Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T09:42:10.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are there really two cultures? A pilot study on the application of qualitative and quantitative methods in political science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2026

David Kuehn  and
Ingo Rohlfing
David Kuehn*
Affiliation:
Institute of Political Science, Heidelberg University, Germany
Ingo Rohlfing
Affiliation:
Bremen International Graduate School of the Social Sciences, University of Bremen, Germany
*
Address for correspondence: David Kuehn, Institute of Political Science, Heidelberg University, Bergheimer Strasse 58, D‐69115 Heidelberg, Germany. Tel.: +49 6221 54 2867; E‐mail: david.kuehn@ipw.uni-heidelberg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In their 2012 publication A Tale of Two Cultures, Gary Goertz and James Mahoney argue that empirical research in the social sciences aiming at causal inference can be differentiated into a qualitative and a quantitative methodological culture. The two cultures differ fundamentally in how researchers approach and implement empirical studies. The argument is well laid out and comprehensively illustrated, but the empirical validity of the two cultures hypothesis has not yet been evaluated systematically. This note introduces a research project that aims to test the two cultures hypothesis via an empirical analysis of how qualitative and quantitative methods are applied. To determine whether there is a qualitative and quantitative method culture, the researchers initially sampled 30 articles from three journals (Comparative Political Studies, European Journal of Political Research, World Politics) in the 2008–2012 period. Based on this dataset, no evidence was found for the existence of coherent systems of methods practices in political science.

Keywords

methodologyqualitative researchquantitative research

Information

Type
Research Note
Information
European Journal of Political Research , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , November 2016 , pp. 885 - 905
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 European Consortium for Political Research

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

Banerjee, M. et al. (1999). Beyond Kappa: A review of interrater agreement measures. Canadian Journal of Statistics/La Revue Canadienne de Statistique 27: 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beach, D. & Pedersen, R.B. (2013). Review of A Tale of Two Cultures. Newsletter of the APSA Section on Qualitative and Multi‐Method Research 11: 2–5.Google Scholar
Blatter, J. & Haverland, M. (2013). Two cultures and beyond: A plea for three approaches. Newsletter of the APSA Section on Qualitative and Multi‐Method Research 11: 8–11.Google Scholar
Brady, H.E. (2013). Do two research cultures imply two scientific paradigms?. Comparative Political Studies 46: 252–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, H.E. & Collier, D. (eds) (2004). Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards (1st edn). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Brady, H.E. & Collier, D. (2010). Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards (2nd edn). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, C. (2013). Duck‐rabbits in social analysis: A tale of two cultures. Comparative Political Studies 46: 266–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, A.L. & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gerring, J. (ed.) (2003). Symposium on interpretivism. Qualitative Methods 1(2). Available online at: www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/moynihan/cqrm/Newsletter1.2.pdfGoogle Scholar
Goertz, G. & Mahoney, J. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Contrasting qualitative and quantitative paradigms. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstone, J.A. (1997). Methodological issues in comparative macrosociology. Comparative Social Research 16: 107–120.Google Scholar
Goldthorpe, J.H. (1997). Current issues in comparative macrosociology: A debate on methodological issues. Comparative Social Research 16: 1–26.Google Scholar
King, G., Keohane, R.O. & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowlton, N. (2013). Review of A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. Journal of Politics 75(4): FirstView 1–2.Google Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Lieberman, E.S. (2005). Nested analysis as a mixed‐method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review 99: 435–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review 65: 682–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, J. & Goertz, G. (2006). A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political Analysis 14: 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, J. & Rueschemeyer, D. (eds) (2003). Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prakash, D. & Klotz, A. (2007). Should we discard the ‘qualitative’ versus ‘quantitative’ distinction?. International Studies Review 9: 753–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragin, C.C. & Becker, H.S. (1992). What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, C.Q. & Rohlfing, I. (2013). Combining QCA and process tracing in set‐theoretic multi‐method research. Sociological Methods and Research 42: 559–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, C.Q. & Wagemann, C. (2013). Are we all set?. Newsletter of the APSA Section on Qualitative and Multi‐Method Research 11: 5–8.Google Scholar