Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-vt8vv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-08-19T18:55:27.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Collaborative Methodology from a Skeptical but Nonetheless Sympathetic Point of View

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 April 2021

Jennifer Cyr Open the ORCID record for Jennifer Cyr [Opens in a new window]
Jennifer Cyr*
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Quantitative and Qualitative Collaborative Methodologies
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , July 2021 , pp. 539 - 543
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

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

Ayrton, Rachel. 2018. “The Micro-Dynamics of Power and Performance in Focus Groups: An Example from Discussions on National Identity with the South Sudanese Diaspora in the UK.” Qualitative Research 19 (3): 323–39. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belgrave, Linda L., and Smith, Kenneth J.. 1995. “Negotiated Validity in Collaborative Ethnography.” Qualitative Inquiry 1 (1): 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramer, Katherine. 2016. “The Turn Away from Government and the Need to Revive the Civic Purpose of Higher Education.” Perspectives on Politics 14 (2): 442–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyr, Jennifer. 2019. Focus Groups for the Social Science Researcher. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firchow, Pamina. 2018. Reclaiming Everyday Peace: Local Voices in Measurement and Evaluation after War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firchow, Pamina, and MacGinty, Roger. 2017. “Measuring Peace: Comparability, Commensurability, and Complementarity Using Bottom-Up Indicators.” International Studies Review 19 (1): 6–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gellman, Mneesha. (n.d.) Culture Kids: Indigenous Resistance and Language Survival in Mexico and the United States. Unpublished book manuscript.Google Scholar
Gellman, Mneesha. 2021. “Collaborative Methodology with Indigenous Communities: A Framework for Addressing Power Inequalities.” PS: Political Science & Politics. doi: 10.1017/S1049096521000299.Google Scholar
Goertz, Gary, and Mahoney, James. 2012. A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Charles (ed.). 2008. Engaging Contradictions: Theory, Politics, and Methods of Activist Scholarship. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Jok, Jok Madut. 2013. “Power Dynamics and the Politics of Fieldwork under Sudan’s Prolonged Conflicts.” In Research Methods in Conflict Settings: A View from Below, eds. Mazurana, Dyan, Jacobsen, Karen, and Gale, Lacey Andrews, 149–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, Felice J., and Skedsvold, Paula R.. 2008. “Where the Rubber Meets the Road: Aligning IRBs and Research Practice.” PS: Political Science & Politics 41 (3): 501–505.Google Scholar
McTaggart, Robin. 1991. “Principles for Participatory Action Research.” Adult Education Quarterly 41 (3): 168–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelson, Melissa R. 2016. “The Risk of Over-Reliance on the Institutional Review Board: An Approved Project Is Not Always an Ethical Project.” PS: Political Science & Politics 49 (2): 299–303.Google Scholar
Quatrini, Allison, 2020. “Introduction to Symposium: When Locals Say You Are Wrong: Member-Checking and Political Science.” Qualitative and Multi-Method Research 17–18 (1): 27–8.Google Scholar
Riley, Sarah, Schouten, Wendy, and Cahill, Sharon. 2003. “Exploring the Dynamics of Subjectivity and Power between Researcher and Researched.” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 4 (2): 1–19.Google Scholar
Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. 1995. “The Primacy of the Ethical: Propositions for a Militant Anthropology.” Current Anthropology 36 (3): 409–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seawright, Jason. 2016. Multi-Method Social Science: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Tools. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar