Regime Type and Diffusion in Comparative Politics Methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.In recent years, several prominent political scientists have argued that quantitative and qualitative methodologies should be seen as united by a single logic of scientific inference. Just exactly how this reconciliation of quantitative and qualitative methodological approaches should be effected in practice, however, remains highly contentious. For all its promise, the project of uniting quantitative and qualitative methods in political science has thus reached something of an impasse. Participants on both sides of the quantitative/qualitative debate are convinced that this methodological divide should eventually be transcended, but few have abandoned the conviction that their preferred approach sets the standard by which progress in this endeavor should be judged. Evidently, we still lack consensus on precisely where the distinctive strengths of each methodological approach lie, and how these strengths can be combined effectively in systematic investigations of the political world. In this essay, we argue that a satisfactory synthesis of quantitative and qualitative methods for making causal inferences in comparative politics depends upon the resolution of a prior theoretical problem at the stage of research design: establishing a typology of political regimes and accounting for the mechanisms of their reproduction and diffusion over time and space. Résumé.Ces dernières années, plusieurs politologues éminents ont soutenu qu'il faudrait considérer les méthodologies quantitative et qualitative comme étant unies par une même logique de déduction scientifique. Comment réaliser cette réconciliation des approches quantitative et qualitative dans la pratique demeure cependant un sujet hautement contesté. Tout prometteur qu'il soit, le projet d'unifier les méthodes quantitative et qualitative en science politique se retrouve en fait dans une impasse. Les participants des deux côtés du débat quantitatif/qualitatif sont persuadés qu'il faudra un jour transcender cette fracture méthodologique, mais ils sont peu nombreux à avoir abandonné la conviction que l'approche qu'ils privilégient établit la norme qui permettra d'évaluer les progrès accomplis. Il est évident qu'il n'y a pas encore de consensus quant aux forces respectives précises de chaque méthode, ni sur la manière de les combiner efficacement pour procéder à des études systématiques du monde politique. Dans cet article, nous avançons qu'une synthèse satisfaisante des méthodes quantitative et qualitative pour arriver à des déductions causales en politique comparée exige qu'on s'emploie à résoudre d'abord un problème théorique à l'étape de la conception de la recherche, à savoir l'établissement d'une typologie des régimes politiques et l'inventaire des mécanismes de leur reproduction et de leur diffusion dans l'espace et dans le temps.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.091 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".