In search of co-variance, causal mechanisms or congruence? Towards a plural understanding of case studies

Swiss Political Science Review

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 315-356

  Blatter, Joachim ^a,b   Blume, Till ^c  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LUCERNE   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF KONSTANZ   (Germany)

Author keywords

Case study methods; Causal configuration; Co variation; Congruence analysis; Process tracing

Indexed keywords

EID: 48249114014     PISSN: 14247755     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/j.1662-6370.2008.tb00105.x     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Allison, G. and P. Zelikow (1999). Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: Longman.
2. Axelrod, R. (1997). The Complexity of Cooperation. Agent-Based Models of Competition and Collaboration. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
3. Bevir, M. and A. Kedar (2008 forthcoming). Concept Formation in Political Science: An Interpretive Critique of Qualitative Methodology. Perspectives on Politics.
4. Blatter, J. (2008). Performing Symbolic Politics and International Environmental Regulation. Tracing and Theorizing a Causal Mechanism beyond Regime Theory. Manuscript currently under review.
5. Blatter, J. and T. Blume (2008). Co- Variation and Process Tracing Revisited. Clarifying New Directions for Causal Inference and Generalization in Case Study Methodology. Qualitative Methods: Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section for Qualitative and Multi-Method Research.
6. Blatter, J., Janning, F. and C. Wagemann (2007). Qualitative Politikanalyse: Eine Einführung in Forschungsansätze und Methoden. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
7. Brady, H. (2004). Data-Set Observations versus Causal-Process Observations: The 2000 U.S. Presidential Election. In Brady H. and D. Collier (eds.), Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield (267-72).
8. Brady, H. and D. Collier (2004). Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
9. Brady, H., Collier, D. and J. Seawright (2006). Towards a Pluralistic Vision of Methodology. Political Analysis 14(3): 353-68.
10. Campbell, D. (1975). "Degrees of Freedom" and the Case Study. Comparative Political Studies 8(2): 178-93.
11. Checkel, J. (2005). It's the Process, Stupid! Process Tracing in the Study of European and International Politics. ARENA Working Paper No. 26. Oslo: ARENA.
12. Collier, D. and J. Mahon (1993). Conceptual "Stretching" Revisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis. American Political Science Review 87(4): 845-55.
13. Collier, D. and S. Levitzky (1997). Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research. World Politics 49(3): 430-51.
14. Davis, J. (2005): Terms of Inquiry: On the Theory and Practice of Political Science. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
15. Dul, J. and T. Hak (2008). Case Study Methodology in Business Research. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
16. Eckstein, H. (1975). Case Studies in Political Science. In Greenstein, F. and N. Polsby (eds.), Handbook of Political Science. Reading: Addison-Wesley (79-137).
17. Elster, J. (1998). A Plea for Mechanisms. In Hedström, P. and R. Swedberg (eds.), Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (45-73).
18. Esser, H. (2002). Was könnte man (heute) unter einer "Theorie mittlerer Reichweite" verstehen?. In Mayntz, R. (ed.), Akteure - Mechanismen - Modelle: Zur Theoriefähigkeit makro-sozialer Analysen. Frankfurt: Campus (128-50).
19. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In Geertz, C. (ed.), The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books (3-32).
20. George, A. and A. Bennett (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
21. Gerring, J. (2007a). Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Gerring, J. (2007b). Is There a (Viable) Crucial-Case Method? Comparative Political Studies 40(3): 231-53.
23. Gerring, J. (2004). What is a Case Study and What is it Good For? American Political Science Review 98(2): 341-54.
24. Gerring, J. (2001). Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Goertz, G. (2006). Social Science Concepts: A User's Guide. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
26. Goertz, G. and J. Levy (2007). Causal Explanation, Necessary Conditions and Case Studies. In Goertz, G. and J. Levy (eds.), Explaining War and Peace: Case Studies and Necessary Condition Counterfactuals. London: Routledge (9-46).
27. Goertz, G. and H. Starr (2003) (eds.). Necessary Conditions: Theory, Methodology and Applications. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
28. Hall, P. (2006). Systematic Process Analysis: When and How To Use It. European Management Review 3(1): 24-31.
29. Hedstroem, P. and R. Swedberg (1998). Social Mechanisms: An Introductory Essay. In Hedstroem, P. and R. Swedberg (eds.), Social Mechanisms. An Analytical Approach to Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1-31).
30. King, G., Keohane, R. and S. Verba (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
31. Lijphart, A (1975). The Comparable-Cases Strategy in Comparative Research. Comparative Political Studies 8(2): 158-77.
32. Lijphart, A (1975 [1968]). The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands. Berkeley: University of California Press.
33. Mahoney, J. and G. Goertz (2006). A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Political Analysis 14(3): 227-49.
34. Malinowski, B. (1966 [1926]). Crime and Custom in Savage Society. London: Routledge.
35. Mitchell, S. (2002). Contingent Generalizations: Lessons from Biology. In Mayntz, R. (ed.), Akteure - Mechanismen - Modelle: Zur Theoriefähigkeit makro-sozialer Analysen. Frankfurt: Campus (179-95).
36. Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in Time: History, Institutions and Social Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
37. Przeworski, A. and H. Teune (1970). The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry, Comparative Studies in Behavioral Science. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
38. Ragin, C. (2000). Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
39. Ragin, C. (2008). Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40. Sagan, S. (1993). The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
41. Sartori, G. (1970). Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics. American Political Science Review 64(4): 1033-53.
42. Sartori, G. (1984). Social Science Concepts: A Systematic Analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage.
43. Schimmelfennig, F. (2006): Prozessanalyse. In Behnke, J. et al. (eds.), Methoden der Politikwissenschaft: Neuere qualitative und quantitative Analyseverfahren. Baden-Baden: Nomos (263-71).
44. Seawright, J. and D. Collier (2004). Glossary. In Brady, H. and D. Collier (eds.), Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield (273-313).
45. Skocpol, T. (1999). States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. Stake, R. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. London: Sage.
47. Van Evera, S. (1997). Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
48. Wilson, E. and A. Woodside (1999). Degrees-of-Freedom Analysis of Case Data in Business Marketing Research. i Industrial Marketing Management 28(3): 215-29.
49. Yin, R. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage.