Theoretic and Methodological Approaches Towards the Application of Mixed Methods in the Discipline of International Relations

Year 2022, Volume: 31 Issue: 2, 255 - 264, 08.11.2022

Aylin Ece Çiçek , Damla Cihangir Tetik

https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2022.31.1124155

Abstract

Discussions regarding the conduct of scientific inquiry have existed throughout history. Questions of how to uncover the truth and achieve reliable and valid scientific conclusions, all under the umbrella of objectivity, have led the sciences to evolve in a systematic manner. Hitherto, the general leniency within this conversation has been directed at the hard sciences; however, the Social Sciences have also recently been on the receiving end of paradigmatic shifts in methodologies. Since the behavioral revolution, the conduct of many disciplines under the Social Sciences has slowly moved towards a more quantitative outlook on the path of uncovering social phenomena. Such an alteration in methodology has its benefits as well as certain handicaps when dealing with abstract social concepts and notions which are difficult to quantify. This is especially the case for the discipline of International Relations (IR), where data are of both a qualitative and quantitative nature. Thus, the aims of this study are threefold: first, the study will present a brief summary of the historical and scientific evolution of methods in the discipline of IR; secondly, it will describe the current situation in which scientific inquiry is conducted, focusing on mixed method approaches; and third, it will deal with the different methodological approaches of MM designs established above by highlighting their strengths and weaknesses, particularly in the discipline of IR. Hence, this study aims to contribute both to the literatures of the disciplines of IR and of methodology in Social Sciences.

Keywords

International Relations (IR), Methodology, Mixed Methods, Qualitative Methods, Quantitative Methods, Uluslararası Ilişkiler (Uİ), Yöntem, Karma Yöntemler, Nitel Yöntemler, Nicel Yöntemler

Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplininde Karma Yöntemlerin Uygulanması

Abstract

Bilimsel araştırmanın yürütülmesine ilişkin tartışmalar tarih boyunca var olmuştur. Gerçeğin nasıl ortaya çıkarılacağı, güvenilir ve geçerli bilimsel sonuçlara nasıl ulaşılacağına ilişkin tartışmalar, nesnellik şemsiyesi altında bilimin sistematik bir şekilde gelişmesini sağlamıştır. Bugüne kadar bu tartışmalardaki genel kabul pozitif bilimlere yönelikken bugün, sosyal bilimlerde de yöntemsel olarak bu paradigmatik değişimlerden bahsetmekteyiz. Davranışsal devrimden bu yana sosyal bilimler altındaki pek çok disiplin, sosyal fenomenleri ortaya çıkarma yolunda yavaş yavaş daha nicel bir bakış açısına sahip olmaya doğru evrilmiştir. Yöntemsel olarak bu tür bir değişikliğin faydaları olduğu kadar nicelleştirilmesi zor olan soyut kavramlarla çalışırken bazı dezavantajları da bulunmaktadır. Bu durum, özellikle, verilerin hem nitel hem de nicel nitelikte olduğu Uluslararası İlişkiler (Uİ) disiplini için geçerlidir. Bu doğrultuda, bu çalışmanın amaçları üç yönlüdür; ilk olarak, bu çalışma Uİ disiplinindeki yöntemlerin tarihsel ve bilimsel evriminin kısa bir özetini sunacaktır; ikinci olarak, yöntemsel olarak karma yöntem yaklaşımlarına odaklanarak bilimsel araştırmanın yürütüldüğü mevcut durumu tanımlayacak; ve bir üçüncüsü, özellikle Uİ disiplininde, bahsi geçen karma yöntem tasarımlarının güçlü ve zayıf yönlerini vurgulayarak farklı yöntemsel yaklaşımları ele alacaktır. Böylece bu çalışma, hem Uİ disiplinindeki hem de sosyal bilimlerdeki yöntem literatürüne katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. 

Keywords

Uluslararası Ilişkiler (Uİ), Yöntem, Karma Yöntemler, Nitel Yöntemler, Nicel Yöntemler

