Grad Students Tekelioglu & Lee Reflect on IQMR
Ahmet Selim Tekelioglu
Thanks to Joe who attended the Institute on Qualitative and Multi-Method Research (IQMR) last year, representing BU political science there for the first time, I came to learn about IQMR, and was lucky to be one of the two participants along with Hae-Won this year. Before reflecting on my experience at the IQMR, it would be fair to note that I have long been complaining about the methods-driven focus in American political science, and the dominance of the quantitative turn in the discipline that unfortunately takes place at the expense of qualitatively oriented research. Given this background, one of the crucial aspects of the IQMR experience for me was to encounter a host of methodological perspectives that endorse a framework where moving beyond methodological monoculture of KKV is seen as not only possible but also necessary in an era of multi-disciplinary and multi-method scientific inquiry.
In this regard, the two weeks spent at Syracuse was invaluable as it involved a lot of fun, an amazing opportunity for training in methods, as well as an engagement with a meaningful conversation on the future of the discipline. Indeed, Colin Elman, Executive Director of Consortium on Qualitative Research Methods (CQRM) which organizes the Institute made it clear to the over-160 participants on the very first day that IQMR is a collective exercise for re-visiting our methodological and epistemic commitments, qualitative or quantitative, positivist or non-positivist. Neither him, nor Paloma Giuliano Raggo- the excellent organizing forces behind all the academic and logistic components of the program- however, had warned of all the fun that would accompany this exceptional exercise. Here, I try to provide a flavor of each of these aspects.
Know thy Office-Mate: A post-KKV Framework for Methods in Political Science
IQMR started in 2002 at Arizona State University which was hosting CQRM , and moved to the Maxwell School at Syracuse University in 2008. Reflecting a long-time increase in attention to teaching and studying qualitative and multi-method research in political science and other disciplines in social sciences, CQRM hosts several initiatives and is planning on new moves. IQMR is the Consortium’s annual training institute, CQRM supports APSA’s Organized Section on Qualitative and Multi-method Research ( which was presided by our own John Gerring who also teaches at the IQMR), and is getting ready to embark upon a new initiative, QDR- the Qualitative Data Repository. The funding for the Institute comes from NSF, Syracuse University, and member institutions such as our Department and runs for two weeks at Syracuse. It is organized around unified sessions bringing together all participants, research design discussion sections where participants present their research designs, and method-specific tracks of modules. The readings assigned for each module is made available to the participants and they help prepare for the sessions. While pre-Institute preparation involves quite a bit of work, you get to re-cap some of the major texts in methods, as well as read the first versions of many works in progress authored by the leading experts in the field.
In 2011 the Institute hosted around 160 students and scholars from across the universities and institutions in the US, Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Canada. While a majority of the participants were graduate students, there were also faculty members attending the Institute. This mix of participants provides an invaluable opportunity to exchange ideas, establish friendships and academic collaboration, and of course indulge in up to date academic rumors! Given the excellent logistical component of the Institute- participants are hosted at a Sheraton to which we the grad students had a hard time to adapt initially and let go by the end of the Institute, all meals are paid for, and all facilities of Syracuse university from its gym to the library made available to all participants- and the tireless efforts of Elman and Paloma who, to our amusement, combined all this organizational skill with keen academic research; makes IQMR the interactive, productive venue that it is.
While I would have liked to talk about all the sessions, my space will not allow for that. This is why I would like to urge everyone to have a look at this year’s schedule at IQMR. Please also keep in mind that IQMR is a dynamic organization; the program has changed considerably compared to 2010, and given the Institute’s receptiveness towards feedback, I would expect the same for the coming years-to give an indication, a group of participants from this year has sent a collective letter to CQRM listing a number of suggestions toward expanding the offerings in interpretive methods; with the hope that some of these will be taken up by the IQMR.
Unified Sessions: Setting context/ revealing disagreements
Unified sessions takes place on the first two days of the two-week program, and helps set the context for the Institute and get all participants familiarize with alternate methods one can find in the study of political science. I guess it became clear to all participants on the second day of the unified sessions in a panel featuring David Collier ( IQMR makes you feel you are in the presence of Collier all along, since many students of his from Berklee get to lecture throughout the Institute, though at times not refraining from voicing their disagreements with him), Lisa Wedeen (who bravely defended an interpretive framework), Andrew Barnett (who, among combining IR and methodology, also shared his talent in soccer with some participants after lectures in the evening), and Jason Seawright (a clear mind with an always smiling face) that disagreements within IQMR do exist and they are not always easily reconciled.
A related issue to these disagreements is IQMR’s preference for “epistemic neutrality.” In other words, the Institute is keen to focus on covering a diverse set of methods, regardless of epistemic leanings of the lecturers and participants. While this is the ideal way to go about the IQMR in an era where methodological hierarchies are increasingly dominant in most political science departments, it became clear in several sessions that epistemic contestations are crucial and decisive in defining how we approach our subject matters. From the sessions on ethnography to archival research, from discourse analysis modules to typological thinking, and the heated debate between Collier and Sid Tarrow on the difference between mechanisms and variables, the interactive environment at IQMR allowed everyone to contemplate their methodological commitments and engage one another openly about their disagreements.
Two more highlights in the unified sessions were the presentations by Carol Mershon of the National Science Foundation and Arthur Stein of American Political Science Review. Both scholars provided useful insights into the world of funding and publishing in political science; areas where many of us continue to struggle amid the effort to produce quality research.
Trade-off: Too many modules to choose from
If you have already checked the link above to this year’s schedule, you shall be guessing what I am referring to here. After the unified modules, the Institute takes place across parallel modules, from which the participants choose depending on their research interests and designs. The different tracks provide in-depth examination of and training on specific research methods, and the instructors put extra effort to make the sessions as interactive as possible.
To give an example, in the fieldwork sessions, you get to pair with another colleague and create a to-do list for your fieldwork, exposing the gaps and pitfalls in your thinking towards your fieldwork. Likewise, Fred Schaffer’s ordinary language interview sessions asks participants to explore a concept through interviewing a pair in the class; while Bennet and Shwedler tried hard to come up with a typology on the Arab spring.
The major challenge obviously is to choose among parallel sessions given the quality and fame of the instructors as well as the variety of offerings. It was however possible to catch up with what you have missed through talking to the instructors in the evening mixers over drinks and during the coffee-breaks and the lunch time.
Looking for serious feedback? The research design sessions
Without a doubt, one of the highlights of the institute is the opportunity to present your research design in a collegial atmosphere, where you receive to the point and constructive feedback from participants and faculty. Almost every day, there are about five to six parallel research design sessions, where you can see how others approach a topic and how they design their research utilizing various methods.
While presenting a research design is optional, I would like to encourage anyone who is planning to attend IQMR to make use of this opportunity. It is a different experience than presenting in a conference in three respects: first, you have more time (about 40 minutes per design) to discuss your research and receive feedback; second, your audience have a direct interest in your topic and are prepared to give feedback since they have read your design ahead of the session; and finally, the feedback is invaluable as it relates to the aspects of your research design as well as your theoretical and practical constructs.
The conversation on research designs also continue during networking lunches held throughout the Institute; sometimes by those studying the same region (I guess Latin Americanists were the majority this year, Africanists were also well-represented as well those studying the Middle East), or similar issues (such as people with an interest in food politics, or study of religion and politics). This is also a unique aspect of the IQMR since you get to spend about two-weeks with these colleagues in the same venue, as opposed to the few days an annual political science conference would provide.
Disciplinary and methodological boundaries
Let me conclude by emphasizing the importance of setting foot in environments like IQMR especially because they provide the room for contemplating about the disciplinary and methodological boundaries we find ourselves in. IQMR not only allowed me to acknowledge these boundaries, but also provided an interactive, fun, and meaningful environment to address them in a proper manner. I hope this personal account on IQMR 2011 encourages more and more colleagues from the Department to make use of this opportunity in the coming years.
Hae Won Lee
My experience at the Institute for Qualitative and Multi-Method Research (IQMR) 2011 was amazing! It is a two-week intensive program: it usually runs from 8:45am to 5:30pm. The program covers a wide range of topics, such as: process-tracing, content analysis, ethnography, natural experiments, and qualitative comparative and fuzzy set analysis. There are 17 elective modules, besides unified classes, and students get to select eight. Whatever methods you fancy, they probably have the module for it. I’d apply to IQMR again just to take the other modules!
The classes are taught by the leading scholars in each field. This year, we had David Collier, Jason Seawright, Lisa Wedeen, John Gerring, Thad Dunning, Colin Elman, Andrew Bennett, Charles Ragin and the list goes on. IQMR gets you to read the most up-to-date readings on the methods taught at the institute including the faculty’s manuscripts, either in press or in progress. Also, the leading scholars are there not only for classes, but also for research design discussion sessions where students receive constructive feedback on their ongoing projects. Anyone who is working on their dissertation proposal or beyond can take great benefit from these discussion sessions. The comments and criticisms students receive from peers and professors are invaluable.
For the two full weeks, you get numerous chances to discuss your work with peers outside of classrooms. You get to meet around 150 students from major universities in the U.S. (also some from foreign universities), and they range widely in terms of their area of study. Many people consider this networking opportunity as one of the greatest benefits from IQMR. Overall, it is very interactive and energetic environment in and out of the classroom.
Above all, you get to enjoy all of these with the department’s financial support! The Sheraton, the luxury hotel breakfasts, and the stipend are more than enough encouragement to take on this challenge. It is an intense two weeks, with a myriad of readings, but a rewarding two weeks that will give you more direction in your methodology and sharpen your dissertation. I am so glad I went, and you will be too!