Methods of theory building are rare in science. Particularly in social sciences, the competition between qualitative and quantitative schools has always been prevalent, even in discussing theory building. Another method that has been neglected for decades, even though its application is discussed the most of all social science’s classics , is Dialectic Materialism (DiaMat) as method of theory building. The DiaMat has been developed by Karl Marx, adopted by a wide range of Marxist theorists and broadly discussed and criticized in its epistemological function by scientists all over the world. Its fruitfulness and usefulness for social theory building will be outlined here and it will be demonstrated that the method is not yet complete. In identifying the gap, this paper aims to both give a state of the art at a new methodological frontier and reveal crucial points on which further method debate should focus.

Over the past fifty years, Glaser and Strauss's grounded theory method has become an important component of social science methodology. This paper seeks to determine the uses of grounded theory methodology for the field of political science. After giving an overview of the grounded theory method, the criticisms Glaser and Strauss levelled at the field of sociology are examined and their relevance for political science are discussed. The findings show that grounded theory is able to resolve some of the problems of political science methods, such as its over-reliance on theory testing and deductive approaches to theory generation. However, when considering how one could apply grounded theory methodology to a ‘typical’ political science question on regime change, it becomes clear that the theory’s usage is very limited in some sub-fields of the discipline such as international relations. In the field of political science, therefore, grounded theory methodology is clearly not as widely applicable and useful as Glaser and Strauss proclaim.

Aim of the piece is to give an introduction to basic differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches, named here as two schools of methods. Decision to take either quantitative or qualitative approaches, or a mix of both, is required for all researchers at all instances in the methodological decision making process. The article outlines, on which line methods can be distinguished. A structure of three types of methods is assumed, to which all given arguments are applied: Method of theory building, method of data generation, and method of data analysis. It will be revealed, to which extent qualitative or quantitative approach can contribute with reference to these types. At the end four general rules are presented as recommendation to be applied for method finding and method application of all method schools and types.

The study of human behavior has become central concern for social scientific studies, in particular to better understand and frame complex reality in different fields. This article aims to compare two methods to analyze, how people think, believe, and act in regards to a certain topic: Inglehart's World Value Survey (WVS) and Q Methodology (Q). Whilst WVS displays behavior proportions of a representative sample, Q looks for the differences in field of choice. Both attempt to reveal contemporary discourses, and both are using quantitative measures to do so, large n scale factor analysis in case of the WVS and the inverted bell curve in Q Methodology. We want to show Pros and Cons of these two methods, which have become so useful for social scientific research.