Advanced Qualitative Methods

Christine Reh
Department of Political Science
University College London
2017/2018
Recap Session 2 & Overview of Sessions 3-10

Research Question (1)

Ontology & Epistemology (2)

Methodology (3–10)
 Comparative Method, Case
Studies, Process-Tracing
 Case Studies, Ethnography,
Discourse Analysis

Methods (5-9)
Ethnographic methods, participant
observation, interviews, focus
groups, document analysis,
discourse analysis 2
 3. The Comparative Method & Case Studies
_________________________________________

Outline of Session 3
Lecture
1. Methodology (& Methods): An Introduction
2. The Comparative Method in Context
3. What is the Case Study Method?
4. Techniques for Case Selection
Seminar
• Analysis & evaluation of case selection (in view of the RQ and
theoretical argument) in Stephan & Chenoweth (2008)
• Main aim = train our awareness of the link between our RQ,
theoretical argument, methodology chosen and cases selected 3
 1. Methodology (& Methods): An Introduction

Methodology

• “… a concern with the logical structure and procedure of

scientific enquiry. … if a firm distinction is drawn—as it
should be—between methodology and technique, the latter is
no substitute for the former” (SARTORI 1970: 1033II)

• “… refer[s] to the means scholars employ to increase

confidence that the inferences they make about the social and
political world are valid” (HALL 2003: 373)

 Key = your methodological approach is the overall strategy

underlying your research design/process, and must fit
“upwards” with the ontological assumptions made and
“downwards” with the methods applied (e.g., HALL 2003) 4
Methods

• “techniques” (SARTORI 1970; LIJPHART 1971)

1) to generate the empirical evidence you need to address

your RQ and to develop/test your theoretical argument, &
2) to analyse and interpret the data collected

 Key = no matter whether you work inductively or deductively,

as an interpretivist or positivist, the method(s) chosen must
1) be suitable to generate the evidence you need
2) be justified and explained in an accessible transparent way
3) be skilfully applied according to established procedures

NB many methods are shared by positivist and interpretivist

approaches, but used differently (e.g., interviews) 5
 2. The Comparative Method in Context

The Experimental, Statistical & Comparative Method

“aim at scientific explanation, which consists of two basic elements:

1) the establishment of general empirical relationships among two or
more variables, while
2) all other variables are controlled, that is, held constant”
LIJPHART 1971: 683II)

As such, the Comparative Method is

• “essentially correlational” (HALL 2003: 380)

• distinguished from the statistical method by the number of
cases used (LIJPHART 1971, 1975; see also KKV)
• increasingly rejected by scholars who see the main contribution
of (positivist) qualitative studies in alternative approaches 6
The Classic Weakness: “Many Variables, Small N” (LIJPHART)

• omitted variable bias (LIEBERSON 1985)

• overestimating negative findings (LIJPHART 1971)

Attempted Remedies

• within-case variation
• reduction of the analytical property-space
• comparison of comparable cases (“most similar” designs)
• focus on “macro hypotheses” (ROKKAN 1966)

 in spite of these weaknesses, the comparative method has

dominated the field of comparative politics, and underlies, for
instance, KKV’s call for case selection on the IV only
7
The Contemporary Challenge: “Ontological Misfit” (HALL)

To be used effectively, the comparative method requires:

• an empirical puzzle and/or theoretical rationale for comparison

(Key = how much do you gain—or lose—from adding cases?)
• the assumption that IVs and an outcome are related through
either constant conjunction or necessity/sufficiency

The latter is not given when a theory assumes

• “multiple conjunctural causation” (RAGIN)

• interaction effects between causal or contextual variables
(HALL), e.g. in theories of path dependence
 the comparative method—in its statistical or small-N form—is
poorly suited to test theories that are not “ontologically aligned”
with the logic of controlled comparison (HALL 2003: 381-387) 8
 3. What Is the Case Study Method?
• “intensive study of a single unit for the purpose of understanding
a larger class of (similar) units. A unit connotes a spatially
bounded phenomenon … observed at a single point in time or
over some delimited period of time” (GERRING 2004: 342I)

• A case study always has two functions:

a) a study of the unit itself (e.g. Cuban Missile Crisis)
b) a study of the unit as a case (of a class, e.g. bureaucratic politics)

• The number of cases (N) employed in a case study can be large

or small but it cannot equal an N of 1
- because causal propositions cannot be explored by observing a
single unit, at a single point in time, without within-unit cases;
- BUT a case study does preclude cross-unit N 9
You are likely to opt for a case study (single-unit) design
when you want to:
• answer a what or a how (rather than a why) question
• gain lot of in-depth knowledge about a bounded phenomenon
• be more confident about the comparability of cases
• uncover causal mechanisms rather than causal effects
• explore necessity and sufficiency rather than probability
• engage in exploratory—rather than (dis)confirming—research

 The case study research design goes with any social-scientific

framework, including interpretivism: different meta-theoretical
approaches would opt for different methods of analysis
10
 4. Techniques for Case Selection

What do you want to “get out” of your cases?

• Case study per se “ambiguous, referring to a heterogeneous set of

research designs” (SEAWRIGHT & GERRING 2008)

• Case selection in (positivist) research to find (1) a representative

case; (2) useful variation on the dimensions of theoretical interest

• Why do you choose your case?

- to confirm or disconfirm an assumed theoretical relationship?
- to uncover the causal mechanism behind covariation?
- to develop new theoretical arguments inductively?

 See also: GERRING 2004; 2007; GEORGE & BENNETT 2005

11
Typical (“Representative”) Case(s)
• exemplify a stable relationship that holds across cases
• aim = explore the causal mechanism behind co-variation
• outcome = confirmation, disconfirmation, alternative mechanism

Diverse Cases
• display maximum variation along relevant dimensions
• aim = hypothesis-seeking (focus on X or Y)
• aim = hypothesis-testing (focus on X/Y)
• aim = uncover pathways (X➞[(n1➞)*(n2➞)*(n3➞)]➞Y)

Extreme Case
• displays an extreme (unusual, rare) value on X or Y
• Aim = exploration of possible causes of Y or effects of X
• ! = large sample of background cases 12
Two Dimensions of Consensus & Majoritarian Democracies
(LIJPHART 2012)

Single-Party Multi-Party
Government Government
Centralisation UK Netherlands
Federalism US Germany

13
Deviant (“Non-Representative”) Case
• displays a theoretical anomaly in the causal relationship
• aim = probe for a new, as yet unspecified explanation
• NB: relative “deviantness” can change when the model is altered

Influential Case
• similar to a deviant case, displays an outlying relationship
• aim = identify whether these outliers drive the large-N results

Most Similar (and Most Different) Cases

• chosen (pair of) cases are similar on all IVs exc. the IV of interest
• aim = identify whether that different X causes the different Y

 GERRING & SEAWRIGHT 2008; classic: MILL 1872 (though

not intended for the social sciences!); LIJPHART 1971;
ECKSTEIN 1975; PRZEWORSKI & TEUNE 1970) 14
Advanced Qualitative Methods

Christine Reh
Department of Political Science
University College London
2017/2018