Jimmy Carter and the Water Wars: Presidential Influence and the Politics of Pork
Powered By Xquantum

Jimmy Carter and the Water Wars: Presidential Influence and the P ...

Chapter :  Introduction
Read
image Next

In short, the use of qualitative data can both improve quantitative models and confirm model results and predictions. We contend that the multimethod approach provides a basis for bridging the gulf between the largely qualitative approach that characterizes studies of the presidency and the quantitative bent of congressional scholars.

Our qualitative data are drawn from several archival sources that provide considerable contemporary insight into political process and strategy.14 We not only draw heavily on the records of the Carter administration, but also incorporate substantial material from congressional sources. The Office of Congressional Liaison maintained detailed records of their efforts and the efforts of the president during the water wars. President Carter’s chief rival during this period was Tom Bevill, Chair of the House Subcommittee with jurisdiction over water projects. We capitalize on detailed records from his office to characterize the congressional response to Carter. We also make extensive use of detailed notes from White House meetings between Carter and the congressional leadership taken by John Brademas, the then House Democratic Whip, through much of this period.

13 For an introduction to the philosophy of multimethod research, see Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1989); see also Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004), and Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, and Turner (2006). The likely reason for the origin and development of multimethod research in education is that the results of these studies seek to maximize external validity to increase their relevance to classroom and administrative practitioners. Our research philosophy is somewhat similar in that we seek to address research questions in a way that is methodologically sound and casts light on academic theory while simultaneously doing minimal violence to the underlying political facts through excessive stylization. In short (if we are successful), a practitioner who reads this book will not find our approach to be excessively abstract and therefore useless in “the field.”
14 For a discussion of archival research in political science, see Frisch and Kelly (2003).