Advertisement

Methodology

  • Laura Rahm
Chapter
Part of the Demographic Transformation and Socio-Economic Development book series (DTSD, volume 11)

Abstract

This chapter outlines the methodology that guides the empirical approach of this investigation. The research aim is to understand public policies against prenatal sex selection, their evolution and impact on sex ratio imbalances in selected Asian countries by providing a qualitative and qualitative assessment. Three countries and three distinct localities within those countries (Northwestern India, Northern Vietnam and Southeastern part of South Korea) were chosen to serve as case studies for the comparative analysis. This chapter first describes the research methodology used for comparing systems of great diversity making use of the Most Different Systems Design (MDSD). It then highlights the country selection criteria and describes the qualitative and quantitative data that has been employed throughout the investigation. The qualitative data draws from policy files, over 100 key informant interviews, and participant observation during political rallies, which was gathered during field research in South Korea, India and Vietnam. The quantitative analysis is based on secondary demographic data obtained from the national statistic bureaus in the three countries to assess policy impact via a difference-in-difference analysis comparing pre-and post intervention periods in target and control areas. The chapter also describes the research sites, data analysis, data quality and comparability before closing with a short summary.

Keywords

Most different systems design Comparative policy analysis Difference-in-difference analysis Sex selection Asia South Korea India Vietnam 

References

  1. Anckar, C. (2008). On the Applicability of the Most Similar Systems Design and the Most Different Systems Design in Comparative Research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(5), 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bassett, B. R. (2010). Computer-based analysis of qualitative data: NVIVO. In A. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Case Study Research (pp. 192–194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  3. CIA. (2017). The World Factbook. Retrieved March 9, 2017, from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
  4. Collier, D. (1993). The comparative method. In A. W. Finifter (Ed.), Political science: The state of the discipline II (pp. 105–119). Washington: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  5. Darnovsky, M. (2009). Countries with laws or policies on sex selection (p. 7). Presented at the New York City Sex Selection Meeting, New York: Center for Genertics and Society. Retrieved July 22, 2016, from http://geneticsandsociety.org/downloads/200904_sex_selection_memo.pdf
  6. de Roche, J., & de Roche, C. (2010). Objectivism. In A. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (p. 625). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Election Commission of India. (2016). Notification No.56/2016/PPS-III on recognised National and State Parties. New Delhi, India: Election Commission of India.Google Scholar
  8. Elger, T. (2010). Limited-depth case study. In A. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 530–532). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Encyclopedia Britannica. (2017). South Korea. Culture, History, and People. Retrieved May 31, 2017, from https://global.britannica.com/place/South-Korea
  10. Engeli, I., & Allison, C. R. (Eds.). (2014). Comparative policy studies. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan UK.Google Scholar
  11. Guilmoto, C. Z., Dudwick, N., Gjonça, A., & Rahm, L. (2018). How do demographic trends change? The onset of birth masculinization in Albania, Georgia, and Vietnam 1990–2005. Population and Development Review, 44(1), 37–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanoi School of Public Health. (2012). Vietnam country report. Health system stewardship in Vietnam, India and China (HESVIC) (p. 262). Hanoi: Hanoi School of Public Health. Retrieved July 27, 2016, from http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/91234_en.html
  13. Immergut, E. M. (1990). Institutions, veto points, and policy results: A comparative analysis of health care. Journal of Public Policy, 10(04), 391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim, D.-S. (2004). Missing girls in South Korea: Trends, levels and regional variations. Population, 59(6), 865–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lasswell, H. D. (1968). The future of the comparative method. Comparative Politics, 1(1), 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. The American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lodge, M. (2007). Comparative public policy. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: theory, politics, and methods (pp. 273–288). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  18. Loenzien, M. d. (2006). Fondements des Approches Qualitatives Dans les Études des Population. In M. de Loenzien & S.-D. Yana (Eds.), Les Approches Qualitatives Dans les Études de Population. Théorie et Pratique (pp. 11–45). Paris, France: Contemporary Publishing International.Google Scholar
  19. Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K., Guest, G., & Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative research methods: A data collector’s field guide. North Carolina: Family Health International USAID.Google Scholar
  20. Mahoney, C. (2007). Lobbying success in the United States and the European Union. Journal of Public Policy, 27(01), 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mekong Economics Ltd. (2013). 2012 Baseline study on Sex Ratio at Birth in Hai Duong Province (p. 110). Hai Duong. Retrieved August 16, 2015, from http://www.mekongeconomics.com/dev/images/stories/pds/J0886.pdf
  22. Mill, J. S. (1843). A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive. (Vol. 1). London, UK: Harrison and Co.Google Scholar
  23. Molloy, A. (2010). Case study research in public policy. In A. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 117–120). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Peters, G. (2013). Strategies for comparative research in political science. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Population Council, & CREHPA. (2015). Gender-baised sex selection and unbalanced sex ratios at Birth in South Asia: Case studies of the situation and promising approaches (p. 122). New Delhi, India: Population Council.Google Scholar
  26. Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York, NY: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  27. Rose, R. (1991). What is lesson-drawing? Journal of Public Policy, 11(01), 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Skocpol, T. (1979). States and social revolutions: A comparative analysis of France, Russia and China. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. WHO. (2011). Preventing gender-biased sex selection: An interagency statement OHCHR, UNFPA, UNICEF, UN Women and WHO. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  30. Yang, H. (2008). A journal of family law reform in Korea: Tradition, equality, and social change. Journal of Korean Law, 8, 77.Google Scholar
  31. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Rahm
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Population and DevelopmentParisFrance

Personalised recommendations