1.
Fahmy, S.: Picturing Afghan Women: A Content Analysis of AP Wire Photographs During the Taliban Regime and                after the Fall of the Taliban Regime. International Communication Gazette. 66, 91–112 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1177/0016549204041472.
2.
Billaud, Julie: Visible under the Veil: Dissimulation, performance and agency in an Islamic public space. Journal of International Women’s Studies, suppl. Special Issue: Gender and Islam in Asia. 11, 120–135.
3.
Shepherd, L.J.: Veiled references: Constructions of gender in the Bush administration discourse on the attacks on Afghanistan post-9/11. International Feminist Journal of Politics. 8, 19–41 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1080/14616740500415425.
4.
Sarah Riley, et al: Coming Up with a Research Question. In: Sarah Riley, Cath Sullivan, and Stephen Gibson (eds.) Doing your qualitative psychology project. pp. 23–26. SAGE Publications, London, [England] (2012).
5.
Lene Hansen: Ontologies, epistemologies, methodologies. In: Shepherd, L. (ed.) Gender Matters in Global Politics: A Feminist Introduction to International Relations. pp. 42–51. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315879819.
6.
Sabaratnam, M.: IR in Dialogue … but Can We Change the Subjects? A Typology of Decolonising Strategies for the Study of World Politics. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 39, 781–803 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829811404270.
7.
Sandra Halperin and Oliver Heath: Objectivity and Values. In: Political research: methods and practical skills. pp. 54–78. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2017).
8.
Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and Processes.
9.
Jackson, P.T.: The conduct of inquiry in international relations: philosophy of science and its implications for the study of world politics. Routledge, by New York (2010).
10.
Jackson, P.T.: The conduct of inquiry in international relations: philosophy of science and its implications for the study of world politics. Routledge, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon (2016).
11.
Belsey, C.: Poststructuralism: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002).
12.
Michel Foucault: Truth and Power. In: The Foucault reader. pp. 51–75. Penguin, London (1991).
13.
Hacking, I.: The social construction of what? Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass (1999).
14.
Kratochwil, F.: Constructivism: what it is (not) and how it matters. In: Della Porta, D. and Keating, M. (eds.) Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences. pp. 80–98. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801938.006.
15.
King, G., Verba, S., Keohane, R.O.: Designing social inquiry: scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. (1994).
16.
Smith, R.M.: Should We Make Political Science More of a Science or More about Politics? Political Science & Politics. 35, 199–201 (2002).
17.
Laitin, D.D.: The Perestroikan Challenge to Social Science. Politics & Society. 31, 163–184 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329202250167.
18.
Rose Wiles: Thinking ethically: approaches to research ethics. In: What are qualitative research ethics? pp. 9–24. Bloomsbury, London (2013). https://doi.org/10.5040/9781849666558.ch-002.
19.
Rose, G.: Understanding Visual Research Ethics. In: Visual methodologies: an introduction to researching with visual materials. pp. 94–110. SAGE Publications Ltd, London (2023).
20.
How people feel about what companies do with their data is just as important as what they know about it: LSE Impact Blog, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2018/03/29/how-people-feel-about-what-companies-do-with-their-data-is-just-as-important-as-what-they-know-about-it/.
21.
Peregrine Schwartz-Shea: Designing for Trustworthiness: Knowledge Claims and Evaluations of Interpretive Research. In: Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and Processes. pp. 105–128. Routledge, New York (2012). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203854907.
22.
Peregrine Schwartz-Shea: Design in Context: From the Human Side of Research to Writing Research Manuscripts. In: Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and Processes. pp. 129–143. Routledge, New York (2013). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203854907.
23.
Hope Alkon, A.: Reflexivity and Environmental Justice Scholarship: A Role for Feminist Methodologies. Organization & Environment. 24, 130–149 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/1096026611414347.
24.
Schwartz-Shea, P., Yanow, D.: Interpretive research design: concepts and processes. Routledge, New York (2012).
25.
Sandercock, L., Attili, G.: Digital Ethnography as Planning Praxis: An Experiment with Film as Social Research, Community Engagement and Policy Dialogue. Planning Theory & Practice. 11, 23–45 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350903538012.
26.
Conti, J.A., O’Neil, M.: Studying power: qualitative methods and the global elite. Qualitative Research. 7, 63–82 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794107071421.
27.
Tom Clark: ‘We’re Over-Researched Here!’ Exploring Accounts of Research Fatigue within Qualitative Research Engagements. Sociology. 42, 953–970 (2008).
28.
Hammersley, M.: On the ethics of interviewing for discourse analysis. Qualitative Research. 14, 529–541 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794113495039.
29.
Fujii, L.A.: Research Ethics 101: Dilemmas and Responsibilities. PS: Political Science & Politics. 45, 717–723 (2012).
30.
Lundy, P., McGovern, M.: The ethics of silence. Action Research. 4, 49–64 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750306060542.
31.
Sandra Halperin and Oliver Heath: What is data? In: Political research: methods and practical skills. pp. 168–187. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2017).
32.
Coleman, S.: Spaces of Disappearance. In: How Voters Feel. pp. 149–168. Cambridge University Press, New York (2012). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139035354.007.
33.
Hutchison, E.: A Global Politics of Pity? Disaster Imagery and the Emotional Construction of Solidarity after the 2004 Asian Tsunami. International Political Sociology. 8, 1–19 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1111/ips.12037.
34.
Geddes, B.: Paradigms and sand castles: theory building and research design in comparative politics. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor (2003).
35.
Ian Shapiro: Problems, Methods, and Theories in the Study of Politics, or What’s Wrong with Political Science and What to Do about It. Political Theory. 30, 596–619 (2002).
36.
Sartori, G.: Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics. American Political Science Review. 64, 1033–1053 (1970). https://doi.org/10.2307/1958356.
37.
John Gerring: What Makes a Concept Good? A Criterial Framework for Understanding Concept Formation in the Social Sciences. Polity. 31, 357–393 (1999). https://doi.org/10.2307/3235246.
38.
Adcock, R.: Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research. American Political Science Review. 95, 529–546 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055401003100.
39.
Adams, V.: Markets of Sorrow, Labors of Faith: New Orleans in the Wake of Katrina. Duke University Press, Durham, N.C. ; London (2005).
40.
Amoore, L.: Vigilant Visualities: The Watchful Politics of the War on Terror. Security Dialogue. 38, 215–232 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010607078526.
41.
Qualitative Methods Newsletter of the American Political Science Association. 10, (2012).
42.
Sandra Halperin and Oliver Heath: Research Design. In: Political research: methods and practical skills. pp. 146–167. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2017).
43.
Anderson, E.: Policy Entrepreneurs and the Origins of the Regulatory Welfare State: Child Labor Reform in Nineteenth-Century Europe. American Sociological Review. 83, 173–211 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417753112.
44.
Simmons, E.S., Smith, N.R.: Comparison with an Ethnographic Sensibility. PS: Political Science & Politics. 50, 126–130 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096516002286.
45.
Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and Processes.
46.
Brady, H.E., Collier, D.: Rethinking social inquiry: diverse tools, shared standards. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham (2010).
47.
Brady, H.E., Collier, D.: Rethinking social inquiry: diverse tools, shared standards. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Md (2004).
48.
Alexander L. George, Andrew Bennett: Case studies and theory development. In: Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. pp. 3–36. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass (2005).
49.
Henry E. Brady, David Collier and Jason Seawright: Toward a Pluralistic Vision of Methodology. Political Analysis. 14, 353–368 (2006).
50.
King, G., Verba, S., Keohane, R.O.: Designing social inquiry: scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. (1994).
51.
Goodwin, J., Horowitz, R.: Introduction: The Methodological Strengths and Dilemmas of Qualitative Sociology. Qualitative Sociology. 25, 33–47 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014300123105.
52.
Sandra Halperin and Oliver Heath: Comparative Research. In: Political research: methods and practical skills. pp. 211–238. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2017).
53.
Sandra Halperin and Oliver Heath: Historical Research. In: Political research: methods and practical skills. pp. 239–260. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2017).
54.
Kristin M. Bakke: Help Wanted?: The Mixed Record of Foreign Fighters in Domestic Insurgencies. International Security. 38, 150–187 (2014).
55.
Hale, H.E.: Formal Constitutions in Informal Politics: Institutions and Democratization in Post-Soviet Eurasia. World Politics. 63, 581–617 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887111000189.
56.
Pouliot, V.: Practice tracing. In: Bennett, A. and Checkel, J.T. (eds.) Process Tracing. pp. 237–259. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2014). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139858472.013.
57.
Collier, D.: Understanding Process Tracing. PS: Political Science & Politics. 44, 823–830 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096511001429.
58.
Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S.H., Robinson, J.A.: An African Success Story: Botswana. SSRN Electronic Journal. (2001). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.290791.
59.
Alexander L. George, Andrew Bennett: Process-Tracing and Historical Explanation. In: Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. pp. 205–232. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass (2005).
60.
Renwick, A.: "Do ‘Wrong Winner’ Elections Trigger Electoral Reform? Lessons From New Zealand. Representation. 45, 357–367 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1080/00344890903235256.
61.
Snyder, Richard: Scaling down: The subnational comparative method. Studies in Comparative International Development. 36, 93–110.
62.
Jason Seawright and John Gerring: Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options. Political Research Quarterly. 61, (2008).
63.
Bennett, A., Elman, C.: Qualitative Research: Recent Developments in Case Study Methods. Annual Review of Political Science. 9, 455–476 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.082103.104918.
64.
Andrew Bennett and Colin Elman: Complex Causal Relations and Case Study Methods: The Example of Path Dependence. Political Analysis. 14, (2006).
65.
Michael Burawoy: The Extended Case Method. Sociological Theory. 16, (1998).
66.
Mahoney, J.: Strategies of Causal Inference in Small-N Analysis. Sociological Methods & Research. 28, 387–424 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124100028004001.
67.
Yes, But What’s the Mechanism? (Don’t Expect an Easy Answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 98,.
68.
Gillian Rose: Content Analysis and Cultural Analytics: Finding Patterns in What You See. In: Visual methodologies: an introduction to researching with visual materials. pp. 85–105. SAGE Publications Ltd, London (2016).
69.
Kristina Boréus and Göran Bergström: Content Analysis. In: Boréus, K. and Bergström, G. (eds.) Analyzing text and discourse: eight approaches for the social sciences. pp. 23–52. SAGE, Los Angeles (2017).
70.
Woolley, J.K., Limperos, A.M., Oliver, M.B.: The 2008 Presidential Election, 2.0: A Content Analysis of User-Generated Political Facebook Groups. Mass Communication and Society. 13, 631–652 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2010.516864.
71.
Brown, N.E., Gershon, S.A.: Intersectional Presentations: An Exploratory Study of Minority Congresswomens’ Websites’ Biographies”. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race. 13, 85–108 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X15000181.
72.
Schreier, M.: Qualitative content analysis in practice. SAGE, Los Angeles (2012).
73.
Neuendorf, K.A.: The content analysis guidebook. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif (2002).
74.
Neuendorf, K.A.: The content analysis guidebook. SAGE Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, California (2017).
75.
Krippendorff, K.: Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. SAGE, Los Angeles (2013).
76.
Krippendorff, K.: Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif (2004).
77.
Cramer, K.J.: A Method of Listening. In: The politics of resentment: rural consciousness in Wisconsin and the rise of Scott Walker. pp. 26–44. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2016).
78.
Büscher, B.: ‘Rhino poaching is out of control!’ Violence, race and the politics of hysteria in online conservation. Environment and Planning A. 48, 979–998 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X16630988.
79.
Dave, N.N.: To Render Real the Imagined: An Ethnographic History of Lesbian Community in India. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 35, 595–619 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1086/648514.
80.
Kozinets, R.V.: Netnography: redefined. Sage, Los Angeles (2015).
81.
Pink, S., Horst, H.A., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., Tacchi, J.: Digital ethnography: principles and practice. SAGE Publications, London (2016).
82.
Costello, L., McDermott, M.-L., Wallace, R.: Netnography. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 16, (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917700647.
83.
Atkinson, P.: Handbook of ethnography. SAGE, London (2001).
84.
H. Lidchi: The Poetics and Politics of Exhibiting Other Cultures. In: Hall, S. (ed.) Representation: cultural representations and signifying practices. pp. 151–222. Sage in association with the Open University, London (1997).
85.
DeWalt, K.M., DeWalt, B.R.: Participant observation: a guide for fieldworkers. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Md (2011).
86.
Clifford, J., Marcus, G.E., School of American Research (Santa Fe, N.M.): Writing culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography. University of California Press, Berkeley, Calif (1986).
87.
Schatz, E.: Political ethnography: what immersion contributes to the study of power. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2009).
88.
Crewe, E.: Ethnography of Parliament: Finding Culture and Politics Entangled in the Commons and the Lords. Parliamentary Affairs. 70, 155–172 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsw012.
89.
Hammersley, M., Atkinson, P.: Ethnography: principles in practice. Routledge, London (2007).
90.
Hammersley, M., Atkinson, P.: Ethnography: principles in practice. Routledge, London (1995).
91.
Hammersley, M., Atkinson, P.: Ethnography: principles in practice. Routledge, London (1989).
92.
Hammersley, M., Atkinson, P.: Ethnography: principles in practice. Tavistock, London (1983).
93.
Hollander, J.A.: The Social Contexts of Focus Groups. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 33, 602–637 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241604266988.
94.
Ortbals, C.D., Rincker, M.E.: Fieldwork, Identities, and Intersectionality: Negotiating Gender, Race, Class, Religion, Nationality, and Age in the Research Field Abroad: Editors’ Introduction. PS: Political Science & Politics. 42, 287–290 (2009).
95.
Stephanie Taylor: Theories and common concerns. In: What is Discourse Analysis? pp. 7–28. Bloomsbury Academic (2013). https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472545213.ch-002.
96.
Taylor, S.: Four examples of discourse analysis. In: What is Discourse Analysis? pp. 29–52. Bloomsbury Academic (2013). https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472545213.ch-003.
97.
Debbie Lisle: Introduction: the global imaginary of contemporary travel writing. In: The Global Politics of Contemporary Travel Writing. pp. 1–26. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491535.003.
98.
Lisle, D.: The global politics of contemporary travel writing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012).
99.
Hall, S.: The Spectacle of the ‘Other’. In: Discourse theory and practice: a reader. pp. 324–344. Sage, London (2001).
100.
Hansen, L.: Security as practice: discourse analysis and the Bosnian war. Routledge, London (2006). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203236338.
101.
Stritzel, H.: Securitization, power, intertextuality: Discourse theory and the translations of organized crime. Security Dialogue. 43, 549–567 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010612463953.
102.
Agius, C.: Performing identity: The Danish cartoon crisis and discourses of identity and security. Security Dialogue. 44, 241–258 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010613485871.
103.
Milliken, J.: The Study of Discourse in International Relations: European Journal of International Relations. 5, 225–254 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066199005002003.
104.
Michael Shapiro: Textualising Global Politics. In: Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., and Yates, S. (eds.) Discourse theory and practice: a reader. pp. 318–323. SAGE Publications, London (2001).
105.
Vucetic, Srdjan: Genealogy as a research tool in International Relations. Review of International Studies. 37, 1295–1312.
106.
Michel Foucault, Paul Rabinow: Nietzsche, Genealogy, History. In: The Foucault reader. pp. 76–100. Penguin, London (1991).
107.
Vrasti, W.: Dr Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying about Methodology and Love Writing. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 39, 79–88 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829810371017.
108.
Ravecca, P., Dauphinee, E.: Narrative and the Possibilities for Scholarship. International Political Sociology. 12, 125–138 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olx029.
109.
Barabantseva, E., Lawrence, A.: Encountering Vulnerabilities through ‘Filmmaking for Fieldwork’. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 43, 911–930 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829815583083.
110.
Penttinen, E.: Joy and international relations: a new methodology. Routledge, London (2013).
111.
Suzanne Conklin Akbari ed: How We Write:Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blank Page, https://punctumbooks.com/titles/how-we-write/.
112.
Sandercock, L., Attili, G.: Digital Ethnography as Planning Praxis: An Experiment with Film as Social Research, Community Engagement and Policy Dialogue. Planning Theory & Practice. 11, 23–45 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350903538012.