Mehtap SÖYLER

15644

Nitel ve Nicel Yöntem Farkına Çoğulcu Yaklaşım: KKV-Sonrası Dönemde Nitel Yöntem ve Kazanımları

Bu makale, sosyal bilimlerde nitel ve nicel yöntem farkına çoğulcu yaklaşımı ve nitel yöntemin kazanımlarını tanıtır. King, Keohane ve Verba’nın (KKV) teşvik ettiği tekçi yaklaşım, olasılık ve istatistik kuramının nitel ve nicel yöntemin ortak çıkarımsal mantığı olduğunu savunur. KKV-sonrası dönemde çoğulcu yaklaşım, nitel yöntemin kendine özgü mantığı olan matematiksel mantık ve küme kuramıyla nicel yöntemden farklılaştığını öne sürer. Makale, bu yaklaşımla nitel yöntemin ‘nedenlerin çoğulluğu’ sorununa nasıl eğildiğini tipolojiler, tipolojik kuramlar ve karşılaştırmalı nitel analiz tekniği üzerinden açıklar. Çıkarım yapmada okuyuculara yol göstermesi amacıyla, bu analitik teknik ve araçların işlevlerini karşılaştırmalı siyaset alanından şu konulardaki çalışmalarla örneklendirerek özgün katkı sunar: kutuplaşma ve siyasi rejimler, dini milliyetçilik, demokrasiyi savunma, demokrasinin hayatta kalışı ve çöküşü, silahlı çatışmaya demokratik katılım

A Pluralist Approach to Qualitative and Quantitative Methodology Distinction: Qualitative Methodology and Its Achievements in the Post-KKV Era

This article presents the qualitative-quantitative distinction in social sciences and the achievements of qualitative methodology from a pluralist perspective. The monist approach -promoted by King, Keohane, and Verba (KKV)- claims probability and statistical theory to be the inferential logic unifying qualitative and quantitative methodology. In the post-KKV era, the pluralists claim mathematical logic and set theory to be the distinctive logic of qualitative methodology. Via typologies, typological theories and qualitative comparative analysis technique, this article explains how qualitative methodology deals with the issue of ‘plurality of causes’. In order to guide readers through causal inference in practice, it makes original contribution by exemplifying the functions of these analytical techniques and tools through studies in the field of comparative politics, specifically through the studies on polarization and political regimes, religious nationalism, defending democracy, survival and breakdown of democracies, and democratic participation in armed conflict

___

  • Aktürk, Ş. (2019). “Temporal Horizons in the Study of Turkish Politics: Prevalence of Non-Causal Description and seemingly ‘Global Warming’ Type of Causality”. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 8(2), 117-133.
  • Aristoteles. ([M.Ö. 335-323] 2014). Das Organon - oder die Kunst der Logik als Werkzeug der Wissenschaft. (Çev. Julius Hermann von Kirchmann). Prague: e-artnow.
  • Bennett, A. ve C. Elman (2006). “Qualitative Research: Recent Developments in Case Study Methods”. Annual Review of Political Science, 9(1), 455-476.
  • Brady, H.E. ve D. Collier. (2010). Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared
  • Standards. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
  • Brady, H.E. (2013). “Do Two Research Cultures Imply Two Scientific Paradigms?”. Comparative Political Studies, 46(2), 252-265.
  • Brady, H. E. (2010). “Data-set observations and causal process observations: the 2000 US presidential election”. Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. (Ed. H. E. Brady ve D. Collier). Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 237-242.
  • Capoccia, G. (2005). Defending Democracy: Reactions to Extremism in Interwar Europe. Baltimore, Londra: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Collier, D., H.E. Brady ve J. Seawright. (2010). “Sources of Leverage in Causal Inference: Toward an Alternative View of Methodology”. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. (Ed. H. E. Brady ve D. Collier).
  • Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth, UK: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 229-266.
  • Collier, D. ve J. Mahoney (1996). “Insights and Pitfalls: Selection Bias in Qualitative Research”. Woollier, D., J. LaPorte ve J. Seawright (2012). “Putting Typologies to Work: Concept Formation, Measurement, and Analytic Rigor”. Political Research Quarterly, 65(1), 217-232.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design. Londra ve New York: Sage Publications.
  • Elman, C. (2005). “Explanatory Typologies in Qualitative Studies of International Politics”. International Organization, 59(2), 293-326.
  • Elman, C. (2013). “Duck-Rabbits in Social Analysis: A Tale of Two Cultures”. Comparative Political Studies, 46(2), 266-277.
  • Ertman, T. (1998). “Democracy and Dictatorship in Interwar Western Europe Revisited”. World Politics, 50(3), 475-505.
  • Geddes, B. (1990). “How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get: Selection Bias in Comparative Politics”. Political Analysis, 2, 131-150.
  • Geddes, B., G. Derpanopoulos, E. Frantz ve J. Wright (2016). “Are coups good for democracy?”. Research and Politics, 3(1), 1-7.
  • George, A. L. ve A. Bennett (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Gerring, J. (2004). “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?”. The American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341-354.
  • Goertz, G. (2006). Social Science Concepts: A User’s Guide. Princeton ve Oxford: Princeton University Press.
  • Goertz, G. (2003). “The Substantive Importance of Necessary Condition Hypotheses”. Necessary Conditions: Theory, Methodology, and Applications. (Ed. G. Goertz ve H. Starr). New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 65-94.
  • Goertz, G. (2017). Multimethod Research, Causal Mechanisms, and Case Studies. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  • Goertz, G. ve J. Mahoney (2012). A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton ve Oxford: Princeton University Press.
  • Goertz, G. ve J. Mahoney (2013). “For Methodological Pluralism: A Reply to Brady and Elman”. Comparative Political Studies, 46(2), 278-285.
  • Gryzmala-Busse, A. ve D. Slater (2018). “Making Godly Nations: Church-StatePathways in Poland and the Philippines”. Comparative Politics, 50(4), 545-564.
  • Hall, P. A. (2003). “Aligning ontology and methodology in comparative research”. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. (Ed. J. Mahoney ve D. Rueschemeyer). Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, 373-404 .
  • Handlin, S. (2019). State Crisis in Fragile Democracies: Polarization and Political Regimes in South America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Holland, P.W. (1986). “Statistics and Causal Inference”. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(396), 945-960.
  • Howard, M. M. ve P.G. Roessler. (2006). “Liberalizing Electoral Outcomes in Competitive Authoritarian Regimes”. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 365-381.
  • Hume, D. ([1748] 2004). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. New York: Dover Publications.
  • IPSA. (2020). RC01-Concepts and Methods. https://www.ipsa.org/page/rc01-conceptsand-methods-cm (08.01.2020).
  • Jackson, T. P. (2011). The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implication for the Study of World Politics. New York: Routledge.
