|
|
|
||
|
In 2020/21 the class will take place via ZOOM (conditional on actual Covid situation)!
The course/seminar aims to provide students with neccessary knowledge regarding methodologies employed in modern political science. In adition the course tries to develop ability of students to productively use various methods for their own reserch. The winter semester is devoted to general methodological issues and in its second part it focusses on theories, concepts, and essentials of qualitative inquiry. The second semestr is focused on practical use of quantitative and qualitative methodological tools for research. Poslední úprava: Kofroň Jan, RNDr., Ph.D. (27.09.2020)
|
|
||
|
Závěrečný test Domácí úkoly Aktivita v hodině Poslední úprava: Kofroň Jan, RNDr., Ph.D. (31.10.2019)
|
|
||
|
Literatura: BENNETT, A., ELMAN, C. (2007): Case study methods in the international relations subfield Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 40, 2, pp. 170-194 BENNETT, A., ELMAN, C. (2006): Complex Causal Relationship and Case Study Methods: The Example of Path Dependence, Political Analysis, 14, s. 250-267. BRAUMOELLER, B., GOERTZ, G. (2000): The methodology of necessary conditions. American Journal of Political Science, 44, č. 4, s. 844-858. CHALMERS, A. (1999): What is the Think Called Science. Hackett Publishing Co.; 3 edition, Indianapolis, 200 s. COLLIER, D. (2011): Understanding Process Tracing. PS Political science and politics, 44, č. 4, s. 823-830. ELMAN, C. (2005): Explanatory Typologies in Qualitative Studies of International Politics. International Organization, 59, č. 2, s. 293-326. FEARON, J. (1991): Counterfactuals and hypothesis testing. World Politics, 43, č. 2, s. 169-195. FLYVBJERG, B. (2006): Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12, č. 2, s. 219-245. GEORGE, A., BENNETT, A. (2005): Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. MIT Press, Cambridge, 350 s. GERRING, J. (1999): What Makes a Concept Good? An Integrated Framework for Understanding Concept Formation in the Social Sciences. Polity 31, č. 3, s. 357-393. GERRING, J. (2004): What is a Case Study and What is it Good For? American Political Science Review, 98, č. 2, s. 341-354. GERRING, J. (2006): Single Outcome Studies, A Methodological Primer, International Sociology, vol. 21, no. 5, s. 707-734. GERRING, J. (2007): Is There a (Viable) Crucial-Case Method? Comparative Political Studies 40, č. 3, s. 231-53. GERRING, J., MCDERMOTT, R. (2007): An Experimental Template for Case Study Research, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 51, No.3, s. 688-701. GERRING, J., SEAWRIGHT, J. (2008): Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research, A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options. Political Research Quarterly, 61, no. 2, s. 294-308. GERRING, J. (2010): Causal Mechanisms: Yes, But…, Comparative Political Studies, vol. 43, no. 11, s. 1499-1526. GERRING, J. (2012a): Mere Description. British Journal of Political Science , forthcomming, 32 s. GRYNAVISKI, E. (2012): Contrasts, conterfactuals and causes. European Journal of International Relations, 0(0) forthcomming – s. 1-24. KING, G., KEOHANE, R., VERBA, S. (1994): Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 300 s. KOŘAN, M. (2009): Jakou cestou po pozitivismu? Pragmatismus a vědecký realismus a jejich role ve výzkumu mezinárodních vztahů. Mezinárodní vztahy, č. 1, s. 7-36. LEVY, J. (2008a): Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25, č. 1, s. 1-18. LEVY, J. (2008b): Counterfactuals and Case Studies. In: Steffensmeier, J., Brady, H., Collier, D. (eds). Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Oxford University Press, New York, s. 627-644. LIEBERMAN, A. (2005):Nested Analysis, American Political Science Review, 99, č. 3, s. 435-452. LIJPHART, A. (1971): Comparative Politics and Comparative Method. The American Political Science Review, 65, č. 3, s. 682-693. MACDONALD, P. (2003): Useful Fiction or Miracle Maker: The Competing Epistemological Foundations of Rational Choice Theory. American Political Science Review, 97, č. 4, s. 551–565. MAHONEY, J. (2000): Path Dependence in Historical Sociology. Theory and Society, 29, č. 4, s. 507-548. MAHONEY, J. (2010): After KKV, The New Methodology of Qualitative Research, World Politics, Vol. 62, 1. s. 120-147. MAHONEY, J., GOERTZ, D. (2004): The Possibility Principle: Choosing Negative Cases in Comparative Research. American Political Science Review, 98, č. 4, s. 653-669. MONTEIRO, N., RUBY, K. (2009): IR and the False Promise of Philosophical Foundations, International Theory, 1, č. 1, s. 15-48. RAGIN, C. (1987): Comparative Method, Moving Beyond Qualitative and Qantitative research, University of California Press, Los Angeles, 218 s. RAGIN, C. (2008): Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. University Of Chicago Press, Chicago, 240 s. RUZZENE, A. (2012): Drawing Lessons from Case Studies by Enhancing Comparability. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 42, č. 1, s. 99-120. SAYER, A. (1992): Method in Social Science. Routledge, London, 313 s. SAYER, A. (2000): Realism and Social Science. Sage Publications, London, 224 s.
Poslední úprava: Kofroň Jan, RNDr., Ph.D. (31.10.2019)
|
|
||
|
1. AI permitted as a support tool Students may use generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools as study aids, provided they remain critical of the outputs, verify the information, and explicitly state how AI was used in assignments or projects. Copying AI-generated results in their literal or slightly modified form and presenting them as one's own work is considered plagiarism. All uses of AI tools must be explicitly stated according to the guidelines set by FSV UK, and they must adhere to the broader ethical recommendations provided by Charles University. Students may decide not to use artificial intelligence tools or not to have their work processed by artificial intelligence, and such decisions will be fully respected by lecturers Poslední úprava: Kofroň Jan, RNDr., Ph.D. (15.10.2025)
|
|
||
|
a) Active presence - participation in discussions b) Final test – min 70 %, cca 20 multiple choice questions, 5 problems to solve c) Critical review of selected literature – 4000 words. Poslední úprava: Baranyaiová Gabriela, PhDr. (07.10.2019)
|
|
||
|
1) Organization (requirements, deadlines etc.); why methodology matters? Methodology vs. methods The three research traditions Quantitative (formal models and statistics) Qualitative (case studies, comparative case studies) Interpretative and critical Methodology in political science (1950-2015) Methodology in social sciences in general (1900-2015)
2) Epistemologies and their implications (Chernoff 2007, Monteiro, Ruby 2009, Sayer 2000/1992, Friedman 1954) Neo-positivism Scientific/critical – realism Post-structuralism Implications for research
3) Starting your research (Gerring 2017) Research goals and questions Filling in the lacuna Defining broader purpose of a paper Logic of inquiry vs. logic of presentation
4) On theories and concepts (Van Evera 1997, Gerring 2013) Patterns and regularities What is a theory (causal and constitutive) ? What is a (good) concept, and how does a theory differ from a concept Idiographic vs. nomothetic science Explanation vs. interpretation Types of research (specific requirements): Causal (theory testing, theory development, scenarios, policy evaluation) Conceptual (concept building/assessment) Interpretative (post-structuralist research) Literature assessing Descriptive (historical, unique cases, measurement)
5) Building and assessing a concept (Gerring 2012, Goertz 2007) Fecundity, resonance, causal power etc. Two extremes: Conceptual stretching vs. case unique concept Concepts through lenses of different epistemologies
6) Operationalization and measurement (Moheney, Goertz 2012, Gerring 2017, Skaaning, Pemstein) Operationalization in Qualitative vs. quantitative research tradition Measurement; as a tool and as a goal
7) Data (Trachtenberg 2005, Schuessler 2015) Data entering a research (or why data never speaks for itself) Biased data, how to deal with them? How not to treat primary and secondary literature Societal/political context of public/private data Ethics of data collection and publication
8) What is a case study; Structured focused comparison; Mills methods (George, Bennett 2005, Ragin 2009, Liberson 1991) What is a case study? Structured focused comparison Method of (dis)agreement Critique – Small N´s big conclusions
9) Most-likely/Least likely (plausibility probe), Congruence method (George, Bennett 2004, Gerring 2007) Congruence method – experimental template Intuitive properties of hard and easy tests Bayesian perspective? Critique
10) Quant x qual divide… how many research paradigms (Mahoney, Goertz 2012 and reactions) Comparative advantages/disadvantages Obstacles for mixed method research Causes of effects vs. effects of causes
11) Measurement error and other common problems in research (KKV 1994) Measurement error in quant research – when it makes for big troubles? Measurement error in qual research – neglect is not a solution
12) Test
