Cluster III: Analytic Approaches and Methodologies
We encourage contributors to the Discussion Board to publicly identify by registering and logging in prior to posting. However, if you prefer, you may post anonymously (i.e. without having your post be attributed to you) by posting without logging in. Anonymous posts will display only after a delay to allow for administrator review. Contributors agree to the QTD Terms of Use.
Instructions
To participate, you may either post a contribution to an existing discussion by selecting the thread for that topic (and then click on "Post Reply") or start a new thread by clicking on "New Topic" below.
For instructions on how to follow a discussion thread by email, click here.
-
- Forum
- Statistics
- Last post
-
-
III.1. Comparative methods and process tracing
This working group will consider how scholars are, can be, and should be transparent in their use of comparative and process-tracing methods. Why and under what conditions is such transparency valuable? What are the costs, challenges, and limits of such transparency?
Andrew Bennett, Georgetown University
Tasha Fairfield, London School of Economics
Hillel Soifer, Temple University
Moderators: hillelsoifer, Tasha Fairfield, ingorohlfing -
Topics: 8
Posts: 62 -
Last post
Re: When do costs of transpar…
by Guest View the latest post
Sun Jan 01, 2017 3:03 pm
-
-
-
III.2. Interpretive methods
This working group will consider what transparency means for various interpretive methodologies, and how its value and limits are understood by interpretive scholars. How and why do interpretive scholars seek to make the bases of their claims and interpretations transparent or explicit? What are the costs, challenges, and limits of such transparency for different kinds of interpretive work?
Lisa Björkman, University of Louisville
Lisa Wedeen, University of Chicago
Juliet Williams, UCLA
Moderators: lbjorkman, Lwedeen, jawilliams -
Topics: 7
Posts: 22 -
Last post
Re: Critique of the Final Rep…
by nbreznau View the latest post
Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:55 am
-
-
-
III.3. Ethnography and participant observation
This working group will consider how scholars are, can be, and should be transparent in their use of ethnographic methods, including participant observation. What does transparency mean for ethnographers? Why and under what conditions is it valuable for ethnographic scholars to make the bases of their claims transparent? What are the costs, challenges, and limits of transparency in ethnographic work?
Nicholas Rush Smith, The City College of New York
Jillian Schwedler, Hunter College
Erica Simmons, University of Wisconsin
Moderators: nrsmith.ccny, JSchwedler, essimmons -
Topics: 9
Posts: 31 -
Last post
The benefits of transparency …
by BenRead View the latest post
Fri Dec 30, 2016 8:16 pm
-
-
-
III.4. Algorithmic analytic approaches
This working group will consider transparency in the use of algorithmic forms of analysis of qualitative data. This working group will focus, in particular, on two broad sets of approaches: set-theoretic comparative methods and computer-assisted text analysis, though it may also consider algorithmic approaches to the analysis of qualitative empirical information more broadly. Why and under what conditions is transparency valuable for scholars using algorithmic approaches? How can and should scholars be transparent in their use of such methods? What are the costs, challenges, and limits of such transparency?
Carsten Schneider, Central European University
Barbara Vis, University of Utrecht
Kendra Koivu, The University of New Mexico
Moderators: kbenoit, cschneid, jseawright -
Topics: 3
Posts: 25 -
Last post
Re: QCA-related issues
by brihoux View the latest post
Sat Dec 24, 2016 6:58 am
-
-
-
III.5. Content analysis (non-automated)
This working group will consider transparency in non-automated forms of content analysis. This working group will focus, in particular, on matters of transparency as they relate to the selection and classification decisions that scholars must make when manually coding qualitative source materials. Why and under what conditions is transparency valuable for scholars using non-automated forms of content analysis? How can and should scholars be transparent in their use of these methods? What are the costs, challenges, and limits of such transparency?
Zachary Elkins, University of Texas at Austin
Scott Spitzer, California State University, Fullerton
Jonas Tallberg, University of Stockholm
Moderators: Sspitzer51, jonastall, ZachElkins -
Topics: 4
Posts: 24 -
Last post
Re: Access to datasets - when…
by ZachElkins View the latest post
Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:50 pm
-