Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T03:28:50.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Statistical Methods to Study Institutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2014

S. Laurel Weldon
S. Laurel Weldon*
Affiliation:
Purdue University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We can and should use a wide range of measures and methods to study institutions; we need a combination of approaches to chart such complex phenomena meaningfully. This is true for all kinds of institutions, both formal and informal. In this essay I argue that statistical methods, including large-scale cross-national analyses, can be fruitfully employed by feminists and others seeking new insights into institutional change. Moreover, large-scale cross-national studies offer the opportunity to examine our ideas about institutions in ways that are not possible in smaller, localized studies. Statistical methods and large-scale cross-national studies offer the tools to parse out the degree to which varying elements of the contexts and characteristics of institutions shape their operation and outcomes. They strengthen the power of arguments about the general application of the findings in specific cases and provide tools for assessing the impact of chance. Thus, although qualitative and quantitative techniques are best used together, or at least are best used when they inform each other, statistical techniques in general and large-scale cross-national analyses in particular offer insights not available with other approaches. Here I mainly discuss these arguments as they apply to informal institutions, where methodological challenges are the greatest, but the points I make here should apply to research on all kinds of institutions.

Type
Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 661 - 672
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2014 

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

REFERENCES

Binder, Sarah, Lawrence, Eric, and Smith, Steve. 2002. “Tracking the Filibuster, 1917 to 1996.” American Politics Research. July 30 (4): 406–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chappell, Louise. 2014. “Conflicting Institutions and the Search for Gender Justice at the International Criminal Court.” Political Research Quarterly 67 (1): 183–96.Google Scholar
Codini, Gabriele. 2011. “The Femicide in Italy.” International Review on Victim and Support Services. European Network on Victim Support, Milano, Italy. http://www.envisvictimsupport.eu/?p=671 (accessed September 10, 2011).Google Scholar
Collier, David, and Mahoney, James. 1996. “Insights and Pitfalls: Selection Bias in Qualitative Research.” World Politics 49 (1): 56–91 Google Scholar
Elman, R. Amy, ed. 1996. Sexual Politics and the European Union: The New Feminist Challenge. Providence, RI/Oxford: Berghahn.Google Scholar
Elman, R. Amy, and Eduards, Maud L.. 1991. “Unprotected by the Swedish Welfare State: A Survey of Battered Women and the Assistance They Received.” Women's Studies International Forum 14 (5): 413–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eurobarometer. 2010. Special Report: Domestic Violence Against Women. Special Eurobarometer 344. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_344_en.pdf (accessed September 5, 2014).Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha, and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.” International Organization. 52 (4): 887–917.Google Scholar
Giddens, Anthony. 1976. New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of Interpretive Sociologies. London: Hutchison.Google Scholar
Heise, Lori L., Pitanguy, Jacqueline, and Germain, Adrienne. 1994. “Violence Against Women: The Hidden Health Burden.” Discussion paper WDP 255. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/1994/07/442273/violence-against-women-hidden-health-burden (accessed September 5, 2014).Google Scholar
Helmke, Gretchen, and Levitsky, Steven. 2006. Informal Institutions and Democracy: Lessons from Latin America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Henrich, Joe. 2012. “The Puzzle of Monogamous Marriage.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/657.full.pdf (accessed September 1, 2014).Google Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald, and Norris, Pippa. 2003. Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jarausch, Konrad H. 1991. Quantitative Methods for Historians: A Guide to Research, Data, and Statistics. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Maclean, Lauren. 2010. Informal Institutions and Citizenship in Rural Africa: Risk and Reciprocity in Ghana and Cote d'Ivoire. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
March, James, and Olsen, Johan. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Matland, Richard E. 1993. “Institutional Variables Affecting Female Representation in National Legislatures: The Case of Norway.” The Journal of Politics 55 (3): 737–55.Google Scholar
Matland, Richard, and Studlar, Donley T.. 1996. “The Contagion of Women Candidates in Single-Member District and Proportional Representation Electoral Systems: Canada and Norway.” The Journal of Politics 58 (3): 707–33.Google Scholar
Moser, Robert G. 2001. “The Effects of Electoral Systems on Women's Representation in Post-Communist States.” Electoral Studies 20 (2001): 353–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nayak, Madhabika B., Byrne, Christina A., Martin, Mutsumi K., and Abraham, Anna G.. 2003. “Attitudes Toward Violence against Women: A Cross-National Study.” Sex Roles 49: 333–42.Google Scholar
Peters, B. Guy. 1998. Comparative Politics: Theory and Methods. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Poggioli, Sylvia. 2012. o“Italian Women Call For Action Against ‘Femicide.’” National Public Radio. http://wmra.org/post/italian-women-call-action-against-femicide (accessed September 5, 2014).Google Scholar
Posner, Eric A. 2000. Law and Social Norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raymond, Leigh, Weldon, S. Laurel, Kelly, Daniel, Arriaga, Ximena B., and Clark, Ann Marie. 2014. “Making Change: Norm-Based Strategies for Institutional Change to Address Intractable Problems.” Political Research Quarterly 67 (1): 197–211.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1991. “Comparing and Miscomparing.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 3 (3): 243–57.Google Scholar
Simmons, Beth A. 2009. Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 2006. Why People Obey the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Weldon, S. Laurel. 2002. Protest, Policy and the Problem of Violence Against Women: A Cross-National Comparison. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Young, Iris M. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Young, Iris M. 1994. “Gender as Seriality: Thinking about Women as a Social Collective.” Signs 19 (3): 713–38.Google Scholar