《定性研究方法》研究生课程大纲
2017-02-17 11:19阅读：
Qualitative Research
Methods（定性研究方法）
Shen, Yang Liu, Yihong
Huang, Qixuan
沈洋
刘一弘
黄琪轩
School of Public and International Affairs, Shanghai Jiaotong
University
上海交通大学国际与公共事务学院
课程介绍：
《定性研究方法》是为公共管理、政治学、国际关系、社会学等专业的研究生开设的必修课。该课程旨在介绍学生在研究与学习过程中，可能阅读与使用到的定性研究方法。课程试图分两个部分：第一部分介绍定性研究方法中的解释传统；第二部分介绍定性研究中的阐释传统。该课程涵盖了主要的定性研究方法（也称质性研究方法），涉及的主题比较广泛。授课的议题主要包括案例研究、类型学、过程追踪、反事实分析、自然实验、比较历史分析、档案研究、文本分析、参与观察、民族志等。在学习的过程中，授课
教师将布置重要文献与研究范例的阅读与讨论。通过对该课程的学习，让学生掌握基本的定性研究方法，并能选择相应的方法撰写论文，在学习、阅读与写作过程中培养批判性思维能力。
课程要求：
A.
出勤。选课学生在该学期可以缺席一次。如果超过一次，每增加一次缺席，期末总成绩将被扣两分。缺席次数超过课程总数的三分之一，则没有期末成绩。
B.
阅读。在每次上课前，学生需要完成阅读，标注*的文献为必读，其他文献则为选读。
C.
参与。学生需要分小组做课程展示，参与提问和讨论。
D.
作业。课程需要从三位老师中选择两位提交一份纸质打印的研究设计，截止时间分别为第十周与第十六周，作业提交时间会严格执行。
E.
演示。小组需要在上课时候做1-2次课程演示，每次演示不超过十分钟。成绩按最高那次计入总成绩。
F.
研究问题。请准备大约100-300字关于自己研究问题的描述，每次上课分批次展示。
成绩评定：
成绩构成为：小组课堂展示（20%）；课堂讨论（30%）；两份研究设计（50%）
课程安排：
黄琪轩授课部分
WEEK
ONE（2/22）
Introduction
WEEK TWO(3/01)
Quantitative and Qualitative Research, Explanation and
Interpretation
*James Mahoney and Gary Goertz, “A Tale of Two
Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research,”
Political Analysis, Vol. 14, 2006, pp. 227–249.
*赵鼎新著：《社会科学研究的困境：从与自然科学的区别谈起》，载《社会学评论》，2015年第4期。
*朱天飚著：《<</span>社会科学中的研究设计>与定性研究》，载《公共行政评论》，2015年第4期。
Gary Goertz and James Mahoney, A Tale of Two Cultures
Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences,
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012, Chps.
3-6.
Ann Chih Lin, “Bridging Positivist and Interpretive
Approaches to Qualitative Methods,” Policy Studies Journal,
Vol.26, No.1, 1998, pp. 162-180.
Stanley Lieberson, “Small N’s and Big Conclusions: An
Examination of the Reasoning in Comparative Studies Based on a
Small Number of Cases,” Social Forces, Vol. 70, No. 2, 1991,
pp. 307-320.
David Collier, Henry E. Brady, and Jason Seawright, “Sources
of Leverage in Causal Inference: Toward an Alternative View of
Methodology,” in Henry E. Brady and David Collier, eds.,
Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards,
Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010, Chpt. 9.
Daniel Little, Microfoundations, Method, and
Causation, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1998, Chpt.
10.
Sidney Tarrow, “Bridging the Quantitative-Qualitative
Divide,” in Henry E. Brady and David Collier, eds., Rethinking
Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, Lanham: Rowman
& Littlefield, 2010, Chpt. 6.
Gary King, Robert Keohan and Sidney Verba, Designing
Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research,
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994, Chps. 2,
3.
