Institut for Statskundskab

The Great Divides: Incommensurability, the Impossibility of Mixed-Methodology, and What to Do about It

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

Standard

The Great Divides : Incommensurability, the Impossibility of Mixed-Methodology, and What to Do about It. / Beach, Derek; Kaas, Jonas Gejl.

I: International Studies Review, Bind 22, Nr. 2, 06.2020, s. 214-235.

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

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{9b3484b9639a4257a6c527b5dd741814,
title = "The Great Divides: Incommensurability, the Impossibility of Mixed-Methodology, and What to Do about It",
abstract = "There is still significant confusion about how multimethod research can be undertaken and even if it is possible. The article makes the claims that much of the confusion is the result of a failure to distinguish between multimethod and multimethodology research. We argue that there are at least three different methodological languages: variance-based, case-based, and interpretivist. The article starts by discussing the ontological and epistemological foundations underlying the three different methodologies that result in them making very different types of claims evidenced with very different empirical material. Variance-based methodologies assesses mean causal effects across a set of cases, whereas case-based methodologies focus on how a causal process works within a case. Markedly different from the causally oriented variance- and case-bases approaches, interpretivist research ask questions about human meaning-making in specific contexts. While the claim of methodological incommensurability is not a new claim, the contribution we make in this article is to unpack more clearly the irreconcilable differences that exist across the three methodologies and how they play out in international studies scholarship, and to provide suggestions for what we can do about it.",
author = "Derek Beach and Kaas, {Jonas Gejl}",
year = "2020",
month = jun,
doi = "10.1093/isr/viaa016",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "214--235",
journal = "International Studies Review",
issn = "1521-9488",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Great Divides

T2 - Incommensurability, the Impossibility of Mixed-Methodology, and What to Do about It

AU - Beach, Derek

AU - Kaas, Jonas Gejl

PY - 2020/6

Y1 - 2020/6

N2 - There is still significant confusion about how multimethod research can be undertaken and even if it is possible. The article makes the claims that much of the confusion is the result of a failure to distinguish between multimethod and multimethodology research. We argue that there are at least three different methodological languages: variance-based, case-based, and interpretivist. The article starts by discussing the ontological and epistemological foundations underlying the three different methodologies that result in them making very different types of claims evidenced with very different empirical material. Variance-based methodologies assesses mean causal effects across a set of cases, whereas case-based methodologies focus on how a causal process works within a case. Markedly different from the causally oriented variance- and case-bases approaches, interpretivist research ask questions about human meaning-making in specific contexts. While the claim of methodological incommensurability is not a new claim, the contribution we make in this article is to unpack more clearly the irreconcilable differences that exist across the three methodologies and how they play out in international studies scholarship, and to provide suggestions for what we can do about it.

AB - There is still significant confusion about how multimethod research can be undertaken and even if it is possible. The article makes the claims that much of the confusion is the result of a failure to distinguish between multimethod and multimethodology research. We argue that there are at least three different methodological languages: variance-based, case-based, and interpretivist. The article starts by discussing the ontological and epistemological foundations underlying the three different methodologies that result in them making very different types of claims evidenced with very different empirical material. Variance-based methodologies assesses mean causal effects across a set of cases, whereas case-based methodologies focus on how a causal process works within a case. Markedly different from the causally oriented variance- and case-bases approaches, interpretivist research ask questions about human meaning-making in specific contexts. While the claim of methodological incommensurability is not a new claim, the contribution we make in this article is to unpack more clearly the irreconcilable differences that exist across the three methodologies and how they play out in international studies scholarship, and to provide suggestions for what we can do about it.

U2 - 10.1093/isr/viaa016

DO - 10.1093/isr/viaa016

M3 - Journal article

VL - 22

SP - 214

EP - 235

JO - International Studies Review

JF - International Studies Review

SN - 1521-9488

IS - 2

ER -