Getting the Context Right in Quantitative Historical Analysis: The Case of the Investiture Controversy

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Abstract

Quantitative historical analysis must be nested in a qualitative understanding of the empirical context if it is to be credible. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Ethan Bueno de Mesquita’s analysis of the consequences of the Investiture Controversy (1075–1122) for the development of lay political authority and economic development illustrates this. They portray the Investiture Controversy and the concordats it produced as strengthening lay rulers’ power over bishop appointment, but the dominant view among historians is that it did the opposite. They also operationalize bishop alignment in a problematic way, whichmakes it very difficult to draw firm conclusions fromtheir quantitative analysis. Finally, they project amodern image of international agreements and state power onto a medieval period that looked very different, and their supporting qualitative evidence suffers from selection bias. The example shows how political scientists must do solid historical spadework before they model and interpret their data.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftThe Journal of Politics
Vol/bind86
Nummer3
Sider (fra-til)1083–1086
Antal sider4
ISSN0022-3816
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2024

Fingeraftryk

Dyk ned i forskningsemnerne om 'Getting the Context Right in Quantitative Historical Analysis: The Case of the Investiture Controversy'. Sammen danner de et unikt fingeraftryk.

Citationsformater