  • Jastrow, J. (1899). “The mind’s eye”. Popular Science Monthly, 54, 299-312.
  • Kaya, A. ve A. Kayaoğlu (2017). “Individual Determinants of anti-Muslim Prejudice in the EU-15 Individual Determinants of anti-Muslim Prejudice in the EU-15”. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 14(53), 45-68.
  • King, G., R.O. Keohane ve S. Verba (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  • King, G., R.O. Keohane ve S. Verba (1995). “The Importance of Research Design in Political Science”. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 475-481.
  • Köseoğlu, Ö. ve D. Duyar (2017). “Kongre Bildirileri Üzerinden Yöntem Sorununu Anlamak: KAYFOR Örneği”. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 50(3), 183-211.
  • Lazarsfeld, P. (1937). “Some Remarks on the Typological Procedures in Social Research”. Zeitschrift Für Sozialforschung, 6, 119-139.
  • Lijphart, A. (1971). “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method”. American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682-693.
  • Lott, J. R. (2000). “Gore might lose a second round: media suppressed the Bush vote”. Philadelphia Inquirer, 14 (November), 23A.
  • Mahoney, J. (2008). “Toward a unified theory of causality”. Comparative Political Studies, 41(4-5), 412-436.
  • Mahoney, J. (2010). “After KKV: The New Methodology of Qualitative Research”. World Politics, 62(1), 120-147.
  • Mahoney, J. ve G. Goertz (2004). “The Possibility Principle: Choosing Negative Cases in Comparative Research”. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 653-669.
  • McGovern, P. J. (2010). “Editor’s Introduction: APSA Symposium:Perestroika in Political Science: Past, Present, and Future”. Political Science and Politics, October, 725-727.
  • Mello, P. A. (2014). Democratic Participation in Armed Conflict. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Mill, J. S. ([1843] 1973). A System of Logic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Neuman, L. W. (2013). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
  • Norris, P. (2019). “The World of Political Science: Internationalization and its Consequences”. ECPR@50. (Ed. T. Boncourt, I. Engeli, ve D. Garzia). European University Institute, Fiesole: Book Workshop, 1-35.
  • Ragin, C. C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: The University of California Press.
  • Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy Set Social Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago ve London: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Ross, M. L. (2001). “Does Oil Hinder Democracy?” World Politics, 53(3), 325-361.
  • Sartori, G. (1970). “Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics”. American Political Science Review, 64(04), 1033-1053.
  • Sartori, G. (1984). “Guidelines for Concept Analysis”. Social Science Concepts: A Systematic Analysis. (Ed. G. Sartori), Beverly Hill, CA: Sage Publications, 15- 48.
  • Schneider, C. Q. ve C. Wagemann (2012). Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Science. A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.
  • Schneider, C. Q. ve C. Wagemann (2013). “Are We All Set ?”. Qualitative and MultiMethod Research, Newsletter, 11 (Spring), 5-8.
  • Sekhon, J. S. (2010). “The Neyman-Rubin-Holland Model of Causal Inference and Estimation via Matching Methods”. The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. (Ed. J. M. Box-Steffensmeier, H. E. Brady ve D. Collier). Oxford University Press, 271-299.
  • Söyler, M. (2020). “Kavram ve Kuram Analizi Yöntemi: Sartori Geleneği”. Uluslararası İlişkiler, Çevrimiçi Erken Yayım, 15 Nisan 2020 (DOI: 10.33458/ uidergisi.720627), 1 23.
  • The Maxwell School, Syracuse University. (2020). The Center for Qualitative and Multi-Method Inquiry (CQMI). https://www.maxwell.syr.edu/cqmi.aspx (08.01.2020).
  • Trimberger, E. K. (1978). Revolution From Above: Military Bureaucrats and Development in Japan,Turkey, Egypt and Peru. New Brunswick: NJ, Transaction Books.
  • Ziblatt, D. (2006). Structuring the State: The Formation of Italy and Germany and the Puzzle of Federalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Amme İdaresi Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 1300-1795
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 1968
  • Yayıncı: -
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Türk Kamu Yönetiminde Yeni Kurumlar ve Dış Politika: Türkiye-Kırgızistan İlişkilerinde Yeni Kurumsalcılık

Ayşe Çolpan YALDIZ, Fırat YALDIZ

Akıl, Arzu ve İktidar: Platon’da Demokrasi ve Tiranlık

Mehmet ÖZGÜDEN

Seküler Geleneğin İzinde: Köprülü, Barkan ve İnalcık’ın Türk Ulus-Devleti İçin Laik Kanun Geleneği Oluşturma Çabaları

Murat COŞKUNER

Nitel ve Nicel Yöntem Farkına Çoğulcu Yaklaşım: KKV-Sonrası Dönemde Nitel Yöntem ve Kazanımları

Mehtap SÖYLER

Kemalist Estetiğin Sanatsal Politikası

Efe BAŞTÜRK

Görüşme ve Yasama Yöntemi Bağlamında 1921 Anayasasının Kanunlaşma Süreci

Yusuf TEKİN, Şeref İBA