Qualitative Methods in Political Science: Evolution, Achievements, and Contributions

I n recent years, a growing chorus of voices in the political science discipline has become concerned with the balance among alternative methodological approaches in empirical re search and publications. Accordingly, these scholars have issued a call to further develop and refine rigorous methods for qualitative studies, in contrast to studies that rely on quan titative methods and formal modeling (Bennett, Barth, and Rutherford 2003; Yanow 2003; George and Bennett 2005). My own interest and reason for conducting the following survey is rooted in the observation, even frustration, that the literature on qualitative research meth ods largely focuses on democratic and not on authoritarian regimes or the East in particular.' Research in the East is clearly essential and has received increased attention since the terrorist attacks of 9-11, but given how critical this work is and will con tinue to be in coming years, what are the chal lenges? Do qualitative methodological tools by need to be adapted for Janine A. Clark, research in the University of Guelh ,East? And, if so, how? Broadly speaking, this symposium seeks to address these questions by examining the top ics, techniques, and challenges of scholars con ducting field work in the East, and to elucidate the ways in which they can contribute to the study of qualitative research methods. The experiences of political scientists research ing in the East are especially germane for discussions on qualitative methods, as re searchers must contend with political authori tarianism and violence, anti-Americanism, and presumably deep cultural differences related to religion and, as a result, gender. Given these challenges, how scholars undertake field work in the region, the qualitative methods they use, and how they overcome the obstacles they en counter are of interest and value to political scientists in general. Indeed, a second goal of this symposium is to examine the extent to which Middle Eastern exceptionalism is valid and impacts upon the field research process. Toward these ends, during the 2004-2005 academic year I conducted an email survey of political scientists conducting field research in the East. The qualitative survey had 25 open-ended questions inquiring into: the re spondents' research topics; countries in which they conducted field work; reasons for the choice of countries; types of primary sources utilized in the field; interview techniques; the use of surveys; confidentiality and ethical is sues encountered in the field; anticipated and unanticipated difficulties and the extent to which these were country or region specific; and, the degree to which respondents were well trained for field work by their political science departments (see Appendix 1). The survey was sent out to three list-servers with an exclusive or high percentage of political scientists study ing the East. The first, MESAPOLISCI, is a list run by the East Studies Association (MESA), the North American learned society for schol ars, educators, and those interested in the study of the region. As a constituent society of the American Council of Learned Societies, the National Council of Area Studies Associations, and a member of the National Humanities Alli ance, MESA is the most widely recognized association for the study of the East, with a total membership of over 2,600. Al though, on the one hand, MESA's membership is not wholly inclusive of all academics who study the region and, on the other, it includes n n-academics, MESA's membership directory serves as the most accurate representation of academics studying the East available. A search in the membership base for all mem bers who cite their discipline as political sci ence yields a count of 418. As many political scientists are engaged in research that relies on secondary data available in North America and/or Europe, the number of political scien tists who do field work in the region is smaller. MESAPOLISCI is a list specifically for MESA members who are political scientists and has 140 subscribers. The other two lists to which I sent the survey were: H-MIDEAST-POLITICS@H-NET. MSU.EDU, a network on contemporary E stern affairs based at Michigan State Univer sity with 547 subscribers; and ICAMESNET, a list for East area studies specialists, including political scientists, based at McGill University in Montreal with 157 subscribers. In addition, based on the MESA membership directory, I directly targeted political scientists by sending them the survey to ensure a broad cross-section of responses reflecting seniority (and presumably experience) and countries of research. The degree to which the memberships

The specialty of African politics lies within its historical contents and background. The continent grew from strength to strength to attain its political development stronghold. By doing so over the years, the continent has been reflected in most states’ political development stronghold. While in some states, religion and tribal alliances are critical factors in political affiliation, in states such as South Africa and Kenya, democracy and ethnicity have been the leading courses to political development. Democracy and ethnicity have proven to be part of the party identification and evaluation factors and have also become the center point of growth and development in the state's politics. Thus, by focusing on Kenya and South Africa as case studies, the paper adopted a qualitative method of research to understand democracy as well as ethnicity as the bane of these states’ political development. Although much has been documented on either state's political development, little is understood about democracy and ethnicity as the bane of their political leadership from 1989 to 2021, which is the complete focus of the paper. The paper relied on qualitative research methodology to collect and analyze the data on democracy and ethnicity as the bane of Kenya and South Africa from 1989 to 2021. Therefore, the study relied on secondary sources such as accredited journal articles, books, and reports to collect and analyze data on the phenomenon at hand. Thus, the paper's main findings suggest that democracy and ethnicity are the strongholds of South Africa and Kenya's political leadership development. Therefore, the study relied on secondary sources such as accredited journal articles, books and reports to collect and analyse data on the phenomenon at hand. Thus, the main findings of the paper suggests that democracy and ethnicity are the stronghold of South Africa and Kenyas political leadership development.

This publication highlights the mix methods in political sciences methodology. Mix methods are defined as `mixing` both qualitative and qualitative methods, or their elements or integration of some elements. Qualitative methods are interpretive and refers to interviews, focus groups, qualitative date analysis and other methods in order to determine the categories, patterns and, mostly important, the participant`s meanings. Quantitative methods are survey and experiment. Survey is used to describe numerically a trend or certain opinion, while in experiment the goal is to identify the outcome, in comparing two groups, one control and other with experimental factor. There are diverse classification of mixed methods designs. During these twenty years, many methodologists have developed more than forty types, so Creswell and Plano Clark have made more concise several classifications of mixed methods designs which can be applied in social sciences. The object of this article is to point out four mix methods designs which can be applied in political sciences, such as Explanatory design, Exploratory design, Convergent and Embedded design. The author`s objective is to explain each of these designs, the procedures, challenges and their application. Mixed methods are used in political sciences when only qualitative or quantitative method cannot answer to a research question. The intention of `mixing` or integration of elements or procedures, collecting and analyzing data of both qualitative and qualitative methods, is to achieve more significant conclusions.

Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods are applied in security, political and other social sciences in order to conduct research and achieve or verify scientific knowledge. The aim of this paper is to explain the advantages of qualitative methods interview, focus group, observation or quantitative methods - survey, scales, etc. Besides, we will explain how to conduct research in security and political sciences by using some mixed methods. The mixed methods combine qualitative and quantitative methods in order to expand understanding of a certain problem. For example, mixed methods may combine interview and survey. Also, mixed method design may combine certain elements of research designs such as the research question, data collection or data analysis. Therefore, the mixed research designs, known as the third wave, are mostly applied in the research of security, political and other social phenomena.

This paper examines the diverging pathways of the fields of comparative politics and American Political development and explores areas of potential dialogue between them. Since the 1980s, the two subfields have become increasingly isolated from each other, reflecting the specialization trend in political science, growing emphasis in comparative politics on large-N cross-national research, a gap between the two fields over the merits of studying of political development, and the larger divide between the study of comparative and American politics. I argue that two areas in which comparative politics and APD have had extensive dialogue – qualitative methodology and the study of the welfare state – show there is much to be gained from greater linkages between the two sub-fields. There is no reason why fruitful dialogue cannot take place in other areas, particularly in the study of state-building, democratization, and identity.

Qualitative research methods examine a wide range of topics in the study of environment and resource management. This first review on the topic highlights innovative and impactful research over the past few decades, drawing from social science disciplines that include sociology, geography, anthropology, political science, public policy, and psychology. We describe qualitative research methods that have addressed five scientific goals: ( a) describing what the world is like, ( b) predicting what the world can be like, ( c) acknowl-edging researcher positionality and reflexivity and diversifying ways of knowing in theorizing and research designs, ( d) integrating imaginaries into empirical research and building narratives to make sense of possible futures and to broaden our view of scientific inquiry, and ( e) helping scholars grapple with the deep complexity of socioecological systems. As we explore these themes, we explain foundational qualitative approaches and highlight examples of environmental qualitative research that apply them.

Political science is increasingly focusing on the study of leadership factors in its field scope. Therefore, the primary objective of this article is to systematically analyze the use of leadership theories in scholarly publications of political science. This paper also underscores the lack of leadership theories or concepts in political science, offering insights to anyone interested in examining leadership in this academic discipline. This study introduces an alternative framework for analyzing leadership, specifically emphasizing political leadership. Thus, the question addressed in this study is: What leadership theories are applied to the study of political science? This study utilizes the systematic literature review approach, except for the Appraisal Quality stage, to examine political leadership theory and the notion of utilization as discussed in political science. The ROSE protocol is employed in this study due to its suitability for mapping and qualitative studies. Furthermore, PICo is used to formulate research questions in the context of this study. The results of this study, which involved the review of 75 papers, revealed the implementation of leadership theories and concepts in 15 distinct contexts or focus areas. The analysis of leadership in political science places significant emphasis on the dimensions of transformative and transactional leadership styles. Both leadership styles are frequently used in various research contexts. Overall, the prevalence of transformative and transactional leadership theories in political science can be understood as a reflection of the constraints political scientists face in comprehending the nature of leadership within a political context from a scientific standpoint.

(2021) Volume 2, Issue 4 Cultural Implications of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC Authors: Dr. Unsa Jamshed Amar Jahangir Anbrin Khawaja Abstract: This study is an attempt to highlight the cultural implication of CPEC on Pak-China relations, how it will align two nations culturally, and what steps were taken by the governments of two states to bring the people closer.

