Epistemology and Methods Small-N and Large-N Studies May

Conflict vs. co-existence Methods are used to test theories or assist in theory-building Quantitative or qualitative methods have different strengths and weaknesses Different “group think” attitudes have led to sharp divisions Common quest, different routes…

Qualitative methods: what is this? Other “label”: case study methods (single cases and comparison of cases) Mostly used qualitative method is: Process-tracing –Whether intervening variables between a hypothesized cause and observed effect move as predicted by theories Also used, albeit less frequently, is: Counterfactual analysis –Whether x in a specified case was necessary for y

Case study designs Forms of single case study design 1)Descriptive case study Written by participants or historians 2)Preliminary illustration of a theory Keohane (1984) on the role of regimes

Case study designs 3)Disciplined interpretative case study Interpretation/explanation of an event by applying a known theory Could lead to improvement of theory Risk: underplaying evidence inconsistent with the argument, eclectic approach (which factors are more important) Remedy: Engage sincerely in alternative explanations, add counterfactual arguments

Case study design 4)Hypothesis-generating case study Schattschneider (1935) Politics, Pressures, and the Tariff Pressure group politics Kindleberger (1973)“that for the world economy to be stabilized, there has to be a stabilizer, one stabilizer“

Case study design 5)Least-likely (theory-confirming) case study Extreme case that is highly unlikely to confirm Lends strong support if confirmed Example: The WTO treaties constrain actor’s national policies – case-study on the US

Case study design 6)Most-likely (theory-infirming) case study An important single case study that disconfirmed the expected outcome even though conditions make the case favorable for theory Example: The WTO dispute settlement system is biased against emerging developing countries – case-study on Brazil’s application and success rate…

Case study design 7)Deviant case study (outlier cases) Shedding light on the limits of a theory Suggesting new hypotheses Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor and Deterrence Theory (Russett 1967)

Case study design Comparative methods (Mill’s Methods and Least-Similar and Most- Similar Case Comparisons) The method of agreement (least similar case design) Search for similar antecedent conditions / ideally necessary conditions E.g. negotiations in GATT vs. WTO (A: G2 power) IVDV Case 1ABCDEY Case 2AFGHIY

Case study design Comparative methods The method of difference (most similar case design) Method of controlled comparison BCDE (constant) E.g. disputes on similar cases: GATT vs. WTO IVDV Case 1ABCDEY Case 2~ABCDE~Y~Y

Case study design Advantages of case studies Generate valid theory Refining theory, generate new hypotheses Strong for documenting processes /making inference regarding causal mechanisms Finding omitted variables Key events better explained than in large-n statistical tests…

Case study design Limits of case studies Less useful for systematic testing a theory Case selection bias Confirmation bias Potential indeterminacy Representativeness (generalizability vs. specificity) Lesser precision of magnitude of causal effects

Quantitative methods What is statistical method capable of doing? Short-cut: “it permits the researcher to draw inferences about reality based on the data at hand and the laws of probability”

Quantitative methods Advantages: Powerful tool to “aggregate information” from a large amount of data Clear transparent coding process (high reliability, possibility for replication) Visual display Test whether association between variables is a product of chance

Quantitative methods Advantages: Measure the effect of a change on the IV on the DV Assess the “contribution” (explanatory power) of an IV (average explanatory effects) Mapping of “deviant cases” Generalizability

Quantitative methods Limits: Identifying new variables Dealing with multiple conjunctural causality or equifinality Validity of operationalization of variables Role of important cases

Quantitative methods Errors of Specification: Too much effort calculating correlations with little attention to theory (i.e. Democratic peace) Theory itself often imprecise/shallow – does not lend itself to be tested (i.e. Waltzian balancing vs. bandwagoning) Imposing a statistical model on the theory (inattention to causal processes...)

Quantitative methods Errors of Inference: Focus on statistical significance (probability that relationship between A and B occured by chance) vs. substantive significance (magnitude of the relationship) Mining datasets /few non-results make it to publication

Summing Up (Mahoney and Goertz 2006)