Los usos de los métodos cuantitativos en la investigación política

Edwin Atilano-Robles

doi:10.22201/fesa.26832917e.2023.5.1.298

Authors

Edwin Atilano-Robles Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Facultad de Estudios Superiores Acatlán Mexico https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6178-680X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22201/fesa.26832917e.2023.5.1.298

Keywords:

Quantitative methods, Political science, Statistical models, Causal inference

Abstract

A requirement in political research is to applicate quantitative methods. In order to conduct empirical analysis, it is crucial to understand the appropriate techniques for describing, generalizing, identifying causality, and predicting. However, the utility of quantitative methods can become obscured amidst the intricacies of these techniques, leading new generations of students in political science programs to question the benefits of conducting quantitative empirical analysis. Therefore, this article aims to examine the most common strategies for employing quantitative methods in political analysis through various examples. The contribution of this text is to approach the reader to the manner in which political research can be developed through quantitative methods.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Edwin Atilano-Robles, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Facultad de Estudios Superiores Acatlán

P

Ph.D. in political science from the Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE), a Master's in Government and Public Affairs from the Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (Flacso) Mexico’s academic headquarters and a Bachelor in Political Science and Public Administration from the Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales (FCPyS) of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM). Since August 2021, he has worked as a full-time professor at the Facultad de Estudios Superiores Acatlán (FES Acatlán) of UNAM where he imparts a variety of courses in the area of methodology and quantitative methods. Similarly, from 2019 to 2021 he worked as a lecturer at the FCPyS and from 2017 to 2020 as a laboratory technician of quantitative methods and rational choice at the CIDE. Candidate to national researcher in Conacyt’s National System of Researchers and tutor in the Postgraduate Program in Political and Social Sciences at UNAM.

He specializes in social sciences methodology research, quantitative methods, as well as comparative political economy with a particular emphasis on the effect of political institutions on the economic outcome of authoritarian regimes. He is currently involved in different research projects related to the teaching of methodological subjects at a professional level and the analysis of Mexico’s authoritarian dynamics during the 20th century.

References

Clark, Tom S., y Drew A. Linzer. 2015. “Should I Use Fixed or Random Effects?” Political Science Research and Methods 3 (2): 399-408. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2014.32

van Gameren, Edwin & Níobe Enciso. 2023. "The Impact of Seguro Popular on the Progression of Disabilities Among Older Adults With Chronic Degenerative Diseases in Mexico." Research on Aging 45 (9-10): 599-608. https://doi.org/10.1177/01640275221146283

Hernández-Sampieri, Roberto, y Christian Paulina Mendoza Torres. 2018. Metodología de la investigación: Las rutas cuantitativa, cualitativa y mixta. México: McGraw Hill- education.

Huntington-Klein, Nick. 2022. The Effect: An Introduction to Research Design and Causality. Boca Raton: Routledge.

Imbens, Guido W., y Thomas Lemieux. 2008. “Regression Discontinuity Designs: A Guide to Practice.” Journal of Econometrics, The regression discontinuity design: Theory and applications, 142 (2): 615-635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.001

Keele, Luke. 2020. “Differences-in-Differences: Neither Natural nor an Experiment”. En The SAGE Handbook of Research Methods in Political Science and International Relations, editado por Luigi Curini y Robert Franzese, 822-834. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526486387

Kellstedt, Paul M., y Guy D. Whitten. 2018. The Fundamentals of Political Science Research. 3a ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108131704

King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, y Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

King, Gary, y Richard Nielsen. 2019. “Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching”. Political Analysis 27 (4): 435-454. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.11

Lewis, David. 1973. “Causation”. The Journal of Philosophy 70 (17): 556–567. https://doi.org/10.2307/2025310

Lind, Jo Thori. 2020. “Rainy Day Politics. An Instrumental Variables Approach to the Effect of Parties on Political Outcomes.” European Journal of Political Economy 61 (enero): 101821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2019.101821

Marshall, John. 2022. “Can Close Election Regression Discontinuity Designs Identify Effects of Winning Politician Characteristics?” American Journal of Political Science 00 (00): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12741

Mendenhall, William, Robert J. Beaver, y Barbara M. Beaver. 2010. Introducción a la probabilidad y estadística. México: Cengage Learning.

Morgan, Stephen L., y Christopher Winship. 2014. Counterfactuals and Causal Inference. Methods and Principles for Social Research. 2a ed. (Analytical Methods for Social Research). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107587991

Popper, Karl. 2002. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London, New York: Routledge Classics.

Salazar-Elena, Rodrigo. 2021. “El modelo contrafáctico de la inferencia causal ¿Por qué la correlación no implica causalidad? (Breviarios digitales).” Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OZpY_wHbBH96IFlSfRFbwA05-KBnIVZn/view.

Salazar-Elena, Rodrigo. 2023. “Relevancia de la estadística y los métodos cuantitativos para la ciencia política [Conferencia]”. Presentada en Tercer ciclo de métodos y técnicas de investigación social, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Acatlán UNAM, febrero 22.

Scheaffer, Richard L., William Mendenhall III y R. Lyman Ott. 2007. Elementos de muestreo. Madrid: Paraninfo.

Silver, Nate. 2016. “2016 Election Forecast”. FiveThirtyEight. Revisado el 29 de junio, 2016. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Toshkov, Dimiter. 2016. Research Design in Political Science. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Urdinez, Francisco y Andrés Cruz. 2021. R for Political Data Science. A Practical Guide. Florida: Taylor & Francis Group.

Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2012. Introductory econometrics: a modern approach, 5th edition. Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2001. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Massachusetts: MIT Press.