METHODOLOGY IN POLITICAL SCIENCE: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS

October 8, 2014

By Hung-jen Wang 王宏仁

TODAY’S OUTLINE 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 TYPOLOGY OF RESEARCH DESIGN What is a case study and what is NOT:

TYPE 8. TIME SERIES CROSS-SECTIONAL

THE N QUESTION 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) N=2 (Not 1) Type 22) No temporal variation Type 3

WHAT 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.

CONCLUSION

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. DOING CASE STUDIES

SIX ISSUES 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). THE 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). THE HYPOTHESIS 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 X1/Y-centered.

X- or Y-centered research is exploratory (its purpose is to generate new hypotheses); X1/Y-centered research is confirmatory/disconfirmatory (its purpose is to test an existing hypothesis).

X1/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 X1/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). DEGREES OF FALSIFIABILITY

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

Verifiable vs. FalsifiableFor 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). THE PARTICULAR AND THE GENERAL

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) SPECIFYING 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). CROSS-LEVEL REASONING

The case study research is cross-level research: it operates at the level of the principal units of analysis (the cases), and also within selected cases (within-case evidence).

III. PROCESS TRACING METHOD

WHAT IS PROCESS-TRACING? 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.

WHY 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 (X1Y) is usually insufficient to prove causation in a case study format. [X1Y 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 X1Y (the large-N cross-case style of

research) A single instance of X1 X2 X3 X4 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

EXAMPLE 3: SKOCPOL’S EXPLANATION OF THE BREAKDOWN OF THE FRENCH 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 3 general causal factors leading to the breakdown of state authority in the 18 century: agrarian backwardness, international pressure, and state autonomy.

Skocpol then disaggregates these three into 37 discrete steps that connect structural causes to the outcome of interest in this France case.

The nature of process-tracing evidence The noncomparability of adjacent pieces of evidence. [That

is, process-tracing observations are not different examples of the same thing; they are 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).

VARIETIES OF PROCESS-TRACING

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.

FORMS OF CAUSAL PROCESSES Several different types of causal processes can be distinguished

here:1) Linear causality: a straightforward, direct chain of events that

characterizes simple phenomena;2) Convergence: the outcome flows from the convergence of

several conditions, independent variables, or causal chains; [for example, Scocpol’s study of revolutions]

3) Interacting: The causal variables in a case are interacting and are not independent of each other.

4) 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]

SUMMARY ON PROCESS-TRACING Process-tracing method offers an alternative way for making causal

inferences when it is not possible to do so through the method of “controlled comparison” [that is, to find cases similar in every respect but one]

Process-tracing method can identify single 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 few cases or even a single case.

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.