Research Design
Goethe University Frankfurt
Mondays, 10:00 – 12:00 am
Room: Seminarpavillon Westend SP 1.01
Markus Siewert, M.A.
Email: siewert@soz.uni-frankfurt.de
Office: PEG 3.G 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.
(1) After discussing the importance of a well-elaborate research design for social science research,
different phases of the research process are discussed, such as the discovery of a research
question; the formation of concepts; the formulation of arguments; case selection;
operationalization; and how to arrive at conclusions from a study.
(2) Following this, different forms of research designs are presented, e.g. single-case study designs;
comparative designs; historically oriented studies; within-case analyses; and the design of more
quantitative social research.
(3) A final part will look at the (perceived) differences between qualitative and quantitative
research traditions and will evaluate whether these are two different research approaches or just
two variants of the same principles.
This seminar is not a classical methods course in which single data collection or data analysis
methods are presented (such a course will be offered again in the summer term 2015). It rather
introduces to standards of good research practices and provides a forum for the discussion of
existing guidelines within the scholarly community. The seminar is embedded in a qualitativeempirical, case-oriented research and methodological tradition, but also offers interesting
viewpoints for those students who prefer to work in a different manner. 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 is conceived as a basis for a successful reception of 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 of a M.A. theses.
Furthermore, it introduces to “methodology” as a social science sub-discipline and discusses its
current fractures and cleavages.
Modules: HM, SOZ-MA-1, PW09-MA-2, PW-MA-1, IS-MA-1; SOZ-MA-6; 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
all the literature. While sufficient language skills are required to follow the course, it has no effect
on the grading.
1
How to Get a Schein:
For a Leistungsschein (graded) are required:
(1) attendance in 80% of the sessions during the semester,
(2) two short essays (each approx. 9.000 – 12.000 characters)
a. mid-term paper (deadline 23. Dec. 2014): discussion of a peer-reviewed journal
article regarding its research design.
b. end-term paper (deadline 31. Mar. 3014): in-depth discussion of one variant of
research design or comparison of different designs.
(3) a written short exam (Kurzklausur) at the end of the semester.
The two essays and the written exam count equally towards the grade.
For a non-graded certificate of participation (Teilnahmeschein) are required:
(1) attendance in 80% of the sessions during the semester, and
(2) a written short exam (Kurzklausur) (passed or failed).
Course Materials
All course materials (readings, writing assignments, and presentations), will be provided via the
homepage of the chair for Qualitative Empirical Social Sciences. Mandatory readings are marked
with a ** in the syllabus below; without asterisks are further readings which are voluntary. If you
want to purchase one or two books for this course, the following are recommended:
(1) Della Porta, Donatella and Michael Keating (eds.) (2008), Approaches and Methodologies
in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2) Gerring, John (2012). Social Science Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
(3) Goertz, Gary and James Mahoney (2012). A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and
Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Plagiarism
Following the basic rules of academic (and human) behavior, all your works have to be the product
your own creativity and energy. Google-ing the works of other people does not count as such! The
written assignments have to follow the rules of academic writing, e.g. citing other works. Please,
hand-in the following signed statement with your written works:
Erklärung über die selbstständige Erstellung einer wissenschaftlichen Arbeit
Hiermit erkläre ich, … , geboren am … , gegenüber dem Institut für Politikwissenschaft der J. W.
Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbstständig und nur unter
Zuhilfenahme der im Literaturverzeichnis angegebenen Literatur und Hilfsmittel angefertigt habe.
Wörtlich übernommene Sätze oder Satzteile sind als Zitat belegt, andere Anlehnungen hinsichtlich
Aussage und Umfang unter Quellenangabe kenntlich gemacht. Die Arbeit hat in gleicher oder
ähnlicher Form noch keiner Prüfungsbehörde vorgelegen und ist nicht veröffentlicht.
2
Syllabus
Research Design
Winter Term 2104 / 2105
(1) 13. Oct. 2014
General Information and Course Requirements
No readings required.
(Mandatory readings are marked with a ** in the syllabus below)
Part I: Intro
(2) 20. Oct. 2014
The Role of (Good) Research Design(s) in Social Sciences
** Ragin, Charles C. (1994). Constructing Social Research. The Unity and Diversity of Method.
Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press, pp. 1-53.
** Della Porta, Donatella and Michael Keating (2008). “How Many Approaches in the Social
Sciences? An Epistemological Introduction.” In Donatella della Porta and Michael Keating (eds.),
Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 19-39.
Shapiro, Ian (2004). “Problems, Methods, and Theories in the Study of Politics, or: What’s Wrong
with Political Science and What To Do About It.” In Ian Shapiro, Rogers M. Smith and Tarek E.
Masoud (eds.), Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 19-41.
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, pp. 1-20.
Part II: Phases of Research Designs
(3) 27. Oct. 2014
Research Questions and Designing Empirical Research
** 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, pp. 263-295.
** Ragin, Charles C. (1994). Constructing Social Research. The Unity and Diversity of Method.
Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press, pp. 55-76.
Geddes, Barbara (2007). Paradigms and Sandcastles. Theory Building and Research Design in
Comparative Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 27-40.
Lehnert, Matthias, Bernhard Miller and Arndt Wonka (2011). “Increasing the Relevance of
Research Questions: Considerations on Theoretical and Social Relevance in Political Science.” In
Thomas Gschwend and Frank Schimmelfennig (eds.), Research Design in Political Science: How to
Practice What They Preach. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 21-40.
3
(4) 03. Nov. 2014
Concept Formation
** 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, pp. 177-197.
** Gerring, John (2012). Social Science Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 107-140.
Goertz, Gary (2006). Social Sciences Concepts. A User’s Guide. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, pp. 1-67.
Collier, David and James E. Mahon, Jr. (1993). “Conceptual ‘Stretching’ Revisited: Adapting
Categories in Comparative Analysis.” In American Political Science Review, Vol. 87(4), pp. 845855.
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, pp. 269-288.
(5) 10. Nov. 2014
Hypotheses Formulation
** Gerring, John (2012). Social Science Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 58-73, 141-154, 197-217.
Van Evera, Stephen (1997). Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, pp. 7-48.
(6) 17. Nov. 2014
Case Selection
** Gerring, John (2007). Case Study Research. Principles and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 86-150.
Seawright, Jason and John Gerring (2008). “Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research. A
Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options.” In Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 61(2),
pp. 294-308.
Mahoney, James and Gary Goertz (2004). “The Possibility Principle: Choosing Negative Cases in
Comparative Research.” In American Political Science Review, Vol. 98(4), pp. 653-669.
(7) 24. Nov. 2014
Measurement and Operationalization
** Gerring, John (2012). Social Science Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 155-193.
** Adcock, Robert N. and David Collier (2001). “Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for
Qualitative and Quantitative Research.” In American Political Science Review, Vol. 95(3), pp. 529546.
4
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, pp. 83-102.
(8) 01. Dec. 2014
Analysis and Inferences
** Gerring, John (2012). Social Science Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 218-255.
** Héritier, Adrienne (2008). Causal Explanation. In Donatella Della Porta and Michael Keating
(eds.), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. ??
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, pp. 373-404.
Part III: Variants of Research Designs
(9) 08. Dec. 2014
Within-Case Studies and Process Tracing
** Blatter, Joachim and Markus Haverland (2012). Designing Case Studies. Explanatory
Approaches in Small-N Research. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1-32.
** 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, pp. 305-336.
** Beach, Derek und Rasmus Brun Pedersen (2012). Process-Tracing Methods. Foundations and
Guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 23-44.
George, Alexander and Andrew Bennett (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the
Social Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 205-237.
