• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of institutional economics >How should economists analyze institutions? Comments on David Skarbek, 'Qualitative research methods for institutional analysis'
【24h】

How should economists analyze institutions? Comments on David Skarbek, 'Qualitative research methods for institutional analysis'

机译：经济学家如何分析机构？关于David Skarbek的评论，'制度分析的定性研究方法'

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Abstract David Skarbek argues that qualitative research methods can analyze institutions by exploiting complex evidence not accessible through quantitative methods. He suggests that well-done case studies and process tracing can meet some of the same tests of inference as statistical methods. Although Skarbek's critique and proposals mirror those of many other authors, including Ronald Coase, he nonetheless makes an important contribution. The brief, cogent, and instructive way he presents his advice and his defense of qualitative methods as a complement to mainstream methods rather than a confrontation, may be more persuasive than more confrontational arguments. As ‘datafication’ is quickly turning qualitative observations into quantitative data analyzed through machine learning, Skarbek's excellent advice on how to understand what is happening under different institutional settings could not be timelier.
机译：摘要David Skarbek认为，定性研究方法可以通过利用无法通过定量方法可访问的复杂证据来分析机构。他表明，完成的案例研究和过程跟踪可以符合与统计方法相同的推理测试。虽然Skarbek的批评和提议在内的许多其他作者中镜面镜像，但他仍然是一个重要的贡献。他介绍了他的建议和他对定性方法的辩护，作为对主流方法而不是对抗的补充，可能比更多的对抗论点更有说服力。作为“数据染额”正在快速转向通过机器学习分析的定量数据的定量观测，斯卡比克有关如何理解在不同机构设置下发生的事情的优秀建议并非及时。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号