In the past few decades research relying primarily on qualitative methods has been almost completely marginalized within the subfield of American politics. After outlining the unusual organizational contours of the subfield, the author demonstrates that even as it has been marginalized, qualitative work continues to make very important contributions to scholars’ understanding of American politics. Much of the strength of this work comes from its focus on the substance of politics, its configurative approach to explanation, and its attentiveness to the temporal dimensions of social processes. Despite the high quality of much quantitative work in American politics, the marginalization of qualitative approaches has come at a substantial cost, introducing a range of biases and shortcomings in the subfield’s main research programs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paul Pierson (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: