Research Design
Goethe University Frankfurt
Mondays, 10.00 am – 12.00 pm / SP 1.01
Wednesdays, 12.00 – 2.00 pm / SH 4.107
Markus Siewert, M.A.
Email: siewert@soz.uni-frankfurt.de
Office: PEG 3G. 114
Office hour: Mondays 1:00 – 2:00 pm
Course Outline
This seminar gives an introduction into the main aspects of research designs in the social sciences.
It
(1) presents different forms of case-oriented research designs such as single and comparative case
study designs, historically oriented studies, within-case analyses, or counterfactuals;
(2) stresses the importance of a well-elaborate research design for social science research.
Therefore, different phases of the research process are discussed, e.g. developing a research
question, forming concepts, selecting cases; operationalizing and measuring, and drawing
inferences;
(3) looks at the (perceived) differences between qualitative and quantitative research paradigms and
evaluates whether these are two different research approaches or just two variants based on
common standards.
This seminar is not a classical methods course in which a single data collection technique or data
analysis method is presented. It rather introduces standards of good research practices for setting up
a research project, discusses different forms of research, and provides a forum for the discussion of
scholarly guidelines for “good” research. The seminar is embedded in a case-oriented research and
methodological tradition but also offers (hopefully) interesting viewpoints for those students who
prefer to work in a different manner (both quantitative and interpretativistic). In sum, this course
emanates from a comprehensive understanding of methodology and research design and tries to
enable its participants to be able to choose from a broad range of different approaches and
strategies.
The seminar aims at laying the basis for designing empirical research, both in political science and
sociology. It is therefore especially recommended for those students who are at the beginning of
their M.A. studies. However, it should also prepare for designing M.A. theses. Furthermore, it
introduces to “methodology” as a social science sub-discipline and discusses the state-of-the-art of
methodological literature and its current fractures.
Modules: PW-MA-1; PW09-MA-2: IS-MA-1; HM; PW-BA-SP
Course Requirements:
No prior knowledge is needed to follow the course. However, a seminar is essentially based on the
regular attendance and dedicated involvement in classroom discussions of its participants. If you
miss 20% of classes during the semester you cannot receive either a Teilnahmeschein or a
Leistungsschein (“Three Strikes and You Are Out”). The course language will be English, as will be
the literature.
1
How to Get a Schein:
For a Leistungsschein (graded) are required:
(1) attendance in 80% of the sessions during the semester,
(2) a short exam (Wissenstest) at the end of the semester.
(3) end-term paper (approx. 10-12 pages) on
a. either an in-depth discussion of one variant of research design or comparison of
different designs,
b. or a discussion of a peer-reviewed journal article regarding its research design.
The essay and the written exam count equally towards the grade. A grade of at least 4
(“ausreichend”) is necessary in both to pass the class.
For a non-graded certificate of participation (Teilnahmeschein) are required:
(1) attendance in 80% of the sessions during the semester,
(2) a short exam (Wissenstest) (passed or failed).
Course Materials
All course materials and general information (readings, writing assignments, and presentations),
will be provided via the BSCW server. If you want to purchase one or two books for this course, the
following are recommended:
(1) Goertz, Gary and James Mahoney (2012). A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and
Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
(2) Della Porta, Donatella and Michael Keating (eds.) (2008), Approaches and Methodologies
in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(3) Gerring, John (2012). Social Science Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
2
Syllabus
Research Design
Winter Term 2015 / 2016
12. Oct. 2015
What the Heck is this Course Good For?
Course information, requirements, and organization
No readings required. In the following, mandatory readings are marked by two asterisks **.
14. Oct. 2015
What is a (Good) Research Design in Social Sciences?
** Gerring, John (2011). “How Good is Good Enough? A Multidimensional, Best-Possible
Standard for Research Design.” Political Research Quarterly 64(3), 625-636.
** Schmitter, Philippe C. (2008). “The Design of Social and Political Research.” In Donatella Della
Porta and Michael Keating (eds.), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 263-295.
Further readings:
De Vaus, David (2001). Research Design in Social Research. London: Sage, 1-16.
Gschwend, Thomas and Frank Schimmelfennig (2011). “Introduction: Designing Research in
Political Science – A Dialogue between Theory and Data.” In Thomas Gschwend and Frank
Schimmelfennig (eds.), Research Design in Political Science: How to Practice What They Preach.
Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1-20.
Ragin, Charles C. (1994). Constructing Social Research. The Unity and Diversity of Method.
Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press, 1-53.
19. Oct. 2015
What is Case-Oriented Research?
** Mahoney, James (2010). “After KKV: The New Methodology of Qualitative Research.” World
Politics 62(1), 120-47.
Additionally, please read (at least) one of the following texts:
** Ragin, Charles C. (2004). “Turning the Tables: How Case-Oriented Research Challenges
Variable-Oriented Research.” In Henry E. Brady and David Collier (eds.). Rethinking Social
Inquiry. Lanham et al.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 123-138.
** Della Porta, Donatella (2008). “Comparative Analysis: Case-Oriented vs Variable-Oriented
Research.” In Donatella Della Porta and Michael Keating (eds.). Approaches and Methodologies in
the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 198-222.
** Mahoney, James and Gary Goertz (2006). “A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative
and Qualitative Research.” Political Analysis 14, 227-249.
3
Further readings:
Ragin, Charles C. (1992). “‘Casing’ and the Process of Social Inquiry”. In Charles C. Ragin and
Howard S. Becker (eds.). Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 217-226.
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich (2003). “Can One or a Few Cases Yield Theoretical Gains?” In James
Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (eds.), Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social
Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 305-336.
21. Oct. 2015
What is Set Theoretical Thinking?
** Goertz, Gary and James Mahoney (2012). A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative
Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 16-40.
** Ragin, Charles C. (2013). “New Directions in the Logic of Social Inquiry.” Political Research
Quarterly 66(1), 171-174.
Further readings:
Mahoney, James and Rachel Sweet Vanderpoel (2015). “Set Diagrams and Qualitative Research.”
Comparative Political Studies 48(1), 65-100.
Schneider, Carsten Q. and Claudius Wagemann (2012). Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social
Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-12.
26. Oct. 2015
Different Forms and Strengths of Case Study Designs
** Blatter, Joachim and Markus Haverland (2012). Designing Case Studies. Explanatory
Approaches in Small-N Research. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1-32.
** Gerring, John (2007). Case Study Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 17-63.
Further readings:
George, Alexander and Andrew Bennett (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the
Social Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press, 3-36.
Rohlfing, Ingo (2012). Case Studies and Causal Inference. An Integrative Framework. Houndmills,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 23-60.
9. Nov. 2015
Qualitative Comparative Analysis
** Schneider, Carsten Q. and Claudius Wagemann (2012). Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social
Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 56-90.
** Tomini, Luca and Claudius Wagemann (2015). “Assessing Causes for Democratic Regression
During the Third Wave of Democratization.” Unpublished manuscript.
Further readings:
Ragin, Charles C. (2008). Redesigning Social Inquiry. Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 29-43.
4
Marx, Axel, Benoit Rihoux and Charles C. Ragin (2014). “The Origins, Development, and
Application of Qualitative Comparative Analysis: The First 25 Years.” European Political Science
Review 6(1), 115-142.
11. Nov. 2015
Process Tracing
** Mahoney, James (2012). “The Logic of Process Tracing Tests in the Social Sciences.”
Sociological Methods and Research 41(4), 566-90.
** Brady, Henry E. (2010). “Data-Set Observations versus Causal-Process Observations: The 2000
U.S. Presidential Election.” In Henry E. Brady and David Collier (eds.). Rethinking Social Inquiry.
Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. 2. ed,. Lanham et al.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 237-242.
Further readings:
Beach, Derek und Rasmus Brun Pedersen (2012). Process-Tracing Methods. Foundations and
Guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 23-44.
Bennett, Andrew and Jeffrey T. Checkel (2015). “Process Tracing: From Philosophical Roots to
Best Practices.” In Andrew Bennett and Jeffrey T. Checkel (eds.). Process Tracing. From Metaphor
to Analytical Tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3-37.
Collier, David (2011). “Understanding Process Tracing.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44(4),
823-830.
Waldner, David (2015). “What Makes Process Tracing Good? Causal Mechanisms, Causal Inference, and the Completeness Standard in Comparative Politics.” In Andrew Bennett and Jeffrey T.
Checkel (eds.), Process Tracing. From Metaphor to Analytical Tool. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 126-152.
16. Nov. 2015
Comparative Historical Analysis
** Thelen, Kathleen and James Mahoney (2015). “Comparative-­‐‑Historical Analysis in
Contemporary Political Science.” In James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen (eds.). Advances in
Comparative-­‐‑Historical Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press, 3-36.
** Goldstone, Jack A. (1998). “The Problem of the ‘Early Modern’ World.” Journal of Economic
and Social History of the Orient 41, 249-84.
Further readings:
Bartolini, Stefano (1993). “On Time and Comparative Research.” Journal of Theoretical Politics
5(2), 131-167.
Grzymala-Busse, Anna (2011). “Time Will Tell? Temporality and the Analysis of Causal
Mechanisms.” Comparative Political Studies 44(9), 1267-1297.
Mahoney, James, Erin Kimball and Kendra L. Koivu (2009). “The Logic of Historical Explanation
in the Social Sciences.” Comparative Political Studies 42(1), 114-46.
Falleti, Tulia G. and James Mahoney (2015). “ The Comparative Sequential Method.” In James
Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen (eds.). Advances in Comparative-­‐‑Historical Analysis. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 212-239.
5
Pierson, Paul (2003). “Big, Slow-Moving and … Invisible: Macrosocial Processes in the Study of
Comparative Politics.” In James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (eds.), Comparative
Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 177-207.
18. Nov. 2015
Counterfactual Designs
** Levy, Jack S. (2008). “Counterfactuals and Case Studies.” In Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier,
Henry E. Brady and David Collier (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. [online version].
** Harvey, Frank P. (2012). “President Al Gore and the 2003 Iraq War: A Counterfactual Test of
Conventional “W”isdom.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 45(1), 1-32.
Further readings:
Emmenegger, Patrick (2011). “How Good Are Your Counterfactuals? Assessing Quantitative
Macro-Comparative Welfare State Research with Qualitative Criteria.” Journal of European Social
Policy 21(4), 365-380.
Tetlock, Philip E. and Aaron Belkin (eds.) (1996). Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World
Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Morgan, Stephen L. and Christopher Winship 2007. Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods
and Principles for Social Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23. Nov. 2015
Mixed and Multi-Methods Research
** Lieberman, Evan S. (2005). “Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative
Research.” American Political Science Review 99(3), 435-452.
** Schneider, Carsten Q. and Kristin Makszin (2014). “Forms of Welfare Capitalism and
Education-­‐‑Based Participatory Inequality.” Socio-­‐‑Economic Review 12(2), 437-­‐‑62.
Further readings:
Ahmed, Amel and Rudra Sil (2012). “When Multi-Method Research Subverts Methodological
Pluralism—or, Why We Still Need Single-Method Research.” Perspectives on Politics 10(4), 935953.
Kühn, David and Ingo Rohlfing (2010). “Causal Explanation and Multi-Method Research in the
Social Sciences.” Political Methodology, No. 26 (IPSA Committee on Concepts and Methods
Working Paper Series).