References

• Abildgaard, J. S., Saksvik, P. O. and Nielsen, K. M. (2016). How to Measure the Intervention Process? An Assessment of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Data Collection in the Process Evaluation of Organizational Interventions. Frontiers in Psychology, (7), 1380.
• Adcock, R., and Collier, D. (2001). Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research. American Political Science Review, (95), 529–546. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3118231
• Adler, E. (2005). Communitarian International Relations: The Epistemic Foundations of International Relations. London: Routledge.
• Ahram, A. I. (2013). Concepts and Measurement in Multimethod Research. Political Research Quarterly 66(2), 280–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912911427453
• Angrist, J. D., and Pischke, J. (2009). Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Aydın-Çakır , A. and Türkeş-Kılıç, S. (2021). Bilimsel Çalışmalarda Karma Yöntem Nasıl Kullanılır? (How to Use Mixed-Method in Scientific Studies?), Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi (Journal of Pamukkale University Social Sciences Institute), 42 (Special Issue 1).
• Bamberger, M., Rao,V. and Woolcock, M. (2010). Using Mixed Methods in Monitoring and Evaluation. In: A. Tashakkoriand C. Teddlie, (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social Behavioral Research, (2nd ed.), (pp. 613–641). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.,
• Barnes, B. R. (2019). Transformative Mixed Methods Research in South Africa: Contributions to Social Justice. In S. Laher, A. Fynn and S. Kramer (Eds.), Transforming Research Methods in the Social Sciences: Case Studies from South Africa, (pp. 303–316). Johannesburg: Wits University Press.
• Bennett, A. (2008). Process Tracing: A Bayesian Perspective. In J. M. Box-Steffensmeier, H. E. Brady, and D. Collier, (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, (pp. 702-721). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bennett, A., and Checkel, J. T. (2015). Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Biesenbender, S. and Heritier, A. (2014). Mixed-Methods Designs in Comparative Public Policy Research: The Dismantling of Pension Policies. In I. Engeli and C. Rothmayr Allison (Eds.), Comparative policy studies: conceptual and methodological challenges, (pp. 237-264). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Brady, H. E. and Collier, D. (2010). Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
• Carr, E. H. (2001). Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919-1939. M. Cox (Ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Cox, R. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: beyond international relations theory. Millennium, 10(2), 126-155. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298810100020501
• De Juan , A. and Pierskalla, J. (2014). Civil war violence and political trust: Microlevel evidence from Nepal. Conflict Management and Peace Science, (33)1. 10.1177/0738894214544612
• Dunning, T. (2007). The Role of Iteration in Multi-Method Research, Qualitative Methods, (Newsletter of the American Political Science Association’s Organized Section on Qualitative Methods), 5(1), 22–24.
• Fielding, N. and Cisneros-Puebla, C. (2009). CAQDAS-GIS convergence: Toward a new integrated mixed method research practice? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, (3):4, 349-370. 10.1177/1558689809344973
• Gerring, J. (2012). Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Greenhill, B. and Straus, M. (2014). Explaining nonratification of the genocide convention: A nested analysis, Foreign Policy Analysis, 10(4), 371–391. 10.1111/fpa.12013
• Harbers, I. and Ingram, M. C. (2020). Mixed-Methods Designs. In L. Curini and R. Franzese, (Eds.), The Handbook of Research Methods in Political Science and International Relations, (Chp. 58) (p. 1117). London: Sage Publications.
• Johnson, R. B. and Onwuegbuzie, J. O. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. American Educational Research Association, 33(7), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014
• Kapur, S. P. (2007). Dangerous deterrent: Nuclear weapons proliferation and conflict in South Asia, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Kaplan, M. A. (1966). The new great debate: Traditionalism vs. science in international relations. World Politics 19(1), 1-20. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2009840?origin=JSTOR-pdf
• Keohane, R. O. (1988). American Political Science Association (APSA) Speech. Washington, D.C.: The APSA Annual Meeting.
• Kurki M., and Wight C. (2016). International Relations and Social Science. In T. Dunne, M. Kurki and S. Smith (Eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (p.13). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kwan, M. and Ding, G. (2008). Geo-Narrative: Extending Geographic Information Systems for Narrative Analysis in Qualitative and Mixed-Method Research ∗. The Professional Geographer, 60(4), 443-465. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330120802211752
• Mansfield, E. D., and Snyder, J. (2005). Electing to fight: Why emerging democracies go to war, Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Matthews, S. A., Detwiler, J. E. and Burton, L. M. (2005). Geo-ethnography: coupling geographic information analysis techniques with ethnographic methods in urban research. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization, (40)4, 75-90. 10.3138/2288-1450-W061-R664
• Morse, J. M. (2010). Simultaneous and Sequential Qualitative Mixed Method Designs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 483-491. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364741
• Popper, K. R. (2002). The Logic of Scientific Inquiry. London: Routledge.
• Rathbun, B. C., Kertzer J. D. and Paradis, M. (2017). Homo Diplomaticus: Mixed-Method Evidence of Variation in Strategic Rationality. International Organization, 71(1), 33–60. doi:10.1017/S0020818316000412
• Sammons, P. (2010). The contribution of mixed methods to recent research on educational effectiveness. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research, (2nd ed) (pp.697-723). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Strange, S. (2015). States and markets. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Süleymanoğlu-Kürüm, R. (2018). Conditionality, the EU and Turkey: From Transformation to Retrenchment, London: Routledge. Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2010). SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. London: Sage Publications.
• Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. London: Sage Publications.
• van Trigt, C. (1997). Visual system-response functions and estimating reflectance, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A, (14), 741–755. Weaver-Hightower, M. B. and Skelton, C. (Eds.) (2013). Leaders in gender and education: Intellectual self-portraits. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
• Yeager, C. D. and Steiger, T. (2013). Applied geography in a digital age: The case for mixed methods. Applied Geography, (39), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.12.001