Epistemology and Methods Small-N and Large-N Studies May 18 2010 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 MostSimilar 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) IV DV Case 1 ABCDE Y Case 2 AFGHI Y 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 IV DV Case 1 ABCDE Y Case 2 ~ABCDE ~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) Summing Up (Mahoney and Goertz 2006)