Author Archives: ingorohlfing

About ingorohlfing

I am Professor for Methods of Comparative Political Research at the Cologne Center for Comparative Politics at the University of Cologne (http://cccp.uni-koeln.de). My research interests are social science methods with an emphasis on case studies, multi-method research, and philosophy of science concerned with causation and causal inference. Substantively, I am working on party competition and parties as organizations.

The peer review process as a preregistration device

Some ideas about how the peer review process in academic publishing can be used as a device for preregistering parts of an empirical analysis. Continue reading

Posted in meta science, preregistration, publication bias, publishing, replication, transparency, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Confirmation bias in causal qualitative research

The bi-annual publication of the APSA Section on Qualitative Methods and Multi-Method Research has a highly interesting and controversial symposium on confirmation bias in process tracing in its current issue. I have written a Twitter thread on the question of … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Confirmation bias in causal qualitative research

Gap-filling, puzzle-solving and replication in empirical research

Why the filling of gaps in the research literature is similar to replication and probably better than its reputation. Continue reading

Posted in generalization, replication, research question, theory | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Gap-filling, puzzle-solving and replication in empirical research

Theoretically non-exclusive hypotheses in Bayesian process tracing

Inspired by an email exchange I had with someone on theoretically non-exclusive hypotheses in Bayesian process tracing, I believed it might be useful to write down some thoughts in a blog post. It ended up as a PDF on Github … Continue reading

Posted in Bayes, case study, process tracing, qualitative, R | Comments Off on Theoretically non-exclusive hypotheses in Bayesian process tracing

“Context” is important, but (almost) useless if used as a causal category

When making causal (or descriptive) inferences, it is important to think about the context within which the causal relationship is expected to hold because it probably does not hold universally and, possibly, only in a limited setting. Falleti and Lynch … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on “Context” is important, but (almost) useless if used as a causal category

Correlation vs causation: The case of competitive funding and research quality

On September 27, the German Science Foundation (DFG) announced its decision to award the status of a research cluster of excellence (Exzellenzcluster) to 57 cluster proposals from all disciplines. This was the first step of its so-called excellence strategy, (Exzellenzstrategie/ExStra, … Continue reading

Posted in causal inference, political science, science, Wissenschaftssystem | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

The COMPASSS statement and QCA solution types

About two weeks ago, COMPASSS issued a Statement on Rejecting Article Submissions because of QCA Solution Type. In short, the reasoning was that methodological work on QCA is developing and that reviewers and editors should not judge empirical work based … Continue reading

Posted in causal inference, causation, QCA, qualitative, Qualitative Comparative Analysis, regularity, set theory | Tagged , , , , , | 15 Comments

The relevance of Political Science: Some thoughts on the recent critique

The charge that Political Science (or other non-STEM disciplines) is lacking relevance and does not produce interesting research is made then and again, with two new pieces published these days. One is written by a political economist, stating that most … Continue reading

Posted in political science, publishing, science, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Review of ‘Multi-Method Social Science’ (Seawright, CUP) – Chapter 2: Causation as A Shared Standard

Continuing the chapter-by-chapter review of Seawright’s book on Multi-Method Social Science took me longer than I imagined and it should have, but here we go again. The second chapter discusses the fundamentals of multimethod research (MMR) and identifies “Causation as … Continue reading

Posted in book review, causal inference, causation, mixed methods research, multimethod research, nested analysis, process tracing, qualitative, quantitative | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Review of “Multi-Method Social Science” (Seawright, CUP): Chapter 1

Review of the first chapter of the book “Multi-Method Social Science” by Jason Seawright, published with Cambridge University Press in 2016. Continue reading

Posted in book review, case study, mixed methods research, multimethod research, nested analysis, process tracing, qualitative, quantitative | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment