Download Methodological Pluralism - European University Institute

 Methodological Pluralism
Donatella della Porta and Michael Keating SPS workshop, 10 credits December 10th, 2010 (9:00 am – 18:00 pm) Sala Europa, Villa Schifanoia Please register with: [email protected]
In 2008 we published an edited volume, Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences. A
Pluralist Perspective (Cambridge University Press). This was intended both as a textbook for PhD
studies, and as a manifesto for a more open approach in the social sciences, arguing against the
division of the discipline into factions defined largely by methodology. We are argued that a great
deal of social science in practice operates between the various polar opposites and that
combinations of methods and approaches are possible. We denied that there is a single division
running from ontology and epistemology through methodology to methods and presented the social
sciences as a field, through which various pathways are possible. The various chapters presented
different approaches, without any one claiming that theirs was the one best way.
The book received a very positive response. It has been widely adopted and cited and many
colleagues, weary of the methodological wars, have told us how they welcome our broad and
tolerant approach. The idea of methodological pluralism has received wide support and interest. A
panel that we organized at the International Political Science Association convention in Santiago de
Chile in 2009 attracted over 200 people (there were not enough seats for everyone in the room). Yet
we have also been challenged to say what we mean by methodological pluralism and how this
might be done, without destroying the discipline or reverting to mere eclecticism. Our response is
twofold. First, pluralism is desirable as a characteristic of the discipline as a whole, so that different
approaches can learn from each other. This requires that that they not be divided into noncommunicating silos; but also that we do not try to merge them into a synthesis that itself becomes
a new orthodoxy. Second, pluralism enables new combinations of methods and approaches within
individual research projects. We argue that research projects should be defined by the problems and
questions they pose and not by methodology, with the latter being adopted according to the issue
being addressed.
The workshop discusses the potentials and challenges to implement methodological pluralism in
practice. Participants will discuss how approaches drawn from more than one discipline or
methodology can be combined. This is partly an abstract question, showing how approaches may
complement each other by explaining or understanding different aspects of social reality, whether
empirical or normative. There is also a more concrete element, since each contributor has a
particular issue of concern to him or her, which cannot be addressed adequately through one
conventional approach. In this way, we can show how pluralism and combined approaches can help
innovation and the study of matters that have in the past been marginalized, over-simplified or
misunderstood.
Presentations will include the following:
• Zoe Bray (ethnographic and other methods: the study of ethnicity)
• Paul Cairney (natural and social science methods: the study of complex systems)
• Michael Keating and Donatella della Porta, Methodological Pluralism: An introduction
• Lindsay Paterson (qualitative and quantitative methods)
• Philippe Schmitter (conceptual analysis, tbc)
• Judith Squires (combining approaches, theory and empirics: gender studies)
• Pascal Vennesson (history and social science)
• Mitja Zagar and Joseph Marko (law and social sciences; study of ethnic conflict)
Abstracts of presentations
Morning session: 9-13
Michael Keating and Donatella della Porta: Methodological Pluralism: An Introduction
The social sciences have been racked by arguments about ontology, epistemology, approaches,
methods and methodology. There is a tendency to reduce these to a dualist division between two
schools. This is misleading, since there are numerous cross-cutting cleavages and there is no
necessary correspondence between choices at each of the five levels. Instead of seeking a unified
field theory, social scientists should see methodological pluralism as a positive and permanent
feature. Pluralism exists at the level of the system, where the existence of different approaches
sustains debate and innovation. It can also be a feature of individual research projects, where
researchers can use different approaches to answer different questions, can move across levels of
analysis, and can triangulate methods in search of better understanding of complex phenomena.
Mitja Žagar and Joseph Marko, Law and social sciences in the study of ethnic conflict
The paper shall address the following points:
In many fields of law traditional approaches and methodologies still prevail, although new
approaches are also being introduced that attempt to overcome some of the problems of traditional
approaches and methods; by many legal professionals, law is still perceived more as “skills” than a
scholarly discipline.
In social sciences traditional disciplinary approaches and methodologies, particularly quantitative
ones are also being favored, although they often do not produce the desired results and prove
inadequate for the study of complex social phenomena and processes. This is particularly true in
cases when the objects of study are as complex as ethnicity and conflict.