Charles Ragin, The Comparative Method: Moving beyond
Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies, Berkeley and London:
University of California Press, 1987, Chps. 1-4.
黄琪轩著：《社会科学研究方法在<</span>国际政治经济学>教学中的运用》，载《国际关系研究》，2016年第2期。
WEEK THREE(3/08)
Case Selection
*John Gerring, “Case Selection for Case-Study
Analysis: Qualitative and Quantitative Techniques,” In Janet M.
Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady and David Collier, eds., The
Oxford Handbok of Political Methodology, Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press, 2008, pp. 645-684.
*Jeffrey Herbst, “War and the State in
Africa,”International Security, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1990, pp.
117-139.
*Douglass North and Barry Weingast,
“Constitutions and Commitment: The Evolution of Institutions
Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England,” The
Journal of Economic History, Vol. 49, No. 4, 1989,
pp.803-832.
Celeste Wallander, “Institutional Assets and Adaptability:
NATO after the Cold War,” International Organization, No.54,
Vol. 4, 2000, pp. 705-35.
John Ikenberry, “Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the
Persistence of American Postwar Order,” International
Security, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1998, pp.43-78.
Jason Seawright and John Gerring, “Case Selection Techniques
in Case Study Research,” Political Research Quarterly, Vol.
61, No. 2, 2008, pp.
294-308.
John Gerring, Case Study Research, New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2007, Chpt. 5.
Barbara Geddes, “How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers
You Get: Selection Bias in Comparative Politics,” Political
Analysis Vol. 2, 1990, pp. 131-150.
Douglas Dion, “Evidence and Inference in the Comparative Case
Study,” Comparative Politics Vol. 30, No. 2, 1998, pp.
127-45.
David Collier and James Mahoney, “Insights and Pitfalls:
Selection Bias in Qualitative Research,” World Politics Vol.
49, No. 1, 1996, pp. 56-91.
Robert K. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and
Methods, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2003, Chpt.
1.
John Gerring, “What is Case Study and what is It Good for?”
American Political Science Review, Vol.98, No. 2, 2004,
pp.341-354.
James Mahoney and Gary Goertz, “The Possibility Principle:
Choosing Negative Cases in Qualitative Research,” American
Political Science Review, Vol. 98,
No. 4, 2004, pp. 653-670.
耿曙、陈玮著：《比较政治的案例研究:
反思几项方法论上的迷思》，载《社会科学》，2013年第5期。
陈慧荣著：《案例教学的方法论基础》，载《中国大学教学》，2014年9期。
卢晖临、李雪著：《如何走出个案：从个案研究到扩展个案研究》，载《中国社会科学》，2007年第1期。
WEEK FOUR(3/15)
Cross-Case Comparative Methods
*Alexander George and Andrew Bennett,
Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social
Sciences, Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press, 2005, Chpt.8.
*Kenneth Schultz and Barry Weingast, “The
Democratic Advantage: Institutional Foundations of Financial Power
in International Competition,” International Organization,
Vol. 57, No.1, 2003.
*Atul Kohli, State-Directed Development:
Political Power and Industrialization in the Global Periphery,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp.1-24,
367-425.
Victoria Hui, “Toward a Dynamic Theory of International
Politics: Insights from Comparing Ancient China and Early Modern
Europe,” International Organization, Vol.58, No.1, 2004, pp.
175-205.
黄琪轩：《大国经济成长模式及其国际政治后果：海外贸易、国内市场与权力转移》，《世界经济与政治》，2012年，第9期。
WEEK FIVE(3/22)
Typologies
*Alexander George and Andrew Bennett,
Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social
Sciences, Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press, 2005, Chpt.11.
*David Edelstein, “Occupational Hazards: Why
Military Occupations Succeed or Fail,” International
Security, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2004, pp.
49-91.
*Peter Hall and David Soskice, “An Introduction
to Varieties of Capitalism”, in Peter Hall and David Soskice, eds.,
Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of
Comparative Advantage, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001,
pp.1-68
*Henry Hale, “Divided We Stand: Institutional
Sources of Ethnofederal State Survival and Collapse,” World
Politics, Vol. 56, No.2, 2004, pp.165-193.
David Collier, Jody LaPorte, and Jason
Seawright, “Putting Typologies to Work:
Levels of Measurement, Concept-Formation,
and Analytic Rigor,” Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 64,
No. 2, 2012, pp. 217-232.
Colin Elman, “Explanatory Typologies and Property Space in
Qualitative Studies of International Politics,” International
Organization, Vol. 59, No. 2, 2005, pp.
293-326.
Ronald Rogowski, “Political Cleavages and Changing Exposure
to Trade,” American Political Science Review, Vol.81, No.4,
1987.
WEEK SIX(3/29)
Comparative Historical Analysis
*James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen,
“Comparative-Historical Analysis in Contemporary Political
Science,” in James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen, eds., Advances
in Comparative-Historical Analysis, New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2015, Chpt.1.
* Tulia G. Falleti and James Mahoney, “The
Comparative Sequential Method,” in James Mahoney and Kathleen
Thelen, eds., Advances in Comparative-Historical Analysis,
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015, Chpt.8.
*西达·斯考切波著，何俊志、王学东等译：《国家与社会革命》，上海：上海世纪出版集团2015年版，第1-3章。
James Mahoney, “Stategies of Causal Assessment in Comparative
Historical Analysis,” in James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer,
eds., Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social
Sciences, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003,
pp.337-372.
Theda Skocpol and Margaret Somers, “The Uses of Comparative
History in Macrosocial Inquiry,” Comparative Studies in Society
and History Vol. 22, No. 2, 1980, pp. 174-197.
Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way, “Not Just What, but When
(and How): Comparative-Historical Approaches to Authoritarian
Durability,” in James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen, eds.,
Advances in Comparative-Historical Analysis, New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2015, Chpt.4.
Weikai He, Paths toward the Modern Fiscal State: England,
Japan, and China, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2013, Introduction, Chpt. 1, Conclusion.
朱天飚著：《比较政治经济学与比较历史研究》，载《国家行政学院学报》，2011年第2期。
WEEK SEVEN(4/05)
Experiments and Natural Experiments
*Thad Dunning, Natural Experiments in the
Social Science: A Design-Based Approach, New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2012, Chps. 1-2, 7.
*Daniel Posner, “The Political Salience of
Cultural Difference: Why Chewas and Tumbukas are Allies in Zambia
and Adversaries in Malawi,” American Political Science
Review, Vol.98, No. 4, 2004, pp.
529-545.
Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human
Societies, New York: Norton & Company,1999,
Chp.2.
Jeremy Ferwerda and Nicholas Miller, “Political Devolution
and Resistance to Foreign Rule: A Natural Experiment,” American
Political Science Review, Vol.108, No. 3, 2014, pp.
642-660.
Matthew Kocher and Nuno Monteiro, “What’s in a Line? Natural
Experiments and the Line of Demarcation in WWII Occupied
France,”2015 Manuscript.
David Clingingsmith, Asim Ijaz Khwaja, and Michael Kremer,
“Estimating the Impact of the Hajj: Religion and Tolerance in
Islam’s Global Gathering,” Quarterly Journal of Economics,
Vol.124, No. 3, 2009,
pp.1133-1170.
Bjorn Tyrefors Hinnerich and Per
Pettersson-Lidbom, “Democracy,
Redistribution, and Political Participation: Evidence from Sweden
1919-1938,” Econometrica, Vol. 82,
No. 3, 2014.
黄琪轩著：《比较政治经济学与实验研究》，载《国家行政学院学报》，2012年1期。
WEEK EIGHT(4/12)
Counterfactuals
*Jack Levy, “Counterfactuals and Case Studies,”
in Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady and David Collier,
eds., The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 627-644.
