Voters show ambivalent attitudes towards political parties: They agree that parties are necessary, but they neither like nor trust them. Existing theories fall short of explaining this paradox because they pay little attention to public opinion research. In this paper, we develop a different argument using qualitative methods. We first integrate the literature on political parties and public opinion to sketch the contours of our theory before refining it using rich empirical insights from open-ended survey answers and focus group data. Our resulting model holds that voters evaluate political parties based on the functional and virtuous linkages. They consider parties necessary because they see them as fulfilling democratic functions, but they dislike them because they are seen as behaving in non-virtuous ways when fulfilling their functions. Besides proposing a new analytical model, we also contribute to the literature by methodologically illustrating how to develop data-based theories.

We introduce a web application, the Case Selector (http://und.edu/faculty/brian.urlacher), that facilitates comparative case study research designs by creating an exhaustive comparison of cases from a dataset on the dependent, independent, and control variables specified by the user. This application was created to aid in systematic and transparent case selection so that researchers can better address the charge that cases are ‘cherry picked.’ An examination of case selection in a prominent study of rebel behaviour in civil war is then used to illustrate different applications of the Case Selector.

How do volunteers interpret what their service means to them? Is it based on the values the program instills, or on their experiences before volunteering? To answer these questions, I investigate service interpretation in the AmeriCorps program, a US-based social service agency. I conduct 22 in-depth interviews with AmeriCorps members to highlight how they use their cultural capital—rooted in their raised-class background—to interact differently with those they serve and to interpret different benefits of AmeriCorps. I find members from lower-income backgrounds use their past as a form of cultural capital to connect with their service population. On the other hand, members from more privileged backgrounds see the program as beneficial in the context of future work, yet have more difficulty connecting with those they serve. I conclude that the cultural capital learned from different social classes fosters different service interpretations for AmeriCorps members.

Ethnography is a rich research tradition originating from sociocultural anthropology that aims to vividly represent cultural meaning through fieldwork and thick description. Ethnographic fieldwork is known for unearthing surprises, and ethnographers are often convinced that, had they used another approach, they would have been unable to explain fully what was going on in the research setting. Ethnography in nonprofit studies is increasing, but sparse. This article argues that introducing more tales of the nonprofit field could deepen the analysis of how nonprofit organizing works, bridge the nonprofit research–practice divide, challenge the Western ethnocentricity of nonprofit studies, bring the sector’s periphery to the forefront and enhance nonprofit management education. However, to benefit from ethnographic work, the nonprofit field must embrace alternative norms of composition and rigor. The starting point is conversation and community among nonprofit ethnographers to foster such work.

While there is a vast literature that considers the collection and analysis of qualitative data, there has been limited attention to audio transcription as part of this process. In this paper, I address this gap by discussing the main considerations, challenges and implications of audio transcription for qualitative research on the third sector. I present a framework for conducting audio transcription for researchers and transcribers, as well as recommendations for writing up transcription in qualitative research articles.

The use of multimethod research is becoming increasingly widespread in the social sciences, including political science, and it is part of a broader movement that has moved beyond the single focus on either qualitative or quantitative studies. In Multimethod Research, Causal Mechanisms, and Case Studies: An Integrated Approach, Gary Goertz lays out a comprehensive approach to multimethod research and to the use of case studies. The aim is to integrate qualitative and quantitative research—for instance through case studies—and to show the advantages of combining the two. Goertz does so by bringing together causal mechanisms, cross-case causal inference and within-case causal inference into what he calls the research triad of this integrated approach to social science research. In their reviews of Goertz’ book, David Waldner, Jennifer Cyr and Kendra Koivu take issues with particular aspects of Goertz’ case for multimethod and case study research, while also addressing larger methodological issues surrounding political science research.

An interpretive approach to political science provides accounts of actions and practices that are interpretations of interpretations. We develop this argument using the idea of ‘situated agency’. There are many common criticisms of such an approach. This article focuses on eight: that an interpretive approach is mere common sense; that it focuses on beliefs or discourses, not actions or practices; that it ignores concepts of social structure; that it seeks to understand actions and practices, not to explain them; that it is concerned exclusively with qualitative techniques of data generation; that it must accept actors' own accounts of their beliefs; that it is insensitive to the ways in which power constitutes beliefs; and that it is incapable of producing policy-relevant knowledge. We show that the criticisms rest on both misconceptions about an interpretive approach and misplaced beliefs in the false idols of hard data and rigorous methods.

This article explores how grounded theory (GT) can advance nonprofit research by addressing its unique complexities and practice-oriented nature. While GT’s emphasis on developing theory directly from data makes it well suited for studying the dynamic nonprofit sector, its application has been constrained by conceptual ambiguity and methodological challenges. We clarify GT’s foundational principles, including emergence, theoretical sampling, constant comparison, and its evolving interpretations that influence the use of GT. Drawing on selected studies from leading nonprofit journals, we illustrate GT’s strengths in understanding complex dynamics, bridging theory and practice, capturing emerging trends, and refreshing established concepts and theories. We also provide practical guidance and strategies for overcoming challenges such as data access and methodological confusion. We conclude by emphasizing GT’s potential to advance nonprofit scholarship and practice and encouraging its broader adoption in nonprofit research.

This paper explores how ethnographic approaches to third sector and nonprofit studies allow for context-based understandings of the links between volunteering and development. Drawing from our ethnographies of volunteering in Sierra Leone, Burundi and the Philippines, we argue that ethnographic methods could tease out local ideologies and practices of volunteer work that can challenge knowledge monopolies over how volunteering is understood and, later, transcribed into development policy and practice at various levels. The contribution of ethnography as a methodology to third sector research lies not only in the in-depth data it generates but also in the kind of ethos and disposition it requires of scholars—providing attention to issues of power and voice and leaning into the unpredictability of the research process.

Recent debate in Voluntas and elsewhere has paid a great deal of attention to the subject of mapping the nonprofit sector. However, very little attention has been paid to the ways in which the practice of mapping is a political mode of knowing and the ways in which knowing is governing. In this essay, we turn to critical theory and political anthropology in order to demonstrate how mapping as it is currently practiced is a mode of knowledge inquiry that facilitates statecraft. In light of these interdisciplinary perspectives, we wrestle with the implications of knowing—and thereby governing—voluntary collective organization in this manner. We conclude that this approach potentially disciplines the qualitative dimensions of democratic associational life and misrepresents the possibilities of social change.

With the growth of third sector research, the field needs more dedicated discussion on how we study the third sector, not only the decisions in research design or data collection process but also the general research approaches and the way we analyze the data. In this introduction to the special issue of Voluntas Volume I, we discuss how the sector can foster a more inclusive and diverse research community for people, topics, and methods. We also discuss the implications of methodological pluralism, an organizing principle of a research community that fosters respect, appreciation, and empathy between its members. We conclude by calling for more empathetic, transparent, and accountable research.

This paper explores diversifying legislatures within a context of ethnonationalism, populism, and democratic erosion. Although diversity and inclusion are often viewed as symbols of democratization, research increasingly challenges this. In fact, diversity and inclusion can occur in tandem with democratic erosion—how so? How do minorities navigate hostile environments? To answer this question, I analyze how women politicians with intersecting identities strategically use their gendered and racialized identities. I conduct a qualitative study of four different women politicians in the Israeli Knesset—Miri Regev of Jewish Mizrahi [Moroccan] descent, Pnina Tamano-Shata of Jewish Ethiopian descent, Merav Michaeli of Jewish Ashkenazi [European] descent, and Aida Touma-Suleiman, a Palestinian-Israeli. I find that women will highlight the aspects of their identities that they believe will benefit them the most, resulting in their promotion of ethnonational divisions and reducing opportunities for solidarity among minority populations.

This paper demonstrates how Bayesian reasoning can be used for an analog of replication analysis with qualitative research that conducts inference to best explanation. We overview the basic mechanics of Bayesian reasoning with qualitative evidence and apply our approach to recent research on climate change politics, a matter of major importance that is beginning to attract greater interest in the discipline. Our re-analysis of illustrative evidence from a prominent article on global collective-action versus distributive politics theories of climate policy largely accords with the authors’ conclusions, while illuminating the value added of Bayesian analysis. In contrast, our in-depth examination of scholarship on oil majors’ support for carbon pricing yields a Bayesian inference that diverges from the authors’ conclusions. These examples highlight the potential for Bayesian reasoning not only to improve inferences when working with qualitative evidence but also to enhance analytical transparency, facilitate communication of findings, and promote knowledge accumulation.

In following the interdisciplinary spirit of this symposium, I emphasise the usefulness of the sociological approach of interpretivism, together with qualitative methods, by examining how EU legal actors perceived the Eurozone crisis and how they enabled policy solutions: financial assistance and policy conditionality. This case constitutes a legal conundrum because of how these solutions encompass and connect different forms of law – EU law, international law and private financial law – and how EU lawyers seek to protect the EU legal order from this hybrid arrangement by drawing the arrangement as closely as they can to the EU legal order. This in turn creates issues of accountability as the imposition of policy conditionality engenders litigation by EU citizens who were directly affected therein, raising the question of whether establishing liability for damages is possible in such a hybrid arrangement. Using interviews with legal actors and observations of court proceedings, I foreground the multiple meanings of EU law and explain how such an approach can expand our understanding of not only what EU law means to its practitioners, but also how these meanings give insight into the potential paths of EU law’s development. To interrogate these multiple meanings, I examine the crisis policy solutions as well as a set of court cases – Ledra Advertising, Mallis and Chrysostomides – that sought to hold the EU accountable for losses suffered because of these policies. Using these methods can partially overcome the opaqueness of judicial proceedings at the EU level, as well as give insight into the development of the legal arrangements being contested in court. A novel methodological element is the descriptive analysis of observations of court proceedings in Chrysostomides, where I demonstrate how the interactions between the lawyers and the judges shed light on how legal actors establish legal validity as a collective project.