Ethnic and conflict studies, although some still deny their specifics and scholarly nature (as
scholarly fields), with their complexity require multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches –
combination of qualitative and quantitative methods and approaches, utilizing knowledge and
practice developed in most disciplines and fields in social sciences and humanities as well as,
2 among other, in natural sciences (biology, genetics, etc.) and medicine, but also the development of
new approaches and methodologies specific for those fields. Importance of comparative approach!
Need to utilize pragmatic/utilitarian (utilitary) approaches, sometimes ignoring traditional rules and
standards that do not produce adequate results in studying ethnicity and conflict.
Description of a few practical cases (case studies, comparative studies), studying phenomena related
to ethnicity or specific cases of conflicts in certain environments; problem of studying processes
with their temporal dimensions and a number of relevant characteristics. Among practical cases,
discussions and experiences within the MIRICO project. Reflection on the topics discussed in
Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences. A Pluralist Perspective taking into account
specifics of ethnic and conflict (peace and conflict) studies.
A brief discussion on the concept of Diversity Management and development of approaches and
methodology(ies) in this context.
Paul Cairney, Mixed Methods in Applying Complexity Theory in the Study of Public Policy
This paper explores the value of using mixed methods to apply complexity theory to the study of
public policy. It seeks to combine mathematical modelling, to identify complex systems and model
their effects, with qualitative techniques, to understand what this means in practice to policy
participants. Complexity theory suggests that we shift our analysis from individual parts of a
political system to the system as a whole; as networks of elements that interact, share information,
adapt and combine to produce systemic behaviour. Key questions include: how much information
do we need to generate a model to capture the essence of political system behaviour; what is the
nature of the network that links its members; what types of systemic outputs occur when its
members follow the same rules; and how sensitive is the system, or what small changes in rules will
produce profound changes in systemic behaviour? In particular, the paper explores the rules of
information processing within government departments, arguing that a mathematical model of this
process is incomplete without the more in-depth knowledge of institutional rules that qualitative
methods, such as elite interviewing and participant observation, provide.
Judith Squires, Methodological Pluralism in Gender Research: Normative Theory, Empirical
Inquiry
Feminist political research has a particularly timely contribution to make to contemporary political
research given the current challenges facing the discipline. An appreciation of the benefits of the
trans-disciplinary, reflexive, methodologically eclectic approaches adopted within feminist critical
theory in particular may be useful for political scientists more generally in the current period, which
is increasingly characterised by complexity and interdependence. The growing perception of
interdependence and inter-connectedness of political processes in different jurisdictions across
spatial scales and levels of analysis, coupled with the growing perception of the interconnectedness
of different arenas of social interaction (political, economic and cultural) poses a complex series of
problems for political scientists. The emergence of interdependence as a central way of
understanding the world leads to heightened attention not only to inter-disciplinarity, as the
disciplinary boundaries that previously circumscribed our analytical endeavours look increasingly
anachronistic, but also to the interplay of theory and practice. The need to pursue problem-driven
research, which is theoretically sophisticated and methodologically eclectic, becomes ever-more
important as the problems confronting us look increasingly complex. This requires something of a
3 rethink for normative political theory in particular in terms of its mode of operation, challenging
theorists to engage more directly in empirical enquiry if political theory is to remain truly relevant
to the challenges that we now face. The ‘dismal disconnection between theoretical endeavour and
empirical investigation’ (Stears, 2005, p.326) needs to be addressed. This article suggests that
feminist political research may offer some useful insights in relation to this project of ‘radical
reconnection’ as it has proceeded in a manner that has bypassed some of the more acute limitations
of recent political studies in adopting a problem-driven approach to research that acknowledges the
interdependence of theoretical reflection and empirical inquiry. Feminist scholarship may, as a
result, offer an invaluable model of engaged political research that will help effect such a
reconnection within the field of political studies more widely. Of particular importance is the
historically close connection between feminist scholarship and activism, the commitment to
normative goals and political change, and the attention paid by feminists to the epistemic issues
surrounding empirical inquiry, knowledge production, and expertise. Specifically, I argue that
feminist political research adopts a notably applied approach to normative theory, both in the
derivation and application of normative principles.
