Methodological Rorschach Tests: Contrasting Interpretations in Qualitative and Quantitative Research

Comparative Political Studies

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 236-251

  Goertz, Gary ^a   Mahoney, James ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84872653632     PISSN: 00104140     EISSN: 15523829     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0010414012466376     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Beck N.Is causal-process observation an oxymoron?.Political Analysis. 2006;14:347-352.
2. Beck N.Causal process "observation": Oxymoron or (fine) old wine.Political Analysis. 2010;18:499-505.
3. Bennett A.The Oxford handbook of political methodology. Box-Steffensmeier J.Brady H.Collier D., ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2008:702-721.
4. Brady H. E.Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. 2010). Data-set observations versus causal-process observations: The 2000 presidential election. In BradyH. E.CollierD. (Eds.), Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards (2nd ed., pp. 237-242). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Brady H. E.Collier D., ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2010:237-242.
5. Brady H. E.,Collier D.,Seawright J.Toward a pluralistic vision of methodology.Political Analysis. 2006;14:353-368.
6. Collier D.Understanding process tracing.PS: Political Science & Politics. 2011;44:823-830.
7. Collier D.,Brady H.,Seawright J.Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. 2010b). Sources of leverage in causal inference: Toward an alternative view of methodology. In BradyH. E.CollierD. (Eds.), Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards (2nd ed., pp. 161-199). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Brady H. E.Collier D., ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2010b:161-199.
8. Dion D.Evidence and inference in the comparative case study.Comparative Politics. 1998;30:127-145.
9. Geddes B.Political analysis. Stimson J. A., ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 1991:131-150.
10. George A.,Bennett A.Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2005:.
11. Gerring J.Causal mechanisms, yes, but... Comparative Political Studies. 2010;43:1499-1526.
12. Gerring J.Social science methodology: A unified framework. 2012). Social science methodology: A unified framework (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2012:.
13. Goertz G.Necessary conditions: Theory, methodology, and applications. Goertz G.Starr H., ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2003:65-94.
14. Haggard S.,Kaufman R. R.Inequality and regime change: Democratic transitions and the stability of democratic rule.American Political Science Review. 2012;106:495-516.
15. Hedström P.,Ylikoski P.Causal mechanisms in the social sciences.Annual Review of Sociology. 2010;36:49-67.
16. Holland P.Statistics and causal inference.Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1986;81:945-960.
17. Imai K.,Keele L.,Tingley D.,Yamamoto T.Unpacking the black box of causality.American Political Science Review. 2011;105:765-789.
18. King G.,Keohane R.,Verba S.Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1994:.
19. Kreuzer M.Historical knowledge and quantitative analysis: The case of the origins of proportional representation.American Political Science Review. 2010;104:369-392.
20. Lott J. R.Gore might lose a second round: Media suppressed the Bush vote.Philadelphia Inquirer. 2000;:23A.
21. Lupia A.,McCubbins M.The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know?. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1998:.
22. Mahoney J.Nominal, ordinal, and narrative appraisal in macrocausal analysis.American Journal of Sociology. 1999;104:1154-1196.
23. Mahoney J.The logic of process tracing tests in the social sciences.Sociological Methods and Research. 2012;41:560-590.
24. Moore B.Social origins of dictatorship and democracy: Lord and peasant in the making of the modern world. Boston, MA: Beacon; 1966:.
25. Morgan S.,Winship C.Counterfactuals and causal inference: Methods and principles for social research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007:.
26. Morton R.,Williams K.From nature to the lab: Experimental political science and the study of causality. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2010:.
27. Narang V.,Nelson R.Who are these belligerent democratizers? Reassessing the impact of democratization on war.International Organization. 2009;63:357-379.
28. Norkus Z.Mechanisms as miracle makers? The rise and inconsistencies of the mechanistic approach in social science and history.History and Theory. 2004;44:348-372.
29. Pearl J.Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2000:.
30. Ragin C. C.The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1987:.
31. Ragin C. C.Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2000:.
32. Ragin C. C.Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2008:.
33. Russett B.The democratic peace: and yet it moves.International Security. 1995;19:164-175.
34. Sambanis N.Using case studies to expand economic models of civil war.Perspectives on Politics. 2004;2:259-279.
35. Sekhon J.Quality meets quantity: Case studies, conditional probability, and counterfactuals.Perspectives on Politics. 2004;2:281-293.
36. SlaterD.SmithB. (2010). Economic origins of democratic breakdown? Contrary evidence from Southeast Asia and beyond. Unpublished manuscript.
37. Snyder J.,Borghard E.The cost of empty threats: A penny, not a pound.American Political Science Review. 2011;105:437-455.
38. Van Evera S.Guide to methods for students of political science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; 1997:.
39. Waltz K.Theory of international politics. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1979:.