 |
Judging Quality: Evaluative Criteria for Interpretive Empirical Research
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
Judging Quality: Epistemic Communities,
Evaluative Criteria, and Interpretive Empirical Research
Peregrine Schwartz-Shea
University of Utah
Political Science Department
260 South Central Campus Drive Rm 252
Salt Lake City, UT 84112-9152
(801) 581-6300 phone mail
## email not listed ##
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.
Prepared for presentation at the American Political Science Association,
2004 Annual Meeting (Chicago, September 2-5)
Qualitative Methods/Theory, Policy, & Society Conference Group panel
What Does It Mean To Do Interpretive Work?
Evaluative Criteria and Other Issues
|
| | Authors: Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine. |
|
| |
|
|
Judging Quality: Epistemic Communities,
Evaluative Criteria, and Interpretive Empirical Research
Peregrine Schwartz-Shea
University of Utah
Political Science Department
260 South Central Campus Drive Rm 252
Salt Lake City, UT 84112-9152
(801) 581-6300 phone mail
## email not listed ##
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.
Prepared for presentation at the American Political Science Association,
2004 Annual Meeting (Chicago, September 2-5)
Qualitative Methods/Theory, Policy, & Society Conference Group panel
What Does It Mean To Do Interpretive Work?
Evaluative Criteria and Other Issues
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention. | | 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. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Page 1 of 47 