Afternoon session 14:00 to 19:00
Pascal Vennesson, Process Tracing, Interpretation and History
Process tracing, a procedure designed to identify processes linking a set of initial conditions to a
particular outcome, is an important, perhaps indispensable, element of case study research (George
and Smoke, 1974; George, 1979; George and McKeown, 1985). Initially formulated by Alexander
George in the 1970s, the notion of process tracing became increasingly widespread in case study
research (George and Smoke, 1974; George, 1979; George and McKeown, 1985; George, Bennett,
2005: 205-206). Several notions like analytical narratives as used in a rational choice perspective
(Bates et al., 1998; Rodrick, 2003), or systematic process analysis (Hall, 2003; see also Heritier
2008) are close, if not virtually identical to process tracing. An important aspect of the use of
process tracing is the problematic relationship between historical narratives and social scientific
theoretical explanations. Process tracing helps to uncover the role of historical contingency and the
specifics of institutional development. It contributes to place “politics in time” (Pierson) and it is
one of the tool available to analyze the ways in which temporal context matter in case study
research. By tracing processes, the researcher seemingly recognizes the specificity (perhaps in some
cases the uniqueness) of historical events as well as a sequence of events but simultaneously
attempt to formulate and/or put to the task a theoretical framework. Yet, the relationship between
temporality, history, historical analysis and process tracing is often left underspecified. On the one
hand, it is often argued that “telling a story” is not satisfactory from a social-scientific point of
view. On the other, however, social scientists recognize that the historical method, “plain old
history” (Immergut and Anderson) has a unique potential to address important research question.
The main goal of this chapter is to further explore the idea of a “pluralist perspective” on
approaches and methods in the social sciences through the lenses of process tracing a research
procedure which has the potential to bring together different disciplines (notably political science
and history) and theoretical perspectives. I will notably examine the role of process tracing in the
study of institutional change, critical junctures, and social mechanisms.
4 Lindsay Paterson, Statistics and rationality
Statistical knowledge is not a special kind of knowledge, and is best thought of as part of a more
general process of rational investigation. Statistical analysis is not to be thought of as being
supplemented or complemented or deepened or decorated by evidence from other sources, and such
other evidence is not given weight or generalisability or rigour by statistics. These aims are fulfilled
only by placing evidence, of whatever kind, in the context of theory. All forms of evidence are
descriptions, and all kinds of analysis of evidence are merely refined descriptions. The widespread
use of the term ‘model’ to describe what statistical analysis does is misleading insofar as it tends to
encourage the mistaken belief that statistical method by itself yields laws. All that a statistical
model does is refine a description. Correspondingly, all that a detailed analysis of textual data does
is refine the language through systematically clarifying its details: the analysis does not itself
provide depth. Theories, models, laws and depth are brought in by the observer, whatever the nature
of the evidence and its analysis – whether by statistical or other means – and are the product of the
ways in which we make descriptions into explanations. Thus the point is not in fact methodological
pluralism but rather a single method – rational inquiry – that adopts whatever evidence and tools
come to hand and shapes these by means of theoretical concepts.
Zoe Bray, Ethnography and Methodological Pluralism
Ethnography is the discipline par excellence which acknowledges and seeks to account for the role
of interpretation played in the social sciences. This paper expands on how ethnography can
integrate itself into other approaches and methods in the social sciences. We identify three main
areas where ethnography can help in the general research process: 1. to provide the necessary
preliminary groundwork for understanding relevant issues, asking appropriate questions and for
defining and operationalising concepts; 2. to contextualise ideas and data, thereby assisting in the
accurate interpretation of findings; 3. as part of a triangulation process with other approaches,
methods and data, helping to provide a clearer picture of the research process and research object.
We aim to explore where and how this can happen, using various examples from research done in
the field of ethnicity and identity politics.
Olivier Roy: Construction and auto-confirmation of theoretical models
Social scientists construct new models when they consider that new events or movements do not fit
with the previous models (social movements, Islamism, civil society). But often these models tend
to result in some sort of self confirmation for two reasons 1) masking what does not fit with them,
2) use of these paradigms by the local actors to enhance or legimitize their actions.
5