Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-7tdvq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-21T05:19:19.493Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Evolution of Methodological Techniques in the Canadian Journal of Political Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2017

Maxime Héroux-Legault
Maxime Héroux-Legault*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
*
Department of Political Science, Sidney Smith Hall, Room 3018, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G3, email: Maxime.heroux.legault@mail.utoronto.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article makes three contributions to our knowledge of the Canadian political science literature. First, it offers a historical survey of the methodologies and techniques used in the discipline. Second, the findings of this paper constitute a reference for future work interested in commenting the methods and techniques used in CJPS and provide scholars with data they can use to better situate their work within the broader literature. Finally, the paper answers three questions that permeate discussions of the Canadian political science literature. It investigates whether the proportion of qualitative works has declined over time, whether Canadian scholarship is more qualitative than quantitative today and whether there are important differences in the methodologies and techniques used in Canada and in the United States. The article concludes with a discussion of the future of political science methodology based on the findings.

Résumé

Cet article apporte trois contributions à notre connaissance de la littérature canadienne en science politique. Premièrement, il offre une enquête historique des méthodologies et des techniques utilisées dans la discipline. Deuxièmement, ses conclusions constituent une référence pour le travail à venir qui vise à commenter les méthodes et techniques employées dans la CJPS/RCSP et fournissent aux chercheurs des données pouvant servir à mieux situer leur travail dans le contexte plus vaste de la littérature spécialisée. Enfin, l’article répond à trois questions qui imprègnent les débats de la littérature canadienne en science politique. Il examine si la proportion du travail qualitatif a diminué au fil du temps, si la recherche au Canada est aujourd’hui plus qualitative que quantitative et s’il subsiste d’importantes différences dans les méthodologies et les techniques utilisées au Canada et aux États-Unis. L’article se conclut par une discussion de l’avenir de la méthodologie employée en science politique en fonction de ces constatations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 121 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beck, Nathaniel and Katz, Jonathan N.. 1995. “What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data.” American Political Science Review 89: 634–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, Katz, Jonathan N. and Tucker, Richard. 1998. “Taking time seriously: Time-series-cross-section analysis with a binary dependent variable.” American Journal of Political Science 42: 1260–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, Henry E. and Collier, David. 2010. Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. Washington DC: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Brambor, Thomas, Roberts Clark, William and Golder, Matt. 2006. “Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses.” Political analysis 14: 63–82.Google Scholar
Collier, David. 2011. “Understanding process tracing.” PS: Political Science & Politics 44: 823–30.Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford. 1994. “Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture.” In Readings in the philosophy of social science, ed. Martin, Michael and McIntyre, Lee C.. Cambridge MA: Bradford.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew and Hill, Jennifer. 2006. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S. and Green, Donald P.. 2012. Field experiments: Design, analysis, and interpretation. New York: WW Norton.Google Scholar
George, Alexander L. and Bennett, Andrew. 2005. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goertz, Gary and Mahoney, James. 2012. A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Héroux-Legault, Maxime. 2016. “Substate Variations in Political Values in Canada.” Regional and Federal Studies 26:171–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1971. “Comparative politics and the comparative method.” American Political Science Review 65: 682–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montpetit, Éric. 2008. “A Quantitative Analysis of the Comparative Turn in Canadian Political Science.” In The Comparative Turn in Canadian Political Science, ed. White, Linda A., Simeon, Richard, Vipond, Robert and Wallner, Jennifer. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Morton, Rebecca B. and Williams, Kenneth C.. 2010. Experimental political science and the study of causality: From nature to the lab. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nevitte, Neil, Blais, André, Gidengil, Elisabeth and Nadeau, Richard. 2000. Unsteady State: The 1997 Canadian Federal Election. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Randomness and Integrity Services Ltd. 1998. True Random Number Services. https://www.random.org/ (September 26, 2016).Google Scholar
Rocher, François. 2007. “The End of the ‘Two Solitudes’? The Presence (or Absence) of the Work of French-speaking Scholars in Canadian Politics.” Canadian Journal of Political Science, 40: 833–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savoie, Donald J. 1999. Governing from the centre: The concentration of power in Canadian politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwandt, Thomas A. 1994. “Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry.” In Handbook of qualitative research, ed. Denzin, Norman K. and Lincoln, Yvonna S.. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Steenbergen, Marco R. and Jones, Bradford S.. 2002. “Modeling multilevel data structures.” American Journal of Political Science: 218–37.Google Scholar
Tetlock, Philip and Belkin, Aaron. 1996. Counterfactual thought experiments in world politics: Logical, methodological, and psychological perspectives. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Vipond, Robert. 2008. “Introduction: The Comparative Turn in Canadian Political Science.” In The Comparative Turn in Canadian Political Science, ed. White, Linda A., Simeon, Richard, Vipond, Robert and Wallner, Jennifer. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Oakland CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1981. “Some categories of interpretive sociology.” The Sociological Quarterly 22: 151–80.Google Scholar
Whitaker, Reg. 1979. “Confused Alarms of Struggle and Flight: English-Canadian Political Science in the 1970s.” Canadian Historical Review 60, 1:1–18.Google Scholar