Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-d774m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-09-06T23:25:54.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Research Cycles: Adding More Substance to the Spin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 December 2016

Colin Elman  and
Colleen Dougherty Burton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In sciences such as biomedicine, researchers and journal editors are well aware that progress in answering difficult questions generally requires movement through a research cycle: Research on a topic or problem progresses from pure description, through correlational analyses and natural experiments, to phased randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In biomedical research all of these research activities are valued and find publication outlets in major journals. In political science, however, a growing emphasis on valid causal inference has led to the suppression of work early in the research cycle. The result of a potentially myopic emphasis on just one aspect of the cycle reduces incentives for discovery of new types of political phenomena, and more careful, efficient, transparent, and ethical research practices. Political science should recognize the significance of the research cycle and develop distinct criteria to evaluate work at each of its stages.

Information

Type
Reflections Symposium
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 1067 - 1070
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Akers, Katherine G. 2013. “Data Journals: Incentivizing Research Data Dissemination.” Council on Library and Information Resources (blog), December 12. Available at http://connect.clir.org/blogs/katherine-akers/2013/12/12/data-journals-incentivizing-research-data-dissemination.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, A. and Checkel, J. T., eds. 2014. Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolland, M. J., Avenell, A., and Grey, A.. 2016. “Qualitative Research, Observational Research, and the BMJ.” BMJ: British Medical Journal, March 15, 352. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i1483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byatt, K. 2016. “The BMJ Should Be Adventurous and Lead the Way on Qualitative Research.” BMJ: British Medical Journal, March 15, 352. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i1471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, Karen, Loewenson, Rene, George, Asha, Howard, Natasha, Koleva, Gergana, Lewin, Simon, Marchal, Bruno, et al. . 2016. “Fair Publication of Qualitative Research in Health Systems: A Call by Health Policy and Systems Researchers.” International Journal for Equity in Health 15(1): 98. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-016-0368-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, T. 2012. Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-based Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, C. and Elman, M. F.. 2002. “How Not to Be Lakatos Intolerant: Appraising Progress in IR Research.” International Studies Quarterly (June) 46(2): 231–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2478.00231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenhalgh, T., Annandale, E., Ashcroft, R., Barlow, J., Black, N., Bleakley, A., et al. . 2016. “An Open Letter to the BMJ Editors on Qualitative Research.” BMJ: British Medical Journal, March 15, 352. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, F. M. 2016. “Studies Drawing on Qualitative Research Are Funded by the Most Prestigious Research Funders in the UK.” BMJ: British Medical Journal, March 15, 352. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i1486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, M. and Jacobs, A. J.. 2015. “Mixing Methods: A Bayesian Approach,” American Political Science Review 109(4): 653–73. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055415000453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panter, J., Guell, C., and Ogilvie, D.. 2016. “Qualitative Research Can Inform Clinical Practice.” BMJ: British Medical Journal, March 15, 352. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i1482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loder, E., Groves, T., Schroter, S., Merino, J. G., and Weber, W.. 2016a. “Qualitative Research and the BMJ.” BMJ: British Medical Journal, March 15,352. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loder, E., Groves, T., Schroter, S., Merino, J. G., Weber, W., and Godlee, F.. 2016b. “The BMJ Editors Respond.” BMJ: British Medical Journal, March 15, 352. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i1492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, A. and Elman, C.. 2014. “Openness in Political Science: Data Access and Research Transparency.” PS: Political Science & Politics 47(1): 19–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096513001716Google Scholar
Seawright, Jason. 2016. Multi-Method Social Science: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Tools. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuval, Kerem, Harker, Karen, Roudsari, Bahman, Groce, Nora E., Mills, Britain, Siddiqi, Zoveen, Shachak, Aviv. 2011. “Is Qualitative Research Second Class Science? A Quantitative Longitudinal Examination of Qualitative Research in Medical Journals.” PLOS One, February 24. Available at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. 2016. “Qualitative Research and The BMJ—Hidden Motives.” BMJ Blogs, February 23. Available at http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2016/02/23/richard-smith-qualitative-research-and-the-bmj-hidden-motives.Google Scholar
Webster, F. 2016. “The BMJ Should Not Narrowly Confine Publication to Positivist Quantitative Studies.” BMJ: British Medical Journal, March 15, 352. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zafran, H. 2016. “By Not Publishing Good Qualitative Research the BMJ Is Not Fulfilling Its Values.” BMJ: British Medical Journal, March 15, 352. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar