Hostname: page-component-5447f9dfdb-kxt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-28T22:00:57.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Collaborative Methodologies: Why, How, and for Whom?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 April 2021

Pamina Firchow Open the ORCID record for Pamina Firchow [Opens in a new window]  and
Mneesha Gellman Open the ORCID record for Mneesha Gellman [Opens in a new window]
Pamina Firchow
Affiliation:
Brandeis University
Mneesha Gellman
Affiliation:
Emerson College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Quantitative and Qualitative Collaborative Methodologies
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , July 2021 , pp. 525 - 529
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Baum, Fran, MacDougall, Colin, and Smith, Danielle. 2006. “Participatory Action Research.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 60 (10): 854–57. DOI:10.1136/jech.2004.028662 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bleck, Jaimie, Dendere, Chipo, and Sangaré, Boukary. 2018. “Making North–South Research Collaborations Work.” PS: Political Science & Politics 51 (3): 554–58.Google Scholar
Bracic, Ana. 2018. “For Better Science: The Benefits of Community Engagement in Research.” PS: Political Science & Politics 51 (3): 550–53.Google Scholar
Collier, David, and Levitsky, Steven. 1997. “Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research.” World Politics 49 (3): 430–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramer, Katherine. 2015. “Transparent Explanations, Yes. Public Transcripts and Fieldnotes, No. Ethnographic Research on Public Opinion.” Newsletter of the American Political Science Association, Organized Section for Qualitative and Multi-Method Research 13 (1): 17–20.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D., Humphreys, Macartan, and Weinstein, Jeremy M.. 2009. “Can Development Aid Contribute to Social Cohesion after Civil War? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Post-Conflict Liberia.” American Economic Review 99 (2): 287–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firchow, Pamina. 2018. Reclaiming Everyday Peace: Local Voices in Measurement and Evaluation after War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firchow, Pamina, and Ginty, Roger Mac. 2020. “Including Hard-to-Access Populations Using Mobile Phone Surveys and Participatory Indicators.” Sociological Methods & Research 49 (1): 133–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujii, Lee Ann. 2012. “Research Ethics 101: Dilemmas and Responsibilities.” PS: Political Science & Politics 45 (4): 717–23. DOI:10.1017/S1049096512000819.Google Scholar
Gellman, Mneesha. 2017. Democratization and Memories of Violence: Ethnic Minority Rights Movements in Mexico, Turkey, and El Salvador. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gellman, Mneesha. 2019. “The Right to Learn our (M)Other Tongues: Indigenous Languages and Neoliberal Citizenship in El Salvador and Mexico.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 40 (4): 523–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gellman, Mneesha. Forthcoming. Culture Kids: Indigenous Resistance and Language Survival in Mexico and the United States. Book manuscript in process.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 1999. “What Makes a Concept Good? A Criterial Framework for Understanding Concept Formation in the Social Sciences.” Polity 31 (S): 357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goertz, Gary. 2006. Social Science Concepts: A User’s Guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemmis, Stephen, McTaggart, Robin, and Nixon, Rhonda. 2014. The Action Research Planner: Doing Critical Participatory Action Research. Singapore: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLean, Lauren M., Posner, Elliot, Thomson, Susan, and Wood, Elisabeth Jean. 2018. Research Ethics and Human Subjects: A Reflexive Openness Approach. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3332887.Google Scholar
Michelitch, Kristin. 2018. “Whose Research Is It? Political Scientists Discuss Whether, How, and Why We Should Involve the Communities We Study.” PS: Political Science & Politics 51 (3): 543–45. DOI:10.1017/S1049096518000422.Google Scholar
Pachirat, Timothy. 2018. Among Wolves: Ethnography and the Immersive Study of Power. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovani. 1970. “Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics.” American Political Science Review 64 (4): 1033–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, Frederic Charles. 2016. Elucidating Social Science Concepts: An Interpretivist Guide. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thachil, Tariq, and Vaishnav, Milan. 2018. “The Strategic and Moral Imperatives of Local Engagement: Reflections on India.” PS: Political Science & Politics 51 (3): 546–49.Google Scholar