Case selection and causal inferences in qualitative comparative research

PLoS ONE

Volumn 14, Issue 7, 2019, Pages

  Plümper, Thomas ^a   Troeger, Vera E ^b   Neumayer, Eric ^c  

^a VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

^c LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRAWING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PERCEPTION; RELIABILITY; SCIENTIST; VALIDITY; ALGORITHM; CAUSALITY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

ALGORITHMS; CAUSALITY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

EID: 85069653611     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219727     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Lijphart A 1971, Comparative politics and the comparative method, Am Polit Sci Rev 65(3):682–693.
2. Eckstein H, 1975. Case study and theory in political science. Greenstein E, Polsby N, eds. Handbook of Political Science, London: Addison-Wesley.
3. Seawright J, Gerring J, 2008. Case-selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Polit Res Quart, 61(2):294–308.
4. Mill JS, 1843. A system of logic. London: Parker.
5. Herron MC, Quinn KM, 2016. A careful look at modern case selection methods, Sociol Method Res 45 (3): 458–492.
6. Hume D, 1748, Philosophical essays concerning human understanding. London: A. Millar.
7. Popper KR, 1959. The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson. First published in German by Springer in 1934.
8. Neyman J, 1923/1990. On the Application of Probability Theory to Agricultural Experiments: Essay on Principles, Translated and edited by D. M. Dabrowska and T. P. Speed. Reprinted in Stat Sci 5:463–80.
9. Rubin DB, 1974. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J Educ Psychol, 66(5): 688–701.
10. Holland P, 1986, Statistics and causal inference, J Am Stat Assoc 81(396): 945–960.
11. Rescher N., 1964. Hypothetical reasoning. Amsterdam: North Holland.
12. Sayer A, 2000. System, lifeworld and gender: Associational versus counterfactual thinking. Sociology, 34(4): 707–725.
13. Gelman A, 2011. Causality and statistical learning. Am J Sociol, 117(3),955–966.
14. McGinnis R, 1958. Randomization and inference in sociological research. Am Sociol Rev 23(4),408–414.
15. Keele L, Titiunik R, Zubizarreta JR, 2015. Enhancing a geographic regression discontinuity design through matching to estimate the effect of ballot initiatives on voter turnout. J. R. Stat. Soc. A, 178,223–239.
16. Bennett A, 2004. Models, Numbers, and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations, University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.
17. Gerring J, 2007, Case study research. Principles and practices, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
18. Rosenthal JA, 1996. Qualitative descriptors of strength of association and effect size. J Soc Serv Res, 21(4),37–59.
19. Hempel CG, Oppenheim P, 1948. Studies in the logic of explanation. Philos Sci 15(2),135–175.
20. Salmon WC, 1989. Four decades of scientific explanation. In Kitcher& Salmon (Eds.), Scientific Explanation, Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol XIII, pp. 3–219). University of Minnesota Press: Minnesota.
21. Ruse M, 1982. Creation science is not science. Sci Tech Human Val, 7(40),72–78.
22. Gobo G, 2004. Sampling, Representativeness and generalizability. In Seale C, Gobo G, Gubrium JD, Silverman D. (Eds.), Qualitative research practice. Sage: London, 435–456.
23. Goffman E, 1961. Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Anchor Books: New York.
24. Pearl J. 2010. The foundations of causal inference. Sociol Methodol 40, 75–149.
25. Hidalgo FD, Sekhon JS, 2011. Causality. International Encyclopedia of Political Science. SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, 204–211.
26. Cartwright N, 2007. Are RCTs the gold standard? BioSocieties, 2:1, 11–20.
27. Light RJ, Singer JD, Willett JB, 1990. By design. Harvard University: Cambridge.
28. Neumayer E, Plümper T, 2017. Robustness tests for quantitative research, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
29. Sekhon JS, 2008. The Neyman-Rubin model of causal inference and estimation via matching methods. The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, 271–299.
30. Sekhon JS, 2009. Opiates for the matches: Matching methods for causal inference. Annu Rev Pol Sci 12, 487–508.
31. Zhou X, Xie Y, 2016. Propensity score–based methods versus MTE-based methods in causal inference: Identification, estimation, and application. Sociol Method Res 45(1), 3–40.
32. George AL, Bennett A, 1979. Case studies and theory development. Free Press: New York.
33. George AL, Bennett A, 2005. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press: Boston.
34. Lieberson S, 1991. Small N’s and big conclusions: An examination of the reasoning in comparative studies based on a small number of cases. Soc Forces, 70(2),307–320.
35. Sekhon JS. 2004, Quality meets quantity: Case studies, conditional probability, and counterfactuals. Perspect Polit 2(2),281–293.
36. Przeworski A, Teune H, 1970, The logic of comparative social inquiry. Wiley: New York.
37. Meckstroth T, 1975, Most different systems and most similar systems: A study in the logic of comparative inquiry. Comp Polit Stud 8(2),133–177.
38. Gerring J, 2004, What is a case study and what is it good for? Am Polit Sci Rev 98(2),341–354.
39. King G, Keohane RO, Verba S, 1994, Designing social inquiry. Scientific inference in qualitative research, Princeton University Press: Princeton.
40. Brady HE, 2004, Doing good and doing better: How far does the quantitative template get us? in: Brady H, Collier D(eds.): Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, 53–83.
41. Bartels LM, 2004, The unfulfilled promises of quantitative imperialism, in Brady H, Collier D(eds.): Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, 69–83.
42. McKeown T, 2004, Case studies and the limits of the quantitative worldview, in in Brady H, Collier D (eds.): Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, 139–167.
43. Geddes B, 1990, How the cases you choose affect the answers you get. Selection bias in comparative politics, Polit Anal 2,131–152.
44. Collier D, Mahoney J, 1996, Insights and pitfalls. Selection bias in qualitative research, World Polit 49 (1),56–91.
45. Collier D, Mahoney J, Seawright J, 2004, Claiming too much: Warnings about selection bias, in Brady H, Collier D(eds.): Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, 85–102.
46. Gerring J, McDermott R, 1997, An experimental template for case study research, Am J Polit Sci 51 (3):688–701.
47. Dion D, 1998, Evidence and inference in the comparative case study, Comp Polit 30, 127–145.
48. Seawright J, 2002, Testing for necessary and/or sufficient causation: Which Cases are relevant? Polit Anal 10,178–193.
49. Lijphart A, 1975, Comparable cases strategy in comparative research, Comp Polit Stud 8, 158–177.