Political parties reflect a democratic state, which is believed to be a condition for modern state life. As institutions for channeling interests, political parties are used as communication with a two-way function, namely, top-down and bottom-up. If this can be carried out well, then political parties' function as political socialization, political participation, political communication, articulation of interests, aggregation of interests, and policymaking can run well to realize the expected political development. The research method used in this research is qualitative research methods. Through qualitative research, the author has created a complex picture, examined words, reviewed detailed reports from the point of view of resource persons, and conducted studies on natural situations. This study aims to determine political parties' development in the Russian Republic of Tatarstan, political parties' function, and political development amid a society in this modern era. The problem in this research is that political parties in Russia tend to have their own interests, either from the central government or the state or Federation governments. In addition, there tends to be a mismatch between the central and state governments in decision making. In fact, in the context political parties can be a tool for realizing development in a country. Even though there are problems, the results showed that political parties in the Republic of Tatarstan rated quite well in carrying out their functions by the functions of political parties according to the Law of the Russian Federation and the Law of the Republic of Tatarstan concerning Political Parties. The development of political parties in the Tatarstan Republic has played a role in controlling conflicts of interest among the Republic of Tatarstan.

Political parties reflect a democratic state, which is believed to be a condition for modern state life. As institutions for channeling interests, political parties are used as communication with a two-way function, namely, top-down and bottom-up. If this can be carried out well, then political parties' function as political socialization, political participation, political communication, articulation of interests, aggregation of interests, and policymaking can run well to realize the expected political development. The research method used in this research is qualitative research methods. Through qualitative research, the author has created a complex picture, examined words, reviewed detailed reports from the point of view of resource persons, and conducted studies on natural situations. This study aims to determine direction of political parties' development in the Russian Republic of Tatarstan, political parties' function, and political development amid a society in this modern era. The problem in this research is that political parties in Russia tend to have their own interests, either from the central government or the state or Federation governments. In addition, there tends to be a mismatch between the central and state governments in decision making. In fact, in the context political parties can be a tool for realizing development in a country. Even though there are problems, the results showed that political parties in the Republic of Tatarstan rated quite well in carrying out their functions by the functions of political parties according to the Law of the Russian Federation and the Law of the Republic of Tatarstan concerning Political Parties. The development of political parties in the Tatarstan Republic has played a role in controlling conflicts of interest among the Republic of Tatarstan.

Pakistan is a federal state, and an essential feature of federalism is decentralising power to the grassroots level in the shape of local governments. The primary objective of this study is to know about the role of local governments in Pakistan’s socio-economic and political development. Decentralisation of power plays an important role in political and socio-economic development as it helps people socialise politically and solve their underlying problems at their doorsteps. This system also directly brings socio-economic planning and developmental projects at village and street levels, leading to socio-economic development at the grassroots level. Conversely, the developmental projects only remain in the hands of the members of National and Provincial assemblies to whom very few people have access. Thus, only a distinctive class of society enjoys the benefits of developmental projects. It also brings politics to the grassroots level, therefore working as a nursery for future politicians, helping to end dynastic politics and strengthen democracy in Pakistan, a significant problem in the country and a leading cause of inefficiency in politics. Therefore, there must be an uninterrupted party-based local government system in Pakistan. This study is conducted on qualitative and descriptive methods.

Political science has often been described, sometimes cheerfully but most often despairingly, as a discipline without discipline. But it can equally be described as suffering from too much discipline. When I assumed the editorship of Polity in 2000, I bemoaned the fragmentation of the study of politics into subdisciplinary churches, not with the hope of forging unity through the introduction of some overarching orthodoxy, but in accord with what I saw as the journal's tradition of encouraging doctrinal transgressions in the name of the perhaps mythical broadly educated readers with an interest in politics rather than methodological disputes or border controls. Eight years later, the situation within political science is not much different. The so-called Perestroika movement, directed against its vision of a quantitative and rational choice hegemony over some journals, the American Political Science Association, and many political science departments, has come and mostly gone. Qualitative methods is now firmly ensconced as a requirement in graduate programs, alongside its quantitative forebear, but the subfield borderlines remain largely as they were. Polity's place in political science has traditionally straddled the borders of two of those subfields: political theory and American politics. More specifically, it has received and published more submissions in the area of the history of political theory, on the one hand, and in what has come to be called American Political Development, on the other, than it has in international relations, comparative politics, contemporary Continental political theory, so-called empirical theory, methodology, or the more quantitatively oriented studies of American politics, among other things. For the most part, people working in these latter areas simply do not think to submit their work to Polity rather than to journals that are associated with these particular subjects and approaches or to the American Political Science Review (APSR). Thus Polity has run up against some specific barriers, but peer-reviewed political science journals in general have a built-in mechanism that makes it

