From Methodology to Practice
From Methodology to Practice
复制标题
从方法论到实践
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Yom
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Yom
比较政治学中的大多数方法都规定了研究实践的演绎模板，首先提出假设，然后分析数据，最后以验证性测试结束。事实上，许多学者在创造因果解释时在理论和数据之间来回移动，不是从假设开始，而是从直觉开始，并不断修改他们的命题以应对意外的发现。如果使用透明，这种归纳迭代有助于比较历史分析、分析叙述和统计方法中的因果知识。鼓励跨方法论的此类实践不仅增加了比较分析的工具箱，而且还揭示了现有工作往往缺乏透明度。因为成功的假设检验有助于发表，但由于不存在注册方案和强制复制，数据挖掘和选择性报告等滥用行为很容易在演绎程序主义语言的背后得到掩护。偏离演绎范式的富有成效的偏离，例如归纳迭代，不应该带有与这种不当行为相关的耻辱。
Most methods in comparative politics prescribe a deductive template of research practices that begins with proposing hypotheses, proceeds into analyzing data, and finally concludes with confirmatory tests. In reality, many scholars move back and forth between theory and data in creating causal explanations, beginning not with hypotheses but hunches and constantly revising their propositions in response to unexpected discoveries. Used transparently, such inductive iteration has contributed to causal knowledge in comparative-historical analysis, analytic narratives, and statistical approaches. Encouraging such practices across methodologies not only adds to the toolbox of comparative analysis but also casts light on how much existing work often lacks transparency. Because successful hypothesis testing facilitates publication, yet as registration schemes and mandatory replication do not exist, abusive practices such as data mining and selective reporting find easy cover behind the language of deductive proceduralism. Productive digressions from the deductive paradigm, such as inductive iteration, should not have the stigma associated with such impropriety.