Endnote export

 

%T Introduction: absorbing the four methodological disruptions in democratization research?
%A Coppedge, Michael
%A Kuehn, David
%J Democratization
%N 1
%P 1-20
%V 26
%D 2019
%K Demokratisierungsforschung
%@ 1743-890X
%~ GIGA
%> https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-60491-1
%X This article introduces the special issue on methodological trends in democratization research by taking stock of the overall development of methods practices and situating the findings of the individual article contributions within the broader developments. As has the broader discipline, democratization research has experienced four methodological "disruptions" over the past 60 years: the behavioural revolution of statistical methodology; the introduction of formal theory; the sophistication of qualitative, set-theoretic and multi-method research; and the increasing use of experimental methods. Surveying the methods practices in the past quarter century, we find that quantitative and multi-method research have been growth areas in recent years, but that the bulk of research is still done in comparative or single case studies. Formal theory as well as set-theoretic methods have gained a foothold in the field, but it is still a small one. In sum, democratization research is, methodologically speaking, still rather traditional. Moreover, the individual contributions to this special issue show that much of the empirical literature underutilizes the best available advice about how to develop and test theory, including standards on causal inference, case-selection, and generalization. We conclude with a plea for more transparency, humility, and collaboration within and across methodological traditions.
%C GBR
%G en
%9 Zeitschriftenartikel
%W GESIS - http://www.gesis.org
%~ SSOAR - http://www.ssoar.info