This short article offers a practical introduction to archival research for political scientists working on European politics. Archival documents are increasingly recognized as a relevant data source for process tracing analyses in small-N or mixed methods studies. Previously classified archival documents are exceptionally trustworthy due to their original confidentiality. Their rich and detailed content facilitates the understanding of causal mechanisms. Still, the hurdles for working with archival sources are high for political scientists. Lack of experience, no special training in handling historic documents, and a shortage of textbooks meeting their demands are a few of the problems political scientists planning archival research face. In the article, I highlight the opportunities of archival research and demonstrate how challenges can be overcome. I emphasize that the archival field trip should only be planned once researchers have gained substantive context knowledge. In their preparation, researchers should use all the resources archives offer and develop measurable expectations from theories.

Do academic publication standards reflect or determine research results? The article proposes minimal criteria for distinguishing useful ‘unpublishable’ results from low-quality research, and argues that the virtues of negative results have been overlooked. We consider the fate these results have suffered thus far, review arguments for and against their publication and introduce a new initiative – a journal to disseminate negative results and advance debate on their recognition and use.

There are five levels in social inquiry: ontology; epistemology; approaches; methodology; and methods, which we see as means of gathering information. There is no determinate relationship such that one school will consistently choose the same options all the way down. We can cross between what are often seen as competing world views at various of these levels. Natural sciences have not arrived at a unified field theory and there is no reason why social sciences have to do so.

Research on interest groups has evolved from a focus on small-N studies to larger-N studies in the past 15 years. While both European and American research has become more sophisticated and aware of methodological aspects, there is yet no specialized literature on methods regarding how to study interest groups. Only few studies discuss the methodological implications of interest group studies, as well as the transferability of methods employed in other areas of political science to this research area. The contributions in this symposium focus on major problems and topics in interest group research and elaborate methods to deal with them: (1) the identification of the relevant interest group population, (2) the analysis of interest group strategies such as access, (3) the identification of interest groups positions and frames, and (4) the measurement of interest group success and influence. The introduction outlines these research problems and describes how the contributions to this symposium address them. The aim of the symposium is to increase awareness of the intricacies of these research problems, outline suitable practices to handle them, and stimulate debate on these methodological aspects.

By looking at political thought in historical periods that mirror our own, we can discern patterns of thought which clairvoyantly recognise the new and fearfully retreat to established patterns of thought. Sixteenth-century thought confronts us with the search for newly emerging political orders. Focusing on four thinkers, this paper explicates the emerging pattern. It reflects on the contemporary relevance of sixteenth-century thought and the relevance of the history of ideas.

This article surveys two concomitant developments in European political methodology. First, we point to a recent methodological convergence across Europe and the Atlantic. Second, we note a broadening methodological divide between explanatory and interpretive approaches to political phenomena. This survey provides a backdrop for introducing a new ECPR Standing Group in Political Methodology as an outlet for new methodological techniques and a venue for exchange across Europe's broad methodological spectrum.

The article introduces a discussion on approaches to the history of political thought based on a panel at the ECPR General Conference in Potsdam, 2009. After reconstructing the three classic approaches, the Cambridge School, the ‘Begriffsgeschichte’, and Foucault's Genealogy as well as more recent developments in the field, the authors outline a scheme for further methodological and comparative research. They also emphasise the importance of historical approaches for political theory and political science.

In the first half of the essay we summarise the main contributions in the essays in this issue by Coleman, Colomer, and Taagepera, and identify key commonalities in their suggestions for making political science more ‘scientific’. We argue that most of their concerns are well taken, but that the remedies they propose may not be applicable in all domains within political science. In particular, it is largely in the area of voting and elections, where clearly demarcated input and output variables can be identified, that their suggestions seem the most applicable. In the second half of the essay we trace the rise and fall, over the past 100 years, of movements in the US to make political science more scientific. We conclude by identifying similarities between these essays and the recent EITM movement in US political science.

Democracy measurement is an ever growing and increasingly important research area. Nevertheless, lively discussions concerning the qualities of different measurement approaches are seldom combined with an adequate perspective on the underlying methodological framework. This article argues that a substantial theoretical perspective is only a sufficient condition for improving contemporary democracy measurement. Theoretical considerations have to be accompanied by an equally well-developed measurement concept. On the basis of examples taken from prominent approaches, potential for improvement becomes obvious. Any improvement is not just an end in itself but necessary if these measures are used as variables in all areas of research.

Although having been practised in the Social Sciences for decades, it was only in recent years that process tracing has gained prominence in methodological debates in political science. In spite of its popularity, however, there has been little success in formalising its methodology, defining its standards, and identifying its range of applicability. This symposium aims at furthering our understanding of the methodology by discussing four essential aspects: the underlying notion of causality, the role of theory, the problem of measurement in qualitative research, and the methodology's relationship with other forms of qualitative inquiry. It brings together methodological and substantive articles by young European scholars and summarises a round-table discussion with Peter A. Hall held at a workshop at the University of Oldenburg, Germany, in November 2010.

The present study uses naturally occurring conversational data from various dialects of Spanish to examine the role of second-person (T/V) reference forms in the accomplishment of social action in interaction. I illustrate how the turn-by-turn progression of talk can occasion shifts in the linguistic means through which speakers refer to their hearers, an interactional commonality between dialects (and possibly languages) that are otherwise pronominally dissimilar. These shifts contribute to the action of an utterance by mobilizing the semantic meaning of a pronominal form in order to recalibrate who the interactants project they are, and who they project they are to one another—not in general, but rather at that particular moment in the ongoing interaction. The analysis posits a distinction between identity status and identity stance to argue in favor of a more microlevel conceptualization of identities and contexts as emergent features of moment-by moment discourse, co-constructed through the deployment of grammatical structure.

NPOs and their funders are increasingly drawn to the Social Return on Investment (SROI) method to evaluate the social impact of programs, organizations, or organization networks. While many claims about the benefits of SROI have been expressed, various points of criticism have also been raised. On the basis of both current research and our own experience in conducting SROI analyses, we develop a comprehensive assessment of this method, which is structured along two dimensions: the observer’s paradigmatic perspective, on the one hand, and positive or negative valuation, on the other. We identify two major merits: SROI analysis can provide legitimacy to NPOs or their funders, and it can assist in allocating resources efficiently and effectively. We identify limitations from three perspectives: From an interpretative-sociological perspective, criticism of commensuration and utilitarianism calls the method as a whole into question. From a technical-instrumental perspective, there are a number of difficulties that could, however, be overcome as the method matures. From an intermediary perspective, a number of limitations become apparent that, while inherent to SROI analysis, are no reason for abandoning it, as long as they are thoroughly understood. We conclude by providing suggestions for the responsible use of SROI analysis.

Transparency means being honest and open about one’s practices. Transparency is considered a gold standard in the nonprofit sector and associated with a range of positive outcomes. We propose that transparency should also become a guiding principle and documented practice for nonprofit scholars. In this article, we articulate the context for discussing transparency in social science research and the potential risks of not being transparent. Acknowledging the epistemic and methodological diversity of our field—and therefore, the need for flexibility in how transparency will be practiced by different scholars—we encourage nonprofit researchers to consider how they can enhance their research transparency. To this end, we outline the benefits of transparency and offer concrete suggestions for different ways to demonstrate transparency in nonprofit research.

Crowd‐coding is a novel technique that allows for fast, affordable and reproducible online categorisation of large numbers of statements. It combines judgements by multiple, paid, non‐expert coders to avoid miscoding(s). It has been argued that crowd‐coding could replace expert judgements, using the coding of political texts as an example in which both strategies produce similar results. Since crowd‐coding yields the potential to extend the replication standard to data production and to ‘scale’ coding schemes based on a modest number of carefully devised test questions and answers, it is important that its possibilities and limitations are better understood. While previous results for low complexity coding tasks are encouraging, this study assesses whether and under what conditions simple and complex coding tasks can be outsourced to the crowd without sacrificing content validity in return for scalability. The simple task is to decide whether a party statement counts as positive reference to a concept – in this case: equality. The complex task is to distinguish between five concepts of equality. To account for the crowd‐coder's contextual knowledge, the IP restrictions are varied. The basis for comparisons is 1,404 party statements, coded by experts and the crowd (resulting in 30,000 online judgements). Comparisons of the expert‐crowd match at the level of statements and party manifestos show that the results are substantively similar even for the complex task, suggesting that complex category schemes can be scaled via crowd‐coding. The match is only slightly higher when IP restrictions are used as an approximation of coder expertise.