Metodologi og metode: om forskellen på værktøjer og forståelsesrammer og hvad den betyder i praksis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/politica.v54i4.134834Keywords:
kvantitativ metode, kvalitativ metode, variansorienteret, procesorienteret metodologi, meningsorienteret metodologiAbstract
Denne artikel har to formål. For det første introducerer den skellet mellem metode og metodologi. For det andet beskriver den kort de tre metodologier, der dominerer inden for samfundsvidenskaberne – den variansorienterede, den procesorienterede og den meningsorienterede – og illustrerer brugen af dem med et gennemgående eksempel. Metoder er redskaber. De kan være kvalitative eller kvantitative. Metodologier er forståelsesrammer, der bedst forstås som sprog. Ligesom man ikke kan gøre sig forståelig på et andet sprog ved at oversætte ord for ord, kan man ikke uden videre overføre logikken fra én metodologi til en anden. Det betyder ikke, at oversættelser nødvendigvis er umulige, men at det er meget svært at oversætte uden at anderkende sproglige eller – i dette tilfælde – metodologiske forskelle.
References
Agresti, Alan (2018). Statistical methods for the social sciences, 5..udg. UK: Pearson education.
Ahmed, Amel og Rudra Sil (2009). Is multi-method research really “better”? Qualitative and MultiMethod Research 7 (2): 2–6.
Andersen, Lotte Bøgh, Lasse Laustsen og Mathilde Cecchini (2020). Forskningskriterier, pp. 97-121 i Kasper Møller Hansen, Lotte Bøgh Andersen og Sune Welling Hansen (red.), Metoder i statskundskab. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Angrist, Joshua D. og Jörn-Steffen Pischke (2014). Mastering metrics: The path from cause to effect. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Asmussen, Claus Boye og Charles Møller (2019). Smart literature review: A practical topic modelling approach to exploratory literature review. Journal of Big Data 6 (1): 1-8.
Bartels, Larry (2004). Some unfulfilled promises of quantitative imperialsm, pp. 69-74 i Henry Brady og David Collier (red.), Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Beach, Derek og Jonas Gejl Kaas (2020). The great divides: Incommensurability, the impossibility of mixed-methodology, and what to do about it. International Studies Review. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/isr/viaa016
Beach, Derek og Rasmus Brun Pedersen (2016). Causal case study methods : Foundations and guidelines for comparing, matching and tracing. Ann Arbor: University of Michegan Press.
Boyle, Michael og Mike Schmierbach (2020). Applied communication research methods: Getting started as a researcher. London: Routledge.
Brady, Henry og David Collier (red.) (2004). Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Brady, Henry, David Collier og Jason Seawright (2004). Refocusing the discussion of methodology, pp. 3-20 i Henry Brady og David Collier (red.), Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Bryman, Alan (2008). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Comte, Auguste (1979). Om positivismen. Gøteborg: Korpen.
Creswell, John W. og Vicky L. Plano Clark (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
David, Matthew og Carole D. Sutton (2004). Social research: The basics. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
David, Matthew og Carole D. Sutton (2011). Social research: An introduction, 2. udg. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Daymon, Christine (2002). Qualitative research methods in public relations and marketing. London: Routledge.
Deaton, Angus og Nancy Cartwright (2018). Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Social Science & Medicine 210: 2–21.
Dilthey, Wilhelm (1894). Ideen über eine beschreibende und zergliedernde Psychologie. https://www.gleichsatz.de/b-u-t/spdk/dilthey/wd-bezepsy1.html (1. februar 2021).
Esmark, Anders, Carsten Bagge Laustsen og Niels Aakerstrøm Andersen (2005). Poststrukturalistiske analysestrategier – en introduction, pp. 7-40 i Anders Esmark, Carsten Bagge Laustsen og Niels Aakerstrøm Andersen (red.), Poststrukturalistiske analysestrategier. Frederiksberg: Roskilde Universitetsforlag.
Goertz, Gary og James Mahoney (2012). A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hansen, Hanne Foss (2014). Organisation of evidence-based knowledge production: Evidence hierarchies and evidence typologies. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 42 (13_suppl): 11-17.
Hansen, Kasper Møller, Lotte Bøgh Andersen og Sune Welling Hansen (red.) (2020). Metoder i Statskundskab, 3. udg. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus (2016). The conduct of inquiry in international relations: Philosophy of science and its implications for the study of world politics. 2. udg. London: Routledge.
King, Gary, Robert Keohane og Sidney Verba (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Krogstrup, Hanne K. (2016). Evalueringsmodeller. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag
Laitin, David D. (2003). The perestroikan challenge to social science. Politics & Society 31: 163. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0032329202250167.
Lewis, David (1986). Causation: Postcripts to “causation.” Philosophical Papers, vol. II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mahoney, James (2008). Toward a unified theory of causality. Comparative Political Studies 41 (4–5): 412–436.
Mahoney, James (2010). After KKV: The new methodology of qualitative research. World Politics 62 (1): 120-147.
Malinowski, Bronislaw (1961[1932]). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co.
Midtgaard, Søren F. (2011). Introduktion: Metoden i politisk teori. Politica 43 (3): 272-276.
Morgan, Stephen L. og Christopher Winship (2007). Counterfactuals and causal inference: Methods and principles for social research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Olsen, H. (1997). Tal taler ikke uden ord. Et metodeeksperiment om danske respondenters sprogsensitivitet i politologiske og sociologiske surveyundersøgelser. Politica 29 (3): 295-311. https://doi.org/10.7146/politica.v29i3.68138
Sartori, Giovanni (1970). Concept misinformation in comparative politics. The American Political Science Review 64 (4): 1033-1053.
Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine (2015). Chapter 7: Judging quality, evaluative criteria and epistemic communities, pp. 120-146 i Dvora Yanow og Peregrine Schwartz-Shea (red.), Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the linguistic turn. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.
Seawright, Jason (2016). Integrative multi-method research, pp. 1-18 i Multi-method social science: Combining qualitative and quantitative tools (Strategies for Social Inquiry). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316160831.001
Seawright, Jason og John Gerring (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly 61 (2): 294-308.
Su, Yan (2021). It doesn’t take a village to fall for misinformation: Social media use, discussion heterogeneity preference, worry of the virus, faith in scientists, and COVID-19-related misinformation beliefs. Telematics and Informatics 58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101547
Tavory, I. og S. Timmermans (2019). Abductive analysis and grounded theory, pp. 532-546 i A. Bryant og K. Charmaz (red.), The SAGE Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (2003). T. F. Hoad (red.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
von Ranke, Leopold (1824). Geschichten der romanischen und germanischen Völker: von 1494 bis 1514. https://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de//de/fs1/object/display/bsb10408217_00005.html (1. februar 2021).
von Windelband, Wilhelm (1894). Geschichte und Naturwissenschaft. https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/windelband1894/0010 (1. februar 2021).
Wilson, Chris (2020). The political coronavirus paradox: Where the virus was worst, voters supported Trump the most. Time Magazine November 11. https://time.com/5910256/covid-19-presidential-election-outcome/
Woodward, Bob (2020). Rage. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Yanow, Dvora og Peregrine Schwartz-Shea (2010). Perestroika ten years after: Reflections on methodological diversity. Political Science and Politics 43 (4): 741-745.
Yanow, Dvora og Peregrine Schwartz-Shea (2015). Wherefore interpretive: An introduction, pp. xiii-xxxi i Dvora Yanow og Peregrine Schwartz-Shea (red.), Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn. Taylor & Francis Group (ebogsudgave).