Hollstein, Betina (2015). “Mixed-Methods Social Network Research: An Introduction.” In Silvia
Dominguez and Betina Hollstein (eds.). Mixed Methods Social Networks Research. Design and
Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3-34.
25. Nov. 2015
Research Questions and Hypothesis Formulation
** Gerring, John (2012). Social Science Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 5873, 141-154, 197-217.
6
Further readings:
Shapiro, Ian (2002). “Problems, Methods, and Theories in the Study of Politics, Or What’s Wrong
with Political Science and What To Do About It.” Political Theory 30(4), 588-611.
Van Evera, Stephen (1997). Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 7-48.
30. Nov. 2015
Case Selection
** Gerring, John (2007). Case Study Research. Principles and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 86-150.
** Mahoney, James and Gary Goertz (2004). “The Possibility Principle: Choosing Negative Cases
in Comparative Research.” American Political Science Review 98(4), 653-669.
Further readings:
Seawright, Jason and John Gerring (2008). “Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research. A
Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options.” Political Research Quarterly 61(2), 294-308.
7. Dec. 2015
Concepts and Concept Formation
** Goertz, Gary (2006). Social Sciences Concepts. A User’s Guide. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1-67.
** Mair, Peter (2008). “Concepts and Concept Formation.” In Donatella Della Porta and Michael
Keating (eds.), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 177-197.
Further readings:
Collier, David and James E. Mahon, Jr. (1993). “Conceptual ‘Stretching’ Revisited: Adapting
Categories in Comparative Analysis.” American Political Science Review 87(4), 845-855.
Collier, David and Steven Levitsky (2009). “Conceptual Hierarchies in Comparative Research.” In
David Collier and John Gerring (eds.), Concepts and Method in the Social Science. The Tradition of
Giovanni Sartori. London: Routledge, 269-288.
Gerring, John (2012). Social Science Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 107140.
9. Dec. 2015
Operationalization and Measurement
** Gerring, John (2012). Social Science Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
155-183.
** Adcock, Robert N. and David Collier (2001). “Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for
Qualitative and Quantitative Research.” American Political Science Review 95(3), 529-546.
Further readings:
Goertz, Gary and James Mahoney (2012). A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative
Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 127-149 & 161-173.
7
Miller, Bernhard (2011). “Making Measures Capture Concepts: Tools for Securing Correspondence
between Theoretical Ideas and Observations.” In Thomas Gschwend and Frank Schimmelfennig
(eds.), Research Design in Political Science: How to Practice What They Preach. Houndmills,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 83-102.
14. Dec. 2015
Analysis and Inference
** Goertz, Gary and James Mahoney, 2013. “Methodological Rorschach Tests: Contrasting
Interpretations in Qualitative and Quantitative Research.” Comparative Political Studies 46(2), 236251.
** Héritier, Adrienne (2008). “Causal Explanation.” In Donatella Della Porta and Michael Keating
(eds.), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 61-79.
Further readings:
Brady, Henry (2008). “Causation and Explanation in Social Science.” In Janet M. BoxSteffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Political
Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gerring, John (2012). Social Science Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 218255.
Hall, Peter (2003). “Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Research.” In James
Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (eds.), Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social
Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 373-404.
16. Dec. 2015
Round-Up Session
Please, read one of the following texts:
** King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane und Sidney Verba (1994). Designing Social Inquiry. Scientific
Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 3-33.
** Collier, David, Jason Seawright and Gerardo L. Munck (2010). “The Quest for Standards: King,
Keohane, and Verba’s Designing Social Inquiry.” In Henry E. Brady and David Collier (eds.),
Rethinking Social Inquiry. Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 3363.
** Mahoney, James and Gary Goertz (2006). “A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative
and Qualitative Research.” Political Analysis 14(3), 227-249.
Further readings:
King, Gary and Eleanor Neff Powell (2008). “How Not to Lie Without Statistics.” Unpublished
manuscript.
TBA – will be in January 2016
Written Short Exam
8