Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-94d59 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T13:00:03.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Stirring the Frequentist Pot with a Dash of Bayes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Andrew Bennett*
Affiliation:
Department of Government, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057. e-mail: bennetta@gunet.georgetown.edu

Extract

Rethinking Social Inquiry (RSI) is a key turning point in a long arc of development and contestation within and between qualitative and quantitative research methods in the social sciences. It builds on and further advances three important trends in these research methods: a renaissance in qualitative methods in the last decade, the continuing refinement of statistical and formal methods, and a nascent convergence of methodologists of all kinds behind a more pluralistic vision of methodology that includes growing interest in multimethod work. RSI achieves these contributions not just substantively but symbolically, bringing together leading methodologists in the quantitative and qualitative traditions, most notably the editors themselves, to address the tough issue of what would constitute shared standards for good research regardless of method. Although much of the initial commentary on RSI will no doubt focus on its critiques of Designing Social Inquiry, I suspect that in the long run the subtitle of RSI (“Diverse Tools, Shared Standards”) better captures what will be its lasting contribution to the social sciences.

Type
Symposium on Rethinking Social Inquiry
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

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

Collier, David, and Mahoney, James. 1996. Insights and pitfalls: Selection bias in qualitative research. World Politics 49: 5691.Google Scholar
George, Alexander L., and Bennett, Andrew. 2005. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gill, Christopher, Sabin, Lora, and Schmid, Christopher. 2005. Why clinicians are natural Bayesians. British Medical Journal 330: 1080–3.Google Scholar