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, vol. 41, No 4, p. 490-506. ISSN 0192-5121. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192512119858370.
Other formats:   BibTeX LaTeX RIS
Basic information
Original name Consensus and dissensus in comparative politics : Do comparativists agree on the goals, methods, and results of the field?
Authors ROBERTS, Andrew Lawrence (840 United States of America, guarantor, belonging to the institution).
Edition International Political Science Review, London, SAGE Publications, 2020, 0192-5121.
Other information
Original language English
Type of outcome Article in a journal
Field of Study 50601 Political science
Country of publisher United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Confidentiality degree is not subject to a state or trade secret
WWW URL
Impact factor Impact factor: 2.049
RIV identification code RIV/00216224:14230/20:00115153
Organization unit Faculty of Social Studies
Doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192512119858370
UT WoS 000483172500001
Keywords (in Czech) srovnavaci politika; anketa expertu; metodologie; politologove
Keywords in English comparative politics; expert survey; methodology; political scientists
Tags rivok
Tags International impact, Reviewed
Changed by Changed by: Mgr. Blanka Farkašová, učo 97333. Changed: 24/9/2020 15:34.
Abstract
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.
Links
MUNI/A/1000/2019, interní kód MUName: Aktuální problémy politologického výzkumu VI.
Investor: Masaryk University, Category A
PrintDisplayed: 29/5/2024 21:18