Author's Keywords: interpretive empircial research quality criteria epistemic communities	Convention All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs. Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: American Political Science Association URL: http://www.apsanet.org
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p61207_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine. "Judging Quality: Evaluative Criteria for Interpretive Empirical Research" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Hilton Chicago and the Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL, Sep 02, 2004 <Not Available>. 2009-05-26 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p61207_index.html>

Schwartz-Shea, P. , 2004-09-02 "Judging Quality: Evaluative Criteria for Interpretive Empirical Research" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Hilton Chicago and the Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL Online <.PDF>. 2009-05-26 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p61207_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Review Method: Peer Reviewed Abstract: One of the obstacles encountered by those seeking to strengthen interpretive epistemic communities in political science and similarly constituted disciplines is the allegation that there are no criteria for judging the quality of interpretive research—the “anything goes” charge. Because judgment is fundamental to the scholarly enterprise, this allegation must be rebutted so that it is clear that interpretive research does have standards, and that interpretive work can be evaluated against these standards. Fortunately, interpretive methodologists in sister disciplines have broken ground here and their work can serve as a useful starting point. In the contemporary period, there is a substantial, growing literature that addresses the question of appropriate criteria for judging interpretive research. This chapter reviews this literature for the purpose of providing researchers new to interpretive research with a vocabulary that they can use, debate, and convey to those interested in participating in and strengthening interpretive epistemic communities within their respective disciplines.

What`s the Utility of the Case-Study Method for Social Science Research? A Response to Critiques from the Qualitative/Statistical Perspective

Study Space Analysis: A New Method For Describing And Evaluating Research Literatures.