Political Preferences of QCA Methods Institutes? A Comment on the Availability and Gender Gap Disparity Problems

Dawid Tatarczyk

doi:10.31261/polpre.2021.28.23-31

Opublikowane: 2021-07-03

Nr 28 (2021)

Political Preferences of QCA Methods Institutes? A Comment on the Availability and Gender Gap Disparity Problems

Dawid Tatarczyk

Dział: Articles

https://doi.org/10.31261/polpre.2021.28.23-31

Abstrakt

In this research note, I examine a set of two interrelated questions about the Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) methods institutes. First, I assembled and analyzed a novel dataset that tracks every QCA related training worldwide from 2002 to 2018. My examination finds that although QCA trainings are becoming more popular in Europe, the US is still the single most frequent host country for such events. Secondly, I examine the extent to which gender gap exists among QCA instructors. My findings show that female QCA instructors are severely under-represented, which likely limits their academic and professional opportunities. Thus, the QCA research community appears to be marked by the same structural challenges to diversity and gender equality as other areas of political science. Overall, this paper should of interest to scholars interested in the impact of academic infrastructures on future research trajectories as well as those concerned about gender equality in academia.

Słowa kluczowe:

QCA , methods institutes , gender gap

Pobierz pliki

PDF (English)

Zasady cytowania

Tatarczyk, D. (2021). Political Preferences of QCA Methods Institutes? A Comment on the Availability and Gender Gap Disparity Problems. Political Preferences, (28), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.31261/polpre.2021.28.23-31

Cited by / Share

Bibliografia

Barnes, T. D., & Beaulieu, E. (2017). Engaging Women: Addressing the Gender Gap in Women’s Networking and Productivity. 50(2), 461–466. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096516003000
Google Scholar

Beaulieu, E., Boydstun, A. E., Brown, N. E., Dionne, K. Y., Gillespie, A., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Michelson, M. R., Searles, K., & Wolbrecht, C. (2017). Women Also Know Stuff: Meta-Level Mentoring to Battle Gender Bias in Political Science. 50(3), 779–783. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096517000580
Google Scholar

Bennett, A., & Elman, C. (2007). Qualitative Methods: The View From the Subfields. Comparative Political Studies, 40(2), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414006296344
Google Scholar

Collier, D., & Elman, C. (2010). Qualitative and Multimethod Research: Organizations, Publications, and Reflections on Integration. In J. M. Box-Steffensmeier, H. E. Brady, & D. Collier (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology (pp. 780–795). Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Emmons, C. V., & Moravcsik, A. M. (2019). Graduate Qualitative Methods Training in Political Science: A Disciplinary Crisis. PS: Political Science & Politics, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096519001719
Google Scholar

Eszter Simon. (2013). Teaching Political Science Research Methods in Hungary: Transferring Student-Centred Teaching Practices into a Subject-Focused Academic Culture. European Political Science, 13(1), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2013.43
Google Scholar

Fonseca, E. M. D., & Segatto, C. (2019). Teaching Qualitative Research Methods in Political Science: Does One Size Fits All? Journal of Political Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2019.1656081
Google Scholar

Gill, A. J. (1998). Rendering unto Caesar: The Catholic Church and the State in Latin America. University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar

Goertz, G., & Mahoney, J. (2012). A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton University Press.
Google Scholar

Henehan, M. T., & Sarkees, M. R. (2009). Open Doors and Closed Ceilings: Gender‐Based Patterns and Attitudes in the International Studies Association. International Studies Perspectives, 10(4), 428–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3585.2009.00387.x
Google Scholar

Kettell, S. (2012). Has Political Science Ignored Religion? PS: Political Science & Politics, 45(1), 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096511001752
Google Scholar

Marx, A., Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. (2014). The Origins, Development, and Application of Qualitative Comparative Analysis: The First 25 years. 6(1), 115–142. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773912000318
Google Scholar

Mershon, C., & Walsh, D. (2015). How Political Science Can Be More Diverse. PS: Political Science & Politics, 48(3), 441–444. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096515000207
Google Scholar

Moravcsik, A. (2010). Active Citation: A Precondition for Replicable Qualitative Research. PS: Political Science & Politics, 43(1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096510990781
Google Scholar

Paine, J. (2016). Set-Theoretic Comparative Methods: Less Distinctive Than Claimed. Comparative Political Studies, 49(6), 703–741. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414014564851
Google Scholar

Ragin, C. C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. University of California.
Google Scholar

Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-Set Social Science. University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar

Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar

Reid, R. A., & Curry, T. A. (2019). Are We There Yet? Addressing Diversity in Political Science Subfields. PS: Political Science & Politics, 52(2), 281–286. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096518002068
Google Scholar

Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Schwartz-Shea, P. (2003). Is This the Curriculum We Want? Doctoral Requirements and Offerings in Methods and Methodology. PS: Political Science & Politics, 36(3), 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1017.S1049096503002488
Google Scholar

Seawright, J. (2016). Multi-Method Social Science: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Tools. Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Sekara, V., Deville, P., Ahnert, S., Sinatra, R., & Lehmann, S. (2018). The Chaperone Effect in Scientific Publishing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(50), 12603–12607. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1800471115
Google Scholar

Sinclair-Chapman, V. (2015). Leveraging Diversity in Political Science for Institutional and Disciplinary Change. PS: Political Science & Politics, 48(3), 454–458. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096515000232
Google Scholar

Tatarczyk, D. (2018). The Reshaping of the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide: A Case of QCA. Qualitative and Multi-Method Research, Fall 16(2), 44-52. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3524376
Google Scholar

Nr 28 (2021)
Opublikowane: 2021-07-03

eISSN: 2449-9064

10.31261/polpre

Wydawca

Centrum Innowacji, Transferu Technologii i Rozwoju Fundacja Uniwersytetu Śląskiego

Prześlij tekst

Political Preferences of QCA Methods Institutes? A Comment on the Availability and Gender Gap Disparity Problems

Abstrakt

Słowa kluczowe:

Dawid Tatarczyk

Informacje