Literatura: BENNETT, A., ELMAN, C. (2007): Case study methods in the international relations subfield Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 40, 2, pp. 170-194 BENNETT, A., ELMAN, C. (2006): Complex Causal Relationship and Case Study Methods: The Example of Path Dependence, Political Analysis, 14, s. 250-267. BRAUMOELLER, B., GOERTZ, G. (2000): The methodology of necessary conditions. American Journal of Political Science, 44, č. 4, s. 844-858. CHALMERS, A. (1999): What is the Think Called Science. Hackett Publishing Co.; 3 edition, Indianapolis, 200 s. COLLIER, D. (2011): Understanding Process Tracing. PS Political science and politics, 44, č. 4, s. 823-830. ELMAN, C. (2005): Explanatory Typologies in Qualitative Studies of International Politics. International Organization, 59, č. 2, s. 293-326. FEARON, J. (1991): Counterfactuals and hypothesis testing. World Politics, 43, č. 2, s. 169-195. FLYVBJERG, B. (2006): Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12, č. 2, s. 219-245. GEORGE, A., BENNETT, A. (2005): Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. MIT Press, Cambridge, 350 s. GERRING, J. (1999): What Makes a Concept Good? An Integrated Framework for Understanding Concept Formation in the Social Sciences. Polity 31, č. 3, s. 357-393. GERRING, J. (2004): What is a Case Study and What is it Good For? American Political Science Review, 98, č. 2, s. 341-354. GERRING, J. (2006): Single Outcome Studies, A Methodological Primer, International Sociology, vol. 21, no. 5, s. 707-734. GERRING, J. (2007): Is There a (Viable) Crucial-Case Method? Comparative Political Studies 40, č. 3, s. 231-53. GERRING, J., MCDERMOTT, R. (2007): An Experimental Template for Case Study Research, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 51, No.3, s. 688-701. GERRING, J., SEAWRIGHT, J. (2008): Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research, A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options. Political Research Quarterly, 61, no. 2, s. 294-308. GERRING, J. (2010): Causal Mechanisms: Yes, But…, Comparative Political Studies, vol. 43, no. 11, s. 1499-1526. GERRING, J. (2012a): Mere Description. British Journal of Political Science , forthcomming, 32 s. GRYNAVISKI, E. (2012): Contrasts, conterfactuals and causes. European Journal of International Relations, 0(0) forthcomming – s. 1-24. KING, G., KEOHANE, R., VERBA, S. (1994): Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 300 s. KOŘAN, M. (2009): Jakou cestou po pozitivismu? Pragmatismus a vědecký realismus a jejich role ve výzkumu mezinárodních vztahů. Mezinárodní vztahy, č. 1, s. 7-36. LEVY, J. (2008a): Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25, č. 1, s. 1-18. LEVY, J. (2008b): Counterfactuals and Case Studies. In: Steffensmeier, J., Brady, H., Collier, D. (eds). Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Oxford University Press, New York, s. 627-644. LIEBERMAN, A. (2005):Nested Analysis, American Political Science Review, 99, č. 3, s. 435-452. LIJPHART, A. (1971): Comparative Politics and Comparative Method. The American Political Science Review, 65, č. 3, s. 682-693. MACDONALD, P. (2003): Useful Fiction or Miracle Maker: The Competing Epistemological Foundations of Rational Choice Theory. American Political Science Review, 97, č. 4, s. 551–565. MAHONEY, J. (2000): Path Dependence in Historical Sociology. Theory and Society, 29, č. 4, s. 507-548. MAHONEY, J. (2010): After KKV, The New Methodology of Qualitative Research, World Politics, Vol. 62, 1. s. 120-147. MAHONEY, J., GOERTZ, D. (2004): The Possibility Principle: Choosing Negative Cases in Comparative Research. American Political Science Review, 98, č. 4, s. 653-669. MONTEIRO, N., RUBY, K. (2009): IR and the False Promise of Philosophical Foundations, International Theory, 1, č. 1, s. 15-48. RAGIN, C. (1987): Comparative Method, Moving Beyond Qualitative and Qantitative research, University of California Press, Los Angeles, 218 s. RAGIN, C. (2008): Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. University Of Chicago Press, Chicago, 240 s. RUZZENE, A. (2012): Drawing Lessons from Case Studies by Enhancing Comparability. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 42, č. 1, s. 99-120. SAYER, A. (1992): Method in Social Science. Routledge, London, 313 s. SAYER, A. (2000): Realism and Social Science. Sage Publications, London, 224 s.
Poslední úprava: Baranyaiová Gabriela, PhDr. (07.10.2019)
|