Designing Social Inquiry (Hardcover)

by Gary King (Author), Robert O. Keohane (Author), Sidney Verba (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Review
The book is marked by a very careful building up of all concepts; by clear, vivid writing; and by an excellent use of extended examples from the work of such scholars as Nina Halpern, Atul Kohli, and David Laiting. -- Review --This text refers to the Paperback edition.

Review
The book is marked by a very careful building up of all concepts; by clear, vivid writing; and by an excellent use of extended examples from the work of such scholars as Nina Halpern, Atul Kohli, and David Laiting.
(Journal of Politics ) --This text refers to the Paperback edition.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 264 pages
• Publisher: Princeton University Press (May 16, 1994)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0691034702
• ISBN-13: 978-0691034706
• Product Dimensions: 9.8 x 6.5 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.0 out of 5 stars See all reviews (11 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #3,419,788 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

15 of 15 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars This not a stats book, October 16, 2005

By	PolisciMaverick - See all my reviews

This review is from: Designing Social Inquiry (Paperback)

This is a response to reviewers who think this is a stat book. This book is not meant to serve as a stats textbook (if you want one there are plenty of good ones written by statisticians and econometricians). This book is designed to serve as a guide to research design in social science in terms of developing a question, following systematic research procedures and measurement while using qualitative research methods. In that regard it does not do a great job as they are stuck up with applying simplistic statistical techniques (predominantly regression analysis)to qualitative methodology. As a result the work ends up appearing weak to both the statistically inclined (including myself) and those who use predominantly qualitative methods. Arguably the biggest problems with this work is in their treatment of constant dependent variable designs. This arises from their notion of a "causal effect" that is quite different from what qualitative researchers might see as causality. In statistical terms their notion is correct but when we move towards a qualitative interpretation of the same the concept becomes problematic primarily because it is difficult to discern the appropriate differentation between values of the dependent variable in qualitative work.

Nonetheless, this book should be treated on its own terms for attempting to synthesize quantiative and qualitative research methods. This book started a controversy that continues till this day and did a great job in forcing people to actually think more deeply about their research design and methods.

If you want to study statistics or econometrics forget this book (choose what you want to know about....regression analysis, time-series models, bayesian models....your choice). If you want to study qualitative research well read this book but then read Brady and Collier 2002 and George and Bennett 2004. George and Bennett's work is arguably the best book on research design I have ever read.

27 of 30 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Want to Avoid Being Hoodwinked? Here's A Way To Learn!, August 7, 1998

By A Customer

This review is from: Designing Social Inquiry (Paperback)

Especially in an election year, the careful and critical examination of public policy and statistical findings is essential. In "Designing Inquiry..." King, Verba and Keohane explain basic statistical and methodological concepts previously only understandable to those studying the advanced social sciences. Concepts such as "endogeneity" and other logical fallacies are explained in language that is easy for the layman to understand, and in enough detail to be a gem for experts in the social sciences. The book explains in simple detail concepts that could be used by anyone to fairly evaluate the results of any study, and does it in a way that anyone can understand. Given the fact that many studies are passed off as "scientific" by journalists, politicians, and special interest groups when, in reality, they are fundamentally flawed, this book offers anyone the opportunity to learn how to critically evaluate studies, and how to reject studies t! hat are often utilized more to fool the voting public and appeal to emotion rather than logic. This book is one of the most significant ones of the decade, and should be read by all wanting to critically participate in a world where the term "scientific study" is often used more as an attempt to convince people of flawed findings rather than logically grounded results.

Sean A. McKitrick

25 of 28 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Contrary to what my colleague from the Netherlands thinks..., June 5, 2001

By	Michael Vogler (Flagstaff, AZ United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Designing Social Inquiry (Paperback)

Hands down, this is one of the best texts of qualitative methodology available for the political scientist. The ideas and arguments made in this volume are very pertinent to study creation. Moreover, King et al. are both willing and able to criticize one of the most common logical fallacies that we find in the literature: the misuse of inference. What my colleague from the Netherlands overlooks is the clear and oft-stated differentiation between correlation and how it applies to THEORIES OF CAUSATION. By not reading the text in a clear way, my colleague has also confused the issue of theory vs. hypothesis as well as the focus of the work on testing hypotheses derived from theories objectively. The mathematical notations used are SPECIFIED as only being applicable in the abstract. In fact, one does not need the math to understand the points made. Moreover, my colleague notes that there are some problems with categorization, despite the fact that King et al acknowledge that if you can't categorize it or find data on it, then you should change your hypotheses and try again. Quite honestly, I question whether or not this gentleman bothered to read the book. I don't see how the points made in this volume could be any clearer. I would recommend this book to anyone seeking an all encompassing approach to qualitative analysis. However, if you are a person that sees little or no value to testing theories or are very polarized in the qualitative vs. quantitative debate, then you are most likely better off reading a good novel than this book.