Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”


Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription to the ECPR Methods School offers and updates newsletter has been successful.

Discover ECPR's Latest Course Offerings

We use Sendinblue as our marketing platform. By Clicking below to submit this form, you acknowledge that the information you provided will be transferred to Sendinblue for processing in accordance with their terms of use

Multi-Method Research: Techniques and Applications

Course Dates and Times

Monday 29 July – Friday 2 August

14:00–15:30 and 16:00–17:30 (ending slightly earlier on Friday)

Erin Jenne

Central European University

This course is designed to assist researchers combining two or more methodological approaches in empirical projects – so-called mixed methods research – to strengthen the validity of their conclusions and demonstrate generalisability of their findings.

The course will be especially useful for PhD students working on their theses, postdoctoral fellows who are transforming their theses into a monograph or series of articles, and assistant professors who want to use more than one method in their published work, but are uncertain how to proceed.

Particular attention will be paid to the extent to which methods from diverging epistemologies can be combined, and if so, how. The course is heavily weighted toward examples, class exercises and workshopping student assignments, with extensive instructor feedback on multiple written assignments. As such, it is intended to guide students through the process of fitting an appropriately tailored mixed-method study design to their research question, establish a plan to assess their empirical claims using a combination of research methods, and work out how to approach, collect and analyse different types of empirical data at multiple levels of analysis and across different spatial and temporal domains.

Finally, we discuss techniques for integrating the empirical results and writing them up in a convincing narrative style.

ECTS Credits for this course, and below, the tasks for the additional credits.

3 credits As above, plus complete any two of the four assignments.

4 credits As above, plus complete all four assignments (the fourth assignment can be submitted on the final day or within three weeks after the end of the Summer School). 

Instructor Bio

Erin K. Jenne is a professor at CEU's Department of International Relations, where she teaches MA and PhD courses on qualitative and quantitative methods, nationalism and civil war, foreign policy analysis, international relations theory, ethnic conflict management, and international security.

Erin received her PhD in political science from Stanford University with concentrations in comparative politics, international relations and organisational theory.

She has received numerous grants and fellowships, including a MacArthur fellowship at Stanford University, a Center for Science and International Affairs (BCSIA) fellowship at Harvard University, a Carnegie Corporation scholarship, and a Fernand Braudel fellowship at European University Institute (EUI) in Florence, and a MINERVA Initiative grant on Chinese soft power from the US Department of Defense.

Erin recently published her second book, Nested Security: Lessons in Conflict Management from the League of Nations and the European Union (Cornell University Press, 2015). Her first book, Ethnic Bargaining: The Paradox of Minority Empowerment (Cornell University Press, 2007) won the Mershon Center’s Edgar S. Furniss Book Award in 2007 and was named a Choice Outstanding Academic Title by Choice magazine. Ethnic Bargaining is based on her dissertation, which won the 2001 Seymour Martin Lipset Award for Best Comparativist Dissertation.

She has published numerous book chapters and journal articles in International Studies Quarterly, Security Studies, Regional and Federal Studies, Journal of Peace Research, Civil Wars, Ethnopolitics, International Studies Review, Journal of Democracy, Research and Politics and PS: Political Science and Politics, Research and Politics and Europe-Asia Studies (forthcoming).

She currently sits on the editorial boards of Ethnopolitics, Foreign Policy Analysis, International Studies Review, and has served in several capacities on the Emigration, Ethnicity, Nationalism and Migration Section of the International Studies Association, the Association for the Study of Nationalities and the Comparative Politics Section of the American Political Science Association.


Political science is an intrinsically interdisciplinary approach to the study of politics. Not only does this imply a variety of epistemological and ontological approaches, but also a range of methodological approaches.

Contemporary political science research increasingly blends two or more different social science methodologies, widely known as multi-method research (MMR). The value of drawing on more than one approach is that many ‘big’ research questions can only be answered by examining processes taking place across multiple temporal and spatial domains at different levels of analysis. To assess the nature and scope of these processes, today’s researchers increasingly draw on more than one methodology to shed light on multiple facets of such political problems in hopes of achieving greater explanatory leverage as well as descriptively rich empirical results.

This course covers the logic, advantages and unique challenges associated with multi-method research in political science. In the first two days, we explain the uses and attractiveness of the MMR approach and identify questions that are particularly well-suited for MMR. We also explore the limitations and challenges students are likely to face in applying MMR to their research projects, as well as the range of options available to scholars desiring to undertake multi-method research. The first two days cover these issues in detail. We explore the unique challenges related to concept formation and theory development in multi-method research. We also tackle the unique challenges of hypothesis testing and data requirements associated with different types of MMR. The remaining three days explore the most common MMR types using concrete examples.

We begin with the more traditional positivist MMR blends found in mainstream positivist research projects. This approach typically combines regression analysis with small-N case analysis. Another variety combines different qualitative, positivist research traditions—usually historical process-tracing in one or two cases—with comparative or medium-N (QCA) analysis of multiple cases across space or time. A third technique combines micro-level experimental or other survey research undertaken at the individual level with macro-level analysis undertaken at higher levels of analysis, such as cross-temporal or -sectional analysis of states, institutions, groups, or institutions. A fourth type of MMR crosses epistemological lines, combining positivist and non-positivist techniques in an approach known as ‘analytical eclecticism.’ While less mainstream than positivist hybrids, the combination of interpretivist research techniques with positivist research design principles or positivist methods has gained momentum across a number of social science fields. The final day focuses on the ‘write-up,’ namely how to derive empirical generalisations across different analyses and how to integrate these findings in a single research report.

 The course is divided into three main parts:

  1. explaining why researchers might want to combine multiple methods in a single research project, when they should avoid doing so, and how to tell the difference;
  2. showing how concept development and measurement can bridge divergent ontological and epistemological divides in an integrated research design, and
  3. exploring different combinations of social science methods using real examples of social science research. Throughout, we will spend equal time on seminars and workshops—a format intended to assist students in developing mixed-method designs tailored to their specific research aims.

In the first part of the course, we explore the advantages and disadvantages of MMR as well as the type of research questions most appropriate for multi-method research designs. On Day 1, we review the promises and strengths of MMR as well as its potential pitfalls. These mostly relate to the not-inconsiderable problem of conceptual stretching when formulating and operationalising concepts for use across different domains and/or different sets of data—Day 2 extends this discussion. Most of the seminar on Day 1 is devoted to mapping the different epistemological, ontological and methodological differences that must be reconciled when developing a MMR project, as well as the arguments commonly raised against combining methods across disparate research traditions. We discuss the ‘paradigm wars’ as they relate to MMR as well as how to mix research methods in a way that leverages their joint payoffs without violating any important methodological assumptions.

Day 2 begins by discussing in greater detail the type of research questions that lend themselves to multi-method research and provides an overview of the different types of concepts used in different research traditions. We then briefly survey the most well-known MMR techniques, starting with nested analysis—a hybrid qualitative-quantitative research approach that uses the results of quantitative analysis to inform the scholar’s choice of cases for qualitative analysis—the results of which are combined in a single academic article or book. We also review other qualitative-quantitative hybrids as well as purely quantitative and purely qualitative hybrids (particularly those designed for cross-temporal or -spatial analysis). Using real examples of social science scholarship, we explore the most effective uses of multi-method research designs—what makes them work and how they help researchers make persuasive claims across a variety of empirical domains.

Throughout, we emphasize the importance of maintaining conceptual consistency across different methodological approaches to ensure the validity of inferences from multiple analyses. The most common issue is how to ensure consistency between ‘thick’ concepts, most often used in qualitative, ethnographic, and/or interpretivist research, and ‘thin’ concepts, mainly used for numerical measurement in quantitative analyses.

The second part of the course (Days 3 and 4) is aimed at executing different types of MMR designs, namely positivist hybrids and positivist-interpretivist hybrids. Although non-positivist research traditions do not have the same standards of evaluation of positivist social science, we nevertheless discuss different threats to causal inference in each hybrid. These include threats to concept validity and measurement commensurability that come from translating concepts across different domains and empirical analyses. We also explore how to derive and evaluate empirical claims using different types of empirical analysis, levels of analysis or spatial or temporal units. Using concrete examples of MMR social science research, we dissect how each author handled problems of endogeneity, reverse causation and equifinality when making causal inferences in positivist empirical analyses.

Day 3 explores more traditional multi-method research designs in the positivist tradition. The most formalised MMR technique is nested analysis, which offers specific guidelines for how to conduct large-N analyses to test causal hypotheses across many cases and then using the results of these tests to select ‘pathway’ or average cases that can shed light on the precise causal mechanism at work through small-N analysis. In the seminar, we discuss how MMR was designed to achieve these goals through a concrete example of nested analysis (Ross). We also discuss how to ensure concept validity and consistency in other hybrids, including QCA-comparative analysis (Howard), and field and/or survey experiments (readings TBA). Students will be asked to think about principles of achieving causal homogeneity across cases through principles of case selection, how to generalise from small-N and large-N analyses, and how to combine inferences from two or more methods to evaluate empirical claims in a single academic project.

Day 4 focuses on MMR that combines positivist and non-positivist (interpretivist) methods in single research project. Such projects have their origin in the ‘constructivist turn’ in social science that privileges on the role of ideas and communication (meaning making) in the production of political behaviour. Scholars in this tradition routinely utilise principles of positivist research design when selecting cases, measuring concepts, and identifying empirical domains (including texts or respondents), while interpretivist techniques such as discourse analysis or interpretivist ethnography are used in the actual empirical analysis (Cramer 2012; Tannenwald 1999). Researchers have also combined interpretivism with positivist methods of process tracing, comparative and counterfactual analysis to assess claims about the function of speech acts or ideas in foreign policy or other political behaviour across time and space (Guzzini 2012; Krebs 2015). This class will focus on how to overcome problems related to combining approaches from disparate epistemological traditions. 

The third and final part of the course (Day 5) draws on the material from the previous four days, focusing in particular on how to make empirical inferences based on data analysis and how to ‘write up’ MMR results. We cover techniques for developing a convincing narrative or ‘story’ that will relate back to the original research question(s) underlying the project. Particular attention will be given to how to ‘grab’ and maintain reader interest while building a case for the researcher’s central argument. Researchers using disparate empirical analyses and types of data need to take care in how they weave these data together to arrive at important empirical insights without doing violence to the assumptions undergirding the different epistemologies and/or methods of analysis.

This course does not have any special prerequisites, but students should have a plan to combine multiple methods and types of data in their research projects.

Each course includes pre-course assignments, including readings and pre-recorded videos, as well as daily live lectures totalling at least two hours. The instructor will conduct live Q&A sessions and offer designated office hours for one-to-one consultations.

Please check your course format before registering.

Online courses

Live classes will be held daily for two hours on a video meeting platform, allowing you to interact with both the instructor and other participants in real-time. To avoid online fatigue, the course employs a pedagogy that includes small-group work, short and focused tasks, as well as troubleshooting exercises that utilise a variety of online applications to facilitate collaboration and engagement with the course content.

In-person courses

In-person courses will consist of daily three-hour classroom sessions, featuring a range of interactive in-class activities including short lectures, peer feedback, group exercises, and presentations.


This course description may be subject to subsequent adaptations (e.g. taking into account new developments in the field, participant demands, group size, etc.). Registered participants will be informed at the time of change.

By registering for this course, you confirm that you possess the knowledge required to follow it. The instructor will not teach these prerequisite items. If in doubt, please contact us before registering.

Day Topic Details
1 Introducing Mixed-Method Research Approach and Applications Seminar 1 Paradigm Wars 2 Uses and Limitations of Mixed Method Research Design 3 Varieties of Causal Logics in MMR Workshop Identifying research questions best suited to MMR; identifying possible combinations that work in the context of individual student projects.

This introductory lecture explores the range of approaches to mixed methods research (MMR).

The first day is divided into two 90-minute sessions, with the first hour and a half introducing the promises and pitfalls of combining methods derived from different schools of research as well as different epistemological approaches. We cover where we are in the paradigm wars and discuss how to minimise potential errors in combining disparate approaches, which have at times been at odds with each other. We then review the most common mixed method research designs employed in mainstream (and less mainstream) social science research.

The second 90-minute block will be used to workshop ideas for the types of methods that can be combined in a single project. I will ask you to apply your own projects to the foregoing discussion, with a special emphasis on the added value of joining two disparate research approaches in a single project (MMR) as well as minimising the pitfalls associated with bridging disparate methodological traditions.

Assignment 1

Submit a half-page summary of your research question and reasons for using MMR in your project.

Due at 10:00 on Day 2; be prepared to discuss it in class the following day.

2 Concepts, Tools and Techniques for Combining Different Methods Seminar 1 Concept Development 2 Concept Measurement 3 Commensurability of Measures across Different Domains Workshop Mixed Methods Research Design - Developing and Measuring Indicators for Key Concepts; Class Exercises

The second day follows directly on the first. In the first 90-minute session, I'll ask you to think about why you would undertake MMR and about the nature of the links between the different methods used in a project. The linchpin or bridge connecting any single method to another is concepts, which are measured and applied differently across different methods and/or domains.

In the second 90-minute session, we workshop student assignments with a focus on assessing the viability of your proposed plans for applying MMR in your own research projects. We also discuss how to ensure concept validity across disparate empirical analyses.

Assignment 2

Submit a one-page assignment by 10:00 the following day, to be workshopped in class.

3 Positivist (Qualitative/Quantitative) MMR Seminar 1 Qualitative/Quantitative Divide 2 Nested Analysis (NA) 3 Combining Process-Tracing (PT), Comparative Method (CM), and Data Analysis 4 Combining Analytical Narratives (Game Theory) with Qualitative Research Methods (PT, CM) 5 Combining Single Studies or Counterfactual Analysis and Data Analysis Workshop Concept Measurement and Formation across a Range of Positivist MMRs

The first 90-minute session will be devoted to positivist MMRs, mostly focusing on combinations of large-N quantitative analysis and small-N qualitative analysis. Here, we extend the principles of nested analysis to include other techniques for choosing cases for small-N analysis, including selecting on extreme values of the independent or dependent variable, or selecting cases across different contexts to test for generalisability of causal claims across time and space.

In the second session of the day, we workshop the second assignment, paying close attention to case selection choices and development of indicators used by students to evaluate their empirical claims.

Assignment 3

Submit a one-page assignment by 10:00 the following day, to be workshopped in class.

4 Positivist/Non-Positivist MMR Seminar 1 Understanding the Epistemological Bases of Positivist and Non-Positivist Research Traditions 2 Techniques for Combining Positivist and Interpretivist Methods ('Analytical Eclecticism') Workshop Workshopping Ideas for MMR Combining Positivist and Interpretivist Methods

We will spend the first session examining specific applications of MMR—focusing in particular on the ways in which interpretivist methodologies are combined with more traditional positivist methods such as interpretivist process-tracing or interpretivist comparative analysis. We discuss the different uses or inferences that can be made of data in such hybrid approaches. To do so, we review a number of examples of mixed method treatments in the field and discuss what makes them relatively more or less convincing to the reader.

The second session will follow closely on the first, using class exercises to workshop student plans for designing and conducting research designs that combine positivist research design and/or method with non-positivist analytical techniques.

Assignment 4

Submit a 2–3 page summary of your final research project and MMR research design, including justifications for each part.

Due by 10:00 the following day, to be workshopped in class on the following day.

5 Analysing the Data and Writing up the Results of MMR Projects Seminar 1 How to Write up MMR Results 2 'The Analytical Narrative' and Other Narrative Forms Workshop Student Presentations and Peer Evaluations of MMR Designs

We focus on writing up the results from hybrid (MMR) designs. When writing up empirical results, students are faced with the challenge of how to integrate different types of data, often gathered across different temporal or spatial domains and/or using different standards of empirical evaluation. The focus on this day will be on writing the results into a coherent narrative that speaks directly to the central research question. This class focuses on how to do this in a way that fairly represents the results, makes a clear and coherent argument and maintains the reader’s interest.

The second 90-minute session will be spent on presentations of students' MMR designs, based on feedback from previous assignments.

Day Readings

Competing versus Complementary Epistemologies, Paradigms, and Methods

Elbow, Peter The Believing Game and How to Make Conflicting Opinions More Fruitful

Oakley, Ann. 1999. Paradigm Wars: Some Thoughts on a Personal and Public Trajectory; International Journal of Social Research Methodology 2(3): 247-54.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. 2011. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Chapters 3 (53-106).

Greene, Jennifer, Valerie Caracelli, and Wendy Graham. 1989. 'Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs.' Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11 (3): 255-274.



Maxwell, Joseph A. 2011. 'Paradigms or Toolkits? Philosophical and Methodological Positions as Heuristics for Mixed Methods Research,' Midwest Educational Research Journal 24(2): 27-30.


Concepts, Tools and Techniques for Combining Multiple Methods

Lieberman, Evan S. 2005. 'Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research.' American Political Science Review 99 (3): 435-452.

