No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The State and Direction of Asian Comparative Politics: Who, What, Where, How?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
Abstract
In this article we explore the state of the discipline of comparative Asian politics. In particular we analyze five aspects of research on Asia: whether the empirical scope of research is largely noncomparative; the extent to which that research is empirical rather than theory-generative; whether it pertains to public or foreign policy; if it relies on qualitative rather than quantitative methods; and the gender and geographic concentration of those conducting the research. After coding and analyzing data from 461 articles from eight different journals, we demonstrate that research on comparative Asian politics is more likely to be empirical, qualitative, focused on the country as unit of analysis, and disproportionately written by male academics educated and/or working in North America, Western Europe, or Australia.
Keywords
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © East Asia Institute
References
Abbott, Jason. 2004. Development and Dependency in Southeast Asia: The Case of the Automotive Industry. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ebbinghaus, Bernhard. 2005. “When Less Is More: Selection Problems in Large-N and Small-N Cross-National Comparisons.”
International Sociology
20, 2: 133–152.Google Scholar
Geddes, Barbara. 1990. “How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get: Selection Bias in Comparative Politics.”
Political Analysis
2, 1: 131–150.Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretative Theory of Culture.” In The Interpretation of Cultures.
New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 2007. “Is There a (Viable) Crucial-Case Method?”
Comparative Political Studies
40, 3
(March): 231–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jick, Todd D.
1979. “Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.”
Administrative Science Quarterly
24, 4: 602–611.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arendt. 1971. “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method.”
American Political Science Review
65
(September): 682–693.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arendt. 1975. “The Comparable-Cases Strategy in Comparative Research.”
Comparative Political Studies
8, 2: 158–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James. 2007. “Debating the State of Comparative Politics: Views from Qualitative Research.”
Comparative Political Studies
40, 5: 32–38.Google Scholar
Maliniak, Daniel, Oakes, Amy, Peterson, Susan, and Tierney, Michael J.. 2008. “Women in International Relations.”
Politics and Gender, 4, 1: 112–144.Google Scholar
Maliniak, Daniel, Oakes, Amy, Peterson, Susan, and Tierney, Michael J.. 2011. “International Relations in the US Academy.”
International Studies Quarterly
55, 2: 437–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munck, Gerardo, and Snyder, Richard. 2005. “Debating the Direction of Comparative Politics: An Analysis of Leading Journals.”
Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Convention, Washington DC, August. www.brown.edu/Departments/Political_Science/documents/DebatingtheDirectionofCP.pdf
(accessed January 20, 2011).Google Scholar
Munck, Gerardo, and Snyder, Richard. 2007. “Debating the Direction of Comparative Politics: An Analysis of Leading Journals.”
Comparative Political Studies
40, 5: 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1970. “Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics.”
The American Political Science Review
64, 4: 1033–1053.Google Scholar
Stewart, Sharla. 2003. “Revolution from Within.”
University of Chicago Magazine, June. http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0306/features/index-print.shtml
(accessed July 15, 2011).Google Scholar
Wibbels, Erik. 2007. “No Method to the Comparative Politics Madness.”
Comparative Political Studies
40: 39–44.Google Scholar