Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbuch Policy-Forschung pp 483–502Cite as

Methodentriangulation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Zusammenfassung

Methodentriangulierende Policy-Forschung erlebt seit einiger Zeit eine gewisse Konjunktur. Der vorliegende Beitrag schildert das große Potenzial solcher Forschungsdesigns, spart aber auch einige wissenschaftsphilosophische und -praxeologische Caveats nicht aus. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit erfährt die Konstruktion des Nexus zwischen den einzelnen Methoden. Die Diskussion einiger besonders gelungener Manifestationen soll zu triangulativer Policy-Forschung ermutigen und zeigt auf, wo die Teildisziplin sich noch steigern könnte.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • Amenta, Edwin. 2003. What We Know about the Development of Social Policy: Comparative and Historical Research in Comparative and Historical Perspective. In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, Hrsg. James Mahoney und Dietrich Rueschemeyer, 91–130. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arndt, Christoph. 2013. The Electoral Consequences of Third Way Welfare State Reforms. Social Democracy’s Transformation and its Political Costs. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, Stephen R. und Laura Jenkins. 2007. Teaching and Learning Ontology and Epistemology in Political Science. Politics 27 (1): 55–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayard, Pierre. 2007. Wie man über Bücher spricht, die man nicht gelesen hat. München: Kunstmann. Bennett, Andrew und Colin Elman. 2006. Complex Causal Relations and Case Study Methods: The Example of Path Dependence. Political Analysis 14 (3): 250–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg-Schlosser, Dirk. 2012. Mixed-Methods in Comparative Politics. Principles and Applications. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, Henry E., David Collier und Jason Seawright. 2006. Toward a Pluralistic Vision of Methodology. Political Analysis 14: 353–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, John und Albert Hunter. 2006. Foundations of Multimethod Research. Synthesizing Styles. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, David, Henry E. Brady, Jason Seawright. 2004. Critiques, Responses and Trade-Offs: Drawing together the Debate. In Rethinking Social Inquiry. Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, Hrsg. Henry E. Brady und David Collier, 195–227. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, John W. und Vicki L. Plano Clark. 2007. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drozdova, Katya und Kurt Taylor Gaubatz. 2014. Reducing Uncertainty: Information Analysis for Comparative Case Studies. International Studies Quarterly 58 (3): 633–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duke, George. 2014. Gadamer and Political Authority. European Journal of Political Theory 13 (1): 25–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 2007. Multiple Regression in Small-N Comparison. Comparative Social Research 24: 335–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, Alexander L. und Andrew Bennett. 2004. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, John. 2011. How Good is Good Enough ? A Multidimensional, Best-Possible Standard for Research Design. Political Research Quarterly 64 (3): 625–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gramsci, Antonio. 1967 [1929–1936]. Philosophie der Praxis. Frankfurt/M.: S. Fischer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, Jennifer C. 2008. Is Mixed Methods Social Inquiry a Distinctive Methodology ? Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2 (1): 7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Peter A. 2003. Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Politics. In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, Hrsg. James Mahoney und Dietrich Rueschemeyer, 373–404. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Peter A. 2008. Systematic Process Analysis: When and How to Use It. European Political Science 7 (3): 304–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, Struan und Ian Tregenza. 2014. Rationalism and Tradition: The Popper-Oakeshott Conversation. European Journal of Political Theory 13 (1): 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. Burke, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie und Lisa A. Turner. 2007. Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(2): 112–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenworthy, Lane und Alexander Hicks. Hrsg. 2008. Method and Substance in Macrocomparative Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane und Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, Evan S. 2005. Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research. American Political Science Review 99 (3): 435–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luoma, Pentti. 2003. New Options in Crossing the Methodological Borders: from Quantitative to Qualitative Analysis and Vice Versa. Beitrag zur 2. ECPR General Conference in Marburg am 18. – 21. September.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maggetti, Martino, Fabrizio Gilardi und Claudio M. Radaelli. 2013. Designing Research in the Social Sciences. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, James. 2000. Strategies of Causal Inference in Small-N Analysis. Sociological Methods & Research 28 (4): 387–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, James. 2008. Toward a Unified Theory of Causality. Comparative Political Science 41 (4/5): 412–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, James und Dietrich Rueschemeyer. 2003. Comparative Historical Analysis: Achievements and Agendas. In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, Hrsg. James Mahoney und Dietrich Rueschemeyer, 3–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, David und Paul Furlong. 2002. A Skin, not a Sweater: Ontology and Epistemology in Political Science. In Theory and Methods in Political Science, Hrsg. David Marsh und Gerry Stoker, 17–41. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastenbroek, Ellen und Renske Doorenspleet. 2007. Mind the Gap ! On the Possibilities and Pitfalls of Mixed Methods Research. Beitrag zur 4. ECPR General Conference in Pisa am 6. – 8. September.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, David L. 2007. Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained: Methodological Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1 (1): 48–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moses, Jonathon und Torbjørn L. Knutsen. 2007. Ways of Knowing. Competing Methodologies in Social and Political Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munck, Gerardo L. und Richard Snyder. 2007. Debating the Direction of Comparative Politics: An Analysis of Leading Journals. Comparative Political Studies 40 (1): 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read, Melvyn und David Marsh. 2002. Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Methods. In Theory and Methods in Political Science, Hrsg. David Marsh und Gerry Stoker, 231–248. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rihoux, Benoît. 2006. Two Methodological Worlds Apart ? Praises and Critiques from a European Comparatist. Political Analysis 14: 332–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohlfing, Ingo. 2008. What You See and What you Get. Pitfalls and Principles of Nested Analysis in Comparative Research. Comparative Political Studies 41 (11): 1492–1514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohlfing, Ingo und Peter Starke. 2013. Building on Solid Ground: Robust Case Selection in Multi-Method Research. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 19 (4): 492–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayer, Andrew. 1992. Method in Social Science. A Realist Perspective. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, Anne L. und Helen Ingram. 2008. Social Constructions in the Study of Public Policy. In Handbook of Constructionist Research, Hrsg. James A. Holstein und Jaber F. Gubrium, 189–211. New York: Guildford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, Walter. 1992. Prüfendes Denken. Essays zur Wiederbelebung der Philosophie. Tübingen: Klöpfer & Meyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seawright, Jason und John Gerring. 2008. Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options. Political Research Quarterly 61 (2): 294–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiffert, Helmut. 1972. Einführung in die Wissenschaftstheorie 2. Geisteswissenschaftliche Methoden: Phänomenologie, Hermeneutik und historische Methode, Dialektik. München: C. H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shalev, Michael 2007: Limits and Alternatives to Multiple Regression in Comparative Research. Comparative Social Research 24: 261–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somers, Margaret R. 1998. „We’re no Angels“: Realism, Rational Choice, and Relationality in Social Science. American Journal of Sociology 104 (3): 722–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 1993. The Conditions of Fruitfulness of Theorizing about Mechanisms in Social Science. In Social Theory and Social Policy. Essays in Honor of James S. Coleman, Hrsg. Aage B. Sørensen und Seymour Spilerman. 23–41. Westport: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taagepera, Rein. 2008. Making Social Sciences More Scientific. The Need for Predictive Models. London: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tarrow, Sidney. 2004. Bridging the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide. In Rethinking Social Inquiry. Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, Hrsg. Henry E. Brady und David Collier, 171–179. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topper, Keith. 2005. The Disorder of Political Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tosun, Jale. 2013. Environmental Policy Change in Emerging Market Democracies: Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America Compared. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver-Hightower, Marcus B. 2014. A Mixed Methods Approach for Identifying Influence on Public Policy. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 8(2): 115–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzelburger, Georg. 2010. Haushaltskonsolidierungen und Reformprozesse. Determinanten, Konsolidierungsprofile und Reformstrategien in der Analyse. Münster: LIT Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Bernard. 2013 [2002]. Wahrheit und Wahrhaftigkeit. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, Frieder. 2010. Enlightened Eclecticism or Hazardous Hotchpotch ? Mixed Methods and Triangulation Strategies in Comparative Public Policy Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 4 (2): 144–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, Frieder 2014. Gewalt, Armut und Ignoranz. Die Arbeitsteilung zwischen Staat und privatem Sektor bei der Bearbeitung ausgewählter vernachlässigter Probleme – Deutschland im intraund internationalen Vergleich. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Politische Wissenschaft, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Bergheimer-Straße 58, Heidelberg, 69121, Deutschland

    Dr. Frieder Wolf

Authors
  1. Dr. Frieder Wolf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frieder Wolf .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Kaiserslautern, Germany

    Georg Wenzelburger

  2. Heidelberg, Germany

    Reimut Zohlnhöfer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wolf, F. (2015). Methodentriangulation. In: Wenzelburger, G., Zohlnhöfer, R. (eds) Handbuch Policy-Forschung. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-01968-6_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-01968-6_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-01967-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-01968-6

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Science (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation