M ETHODOLOGY IN Q UALITATIVE R P OLITICAL ESEARCH M S CIENCE ETHODS : October 8, 2014 By Hung-jen Wang

王宏仁

T

ODAY

’

S

O

UTLINE

• • • • • • • • • •    I. What is a case study? [To continue last lecture] A typology The N question What is a case study and what is not?

Conclusions

II. Doing case studies

Evidence-gathering techniques The formulation of a hypothesis Degrees of falsifiability The particular and general Population Cross-level research

III. Process Tracing Method

A T

YPOLOGY OF

R

ESEARCH

D

ESIGN

 What is a case study and what is NOT:

T YPE 8. T IME SERIES CROSS SECTIONAL

T

HE

N Q

UESTION

 Traditionally, the case study has been identified with qualitative methods and cross-case analysis with quantitative methods.

 However, what distinguishes the case study method from all other methods is its reliance on evidence drawn from a single case and its attempt to illuminate features of a broader set of cases .  Therefore, it doesn’t matter whether the employed observations (N) are small or large: For example, the French Revolution 1) 2) N=2 (Not 1)  Type 2 No temporal variation  Type 3

W

HAT IS A CASE STUDY AND WHAT IS NOT

?

    Campbell et al., The American Voter (1960), examines public opinion on a wide range of topics that are thought to influence electoral behavior through the instrument of a nationwide survey of the general public (over 1000 people).

The People’s Choice (1948), by Lazarsfeld et al., is a longitudinal panel study focusing on 600 citizens living in Erie County, Ohio, who were polled at monthly intervals during the 1940 presidential campaign to determine what influences the campaign may have had on their choice of candidates.

Middletown (1929/1956), by Lynd and Lynd, examines life in a midsized city, including such topics as earning a living, making a home, training the young, using leisure, taking part in religious practices etc.

Political Ideology (1962), by Lane, attempts to uncover the sources of political values in a subsection of the American public, represented by 15 people who are interviewed by the author.

C

ONCLUSION

What is it that drives the distinction?

 It is NOT the type of subjects under study (all are people), NOT the number of observations (which range from small-N to large-N), or NOT the breadth of the population (all are the same country, the US).

 It is the

number of cases

under investigation, where only in the case studies does qualitative analysis comprise a significant portion of the research.

II. D OING CASE STUDIES

S

IX

I

SSUES THAT AFFECT CASE STUDY WOK



The evidence-gathering techniques



The formulation of a hypothesis



Degrees of falsifiability



The particular and general



Population



Cross-level research

(1). T

HE EVIDENCE

-

GATHERING TECHNIQUES

    Evidence could be found from an existing dataset , set of texts , or simply the investigator’s own original research .

Evidence may be quantitative , qualitative , or a mixture of both .

Evidence can be made from experiments , from ethnographic fieldwork , from unstructured interviews , or from highly structured surveys .

All data requires interpretation: all techniques of evidence gathering are

interpretive

.

(2). T

HE

H

YPOTHESIS    All hypotheses involve at least one independent variable (X) , and one dependent variable (Y) .

If a researcher is concerned to explain a puzzling outcome, but has no preconceptions about its causes, then the research will be described as Y-centered. If a researcher is concerned about the effects of a particular cause, then the research will be described as X-centered. If a researcher is concerned to investigate a particular causal relationship, the research will be described as X

1

/Y-centered.

X- or Y-centered research is exploratory (its purpose is to generate new hypotheses); X hypothesis).

1

/Y-centered research is confirmatory/disconfirmatory (its purpose is to test an existing



X 1

/Y-centered research will get a specific causal factor(s), a specific outcome, and some pattern of association between the two. In this situation, we say that X

1

/Y-centered analysis presumes a particular hypothesis—a proposition .

 Naturally, the researcher’s hypothesis may change in the course of his/her research.

 Usually, a hypothesis arises from an open-ended conversation between a researcher and his/her evidence.

(3). D

EGREES OF

F

ALSIFIABILITY  Degree of falsifiability is the ease with which a proposition could be proven false.

 Verifiable vs. Falsifiable For example: (1) “This swan is white” verifies “There are white swans”.

(2) However, the first observed black swan refutes (falsifies) the claim “All swans are white”

(4). T

HE

P

ARTICULAR AND THE

G

ENERAL  The particularizing and generalizing distinction should be understood as a continuum , not a dichotomy.

 Case studies typically partake of both .

For example: Graham Allison, Essence of Decision : Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (1999). “Essence of Decision” suggests a much larger topic (referring to general government decision making) “Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis” suggests a narrow topic 

Economists, political scientists, and sociologists are usually more interested in generalizing than in particularizing, while anthropologists and historians are more interested in explaining particular contexts.

(5) S

PECIFYING A POPULATION  Each inference must have a clear breadth, domain, scope, or “population”.

Example 1 : when we are talking about the study of some element of politics in the United States, this could imply the study pertaining only to American politics, to all contemporary polities, or in varying degrees to both.

Example 2 : Theda Skocpol, States and Social Revolutions : a Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. (1979)  A researcher’s arbitrary right: Scope conditions (population) may be arbitrarily large, as well as arbitrarily small.

(6). C

ROSS

-L

EVEL

R

EASONING  The case study research is cross-level research within selected cases (within-case evidence).

: it operates at the level of the principal units of analysis (the cases), and also

III. P ROCESS T RACING M ETHOD

W

HAT IS

P

ROCESS

-T

RACING

?

 It is a within-case method, not a theory.

 It is different from other methods such as large cross-case analyses of case comparisons or statistical analysis.

 It relates to the causal mechanism component of causal explanation, while statistical study relates to the component of causal explanation defined as causal effects.

W

HY DO WE NEED PROCESS TRACING METHOD

?

 Few case studies (whether a single case or a small number of cases) are truly experimental;  Case study research usually relies heavily on contextual evidence and deductive logic to reconstruct causality within a single case;  A co-variational style of research (X 1  Y) is usually insufficient to prove causation in a case study format. [X 1  Y relationship is often opaque] =  We therefore must supplement case study research with another form of analysis that has come to be known as “

process tracing

”.

 Example 1: 50 numbered dominoes  Example 2:   Multiple instances of X 1  Y (the large-N cross-case style of research) A single instance of X 1  X 2  X 3  X 4  Y ( process tracing )

 A number of synonymous terms might also be used by researchers referring to the concept of process-tracing method:  

Causal process observations Pattern matching

   

Causal-chain explanation Colligation Congruence method Genetic explanation

  

Interpretive method Narrative explanation Sequential explanation

E XAMPLE 3: S KOCPOL ’ S EXPLANATION OF THE BREAKDOWN OF THE F RENCH STATE (1789)

 1. Property relations prevent introduction of new agricultural techniques. 2. Tax system discourages agricultural innovation. 3. Sustained growth discourages agricultural innovation. 4. Backwardness of French agriculture. 5. Weak domestic market for industrial goods. 6. Internal transportation problems. 7. Population growth. 8. Failure to achieve industrial breakthrough. 9. Failure to sustain economic growth. 10. Inability to successfully compete with England. 11. Initial military successes under Louis XIV. 12. Expansionist ambitions of state. 13. French geographical location vs. England. 14. Sustained warfare. 15. State needs to devote resources to both army and navy. 16. Repeated defeats in war. 17. Creation of absolutist monarchy; decentralized medieval institutions persist. 18. Dominant class often exempted from taxes. 19. State faces obstacles generating loans. 20. Socially cohesive dominant class based on proprietary wealth. 21. Dominant class possesses legal right to delay royal legislation. 22. Dominant class exercises firm control over financial reforms. 25. Major financial problems of state. 26. State attempts tax/financial reforms. 27. Financial reforms fail. 28. Recruitment of military officers from privileged classes. 29. Military officers hold grievances against the crown. 30. Military officers identify with the dominant class. 31. Military is unwilling to repress dominant class resistance. 32. Financial crisis deepens. 33. Pressures for creation of the Estates-General. 34. King summons the Estates-General. 35. Popular protests spread. 36. Conflict among dominant class members in the Estates-General; paralysis of old regime. 37. Municipal revolution; the old state collapses.

 Skocpol’s in-depth examination of three key cases: Russia, China, and France [Remember Y-centered research?]  Within France case, Skocpol identifies autonomy.

3 general causal factors leading to the breakdown of state authority in the 18 century: agrarian backwardness, international pressure, and state  Skocpol then disaggregates these three into that connect structural causes to the outcome of interest in this France case.

37 discrete steps

 The nature of process-tracing evidence  The

noncomparability

process-tracing observations are not different examples of the same thing; they are of adjacent pieces of evidence. [That is,

different things

(“apples and oranges”)]   All pieces of evidence are relevant to the central argument (they are not random), but they do not comprise observations in a larger sample.

Process-tracing leans heavily on general assumptions about the world, which may be highly theoretical or pre-theoretical (common sense).

V

ARIETIES OF

P

ROCESS

-T

RACING

1) Detailed Narrative: such is a narrative or story presented in the form of a chronicle that purports to throw light on how an  event came about.

Historical chronicles are a familiar example.

  A well-constructed detailed narrative may suggest enough about the possible causal processes in a case.

Some philosophers of history argue that each step or link in a causal process should be supported by an appropriate law (or a statement of regularity), even though such “laws” are so numerous.

2) A More Analytical Form of Process-Tracing: at least parts of the narrative are accompanied with explicit hypotheses without employing theoretical variables or attempting to generalizations.

3) Analytic Explanation: To convert a historical narrative into an analytical causal explanation couched in theoretical forms; the explanation may be deliberately selective, focusing on what are thought to be particularly important parts of a parsimonious explanation.

4) More General Explanation: To construct a general explanation rather than a detailed tracing of a causal process; such process tracing does NOT require a detailed tracing of a causal sequence.

F

ORMS OF

C

AUSAL

P

ROCESSES

 Several different types of causal processes can be distinguished here:

1) 2) 3) 4)

Linear causality: a straightforward, direct chain of events that characterizes simple phenomena; Convergence: the outcome flows from the convergence of several conditions, independent variables, or causal chains; [for example, Scocpol’s study of revolutions] Interacting: The causal variables in a case are interacting and are not independent of each other.

Path-dependent: In cases that consist of a sequence of events, some of which foreclose certain paths in the development and steer the outcome in other directions. [To identify key decision points or branching points in a longitudinal case]

S

UMMARY ON

P

ROCESS

-T

RACING

    Process-tracing method offers

an alternative way for making causal inferences

“controlled comparison” [that is, to find cases similar in every respect but one] when it is not possible to do so through the method of Process-tracing method can identify single few cases or

even a single

case.

or different

paths to an outcome, point out variables that were otherwise left out in the initial comparison of cases, and permit causal inference on the basis of a Process-tracing method identifies

different causal paths

that lead to

a similar outcome

in different cases [the idea of “ equifinality ” or “ multiple convergence ”] The large-N statistical analyses likely to overlook the possibility of equifinality and find only one causal path; processing tracing can supplement such weakness, and furthermore explain for deviant cases.