Institutional Analysis of Economy: Qualitative and Quantitative Research and Methods

V. Tambovtsev
{"title":"Institutional Analysis of Economy: Qualitative and Quantitative Research and\n Methods","authors":"V. Tambovtsev","doi":"10.52342/2587-7666vte_2024_2_45_55","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to a comparative analysis of two alternative approaches to\n the study of economic institutions - qualitative and quantitative research\n methodologies. Analysis of the first shows that the task is to identify the meanings\n that people attach to their actions, while the task of the second is to identify\n regularities of connections between institutions and various aspects of behavior.\n Institutional analysis conducted on the basis of qualitative methodology is based on\n vague definitions of institutions that lack operationalization, while quantitative\n studies of institutions rely on strict operational definitions. The article outlines the\n procedures for both qualitative and quantitative research on institutions, the first of\n which involves obtaining data primarily through interviewing informants, and the second,\n primarily through observation of behavior. Accordingly, the result of a qualitative\n research is metis - local experiential knowledge possessed by members of a certain\n community, while the result of a quantitative study is a generalized knowledge of\n regularities expressed by confirmed hypotheses. The obtained comparison results can\n serve as information for researchers to select a methodology for studying economic\n institutions.","PeriodicalId":518543,"journal":{"name":"Issues of Economic Theory","volume":"62 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Issues of Economic Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52342/2587-7666vte_2024_2_45_55","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article is devoted to a comparative analysis of two alternative approaches to the study of economic institutions - qualitative and quantitative research methodologies. Analysis of the first shows that the task is to identify the meanings that people attach to their actions, while the task of the second is to identify regularities of connections between institutions and various aspects of behavior. Institutional analysis conducted on the basis of qualitative methodology is based on vague definitions of institutions that lack operationalization, while quantitative studies of institutions rely on strict operational definitions. The article outlines the procedures for both qualitative and quantitative research on institutions, the first of which involves obtaining data primarily through interviewing informants, and the second, primarily through observation of behavior. Accordingly, the result of a qualitative research is metis - local experiential knowledge possessed by members of a certain community, while the result of a quantitative study is a generalized knowledge of regularities expressed by confirmed hypotheses. The obtained comparison results can serve as information for researchers to select a methodology for studying economic institutions.
经济的制度分析:定性和定量研究与方法
文章专门比较分析了研究经济体制的两种替代方法--定性研究方法和定量研究方法。对前者的分析表明,其任务是确定人们赋予其行为的意义,而后者的任务则是确定制度与行为各个方面之间的规律性联系。以定性方法为基础的制度分析所依据的是缺乏可操作性的模糊制度定义,而对制度的定量研究则依赖于严格的可操作性定义。文章概述了对制度进行定性和定量研究的程序,前者主要通过采访信息提供者来获取数据,后者主要通过观察行为来获取数据。因此,定性研究的结果是元知识(metis),即某个社区成员所拥有的当地经验知识,而定量研究的结果则是通过确认的假设所表达的关于规律性的普遍知识。获得的比较结果可作为研究人员选择研究经济机构方法的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信