Margarete Sandelowski. 2000. 'Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Sampling, Data Collection, andAnalysis Techniques in Mixed-Method Studies,' Research in Nursing & Health 23(3): 246-255.

Michael Coppedge. 1999. 'Thickening Thin Concepts and Theories: Combining Large N and Small in Comparative Politics,' Comparative Politics, 31(4): 465-476.

Coppedge, Michael. 2005. 'Explaining Democratic Deterioration in Venezuela Through Nested Inference,' in Frances Hagopian and Scott Mainwaring (eds.) The Third Wave of Democratization in Latin America: Advances and Setbacks. (Cambridge University Press, 289-318).


(Positivist) Qualitative-Quantitative MMR

Seawright, Jason, and John Gerring. 2008. Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options. Political Research Quarterly 61(2): 294-308.

Tamarinde L. Haven & Leonie Van Grootel. 2019. ”Preregistering Qualitative Research,” Accountability in Research, 1-16.

Michael Ross. 2008. “Oil, Islam, and Women,” American Political Science Review 102(1): 107-123 [Nested Analysis]

Howard, Marc Morjé. 2009. The Politics of Citizenship in Europe (Cambridge University Press, excerpts). [Historical Comparative Analysis]



Derek Beach. 2017. ”Achieving Methodological Alignment when Combining QCA and Process tracing in Practice,” Sociological Methods & Research 47(1): 64-99.

Ruzzene, Attilia. 2012. ”Drawing Lessons from Case Studies by Enhancing Comparability,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 42(1): 99-120.


Positivist-Interpretivist MMR

Maxwell, Joseph A. 2004. 'Re-emergent Scientism, Postmodernism, and Dialogue across Differences,' Qualitative Inquiry 10: 35-41.

Plano Clark, Vicki, et al. Practices for Embedding an Interpretive Qualitative Approach within a Randomized Clinical Trial, Journal of Mixed Methods Research.

Schwartz-Shea and Yanow (2012) concluding chapter.

Walsh, Katherine Cramer. August 2012. 'Putting Inequality in Its Place: Rural Consciousness and the Power of Perspective,' American Political Science Review 106(3): 512-32. [Interpretivist Ethnography]


Analysing Data and Writing It Up

Bronstein, Laura R. and Pamela J. Kovacs, 'Writing a Mixed Method Report,' Research on Social Work Practice, 23(1)-354-360.

Lieberson, Stanley. 1991. 'Small Ns and Big Conclusions: An Examination of the Reasoning in Comparative Studies Based on a Small Number of Cases,' Social Forces 70(2): 307-20.

Bazeley, Pat and Lynn Kemp, Mosaics, Triangles, and DNA: Metaphors for Integrated Analysis in Mixed Methods, Journal of Mixed Methods Research 6(1): 55-72.

Nancy L. Leech, 'Writing Mixed Research Reports,' American Behavioral Scientist 56(6): 866-881.

Software Requirements

There are no software programme requirements for the course, although there will be demonstrations of how various field (interview/archival/bibliographic) data management systems (all freeware or with free trial periods) can be used in the context of MMR study analysis and write-up. Students will be notified in advance of the course as to which programmes will be demo-ed in the class, should they choose to download it in advance of the course.

Hardware Requirements



Brewer, John, and Albert Hunter, Foundations of Multimethod Research: Synthesizing Styles (Sage Publications, 2006).

Bryman, Alan. 2007. 'Barriers to Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research,' Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(1): 8-22.

Collier, David and James E. Mahon. 1993. 'Conceptual Stretching Revisited - Adapting Categories in Comparative-Analysis,' American Political Science Review 87(4): 845-55.

Jick, Todd D. 'Mixing Quantitative and Qualitative Methods: Triangulation in Action,' Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 4 (December 1979), pp. 602-611.

Levy, Jack S. 'Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference.' Conflict Management and Peace Science, Vol. 25, No. 1 (2008), pp. 1-18.

Levy, Jack. 'Qualitative Methods and Cross-Method Dialogue in Political Science,' Comparative Political Studies Vol. 40, No. 2 (2007): 196-214.

Lieberman, Evan S. 'Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research,' American Political Science Review, Vol. 99 (August 2005), pp. 435-452.

Rohlfing, Ingo. 2007. 'What You See and What You Get: Pitfalls and Principles of Nested Analysis in Comparative Research.' Comparative Political Studies 4 (11): 1492-1514.

Sartori, Giovanni. 1970. 'Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics,' American Political Science Review 64(4): 1033-53.

Schneider, Carsten Q. and Ingo Rohlfing. 2013. Combining QCA and Process Tracing in Set-Theoretic Multi-Method Research. Sociological Methods & Research 42(4): 559-597.

Examples of Mixed Methods Research

Lijphart, Arendt. The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands (University of California Press, 1968).

Luebbert, Gregory M. Liberalism, Fascism, or Social Democracy: Social Classes and the Political Origins of Regimes in Interwar Europe (New York: Oxford University, 1991). [Typological-Longitudinal Analysis]

Price, Richard. 'A Genealogy of the Chemical Weapons Taboo,' International Organization Vol. 49 (1995): 73-103. [Longitudinal-Discourse Analysis]

Severine, Autessere. Peaceland: Conflict Resolution and the Everyday Politics of International Intervention (Cambridge University Press, 2014). [Interpretivist Ethnographic Design]

Steinmo, Sven. 'Political Institutions and Tax Policy in the United States, Sweden, and Britain,' World Politics Vol. 41, No. 4(1991): 500-35 [Historical Comparative Analysis]

Walsh, Katherine Cramer. The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker. (University of Chicago Press, 2016).

Ziblatt, Daniel. 'Shaping Democratic Practice and the Causes of Electoral Fraud,' 2009.

Writing the Dissertation

Becker, Howard W. Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start and Finish your Thesis, Book or Article (University of Chicago Press, 1986).

Dunleavy, Patrick. Authoring a PhD Thesis: How to Plan, Draft, Write and Finish a Doctoral Dissertation (Palgrave Macmillan, 2003).

Goldsmith, Michael. (ed.), 'Doctoral Studies in Political Science—A European Comparison,' (Budapest: espNet, 2005).

Leijenaar, Monique, and Emiliano Grossman, 'Doing a PhD in Political Science in Europe: Information, Facts, Debate,' (Paris: Thematic Network Political Science, 2009).

'On Writing a Dissertation: Advice from Five Award Winners,' PS: Political Science and Politics (1986), pp. 61-70.

Swales, John M. and Christine B. Feak, Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills (University of Michigan Press, 2004).

Turabian, Kate L. A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations: Chicago Style for Students and Researchers (University of Chicago Press, 2007).

Van Evera, Stephen. Guide to Methodology for Students of Political Science (Cornell University Press, 1997), pp. 89-121.

Academic Writing and Publishing

Choi, Kwan How to Publish in Top Journals

Flesch, Rudolf. The Art of Readable Writing (New York: Collier, 1949).

van Leunen, Mary-Claire. A Handbook for Scholars (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).

Frankel, Benjamin. 'A Guide to Authors, for Contributors to Security Studies,' Working Paper (November 2001).

Germano, William. Getting It Published: A Guide for Scholars and Anyone Else Serious about Serious Books (University of Chicago Press, 2001).

Germano, William. From Dissertation to Book (University of Chicago Press, 2005).

Kastellec, Jonathan P., and Eduardo L. Leoni, 'Using Graphs Instead of Tables in Political Science,' Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 5, No. 4 (2007), pp. 755-771.

Lamont, Anne. 'Shitty First Drafts,' in Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life (Anchor, 1995), pp. 21-27.

Pelton Johnson, Teresa. 'Writing for International Security—A Contributor’s Guide,' International Security, Vol. 16, No. 2 (September 1991), pp. 171-180.

Schneider, Gerald, Bernard Steunenberg, Katharina Holzinger, and Nils Petter Gleditsch, 'Symposium: Why European Political Science is so Unproductive and What Should be Done About It,' European Political Science, Vol. 6, No. 2 (2007), pp. 156-191.

Silvia, Paul J. How to Write a Lot: A Practical Guide to Productive Academic Writing (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2007).

Strunk, Jr., William, and E. B. White, The Elements of Style, 2nd edition, (New York: Macmillan, 1972).

Sword, Helen. Stylish Academic Writing (Harvard University Press, 2012). 

Recommended Courses to Cover Before this One

<p>Research Design Fundamentals</p>

Recommended Courses to Cover After this One

<p>Introduction to NVivo for Qualitative Data Analysis</p> <p>Introduction to Qualitative Data Analysis with Atlas.ti</p> <p>Causal Inference for Political and Social Sciences</p> <p>Interpretive Interviewing</p> <p>Field Research</p>