使用R进行定性比较分析:初学者指南

Priscilla Álamos-Concha
{"title":"使用R进行定性比较分析:初学者指南","authors":"Priscilla Álamos-Concha","doi":"10.1080/13876988.2022.2107904","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"always wants more restrictive immigration while interest groups and immigrant-sending countries always want more liberal immigration policies. While this makes applications of her argument easier to follow, I am not entirely convinced that this approach doesn’t explain away some important considerations. First, although Ellerman does a fine job empirically supporting the premise of a public (and policy-maker) xenophobic orientation, there’s often a conspicuously anodyne treatment of the abjectly white supremacist logics underpinning both status quo policies and public discourse. Throughout each of these cases of immigrant policy, the “ethno-racial undertones” could benefit from more explicit unpacking (Ellerman is best on this within the US case). Moreover, while the international actors and diplomatic pressure play a relatively minor role in the case studies, the assumption that all sending countries see emigration as a “safety valve” (pp. 20, 59–60) seems to foreclose potentially interesting variation in the dynamics between sending and receiving countries. Recognizing the heterogeneity within and between different sending countries over time could open an additional avenue for comparative policy analysis, particularly when thinking about states with robust diaspora engagement policies, including incentivizing citizens to return home. Indeed, perhaps the best marker of Ellerman’s book as a major contribution is for the potential extensions and expansions. This is a comprehensive and comparative theory that can (and should) travel. Indeed, Ellerman concludes with compelling (if brief) extensions of the framework to other migration policies (e.g. asylum, integration) as well as the policymaking process at both subnational and supranational levels. And yet I found myself thinking through so many more possible applications for the policy arenas framework; for example, could the political insulation apply to climate policy, another complex policy issue with competing domestic pressures and international dimensions? How could we adapt or extend the theory beyond the Global North to think through immigration (or other) policies in the Global South, particularly in democracies with sizable immigrant and emigrant populations, but perhaps not the state capacity or economic clout to accommodate all domestic and international pressures? How adaptable is the insulation theory in more authoritarian contexts? This new book, combining a robust and flexible theoretical framework with meticulous case studies, is both a model and a catalyst for cuttingedge comparative policy research. Reviewer: Elizabeth Iams Wellman © 2022 Visiting Assistant Professor Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts, USA; Postdoctoral Research Fellow University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa biw1@williams.edu","PeriodicalId":15486,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Qualitative Comparative Analysis Using R: A Beginner’s Guide\",\"authors\":\"Priscilla Álamos-Concha\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13876988.2022.2107904\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"always wants more restrictive immigration while interest groups and immigrant-sending countries always want more liberal immigration policies. While this makes applications of her argument easier to follow, I am not entirely convinced that this approach doesn’t explain away some important considerations. First, although Ellerman does a fine job empirically supporting the premise of a public (and policy-maker) xenophobic orientation, there’s often a conspicuously anodyne treatment of the abjectly white supremacist logics underpinning both status quo policies and public discourse. Throughout each of these cases of immigrant policy, the “ethno-racial undertones” could benefit from more explicit unpacking (Ellerman is best on this within the US case). Moreover, while the international actors and diplomatic pressure play a relatively minor role in the case studies, the assumption that all sending countries see emigration as a “safety valve” (pp. 20, 59–60) seems to foreclose potentially interesting variation in the dynamics between sending and receiving countries. Recognizing the heterogeneity within and between different sending countries over time could open an additional avenue for comparative policy analysis, particularly when thinking about states with robust diaspora engagement policies, including incentivizing citizens to return home. Indeed, perhaps the best marker of Ellerman’s book as a major contribution is for the potential extensions and expansions. This is a comprehensive and comparative theory that can (and should) travel. Indeed, Ellerman concludes with compelling (if brief) extensions of the framework to other migration policies (e.g. asylum, integration) as well as the policymaking process at both subnational and supranational levels. And yet I found myself thinking through so many more possible applications for the policy arenas framework; for example, could the political insulation apply to climate policy, another complex policy issue with competing domestic pressures and international dimensions? How could we adapt or extend the theory beyond the Global North to think through immigration (or other) policies in the Global South, particularly in democracies with sizable immigrant and emigrant populations, but perhaps not the state capacity or economic clout to accommodate all domestic and international pressures? How adaptable is the insulation theory in more authoritarian contexts? This new book, combining a robust and flexible theoretical framework with meticulous case studies, is both a model and a catalyst for cuttingedge comparative policy research. Reviewer: Elizabeth Iams Wellman © 2022 Visiting Assistant Professor Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts, USA; Postdoctoral Research Fellow University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa biw1@williams.edu\",\"PeriodicalId\":15486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2022.2107904\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2022.2107904","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

总是想要更多的限制移民,而利益集团和移民输出国总是想要更自由的移民政策。虽然这使得她的论点的应用更容易理解,但我并不完全相信这种方法不能解释掉一些重要的考虑。首先,尽管埃勒曼在实证上很好地支持了公众(和政策制定者)仇外取向的前提,但对于支撑现状政策和公共话语的可怜的白人至上主义逻辑,他往往采取了明显的止痛药式处理。在所有这些移民政策案例中,“民族-种族的潜在含义”都可以从更明确的剖析中受益(埃勒曼在美国的案例中对这一点做得最好)。此外,虽然国际行为者和外交压力在个案研究中所起的作用相对较小,但假定所有原籍国都将移徙视为“安全阀”(第20,59 - 60页)似乎排除了原籍国和接受国之间可能有趣的动态变化。认识到不同派遣国内部和之间随着时间的推移存在的异质性,可以为比较政策分析开辟一条新的途径,特别是在考虑那些拥有强有力的侨民参与政策(包括激励公民回国)的国家时。事实上,也许埃勒曼的书作为一个主要贡献的最好标志是其潜在的延伸和扩展。这是一个全面的比较理论,可以(也应该)传播。事实上,埃勒曼在结论中将该框架扩展到其他移民政策(如庇护、融合)以及次国家和超国家层面的政策制定过程,这令人信服(如果简短的话)。然而,我发现自己在思考政策领域框架的更多可能应用;例如,政治隔离能否适用于气候政策,这是另一个国内压力和国际层面相互竞争的复杂政策问题?我们如何调整或扩展这一理论,超越全球北方,去思考全球南方的移民(或其他)政策,特别是在拥有大量移民和移民人口,但可能没有国家能力或经济影响力来适应所有国内和国际压力的民主国家?绝缘理论在更专制的环境下适应性如何?这本新书结合了强大而灵活的理论框架和细致的案例研究,既是前沿比较政策研究的典范,也是一种催化剂。作者:Elizabeth Iams Wellman©2022美国马萨诸塞州威廉斯敦威廉姆斯学院客座助理教授;南非约翰内斯堡威特沃特斯兰德大学博士后研究员biw1@williams.edu
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Qualitative Comparative Analysis Using R: A Beginner’s Guide
always wants more restrictive immigration while interest groups and immigrant-sending countries always want more liberal immigration policies. While this makes applications of her argument easier to follow, I am not entirely convinced that this approach doesn’t explain away some important considerations. First, although Ellerman does a fine job empirically supporting the premise of a public (and policy-maker) xenophobic orientation, there’s often a conspicuously anodyne treatment of the abjectly white supremacist logics underpinning both status quo policies and public discourse. Throughout each of these cases of immigrant policy, the “ethno-racial undertones” could benefit from more explicit unpacking (Ellerman is best on this within the US case). Moreover, while the international actors and diplomatic pressure play a relatively minor role in the case studies, the assumption that all sending countries see emigration as a “safety valve” (pp. 20, 59–60) seems to foreclose potentially interesting variation in the dynamics between sending and receiving countries. Recognizing the heterogeneity within and between different sending countries over time could open an additional avenue for comparative policy analysis, particularly when thinking about states with robust diaspora engagement policies, including incentivizing citizens to return home. Indeed, perhaps the best marker of Ellerman’s book as a major contribution is for the potential extensions and expansions. This is a comprehensive and comparative theory that can (and should) travel. Indeed, Ellerman concludes with compelling (if brief) extensions of the framework to other migration policies (e.g. asylum, integration) as well as the policymaking process at both subnational and supranational levels. And yet I found myself thinking through so many more possible applications for the policy arenas framework; for example, could the political insulation apply to climate policy, another complex policy issue with competing domestic pressures and international dimensions? How could we adapt or extend the theory beyond the Global North to think through immigration (or other) policies in the Global South, particularly in democracies with sizable immigrant and emigrant populations, but perhaps not the state capacity or economic clout to accommodate all domestic and international pressures? How adaptable is the insulation theory in more authoritarian contexts? This new book, combining a robust and flexible theoretical framework with meticulous case studies, is both a model and a catalyst for cuttingedge comparative policy research. Reviewer: Elizabeth Iams Wellman © 2022 Visiting Assistant Professor Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts, USA; Postdoctoral Research Fellow University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa biw1@williams.edu
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Lending Overlap in Europe’s Financial Architecture: A Comparative Analysis Comparing Policy Feedback Effects in Federal Systems: The Case of Provincial Indigenous Consultation Policies in Canada Tackling the Digital Divide? A Comparative Policy Analysis of International Organizations’ Varying Approaches to the Digitalization of Education Qualitative Comparative Policy Studies: An Introduction from the Special Section Editors An Indicator-Based Approach to Comparative Policy Analysis: Measuring Regional Governance of Migrant Integration
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1