Interpretations of interpretivism

What is interpretivism? As is common with broad methodological debates, much hinges on matters of definition. Interpretivism might be defined residually — as non-positivism. However, this scarcely clarifies the matter, as noted by Robert Adcock and David Dessler in their contributions to this symposium. We might start with David Laitin’s suggestion that interpretivism refers to interpretation or clarification— rendering the ambiguous into a clearer form. This is true enough, so far as it goes. However, in current usage the term seems to carry a good deal more freight

Letter from the editor

In the Fall of 2002, APSA created its 37th Organized Section, devoted to the study, development, and dissemination of qualitative methods. Since that time, I have served as the editor of this newsletter. My job, as I saw it, was to bring to the attention of our members the most interesting, innovative, and (it follows) contentious issues in the field of political methodology, regardless of whether they might be categorized conventionally as ‘qualitative’ or ‘quantitative.’ (Issues of import solely to quantitative work have been deferred to the Political Methodology section–no need to duplicate effort.) With that caveat, the mission of the newsletter was interpreted broadly to include all methodological issues of relevance to the study of politics. Symposia have ranged from broad philosophy-of-science issues to narrower debates about technique. For the most part, these topics have been chosen in response to ideas from our members and as extensions of APSA panels and roundtables. Usually, the management of a symposium was delegated to the person taking the initiative to organize a discussion on that topic

An Experimental Template for Case Study Research

Methods are usually classified as either "experimental" or "observational,"

V-Dem Comparisons and Contrasts with Other Measurement Projects

For policymakers, activists, academics, and citizens around the world the conceptualization and measurement of democracy matters. The needs of democracy promoters and social scientists are convergent. We all need better ways to measure democracy. In the first section of this document we critically review the field of democracy indices. It is important to emphasize that problems identified with extant indices are not easily solved, and some of the issues we raise vis-à-vis other projects might also be raised in the context of the V-Dem project. Measuring an abstract and contested concept such as democracy is hard and some problems of conceptualization and measurement may never be solved definitively. In the second section we discuss in general terms how the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project differs from extant indices and how the novel approach taken by V-Dem might assist the work of activists, professionals, and scholars.This research project was supported by Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, Grant M13-0559:1, PI: Staffan I. Lindberg, V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg, Sweden; by Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation to Wallenberg Academy Fellow Staffan I. Lindberg, Grant 2013.0166, V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg, Sweden; as well as by internal grants from the Vice-Chancellor’s office, the Dean of the College of Social Sciences, and the Department of Political Science at University of Gothenburg. We performed simulations and other computational tasks using resources provided by the Notre Dame Center for Research Computing (CRC) through the High Performance Computing section and the Swedish National Infrastructure for Computing (SNIC) at the National Supercomputer Centre in Sweden, SNIC 2016/1-382 and 2017/1-68. We specifically acknowledge the assistance of In-Saeng Suh at CRC and Johan Raber at SNIC in facilitating our use of their respective systems

Pennsylvania\u27s Family Caregiver Support Program: A Demonstration Project

The physical, emotional, and economic burdens of family caregiving can present a serious threat to the stability and continuity of a caregiving situation. Public policymakers, aware of the high costs of replacing such voluntary efforts with publicly funded institutional care, are becoming more and more concerned about the needs of caregivers and possible intervention strategies to meet those needs. This article begins with a description of Pennsylvania\u27s new policy initiative for caregivers, the Family Caregiver Support Program (FCSP). Following is a discussion of the evaluation of the program\u27s demonstration phase by the Human Organization Science Institute of Villanova University. The evaluation concluded that the FCSP has a significant positive impact on the lives and abilities of caregivers, including the reduction of caregiver stress and burden. The concluding summary of program results seeks to sharpen the reader\u27s interest in the potential benefits of an intervention strategy such as this and suggests a need for additional research for the benefit of those concerned about health care cost containment

Economic development, human development, and the pursuit of happiness, April 1, 2, and 3, 2004

This repository item contains a single issue of the Pardee Conference Series, a publication series that began publishing in 2006 by the Boston University Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future. This was the Center's spring conference, which took place during April 1, 2, and 3, 2004.The conference asks the questions, how can we make sure that the benefits of economic growth flow into health, education, welfare, and other aspects of human development; and what is the relationship between human development and economic development? Speakers and participants discuss the role that culture, legal and political institutions, the UN Developmental Goals, the level of decision-making, and ethics, play in development

Making the great transformation, November 13, 14, and 15, 2003

This repository item contains a single issue of the Pardee Conference Series, a publication series that began publishing in 2006 by the Boston University Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future. This Conference took place during November 13, 14, and 15, 2003. Co-organized by Cutler Cleveland and Adil Najam.The conference discussants and participants analyze why transitions happen, and why they matter. Transitions are those wide-ranging changes in human organization and well being that can be convincingly attributed to a concerted set of choices that make the world that was significantly and recognizably different from the world that becomes. Transition scholars argue that that history does not just stumble along a pre-determined path, but that human ingenuity and entrepreneurship have the ability to fundamentally alter its direction. However, our ability to ‘will’ such transitions remains in doubt. These doubts cannot be removed until we have a better understanding of how transitions work

Conceptual and Measurement Issues in Assessing Democratic Backsliding

During the past decade, analyses drawing on several democracy measures have shown a global trend of democratic retrenchment. While these democracy measures use radically different methodologies, most partially or fully rely on subjective judgments to produce estimates of the level of democracy within states. Such projects continuously grapple with balancing conceptual coverage with the potential for bias (Munck and Verkuilen 2002; Przeworski et al. 2000). Little and Meng (L&M) (2023) reintroduce this debate, arguing that “objective” measures of democracy show little evidence of recent global democratic backsliding.1 By extension, they posit that time-varying expert bias drives the appearance of democratic retrenchment in measures that incorporate expert judgments. In this article, we engage with (1) broader debates on democracy measurement and democratic backsliding, and (2) L&M’s specific data and conclusions

Looking ahead: forecasting and planning for the longer-range future, April 1, 2, and 3, 2005

This repository item contains a single issue of the Pardee Conference Series, a publication series that began publishing in 2006 by the Boston University Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future. This was the Center's spring Conference that took place during April 1, 2, and 3, 2005.The conference allowed for many highly esteemed scholars and professionals from a broad range of fields to come together to discuss strategies designed for the 21st century and beyond. The speakers and discussants covered a broad range of subjects including: long-term policy analysis, forecasting for business and investment, the National Intelligence Council Global Trends 2020 report, Europe’s transition from the Marshal plan to the EU, forecasting global transitions, foreign policy planning, and forecasting for defense