Case study methods in the international relations subfield

Comparative Political Studies

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 170-195

  Bennett, Andrew ^a   Elman, Colin ^b  

^a GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Case selection; Conceptual innovation; Explanatory typologies; Multimethod analysis; Process tracing; Qualitative methods

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845989121     PISSN: 00104140     EISSN: 15523829     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0010414006296346     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. Bennett, A., & Elman, C. (2006a). Complex causal relations and case study methods: The example of path dependence. Political Analysis, 14, 250-267.
2. Bennett, A., & Elman, C. (2006b). Qualitative research: Recent developments in case study methods. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 455-476.
3. Bennett, A., Lepgold, J., & Unger, D. (Eds.). (1997). Friends in need: Burden-sharing in the Gulf War. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
4. Biddle, S. (2004). Military power: Explaining victory and defeat in modern battle. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5. Christensen, T. J. (1996). Useful adversaries: Grand strategy, domestic mobilization, and Sino-American conflict, 1947-1958. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6. Collier, D. (1999). Letter from the president: Data, field work, and extracting new ideas at close range. APSA-CP - Newsletter of the Organized Section in Comparative Politics of the American Political Science Association, 10 (1). 1-6.
7. Collier, D., Mahoney, J. (1996). Insights and pitfalls: Selection bias in qualitative research. World Politics, 49 (1). 56-91.
8. Collier, P., & Hoeffler, A. (2001). Greed and grievance in civil war (2355). Washington, DC: World Bank.
9. Collier, P., & Sambanis, N. (Eds.). (2005a). Understanding civil war: Evidence and analysis, Vol. 1 - Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank.
10. Collier, P., & Sambanis, N. (Eds.). (2005b). Understanding civil war: Evidence and analysis, Vol. 2 - Europe, Central Asia, and other regions. Washington, DC: World Bank.
11. Crawford, T. W. (2003). Pivotal deterrence: Third-party statecraft and the pursuit of peace. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
12. Drezner, D. W. (1999). The sanctions paradox: Economic statecraft and international relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
13. Eden, L. (2004). Whole world on fire: Organizations, knowledge, and nuclear weapons devastation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
14. Elman, C. (2004). Extending offensive realism: The Louisiana Purchase and America's rise to regional hegemony. American Political Science Review, 98, 563-576.
15. Elman, C. (2005). Explanatory typologies in qualitative studies of international politics. International Organization, 59, 293-326.
16. Elman, C., & Elman, M. F. (2002). How not to be Lakatos intolerant: Appraising progress in IR research. International Studies Quarterly, 46, 231-262.
17. Elman, C., & Elman, M. F. (2003). Progress in international relations theory: Appraising the field. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Elman, M. F. (Ed.). (1997). Paths to peace: Is democracy the answer? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Ember, C. L., Ember, M., & Russett, B. (1992). Peace between participatory politics. World Politics, 44, 573-599.
20. Evangelista, M. (1999). Unarmed forces: The transnational movement to end the cold war. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
21. Fearon, J., & Laitin, D. (2003). Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. American Political Science Review, 97, 75-90.
22. Fortna, V. P. (2004). Peace time: Cease-fire agreements and the durability of peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23. Geddes, B. (2003). How the cases you choose affect the answers you get: Selection bias and related issues. In Paradigms and sandcastles: Theory building and research design in comparative politics (pp. 89-129). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
24. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25. Goemans, H. E. (2000). War and punishment: The causes of war termination and the First World War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26. Goertz, G. (2006). Social science concepts: A user's guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27. Goertz, G., & Mahoney, J. (2005). Two-level theories and fuzzy-set analysis. Sociological Methods and Research, 33, 497-538.
28. Goldthorpe, J. H. (1997). Current issues in comparative macrosociology: A debate on methodological issues. Comparative Social Research, 16, 1-26.
29. Grieco, J. (1995). The Maastricht Treaty, economic and monetary union, and the neorealist research programme. Review of International Studies, 21, 21-40.
30. Grieco, J. (1996). State interests and international rule trajectories: A neorealist interpretation of the Maastricht Treaty and European economic and monetary union. Security Studies, 5, 176-222.
31. Homer-Dixon, T. F. (1999). Environment, scarcity, and violence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32. Hopf, T. (2002). Social construction of international politics: Identities and foreign policies, Moscow 1955 and 1999. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
33. Hui, V. T.-B. (2005). War and state formation in ancient China and early modern Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.
34. Huth, P. K. (1988). Extended deterrence and the prevention of war. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35. Kacowicz, A. M. (2004). Case study methods in international security studies. In D. F. Sprinz & Y. Wolinsky-Nahmias (Eds.), Models, numbers and cases: Methods for studying international relations (pp. 107-125). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
36. Kalyvas, S. (2003). The ontology of "political violence": Action and identity in civil wars. Perspectives on Politics, 1, 475-494.
37. Katzenstein, P. J. (Ed.). (1996). The culture of national security: Norms and identity in world politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
38. Keohane, R. O., & Martin, L. L. (2003). Institutional theory as a research program. In C. Elman & M. F. Elman (Eds.), Progress in international relations theory: Appraising the field (pp. 71-107). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39. Khong, Y. F. (1992). Analogies at war: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam decisions of 1965. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
40. King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
41. Knopf, J. (1998). Domestic society and international cooperation: The impact of protest on U.S. arms control policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
42. Kydd, A. H. (2005). Trust and mistrust in international relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
43. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91-196). New York: Cambridge University Press.
44. Larson, D. W. (1997). Anatomy of mistrust: U.S.-Soviet relations during the cold war. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
45. Legro, J. W., & Moravcsik, A. (1999). Is anybody still a realist ? International Security, 24 (2). 5-55.
46. Levy, J. S. (2002). Qualitative methods in international relations. In F. P. Harvey & M. Brecher (Eds.), Evaluating methodology in international studies (pp. 131-160). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
47. Liberman, P. (1996). Does conquest pay? The exploitation of occupied industrial societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
48. Lieberman, E. (2005). Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review, 99, 435-452.
49. Lieberson, S. (1992). Small Ns and big conclusions: An examination of the reasoning in comparative studies based on a small number of cases. In C. Ragin & H. Becker (Eds.), What is a case? (pp. 105-118). New York: Cambridge University Press.
50. Lieberson, S. (2004). Comments on the use and utility of QCA. Qualitative Methods: Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section on Qualitative Methods, 2 (2). 13-14.
51. Mahoney, J. (2004a). Introduction: A note on terminology. Qualitative Methods: Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section on Qualitative Methods, 2 (2). 2-2.
52. Mahoney, J. (2004b). Reflections on fuzzy-set/QCA. Qualitative Methods: Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section on Qualitative Methods, 2 (2). 17-21.
53. Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. (2006). A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political Analysis, 14, 227-249.
54. Maoz, Z. (2002). Case study methodology in international studies: From storytelling to hypothesis testing. In F. P. Harvey & M. Brecher (Eds.), Evaluating methodology in international studies (pp. 161-186). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
55. Martin, L. L. (1992). Coercive cooperation: Explaining multilateral economic sanctions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
56. McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of contention. New York: Cambridge University Press.
57. Mitchell, R., & Bernauer, T. (2004). Beyond story-telling: Designing case study research in international environmental policy. In D. F. Sprinz & Y. Wolinsky-Nahmias (Eds.), Models, numbers and cases: Methods for studying international relations (pp. 81-106). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
58. Moravcsik, A. (1998). The choice for Europe: Social purpose and state power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
59. Musgrave, A. (1974). Logical versus historical theories of confirmation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25, 1-23.
60. Njolstad, O. (1990). Learning from history? Case studies and the limits to theory-building. In O. Njolstad (Ed.), Arms races: Technological and political dynamics (pp. 220-246). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
61. Odell, J. S. (2004). Case study methods in international political economy. In D. F. Sprinz & Y. Wolinsky-Nahmias (Eds.), Models, numbers and cases: Methods for studying international relations (pp. 56-80). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
62. Owen, J. M. (1997). Liberal peace, liberal war: American politics and international security. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
63. Posen, B. (1993). The security dilemma and ethnic conflict. Survival, 35, 27-47.
64. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
65. Ragin, C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
66. Ray, J. L. (1995). Democracy and international conflict: An evaluation of the democratic peace proposition. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
67. Reiter, D. (1996). Crucible of beliefs: Learning, alliances, and world wars. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
68. Rock, S. R. (1989). Why peace breaks out: Great power rapprochement in historical perspective. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
69. Rock, S. R. (2000). Appeasement in international politics. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
70. Rosen, S. P. (1995). Military effectiveness: Why society matters. International Security, 19 (4). 5-31.
71. Rosen, S. P. (1996). Societies and military power: India and its armies. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
72. Ross, M. (2004). How do natural resources influence civil war? Evidence from thirteen cases. International Organization, 58 (1). 35-67.
73. Sagan, S. D. (1993). The limits of safety: Organizations, accidents, and nuclear weapons. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
74. Sambanis, N. (2004). Using case studies to expand economic models of civil war. Perspectives on Politics, 2, 259-279.
75. Schultz, K. A. (2001). Democracy and coercive diplomacy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
76. Schweller, R. L. (1998). Deadly imbalances: Tripolarity and Hitler's strategy of world conquest. New York: Columbia University Press.
77. Schweller, R. L. (2006). Unanswered threats: Political constraints on the balance of power. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
78. Seawright, J. (2004). Qualitative comparative analysis vis-à-vis regression. Qualitative Methods: Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section on Qualitative Methods, 2 (2). 14-17.
79. Seawright, J. (2005). Qualitative comparative analysis vis-à-vis regression. Studies in Comparative International Development, 40 (1). 3-26.
80. Shafer, M. (1988). Deadly paradigms: The failure of U.S. counterinsurgency policy, 1945-1965. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
81. Snyder, J. L. (1984). The ideology of the offensive: Military decision making and the disasters of 1914. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
82. Snyder, J. L. (1991). Myths of empire: Domestic politics and international ambition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
83. Spruyt, H. (2005). Ending empire: Contested sovereignty and territorial partition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
84. Vasquez, J. A., & Elman, C. (Eds.). (2003). Realism and the balancing of power: A new debate. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
85. Walt, S. M. (1996). Revolution and war. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
86. Weber, S. (1991). Cooperation and discord in U. S.-Soviet arms control. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
87. Zakaria, F. (1998). From wealth to power: The unusual origins of America's world role. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.