The Review of Higher Education Winter 1984, Volume 7, No. 2 Pages 179-186 Copyright © 1984 Association for the Study of Higher Education All Rights Reserved METHODS TO THEIR MADNESS: THE CASE FOR QUALITATIVE RESEARCH AN ESSAY REVIEW John R. Thelin Eileen Kuhns and S. V. Martorana, Editors, Qualitative Methods For Institutional Research (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982) 125 pages. Eugene Webb, Donald T. Campbell, Richard D. Schwartz, Lee Sechrest, and Janet Belew Grove, Nonreactive Measures in the Social Sciences (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1981) x + 394 pages. Robert C. Bogdan and Sari Knopp Biklen, qualitative Research for Educa­ tion: An Introduction to Theory and Methods (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1982) xv + 253 pages. Colin B. Burke, American Collegiate Populations: A Test of the Traditional View (New York and London: New York University Press, 1982) ix + 373 pages. Good research in higher education, like pornography, is difficult to define. However, as suggested by one U. S. Supreme Court Justice, we are confident that “we know it when we see it.” Using this standard, let us review recent works that contribute to a recurrent controversy: namely, the place of “qualitative methods” in higher education re­ search. At stake is the legitimacy of those whose studies make use of “ethonography,” “field notes,” “archival records,” “triangulation,” and “institutional clutter” for analyzing colleges and universities. Are these to be accepted as enduring entries in the research lexicon? Or, Author’s note: I wish to thank the Committee on Faculty Research Grants o f the College o f Wiliam and Maryfor the Summer research award that made this project possible. John R. Thelin is an associate professor of education at The College o f William and Mary. 179 180 The Review of Higher Education are the “qualitative methods” advocates to be dismissed as a lunatic fringe? What are the methods in this research madness? One reason the qualitative methods phenomenon no longer can be taken lightly is its visibility—numerous well-known researchers and policy analysts in higher education have clustered under its umbrella. In Qualitative Methods for Institutional Research, Editors Eileen Kuhns and S. V. Martorana have assembled an impressive cast to sing the praises and explore the intricacies of qualitative methods. Pub­ lished as part of the “New Directions” series sponsored by the Association for Institutional Research, the volume is geared directly to the higher education audience. Arthur Levine, George Bonham, Jerry Gaff, and Mark Curtis are “national influentials” and spokesmen for colleges and universities—so, their endorsement commands attention, if not agreement. And, since the higher education cosmos does not end at DuPont Circle, the editors have wisely looked beyond Washington, D. C. to enlist the support of established researchers from major universities and associations through out the country. Contributors include Michael Quinn Patton, Norman Denzin, Michael Tierney, F. Craig Johnson, R. C. Lacher, Alan Northrop, and Kenneth Kraemer. Their summaries provide the reader an up-dated account as to how such disciplines as sociology, anthropology, mathematics, political science, history, and public administration respectively employ quali­ tative methods in research strategies. Discipline-by-discipline summa­ ries then lead to selections that argue for application to such higher education areas as management and finance, admissions, academic policies, curricular reform, and student life. The connection between research and administration is, of course, neither smooth nor inevitable. Two mathematicians, F. Craig Johnson and R. C. Lacher, humorously start their essay with an apocryphal encounter at a campus bar among an institutional research analyst, the president’s assistant, and a mathematics professor. Each comments on the shortcomings of the others’ work and, “After a thoughtful pause, the talk shifts to football, since no one seems to have any idea what the others are talking about.” The authors then provide useful groundrules and definitions for making “qualitative methods” part of the campus research and decision making fabric. The anthology would be more convincing if some authors devoted space to completed (and, successful) projects that actually used quali­ tative measures—rather than projections for potential applications. Perhaps the most important (and troubling) issues come early in the opening essay “Qualitative Methods and Approaches: What Are they?,” by Michael Quinn Patton. All goes smoothly as the author outlines tenets of...

Publication in scholarly journals is a key to scholarly success. However, previous studies have shown that across many disciplines, including political science, women publish significantly less than men and prefer to use qualitative methodology. In this article, we explore the accuracy of these trends by examining a decade's worth (2000–09) of women's publications in four top political science journals (the American Political Science Review, the American Journal of Political Science, the Journal of Politics, and PS: Political Science and Politics). Using a systematic content analysis, we determine the gender ratio of the authors, funding sources, methods, and the ratio of qualitative and quantitative studies. We find that while women publish less than men in each of these venues, their publication rates resemble their representation in the field.

Despite the relevance of qualitative methods in political science, the process of teaching qualitative research has received relatively little attention in the literature. What is it like to teach qualitative research in political science? This article focuses on the teaching of qualitative research by exploring examples from Brazil. The country is home to some of the largest higher-education providers of political science in Latin America; however, the teaching of appropriate research methods is still incomplete. This article identifies challenges to qualitative-methods education in the country and its evolution. It provides lessons about the teaching of qualitative methods that can be relevant to educators in less institutionalized political science departments, to non–English speaking learners, and to Global South scholars.