IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v51y2022i4p1826-1867.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Extended Computational Case Method: A Framework for Research Design

Author

Listed:
  • Juan Pablo Pardo-Guerra
  • Prithviraj Pahwa

Abstract

This paper considers the adoption of computational techniques within research designs modeled after the extended case method. Echoing calls to augment the power of contemporary researchers through the adoption of computational text analysis methods, we offer a framework for thinking about how such techniques can be integrated into quasi-ethnographic workflows to address broad, structural sociological claims. We focus, in particular, on how this adoption of novel forms of evidence impacts corpus design and interpretation (which we tie to matters of casing), theoretical elaboration (which we associate to moving empirical claims across scales and empirical domains), and verification (which we see as a process of reflexive scaffolding of theoretical claims). We provide an example of the use of this framework through a study of the marketization of social scientific knowledge in the United Kingdom.

Suggested Citation

  • Juan Pablo Pardo-Guerra & Prithviraj Pahwa, 2022. "The Extended Computational Case Method: A Framework for Research Design," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 51(4), pages 1826-1867, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:51:y:2022:i:4:p:1826-1867
    DOI: 10.1177/00491241221122616
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00491241221122616
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00491241221122616?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sarah Rijcke & Alexander Rushforth, 2015. "To intervene or not to intervene; is that the question? On the role of scientometrics in research evaluation," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(9), pages 1954-1958, September.
    2. Taylor, Marshall A. & Stoltz, Dustin S., 2020. "Integrating Semantic Directions with Concept Mover's Distance to Measure Binary Concept Engagement," SocArXiv 36r2d, Center for Open Science.
    3. Björn Hammarfelt & Sarah de Rijcke, 2015. "Accountability in context: effects of research evaluation systems on publication practices, disciplinary norms, and individual working routines in the faculty of Arts at Uppsala University," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(1), pages 63-77.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yung, Vincent & Colyvas, Jeannette & Hwang, Hokyu, 2023. "Quality Control for Quality Computational Concepts: Wrangling with Theory and Data Wrangling as Theorizing," SocArXiv ewamx, Center for Open Science.
    2. Yung, Vincent & Colyvas, Jeannette, 2023. "Munging the Ghosts in the Machine: Coded Bias and the Craft of Wrangling Archival Data," SocArXiv 2dve6, Center for Open Science.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Clemens Blümel & Stephan Gauch, 2021. "Introduction to special issue: quantitative studies of science in Germany," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9641-9647, December.
    2. Mehdi Rhaiem & Nabil Amara, 2020. "Determinants of research efficiency in Canadian business schools: evidence from scholar-level data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 53-99, October.
    3. Eugenio Petrovich, 2022. "Bibliometrics in Press. Representations and uses of bibliometric indicators in the Italian daily newspapers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2195-2233, May.
    4. Sabrina Petersohn & Thomas Heinze, 2018. "Professionalization of bibliometric research assessment. Insights from the history of the Leiden Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 565-578.
    5. Jesús de Frutos-Belizón & Fernando Martín-Alcázar & Gonzalo Sánchez-Gardey, 2021. "The research–practice gap in the field of HRM: a qualitative study from the academic side of the gap," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 1465-1515, August.
    6. Péter Sasvári & Gergely Ferenc Lendvai, 2024. "On the Periphery of the European Social Sciences—A Scientometric Analysis of Publication Performance, Excellence, and Internal Bias in Social Sciences in the Visegrad Countries," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-20, October.
    7. Carlo Galli & Stefano Guizzardi, 2021. "The Effect of Article Characteristics on Citation Number in a Diachronic Dataset of the Biomedical Literature on Chronic Inflammation: An Analysis by Ensemble Machines," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-11, April.
    8. Stijn Daenekindt & Julian Schaap, 2022. "Using word embedding models to capture changing media discourses: a study on the role of legitimacy, gender and genre in 24,000 music reviews, 1999–2021," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 1615-1636, November.
    9. Linda Sīle & Raf Vanderstraeten, 2019. "Measuring changes in publication patterns in a context of performance-based research funding systems: the case of educational research in the University of Gothenburg (2005–2014)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 71-91, January.
    10. Christian Schneijderberg & Nicolai Götze & Lars Müller, 2022. "A study of 25 years of publication outputs in the German academic profession," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 1-28, January.
    11. Carolina Cañibano & Immaculada Vilardell & Carmen Corona & Carlos Benito-Amat, 2018. "The evaluation of research excellence and the dynamics of knowledge production in the humanities: The case of history in Spain," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 775-789.
    12. Nicky Agate & Rebecca Kennison & Stacy Konkiel & Christopher P. Long & Jason Rhody & Simone Sacchi & Penelope Weber, 2020. "The transformative power of values-enacted scholarship," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-12, December.
    13. Renata Kudaibergenova & Sandugash Uzakbay & Asselya Makanova & Kymbat Ramadinkyzy & Erlan Kistaubayev & Ruslan Dussekeev & Kadyrzhan Smagulov, 2022. "Managing publication change at Al-Farabi Kazakh National University: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 453-479, January.
    14. Verleysen, Frederik T. & Weeren, Arie, 2016. "Clustering by publication patterns of senior authors in the social sciences and humanities," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 254-272.
    15. Gabriel-Alexandru Vîiu & Mihai Păunescu, 2021. "The citation impact of articles from which authors gained monetary rewards based on journal metrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4941-4974, June.
    16. Anne K. Krüger, 2020. "Quantification 2.0? Bibliometric Infrastructures in Academic Evaluation," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 58-67.
    17. Elías Sanz-Casado & Daniela Filippo & Rafael Aleixandre Benavent & Vidar Røeggen & Janne Pölönen, 2021. "Impact and visibility of Norwegian, Finnish and Spanish journals in the fields of humanities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 9031-9049, November.
    18. Frederik T. Verleysen & Truyken L. B. Ossenblok, 2017. "Profiles of monograph authors in the social sciences and humanities: an analysis of productivity, career stage, co-authorship, disciplinary affiliation and gender, based on a regional bibliographic da," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1673-1686, June.
    19. Taylor, Marshall A. & Stoltz, Dustin S., 2024. "A Workflow for Analyzing Cultural Schemas in Texts," SocArXiv zvwn2, Center for Open Science.
    20. Andersen, Jens Peter, 2017. "An empirical and theoretical critique of the Euclidean index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 455-465.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:51:y:2022:i:4:p:1826-1867. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.