Abstract
This article proposes to discuss the exploratory use of two quantitative methods: on the one hand sequence analysis combined with optimal matching methods, and on the other hand geometric data analysis, more specifically multiple correspondence analysis and principal component analysis, combined with hierarchical ascending classifications. The aim is not to determine whether one method is more effective than another, nor to pit them against each other. The aim is to identify similarities and differences, and, more generally, to reflect on the cross-use of quantitative methods. The approach is decidedly practical and reflective. It consists of opening up the kitchen of implementation through a case study: build a typology of the professional futures of the accredited parliamentary assistants at the European Parliament. The paper defends the idea that typologies are tools and stages in analysis. Putting these methods to the test in this way aims to highlight several issues, suggest avenues of analysis, and highlight the need to explore the data using a variety of tools. This text is an invitation to compare and combine methods, and to use them in a considered and non-mechanical way, taking into account their strengths but also their weaknesses, which are also instructive.
Access to the full article here
