Replication Data for \"Scholarship on the Middle East in Political Science and International Relations – A Reassessment\"

A recently-published dataset of Middle East and North Africa (MENA) focused scholarship in journals selected to represent Political Science’s disciplinary ‘core’ sheds empirical light on key publishing trends, from the balance between quantitative and qualitative studies to the growth in experimental and ‘large-n’ statistical methods. Cammett and Kendall’s (2021) analysis shows that between 2001 and 2019 MENA-focused work declined as a share of publications, but that just under half of that work is qualitative. However, the definition of qualitative research the study uses significantly understates the number of such scholarship in the CK dataset. Our analysis rectifies this, distinguishing between research using qualitative evidence, qualitative methods, theoretical traditions, and paradigms (positivist/post-positivist). This yields a more accurate and altogether starker picture of MENA qualitative research’s marginality in ‘core’ Politics journals. These results raise the question of why methodologically sophisticated scholarship outside ‘top journals’ has not been published there.

近期发布的一份聚焦中东与北非（Middle East and North Africa, MENA）研究的数据集，其收录期刊均为政治学学科公认的"核心"期刊，该数据集为关键出版趋势提供了实证依据——这些趋势涵盖定量（quantitative）与质性（qualitative）研究的占比平衡，以及实验法、"大N"（large-n）统计方法的应用增长。卡梅特与肯德尔（Cammett and Kendall, 2021）的分析显示，2001年至2019年间，聚焦中东与北非的研究成果在总发表量中的占比有所下滑，但其中近半数为质性研究。不过该研究采用的质性研究定义，显著低估了CK（Cammett and Kendall）数据集内此类研究的实际数量。本研究对此进行了修正，将研究按质性证据使用、质性方法、理论传统与研究范式（实证主义/后实证主义，positivist/post-positivist）进行区分。这一区分得以更准确且更鲜明地呈现出中东与北非地区质性研究在"核心"政治学期刊中的边缘地位。上述研究结果引出了一个问题：为何在"顶级期刊"之外，方法学层面更为成熟的中东与北非研究成果未能在这些核心期刊中发表？