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

Author:

Grass Kacper1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA

Abstract

<i>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.</i>

Publisher

Modestum Ltd

Reference52 articles.

1. Baglione, L. A. (2020). Writing a research paper in political science: A practical guide to inquiry, structure, and methods. SAGE Publications.

2. 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

3. Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (2006). Foundations of multimethod research: Synthesizing styles. SAGE Publications.

4. 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.

5. Caramani, D. (2020). Introduction to comparative politics. In D. Caramani (Ed.), Comparative politics (5th ed., pp. 1–18). Oxford University Press.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3