M. (2022). Qualitative literacy: A guide to evaluating ethnographic and interview research. University of California Press.
Tarrow, S. (2004). Bridging the quantitative-qualitative divide. In H. E. Brady & D. Collier (Eds.), Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards (pp. 171–180). Rowman and Littlefield.
Thies, C. G. (2002). A pragmatic guide to qualitative historical analysis in the study of international relations. International Studies Perspectives, 3(4), 351–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/1528-3577.t01-1-00099
Trachtenberg, M. (2006). The craft of international history: A guide to method. Princeton University Press.
Van Evera, S. (1997). Guide to methods for students of political science. Cornell University Press.
Zurbano-Berenguer, B., Solá-Morales, S., & Marín-Conejo, S. (2021). Women facing violence: How women survivors assess news about gender violence. Cadernos Pagu, 2021(63), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1590/18094449202100630018

Citation

Grass, K. (2024). The Three Logics of Qualitative Research: Epistemology, Ontology, and Methodology in Political Science. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 8(1), 42-56. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/14083

Grass, K. (2024). The Three Logics of Qualitative Research: Epistemology, Ontology, and Methodology in Political Science. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 8(1), pp. 42-56. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/14083

Grass K. The Three Logics of Qualitative Research: Epistemology, Ontology, and Methodology in Political Science. AM J QUALITATIVE RES. 2024;8(1), 42-56. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/14083

Grass, Kacper. "The Three Logics of Qualitative Research: Epistemology, Ontology, and Methodology in Political Science". American Journal of Qualitative Research 2024 8 no. 1 (2024): 42-56. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/14083

Grass, Kacper "The Three Logics of Qualitative Research: Epistemology, Ontology, and Methodology in Political Science". American Journal of Qualitative Research, vol. 8, no. 1, 2024, pp. 42-56. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/14083

Grass K. The Three Logics of Qualitative Research: Epistemology, Ontology, and Methodology in Political Science. AM J QUALITATIVE RES. 2024;8(1):42-56. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/14083