Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:52:53.597Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Qualitative Data Archiving: Rewards and Challenges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2010

Colin Elman ,
Diana Kapiszewski  and
Lorena Vinuela
Colin Elman
Affiliation:
Syracuse University
Diana Kapiszewski
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
Lorena Vinuela
Affiliation:
Syracuse University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Political science has witnessed a renaissance in qualitative research methods (Bennett and Elman 2006). Over the last 15 years, the canon has been reworked to systematize and expand the repertoire of qualitative methods, ground them more firmly in contemporary philosophy of science, and illuminate their strengths relative to quantitative and formal methods (Bennett and Elman 2007). A rapidly expanding body of political science research now employs qualitative and multi-method analysis, and institutions dedicated to qualitative and multi-method research have flourished.

Type
Symposium
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 23 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Political Science Association. 2008. A Guide to Professional Ethics in Political Science. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Bennett, Andrew, and Elman, Colin. 2006. “Qualitative Research: Recent Developments in Case Study Methods.” Annual Review of Political Science 9 (1): 455–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Andrew, and Elman, Colin. 2007. “Case Study Methods in the Study of International Relations.” In Oxford Handbook of International Relations, ed. Reus-Smit, Christian and Snidal, Duncan. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Janine A., ed. 2006. “The Methodologies of Field Research in the Middle East.” PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (July): 417–41.Google Scholar
Collier, David. 1996. “Data, Field Work, and Extracting New Ideas at Close Range.” APSA-CP Newsletter 7 (Winter): 1–6.Google Scholar
Corti, Louise. 2000a. “Progress and Problems of Preserving and Providing Access to Qualitative Data for Social Research—The International Picture of an Emerging Culture.” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1 (December). http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1019.Google Scholar
Corti, Louise. 2000b. “Qualitative Archives: Short Descriptions: ESRC Qualitative Data Archival Resource Centre (Qualidata), University of Essex, UK.” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1 (December). http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1019.Google Scholar
Corti, Louise, Foster, Janet, and Thompson, Paul. 1995. “Archiving Qualitative Research Data.” Social Research Update 10 (Autumn). http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU10.html.Google Scholar
Feldman, Martha S., Bell, Jeannine, and Berger, Michele T., eds. 2003. Gaining Access: A Practical and Theoretical Guide for Qualitative Researchers. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, Hope M. 1992. “Inside the SED Archives: A Researcher's Diary.” Cold War International History Project Bulletin 2 (Fall): 20, 28–32.Google Scholar
Heaton, Janet. 2004. Reworking Qualitative Data. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Beth L., ed. 2002. “Symposium: Interview Methods in Political Science.” Political Science and Politics 35 (4): 663–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, Evan. 2005. “Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research.” American Political Science Review 99 (August): 435–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, Evan, Howard, Marc, and Lynch, Julia. 2004. “Symposium: Field Research.” Qualitative Methods 2 (Spring): 2–15.Google Scholar
Loaeza, Soledad, Stevenson, Randy, and Moehler, Devra C.. 2005. “Symposium: Should Everyone Do Fieldwork?” APSA-CP 16 (2): 8–18.Google Scholar
MacArthur Foundation. 2008. “Intellectual Property Arising out of the Use of Foundation Funds.” http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.4804425/k.6FE5/Intellectual_Property.htm.Google Scholar
Magnette, Paul. 2008. Elite and Specialized Interviewing. Essex: European Consortium for Political Research Press.Google Scholar
Mauthner, Natasha S., Parry, Odette, and Backett-Milburn, Kathryn. 1998. “The Data Are Out There, or Are They? Implications for Archiving and Revisiting Qualitative Data.” Sociology 32 (November): 733–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew. 2010. “Active Citation: A Precondition for Replicable Qualitative Research.” PS: Political Science and Politics 43 (1): 29–35.Google Scholar
Ortbals, Candice D., and Rincker, Meg. E., eds. 2009. “Symposium: Fieldwork, Identities, and Intersectionality: Negotiating Gender, Race, Class, Religion, Nationality, and Age in the Research Field Abroad.” PS: Political Science and Politics 42 (2): 287–328.Google Scholar
Parry, Odette, and Mauthner, Natasha S.. 2004. “Whose Data Are They Anyway? Practical, Legal and Ethical Issues in Archiving Qualitative Research Data.” Sociology 38 (February): 139–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, Benjamin. Forthcoming. “More than an Interview, Less than Sedaka: Studying Subtle and Hidden Politics with Site-Intensive Methods.” In Chinese Politics: New Sources, Methods, and Field Strategies, ed. Carlson, Allen, Gallagher, Mary, Lieberthal, Kenneth, and Manion, Melanie. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Read, Benjamin, MacLean, Lauren, and Cammett, Melani. 2006. “Symposium: Field Research: How Rich? How Thick? How Participatory?” Qualitative Methods 4 (Fall): 9–18.Google Scholar
Schatz, Edward, ed. 2009. Political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swan, Alma, and Brown, Sheridan. 2008. “To Share or Not to Share: Publication and Quality Assurance of Research Data Outputs.” A report commissioned by the Research Information Network. School of Electronics & Computer Science, University of Southampton. http://www.rin.ac.uk/files/Data%20publication%20report,%20main%20-%20final.pdf.Google Scholar
Tansey, Oisín. 2007. “Process Tracing and Elite Interviewing: A Case for Non-Probability Sampling.” PS: Political Science and Politics 40 (October): 765–72.Google Scholar
Thies, Cameron. 2002. “A Pragmatic Guide to Qualitative Historical Analysis in the Study of International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 3 (November): 351–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trachtenberg, Marc. 2006. The Craft of International History: A Guide to Method. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, Virginia A., Sieber, Joan E., Steel, Philip M., and Zarate, Alvan O.. 2006. “Meeting the Challenge When Data Sharing Is Required.” IRB: Ethics and Human Research 28 (March-April): 10–15.Google ScholarPubMed
Wood, Elisabeth. 2006. “The Ethical Challenges of Field Research in Conflict Zones.” Qualitative Sociology 29 (September): 372–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Elisabeth. 2007. “Field Methods.” In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, ed. Boix, Carles and Stokes, Susan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 123–46.Google Scholar