Consensus and dissensus in comparative politics : Do
comparativists agree on the goals, methods, and results of the
field?

J 2020

Consensus and dissensus in comparative politics : Do comparativists agree on the goals, methods, and results of the field?

ROBERTS, Andrew Lawrence

Základní údaje

Originální název

Consensus and dissensus in comparative politics : Do comparativists agree on the goals, methods, and results of the field?

Autoři

ROBERTS, Andrew Lawrence

Vydání

International Political Science Review, London, SAGE Publications, 2020, 0192-5121

Další údaje

Jazyk

angličtina

Typ výsledku

Článek v odborném periodiku

Obor

50601 Political science

Stát vydavatele

Velká Británie a Severní Irsko

Utajení

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

Odkazy

URL

Impakt faktor

Impact factor: 2.049

Označené pro přenos do RIV

Ano

Kód RIV

RIV/00216224:14230/20:00115153

Organizační jednotka

Fakulta sociálních studií

Klíčová slova česky

srovnavaci politika; anketa expertu; metodologie; politologove

Klíčová slova anglicky

comparative politics; expert survey; methodology; political scientists

Štítky

rivok

Příznaky

Mezinárodní význam, Recenzováno

Změněno: 24. 9. 2020 15:34, Mgr. Blanka Farkašová

Anotace

V originále

Are comparative political scientists divided over the goals, methods, and results of their field? This article attempts to answer this question, drawing on an original survey of US-based political scientists. The main conclusion is that there is relative consensus on the goals of research—comparativists favor broad generalizations and causal inference—but there is also acceptance of a variety of methodological approaches, both qualitative and quantitative, in pursuing this goal. Comparativists, however, show less agreement on substantive findings in the areas of democracy and democratic politics, economy and society, and political institutions. Interestingly, generational differences are relatively infrequent, but gender differences on issues such as rational choice and causal inference are more prominent, possibly contributing to gendered citation bias. The findings suggest that comparative politics may not have accumulated a large amount of agreed-upon knowledge, but that there is substantial agreement on the path forward.

Návaznosti

MUNI/A/1000/2019, interní kód MU

Název: Aktuální problémy politologického výzkumu VI.

Investor: Masarykova univerzita, Aktuální problémy politologického výzkumu VI., DO R. 2020_Kategorie A - Specifický výzkum - Studentské výzkumné projekty

Přiložené soubory

consensus.pdf

Požádat o autorskou verzi souboru

Citovat

ROBERTS, Andrew Lawrence. Consensus and dissensus in comparative politics : Do comparativists agree on the goals, methods, and results of the field? International Political Science Review. London: SAGE Publications, 2020, roč. 41, č. 4, s. 490-506. ISSN 0192-5121. Dostupné z: https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512119858370.

@article{1592998,
   author = {Roberts, Andrew Lawrence},
   article_location = {London},
   article_number = {4},
   doi = {https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512119858370},
   keywords = {comparative politics; expert survey; methodology; political scientists},
   language = {eng},
   issn = {0192-5121},
   journal = {International Political Science Review},
   title = {Consensus and dissensus in comparative politics : Do comparativists agree on the goals, methods, and results of the field?},
   url = {https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0192512119858370},
   volume = {41},
   year = {2020}
}

TY  - JOUR
ID  - 1592998
AU  - Roberts, Andrew Lawrence
PY  - 2020
TI  - Consensus and dissensus in comparative politics : Do comparativists agree on the goals, methods, and results of the field?
JF  - International Political Science Review
VL  - 41
IS  - 4
SP  - 490-506
EP  - 490-506
PB  - SAGE Publications
SN  - 01925121
KW  - comparative politics
KW  - expert survey
KW  - methodology
KW  - political scientists
UR  - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0192512119858370
L2  - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0192512119858370
N2  - Are comparative political scientists divided over the goals, methods, and results of their field? This article attempts to answer this question, drawing on an original survey of US-based political scientists. The main conclusion is that there is relative consensus on the goals of research—comparativists favor broad generalizations and causal inference—but there is also acceptance of a variety of methodological approaches, both qualitative and quantitative, in pursuing this goal. Comparativists, however, show less agreement on substantive findings in the areas of democracy and democratic politics, economy and society, and political institutions. Interestingly, generational differences are relatively infrequent, but gender differences on issues such as rational choice and causal inference are more prominent, possibly contributing to gendered citation bias. The findings suggest that comparative politics may not have accumulated a large amount of agreed-upon knowledge, but that there is substantial agreement on the path forward.
ER  -

ROBERTS, Andrew Lawrence. Consensus and dissensus in comparative politics : Do comparativists agree on the goals, methods, and results of the field? \textit{International Political Science Review}. London: SAGE Publications, 2020, roč.~41, č.~4, s.~490-506. ISSN~0192-5121. Dostupné z: https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512119858370.

Přehled o publikaci