Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:18:16.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2005

EVAN S. LIEBERMAN
EVAN S. LIEBERMAN
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite repeated calls for the use of “mixed methods” in comparative analysis, political scientists have few systematic guides for carrying out such work. This paper details a unified approach which joins intensive case-study analysis with statistical analysis. Not only are the advantages of each approach combined, but also there is a synergistic value to the nested research design: for example, statistical analyses can guide case selection for in-depth research, provide direction for more focused case studies and comparisons, and be used to provide additional tests of hypotheses generated from small-N research. Small-N analyses can be used to assess the plausibility of observed statistical relationships between variables, to generate theoretical insights from outlier and other cases, and to develop better measurement strategies. This integrated strategy improves the prospects of making valid causal inferences in cross-national and other forms of comparative research by drawing on the distinct strengths of two important approaches.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 99 , Issue 3 , August 2005 , pp. 435 - 452
Copyright
© 2005 by the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achen Christopher H. 1982. Interpreting and Using Regression. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Achen Christopher H., and Duncan Snidal. 1989. “Rational Deterrence Theory and Comparative Case Studies.” World Politics 41 (January): 144– 69.Google Scholar
Adcock Robert, and David Collier. 2001. “Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research.” American Political Science Review 95 (3): 529– 47.Google Scholar
Adserà Alícia, and Carles Boix. 2002. “Trade, Democracy and the Size of the Public Sector: The Political Underpinnings of Openness.” International Organization 56 (Spring): 229– 62.Google Scholar
Bates Robert H., Avner Greif, Margaret Levi, Jean-Laurent Rosenthal, and Barry R. Weingast. 1998. Analytic Narratives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Beck Nathaniel, and Jonathan N. Katz. 1995. “What to do (and not to do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data.” American Political Science Review 89 (September): 634– 47.Google Scholar
Bennett Andrew. 2002. “Where the Model Frequently Meets the Road: Combining Statistical, Formal, and Case Study Methods.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.
Brady Henry E., and David Collier, eds. 2004. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Berkeley, CA: Rowman & Littlefield and Berkeley Public Policy Press.
Campbell Donald T., and Julian C. Stanley. 1966. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Collier David. 1991. “The Comparative Method: Two Decades of Change.” In Comparative Political Dynamics. ed. D. A. Rustow and K. P. Erickson. New York: Harper Collins, 7– 31.
Collier David. 1999. “Building a Disciplined, Rigorous Center in Comparative Politics.” APSA Comparative Politics Section Newsletter 10 (Summer): 1– 2, 4.Google Scholar
Collier David, and James Mahoney. 1996. “Insights and Pitfalls.” World Politics 49 (October): 56– 92.Google Scholar
Collier David, Henry E. Brady, and Jason Seawright. 2004. “Source of Leverage in Causal Inference: Toward an Alternative View of Methodology.” In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, ed. H. E. Brady and D. Collier. Berkeley, CA: Rowman & Littlefield and Berkeley Public Policy Press.
Coppedge Michael. 1999. “Thickening Thin Concepts and Theories.” Comparative Politics 31 (July): 465– 77.Google Scholar
Coppedge Michael. 2005. “Explaining Democratic Deterioration in Venezuela Through Nested Induction.” In The Third Wave of Democratization in Latin America, ed. F. Hagopian & S. Mainwaring. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fearon James, and David Laitin. 2005. “Civil War Narratives.” Theory and Research in Comparative Social Analysis Working Paper Series, 27. Department of Sociology, UCLA. http://repositories.cdlib.org/uclasoc/trcsa/27.
Fearon James, and David Laitin. 2003. “Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War.” American Political Science Review 97 (February): 75– 90.Google Scholar
Garrett Geoffrey. 1998. Partisan Politics in the Global Economy, Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Geddes Barbara. 1990. “How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get: Selection Bias in Comparative Politics.” Political Analysis (Spring): 131– 50.Google Scholar
George Alexander L. 1979. Case Studies and Theory Development: The Method of Structured, Focused Comparison. In Diplomacy: New Approaches in History, Theory and Policy. ed. P. G. Lauren. New York: The Free Press.
George Alexander L. and Andrew Bennett. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gerring John. 2001. Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gerring John. 2004. “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good For?” American Political Science Review 98 (May): 341– 54.Google Scholar
Gerring John. 2005. “Causation: A Unified Framework for the Social Sciences.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 17 (April): 163– 98.Google Scholar
Huth Paul K. 1996. Standing Your Ground: Territorial Disputes and International Conflict. Ann Arbor: Univeristy of Michigan Press.
Jackman Robert W. 1985. “Cross-National Statistical Research and the Study of Comparative Politics.” American Journal of Political Science 29 (February): 161– 82.Google Scholar
Keohane Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
King Gary, Robert Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Laitin David. 2002. “Comparative Politics: The State of the Subdiscipline.” In Political Science: The State of the Discipline. ed. I. Katznelson and H. V. Milner. New York; Washington, DC; Norton: American Political Science Association.
Lieberman Evan. 2001a. “Causal Inference in Historical Institutional Analysis: A Specification of Periodization Strategies.” Comparative Political Studies 34 (9): 1011– 35.Google Scholar
Lieberman Evan. 2001b. “Taxation Data as Indicators of State-Society Relations: Possibilities and Pitfalls in Cross-National Research.” Studies in Comparative International Development 36 (January): 89– 115.Google Scholar
Lieberman Evan S. 2003. Race and Regionalism in the Politics of Taxation in Brazil and South Africa, Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lijphart Arend. 1971. “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method.” American Political Science Review 65 (September): 682– 93.Google Scholar
Lustick Ian S. 1996. “History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias.” American Political Science Review 90 (September): 605– 18.Google Scholar
Lynch Julia. 2002. “The Age of Welfare: Citizens, Clients, and Generations in the Development of the Welfare State.” Ph.D. diss. University of California, Berkeley.
Mahoney James, and Dietrich Rueschemeyer. 2003. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Martin Lisa L. 1992. Coercive Cooperation: Explaining Multilateral Economic Sanctions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
McKeown Timothy. 2004. “Case Studies and the Statistical Worldview.” In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. ed. H. E. Brady and D. Collier. Berkeley, CA: Rowman & Littlefield and Berkeley Public Policy Press.
Munck Gerardo L. 1998. “Canons of Research Design in Qualitative Research.” Studies in Comparative International Development 33 (Fall): 18– 45.Google Scholar
Przeworski Adam, and Henry Teune. 1970. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Ragin Charles C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ragin Charles C. 2000. Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Reiter Dan, and Allan C. Stam. 2002. Democracies at War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rogowski Ronald. 1995. “The Role of Theory and Anomaly in Social-Scientific Research.” American Political Science Review 89 (June): 467– 70.Google Scholar
Sartori Giovanni. 1970. “Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics.” The American Political Science Review 64 (December): 1033– 53.Google Scholar
Swank Duane. 2002. Global Capital, Political Institutions, and Policy Change in Developed Welfare States, Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tarrow Sidney. 1995. “Bridging the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 89 (June): 471– 4.Google Scholar
Western Bruce, and Simon Jackman. 1994. “Bayesian Inference for Comparative Research.” American Political Science Review 88 (June): 412– 23.Google Scholar
Zuckerman Alan S. 1997. “Reformulating Explanatory Standards and Advancing Theory in Comparative Politics.” In Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. ed. M. I. Lichbach and A. S. Zuckerman. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.