Research Article


DOI :10.26650/siyasal.2022.31.1124155   IUP :10.26650/siyasal.2022.31.1124155    Full Text (PDF)

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

Aylin Ece ÇiçekDamla Cihangir Tetik

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.

DOI :10.26650/siyasal.2022.31.1124155   IUP :10.26650/siyasal.2022.31.1124155    Full Text (PDF)

Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplininde Karma Yöntemlerin Uygulanması

Aylin Ece ÇiçekDamla Cihangir Tetik

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. 


PDF View

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. google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Adler, E. (2005). Communitarian International Relations: The Epistemic Foundations of International Relations. London: Routledge. google scholar
  • Ahram, A. I. (2013). Concepts and Measurement in Multimethod Research. Political Research Quarterly 66(2), 280-291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912911427453 google scholar
  • Angrist, J. D., and Pischke, J. (2009). Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press. google scholar
  • 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). google scholar
  • 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., google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • Bennett, A., and Checkel, J. T. (2015). Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • Brady, H. E. and Collier, D. (2010). Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. google scholar
  • Carr, E. H. (2001). Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919-1939. M. Cox (Ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Creswell, J. W., Plano, C. G., & Clark, G. M., & Hanson, W.(2003). Advances in Mixed Methods Design. In Tashakori, A., Teddlie, C.(Eds), handbook in mixed methods design in social & behavioural research. google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Gerring, J. (2012). Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  • Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. New directions for evaluation, 74, 5-17. google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative science quarterly, 24(4), 602-611. google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Kapur, S. P. (2007). Dangerous deterrent: Nuclear weapons proliferation and conflict in South Asia, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Keohane, R. O. (1988). American Political Science Association (APSA) Speech. Washington, D.C.: The APSA Annual Meeting. google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Mansfield, E. D., and Snyder, J. (2005). Electing to fight: Why emerging democracies go to war, Cambridge: MIT Press. google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • Morse, J. M. (2010). Simultaneous and Sequential Qualitative Mixed Method Designs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 483-491. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364741 google scholar
  • Popper, K. R. (2002). The Logic of Scientific Inquiry. London: Routledge. google scholar
  • 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 google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • Strange, S. (2015). States and markets. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing. google scholar
  • Süleymanoğlu-Kürüm, R. (2018). Conditionality, the EU and Turkey: From Transformation to Retrenchment, London: Routledge. google scholar
  • Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2010). SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. London: Sage Publications. google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • van Trigt, C. (1997). Visual system-response functions and estimating reflectance, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A, (14), 741-755. google scholar
  • Weaver-Hightower, M. B. and Skelton, C. (Eds.) (2013). Leaders in gender and education: Intellectual self-portraits. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. google scholar
  • 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 google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Çiçek, A.E., & Cihangir Tetik, D. (2022). Theoretic and Methodological Approaches Towards the Application of Mixed Methods in the Discipline of International Relations. Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences, 31(2), 255-264. https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2022.31.1124155


AMA

Çiçek A E, Cihangir Tetik D. Theoretic and Methodological Approaches Towards the Application of Mixed Methods in the Discipline of International Relations. Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences. 2022;31(2):255-264. https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2022.31.1124155


ABNT

Çiçek, A.E.; Cihangir Tetik, D. Theoretic and Methodological Approaches Towards the Application of Mixed Methods in the Discipline of International Relations. Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences, [Publisher Location], v. 31, n. 2, p. 255-264, 2022.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Çiçek, Aylin Ece, and Damla Cihangir Tetik. 2022. “Theoretic and Methodological Approaches Towards the Application of Mixed Methods in the Discipline of International Relations.” Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences 31, no. 2: 255-264. https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2022.31.1124155


Chicago: Humanities Style

Çiçek, Aylin Ece, and Damla Cihangir Tetik. Theoretic and Methodological Approaches Towards the Application of Mixed Methods in the Discipline of International Relations.” Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences 31, no. 2 (Dec. 2022): 255-264. https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2022.31.1124155


Harvard: Australian Style

Çiçek, AE & Cihangir Tetik, D 2022, 'Theoretic and Methodological Approaches Towards the Application of Mixed Methods in the Discipline of International Relations', Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 255-264, viewed 4 Dec. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2022.31.1124155


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Çiçek, A.E. and Cihangir Tetik, D. (2022) ‘Theoretic and Methodological Approaches Towards the Application of Mixed Methods in the Discipline of International Relations’, Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences, 31(2), pp. 255-264. https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2022.31.1124155 (4 Dec. 2022).


MLA

Çiçek, Aylin Ece, and Damla Cihangir Tetik. Theoretic and Methodological Approaches Towards the Application of Mixed Methods in the Discipline of International Relations.” Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences, vol. 31, no. 2, 2022, pp. 255-264. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2022.31.1124155


Vancouver

Çiçek AE, Cihangir Tetik D. Theoretic and Methodological Approaches Towards the Application of Mixed Methods in the Discipline of International Relations. Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences [Internet]. 4 Dec. 2022 [cited 4 Dec. 2022];31(2):255-264. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2022.31.1124155 doi: 10.26650/siyasal.2022.31.1124155


ISNAD

Çiçek, AylinEce - Cihangir Tetik, Damla. Theoretic and Methodological Approaches Towards the Application of Mixed Methods in the Discipline of International Relations”. Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences 31/2 (Dec. 2022): 255-264. https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2022.31.1124155



TIMELINE


Submitted01.06.2022
Accepted06.10.2022
Published Online08.11.2022

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.