Vennesson, Pascal (2008). “Case Studies and Process Tracing: Theories and Practices.” In
Donatella della Porta and Michael Keating (eds.), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social
Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 223-239.
Gerring, John (2007). Case Study Research. Principles and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 17-63.
Rohlfing, Ingo (2012). Case Studies and Causal Inference. An Integrative Framework. Houndmills,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.23-60.
(10) 15. Dec. 2014
Cross-Case Studies and Comparative Designs
** Wagemann, Claudius and Carsten Q. Schneider (2010). “Qualitative Comparative Analysis
(QCA) and Fuzzy Sets: the Agenda for a Research Approach and a Data Analysis Technique.” In
Comparative Sociology, Vol. 9(3), pp. 376-396.
5
** Blatter, Joachim and Till Blume (2008). “In Search of Co-Variance, Causal Mechanisms or
Congruence? Towards a Plural Understanding of Case Studies.” In Swiss Political Science Review,
Vol. 14(2), pp. 315-356.
Ragin, Charles C. (2013). “New Directions in the Logic of Social Inquiry.” In Political Research
Quarterly, Vol. 66(1), pp. 171-174.
(11) 12. Jan. 2015
Comparative Historical Analysis and Counterfactual Designs
** Mahoney, James and P. Larkin Terrie (2008). “Comparative-Historical Analysis in
Contemporary Political Science.” In Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady and David
Collier (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. ??.
** 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, pp. ??.
** Grzymala-Busse, Anna (2011). “Time Will Tell? Temporality and the Analysis of Causal
Mechanisms.” In Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 44(9), pp. 1267-1297.
Mahoney, James (2003). “Strategies of Causal Assessment in Comparative Historical Analysis.” In
James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (eds.), Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social
Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 337-372.
(12) 19. Jan. 2015
Quantitative Research Designs
** Franklin, Mark (2008). “Quantitative Analysis.” In Donatella della Porta and Michael Keating
(eds.), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 240-262.
** Kittel, Bernhard (2006). “A Crazy Methodology? On the Limits of Macroquantitative Social
Science Research.” In International Sociology, Vol. 21(5), pp. 647-677.
(13) 26. Jan. 2015
Mixed-Methods Research Designs
** Lieberman, Evan S. (2005). “Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative
Research.” In American Political Science Review, Vol. 99(3), pp. 435-452.
** Kühn, David and Ingo Rohlfing (2010). “Causal Explanation and Multi-Method Research in the
Social Sciences.” In Political Methodology, No. 26 (IPSA Committee on Concepts and Methods
Working Paper Series).
Ahmed, Amel and Rudra Sil (2012). “When Multi-Method Research Subverts Methodological
Pluralism—or, Why We Still Need Single-Method Research.” In Perspectives on Politics,
Vol. 10(4), pp. 935-953.
Rohlfing, Ingo (2008). “What You See and What You Get: Pitfalls and Principles of Nested
Analysis in Comparative Research.” In Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 41(11), pp. 1492-1514.
Schneider, Carsten Q. and Ingo Rohlfing (2013). “Combining QCA and Process Tracing in SetTheoretic Multi-Method Research.” In Sociological Methods & Research, Vol. 42(4), pp. 559-597.
6
Part IV: Outro
(14) 02. Feb. 2015
Final Discussion: The (Perceived) Divide between Quantitative and Qualitative Research
Designs
** King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane und Sidney Verba (1994). Designing Social Inquiry. Scientific
Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 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, pp.
33-63.
** Mahoney, James and Gary Goertz (2006). “A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative
and Qualitative Research.” In Political Analysis, Vol. 14(3), pp. 227-249.
Goertz, Gary and James Mahoney (2012). A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative
Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tarrow, Sidney (2010). “Bridging the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide.” Henry E. Brady and David
Collier (eds.), Rethinking Social Inquiry. Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham: Rowman &
Littlefield, pp. 101-110.
(15) 09. Feb. 2015
Short Exam
7