Institutional Analysis of Economy: Qualitative and Quantitative Research and Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to a comparative analysis of two alternative approaches to the study of economic institutions - qualitative and quantitative research methodologies. Analysis of the first shows that the task is to identify the meanings that people attach to their actions, while the task of the second is to identify regularities of connections between institutions and various aspects of behavior. Institutional analysis conducted on the basis of qualitative methodology is based on vague definitions of institutions that lack operationalization, while quantitative studies of institutions rely on strict operational definitions. The article outlines the procedures for both qualitative and quantitative research on institutions, the first of which involves obtaining data primarily through interviewing informants, and the second, primarily through observation of behavior. Accordingly, the result of a qualitative research is metis - local experiential knowledge possessed by members of a certain community, while the result of a quantitative study is a generalized knowledge of regularities expressed by confirmed hypotheses. The obtained comparison results can serve as information for researchers to select a methodology for studying economic institutions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".