importance of case study in politics

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

51 The Case Study: What it is and What it Does

John Gerring is Professor of Political Science, Boston University.

• Published: 05 September 2013
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This article presents a reconstructed definition of the case study approach to research. This definition emphasizes comparative politics, which has been closely linked to this method since its creation. The article uses this definition as a basis to explore a series of contrasts between cross-case study and case study research. This article attempts to provide better understanding of this persisting methodological debate as a matter of tradeoffs, which may also contribute to destroying the boundaries that have separated these rival genres within the subfield of comparative politics.

Two centuries after Le Play’s pioneering work, the various disciplines of the social sciences continue to produce a vast number of case studies, many of which have entered the pantheon of classic works. Judging by the large volume of recent scholarly output the case study research design plays a central role in anthropology, archeology, business, education, history, medicine, political science, psychology, social work, and sociology (Gerring 2007 a , ch. 1 ). Even in economics and political economy, fields not usually noted for their receptiveness to case-based work, there has been something of a renaissance. Recent studies of economic growth have turned to case studies of unusual countries such as Botswana, Korea, and Mauritius. 1 Debates on the relationship between trade and growth and the IMF and growth have likewise combined cross-national regression evidence with in-depth (quantitativ and qualitative) case analysis ( Srinivasan and Bhagwati 1999 ; Vreeland 2003 ). Work on ethnic politics and ethnic conflict has exploited within-country variation or small-N cross-country comparisons ( Abadie and Gardeazabal 2003 ; Chandra 2004 ; Posner 2004 ). By the standard of praxis, therefore, it would appear that the method of the case study is solidly ensconced, perhaps even thriving. Arguably, we are witnessing a movement away from a variable-centered approach to causality in the social sciences and towards a case-based approach.

Indeed, the statistical analysis of cross-case observational data has been subjected to increasing scrutiny in recent years. It no longer seems self-evident, even to nomothetically inclined scholars, that non-experimental data drawn from nation-states, cities, social movements, civil conflicts, or other complex phenomena should be treated in standard regression formats. The complaints are myriad, and oftreviewed. 2 They include: (a) the problem of arriving at an adequate specification of the causal model, given a plethora of plausible models, and the associated problem of modeling interactions among these covariates; (b) identification problems, which cannot always be corrected by instrumental variable techniques; (c) the problem of “extreme” counterfactuals, i.e. extrapolating or interpolating results from a general model where the extrapolations extend beyond the observable data points; (d) problems posed by influential cases; (e) the arbitrariness of standard significance tests; (f) the misleading precision of point estimates in the context of “curve-fitting” models; (g) the problem of finding an appropriate estimator and modeling temporal autocorrelation in pooled time series; (h) the difficulty of identifying causal mechanisms; and last, but certainly not least, (i) the ubiquitous problem of faulty data drawn from a variety of questionable sources. Most of these difficulties may be understood as the by-product of causal variables that offer limited variation through time and cases that are extremely heterogeneous.

A principal factor driving the general discontent with cross-case observational research is a new-found interest in experimental models of social scientific research. Following the pioneering work of Donald Campbell (1988 ; Cook and Campbell 1979 ) and Donald Rubin (1974) , methodologists have taken a hard look at the regression model and discovered something rather obvious but at the same time crucially important: this research bears only a faint relationship to the true experiment, for all the reasons noted above. The current excitement generated by matching estimators, natural experiments, and field experiments may be understood as a move toward a quasi-experimental, and frequently case-based analysis of causal relations. Arguably, this is because the experimental ideal is often better approximated by a small number of cases that are closely related to one another, or by a single case observed over time, than by a large sample of heterogeneous units.