*George W. Breslauer and Richard Ned Lebow,
“Leadership and the End of the Cold War: A Counterfactual Thought
Experiment,” in Richard K. Herrmann and Richard Ned Lebow,
eds., Ending the Cold War. Interpretations,
Causation, and the Study of International
Relations, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004,
Chpt.7.
*Richard Ned Lebow, “Contingency, Catalysts and
Nonlinear Change: The Origins of World War I,” in Gary Goertz and
Jack S. Levy, eds., Explaining War and Peace: Case Studies and
Necessary Condition Counterfactuals, New York: Routledge, 2007,
Chpt. 3.
Charles C. Ragin, Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets
and Beyond, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2008, Chps. 8-9.
Carsten Q. Schneider and Claudius Wagemann, Set-Theoretic
Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative
Analysis, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012, Chps.
6-8.
Stephen Morgan and Christopher Winship, Counterfactuals
and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social
Research, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007, Chps.
1,10.
James D. Fearon, “Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in
Political Science,” World Politics Vol. 43, No.
2, 1991, pp. 169-195.
Gary Goertz and Jack S. Levy, “Causal Explanation, Necessary
Conditions, and Case Studies,” in Gary Goertz and Jack S. Levy,
eds., Explaining War and Peace: Case Studies and Necessary
Condition Counterfactuals, New York: Routledge, 2007, Chpt.
2.
Edgar Kiser and Margaret Levi, “Using Counterfactuals in
Historical Analysis: Theories of Revolution,”in Philip E. Tetlock
and Aaron Belkin, eds., Counterfactual Thought Experiments in
World Politics, Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1996.
John Collins, Ned Hall, and L. A. Paul, “Counterfactuals and
Causation: History, Problems, and Prospects,” in John Collins, Ned
Hall, and L. A. Paul, eds., Causation and Counterfactuals,
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2004, Chpt.1.
Philip E. Tetlock and Geoffrey Parker, “Counterfactual
Thought Experiments,” in Philip Tetlock, Richard Ned Lebow, and
Noel Geoffrey Parker, eds., Unmaking the West. What-If Scenarios
that Rewrite World History, Ann Abor: The University of
Michigan Press, 2006, Chpt.1.
Philip E. Tetlock and Aaron Belkin, “Counterfactual Thought
Experiments in World Politics,” in Philip E. Tetlock and Aaron
Belkins, eds., Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World
Politics, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996, pp.
3-38.
Richard Ned Lebow, Forbidden Fruit: Counterfactuals and
International Relations, Princeton: Princeton University Press,
2010,Chpt.2.
刘一弘授课部分
WEEK TEN(4/26)
Process Tracing
*Andrew Bennett and Jeffrey T. Checkel,
“Process Tracing: From Philosophical Roots to Best
Practices,” in Andrew Bennett and Jeffrey T. Checkel,
eds., Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool, New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2015, Chpt.1.
*Alexander George and Andrew Bennett, Case
Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences,
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2005, Chpt.9.
* Nina Tannenwald, “The Nuclear Taboo:The United
States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use,”
International Organization, Vol. 53, No. 3,
pp.433-468.
Joachim Blatter and Markus Haverland, Designing Case
Studies: Explanatory Approaches in Small-N Research, New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, Chpt. 3.
Nina Tannenwald, The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and
the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons Since 1945, New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2007.
Jeffrey T. Checkel, “Process Tracing,” in Audie Klotz and
Deepa Prakash, eds.,Qualitative Methods in International
Relations: A Pluralist Guide, New York: Palgrave Macmillan,
2008, Chpt.8.
Andrew Bennett, “Process Tracing and Causal Inference,”in
Henry E. Brady and David Collier, eds., Rethinking Social
Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, Lanham: Rowman &
Littlefield, 2010, Chpt. 9.
David Collier, “Understanding Process Tracing,” Political
Science and Politics, Vol. 44,
No. 4, 2011, pp.823-830.
David Waldner, “What Makes Process Tracing Good? Causal
Mechanisms, Causal Inference, and the Completeness Standard in
Comparative Politics,” in Andrew Bennett and Jeffrey T. Checkel,
eds., Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool, New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2015, Chpt.5.
Matthew Evangelista, “Explaining the Cold War’s End: Process
Tracing All the Way Down?” in Andrew Bennett and Jeffrey T.
Checkel, eds., Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic
Tool, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015,
Chpt.6.
James Morrison, “Before Hegemony: Adam Smith, American
Independence, and the Origins of the First Era of Globalization,”
International Organization, Vol.66, No.3, 2012.
曲博著：《因果机制与过程追踪法》，载《世界经济与政治》，2010年10期。
WEEK NINE(4/19)
Congruence Method
* Joachim Blatter and Markus Haverland, Designing Case
Studies: Explanatory Approaches in Small-N Research, New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, Chpt. 4.
*Alexander George and Andrew Bennett,
Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social
Sciences, Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press, 2005, Chpt.9.
*Akan Malici, “Germans as Venutians: The Culture
of German Foreign Policy Behavior,” Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol.
2, 2006, pp.37-62.
沈洋授课部分
WEEK ELEVEN(5/03)
Interviewing
访谈法是质性研究的基础方法。这一堂课会介绍各类访谈方法，包括深度访谈、人生经历访谈、半结构式访谈以及结构式访谈；以及介绍访谈所涉及的各个步骤，包括撰写访谈提纲，撰写访谈同意书，访谈过程中的注意事项以及访谈结束后与被访者的后续联系等。此外，本节课会特别介绍在被访者是社会精英或者弱势群体时，访谈时需要注意的问题。
Seymour Sudman and Norman M. Bradburn, Asking Questions, San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1982, Chp.1.
Svend Brinkmann,“Unstructured and Semi-Structured
Interviewing,” in Patricia Leavy, edt.,The Oxford Handbook of
Qualitative Research, New York: Oxford University Press, 2014,
Chp.14.
Robin Legard, Jill Keegan and Kit Ward, “In-depth
Interviews,” in Jane Ritchie and Jane Lewis, eds., The SAGE
Handbook of Qualitative Research, London: Sage Publications, 2003,
Chp.6.
Svend Brinkmann, Qualitative Interviewing, New York: Oxford
University Press, 2013, Chp. 1.
赫伯特·鲁宾、艾琳·鲁宾著，卢晖临、连佳佳、李丁译：《质性访谈方法：聆听与提问的艺术》，重庆：重庆大学出版社，2010。
Further readings:
Gaskell, G. (2000). ’Individual and Group Interviewing’ in M.
Bauer and G. Gaskell (eds), Qualitative Researching: Text,
Image and Sound, London: Sage, pp. 38-56.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2008). Interviews: Learning
the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. SAGE
Publications.
Hopf, C. (2004). ’Qualitative Interviews: An Overview’. In U.
Flick, E. von Kardoff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A Companion to
Qualitative Research (pp. 203-208). London: Sage.
Dexter, L.A. (1970) Elite and Specialised Interviewing,
Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Liamputtong, P. (2006) Researching the Vulnerable: A Guide to
Sensitive Research Methods, London: Sage.
Elite interviews:
Dexter, L.A. (2008) Elite and Specialized Interviewing. ECPR
Press. Symposium, ‘Interview Methods in the Social
Sciences’, (2002). PS: Political Science and Politics, 35(4):
663-88), Goldstein, K. ‘Getting in the Door: Sampling and
Completing Elite Interviews’, pp 669-72. Aberbach, J. and Rochman,
B. ‘Conducting and Coding Elite Interviews’, pp.
673-6.
WEEK TWELVE(5/10)
Focus Groups
焦点访谈法适用于了解一群人所持有的观点以及观察一个群体如何在讨论中如何产生意见的分歧，或者达成意见的一致。这一节课会讨论焦点访谈法适用于什么研究问题，如何设计焦点访谈的提纲，如何促使小组互动，以收集到有用的数据。