A third factor militating towards case-based analysis is the development of a series of alternatives to the standard linear/additive model of cross-case analysis, thus establishing a more variegated set of tools to capture the complexity of social behavior (see Brady and Collier 2004 ). Charles Ragin and associates have shown us how to deal with situations where multiple causal paths lead to the same set of outcomes, a series of techniques known as Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) (“Symposium: Qualitative Comparative Analysis” 2004). Andrew Abbott has worked out a method that maps causal sequences across cases, known as optimal sequence matching ( Abbott 2001 ; Abbott and Forrest 1986 ; Abbott and Tsay 2000 ). Bear Braumoeller, Gary Goertz, Jack Levy, and Harvey Starr have defended the importance of necessary-condition arguments in the social sciences, and have shown how these arguments might be analyzed ( Braumoeller and Goertz 2000 ; Goertz 2003 ; Goertz and Levy forthcoming; Goertz and Starr 2003 ). James Fearon, Ned Lebow, Philip Tetlock, and others have explored the role of counterfactual thought experiments in the analysis of individual case histories ( Fearon 1991 ; Lebow 2000 ; Tetlock and Belkin 1996 ). Colin Elman has developed a typological method of analyzing cases ( Elman 2005 ). David Collier, Jack Goldstone, Peter Hall, James Mahoney, and Dietrich Rueschemeyer have worked to revitalize the comparative and comparative-historical methods ( Collier 1993 ; Goldstone 1997 ; Hall 2003 ; Mahoney and Rueschemeyer 2003 ). And scores of researchers have attacked the problem of how to convert the relevant details of a temporally constructed narrative into standardized formats so that cases can be meaningfully compared (Abell 1987 , 2004 ; Abbott 1992 ; Buthe 2002 ; Griffin 1993 ). While not all of these techniques are, strictly speaking, case study techniques—since they sometimes involve a large number of cases—they do move us closer to a case-based understanding of causation insofar as they preserve the texture and detail of individual cases, features that are often lost in large-N cross-case analysis.

A fourth factor concerns the recent marriage of rational choice tools with case study analysis, sometimes referred to as an “analytic narrative” ( Bates et al. 1998 ). Whether the technique is qualitative or quantitative, scholars equipped with economic models are turning, increasingly, to case studies in order to test the theoretical predictions of a general model, investigate causal mechanisms, and/or explain the features of a key case.

Finally, epistemological shifts in recent decades have enhanced the attractiveness of the case study format. The “positivist” model of explanation, which informed work in the social sciences through most of the twentieth century, tended to downplay the importance of causal mechanisms in the analysis of causal relations. Famously, Milton Friedman (1953) argued that the only criterion of a model was to be found in its accurate prediction of outcomes. The verisimilitude of the model, its accurate depiction of reality, was beside the point. In recent years, this explanatory trope has come under challenge from “realists,” who claim (among other things) that causal analysis should pay close attention to causal mechanisms (e.g. Bunge 1997 ; Little 1998 ). Within political science and sociology, the identification of a specific mechanism—a causal pathway—has come to be seen as integral to causal analysis, regardless of whether the model in question is formal or informal or whether the evidence is qualitative or quantitative ( Achen 2002 ; Elster 1998 ; George and Bennett 2005 ; Hedstrom and Swedberg 1998 ). Given this new-found (or at least newly self-conscious) interest in mechanisms, it is not surprising that social scientists would turn to case studies as a mode of causal investigation.

For all the reasons stated above, one might intuit that social science is moving towards a case-based understanding of causal relations. Yet, this movement, insofar as it exists, has scarcely been acknowledged, and would certainly be challenged by many close observers—including some of those cited in the foregoing passages.

The fact is that the case study research design is still viewed by most methodologists with extreme circumspection. A work that focuses its attention on a single example of a broader phenomenon is apt to be described as a “mere” case study, and is often identified with loosely framed and non-generalizable theories, biased case selection, informal and undisciplined research designs, weak empirical leverage (too many variables and too few cases), subjective conclusions, non-replicability, and causal determinism. To some, the term case study is an ambiguous designation covering a multitude of “inferential felonies.” 3

The quasi-mystical qualities associated with the case study persist to this day. In the field of psychology, a gulf separates “scientists” engaged in cross-case research and “practitioners” engaged in clinical research, usually focused on several cases ( Hersen and Barlow 1976 , 21). In the fields of political science and sociology, case study researchers are acknowledged to be on the “soft” side of hard disciplines. And across fields, the persisting case study orientations of anthropology, education, law, social work, and various other fields and subfields relegate them to the non-rigorous, non-systematic, non-scientific, non-positivist end of the academic spectrum.

The methodological status of the case study is still, officially, suspect. Even among its defenders there is confusion over the virtues and vices of this ambiguous research design. Practitioners continue to ply their trade but have difficulty articulating what it is they are doing, methodologically speaking. The case study survives in a curious methodological limbo.

This leads to a paradox: although much of what we know about the empirical world has been generated by case studies and case studies continue to constitute a large proportion of work generated by the social science disciplines, the case study method is poorly understood.

How can we make sense of the profound disjuncture between the acknowledged contributions of this genre to the various disciplines of social science and its maligned status within these disciplines? If case studies are methodologically flawed, why do they persist? Should they be rehabilitated, or suppressed? How fruitful is this style of research?

In this chapter, I provide a reconstructed definition of the case study approach to research with special emphasis on comparative politics, a field that has been closely identified with this method since its birth. Based on this definition, I then explore a series of contrasts between case study and cross-case study research. These contrasts are intended to illuminate the characteristic strengths and weaknesses (“affinities”) of these two research designs, not to vindicate one or the other. The effort of this chapter is to understand this persisting methodological debate as a matter of tradeoffs. Case studies and cross-case studies explore the world in different ways. Yet, properly constituted, there is no reason that case study results cannot be synthesized with results gained from cross-case analysis, and vice versa. My hope, therefore, is that this chapter will contribute to breaking down the boundaries that have separated these rival genres within the subfield of comparative politics.

1 Definitions

The key term of this chapter is, admittedly, a definitional morass. To refer to a work as a “case study” might mean: that its method is qualitative, small-N; that the research is holistic, thick (a more or less comprehensive examination of a phenomenon); that it utilizes a particular type of evidence (e.g. ethnographic, clinical, non-experimental, non-survey based, participant observation, process tracing, historical, textual, or field research); that its method of evidence gathering is naturalistic (a “real-life context”); that the research investigates the properties of a single observation; or that the research investigates the properties of a single phenomenon, instance, or example. Evidently, researchers have many things in mind when they talk about case study research. Confusion is compounded by the existence of a large number of near-synonyms—single unit, single subject, single case, N = 1, case based, case control, case history, case method, case record, case work, clinical research, and so forth. As a result of this profusion of terms and meanings, proponents and opponents of the case study marshal a wide range of arguments but do not seem any closer to agreement than when this debate was first broached several decades ago.

Can we reconstruct this concept in a clearer, more productive fashion? In order to do so we must understand how the key terms—case and case study—are situated within a neighborhood of related terms. In this crowded semantic field, each term is defined in relation to others. And in the context of a specific work or research terrain, they all take their meaning from a specific inference. (The reader should bear in mind that any change in the inference, and the meaning of all the key terms will probably change.) My attempt here will be to provide a single, determinate, definition of these key terms. Of course, researchers may choose to define these terms in many different ways. However, for purposes of methodological discussion it is helpful to enforce a uniform vocabulary.

Let us stipulate that a case connotes a spatially delimited phenomenon (a unit) observed at a single point in time or over some period of time. It comprises the sort of phenomena that an inference attempts to explain. Thus, in a study that attempts to explain certain features of nation-states, cases are comprised of nation-states (across some temporal frame). In a study that attempts to explain the behavior of individuals, individuals comprise the cases. And so forth. Each case may provide a single observation or multiple (within-case) observations.

For students of comparative politics, the archetypal case is the dominant political unit of our time, the nation-state. However, the study of smaller social and political units (regions, cities, villages, communities, social groups, families) or specific institutions (political parties, interest groups, businesses) is equally common in other subfields, and perhaps increasingly so in comparative politics. Whatever the chosen unit, the methodological issues attached to the case study have nothing to do with the size of the individual cases. A case may be created out of any phenomenon so long as it has identifiable boundaries and comprises the primary object of an inference.

Note that the spatial boundaries of a case are often more apparent than its temporal boundaries. We know, more or less, where a country begins and ends, even though we may have difficulty explaining when a country begins and ends. Yet, some temporal boundaries must be assumed. This is particularly important when cases consist of discrete events—crises, revolutions, legislative acts, and so forth—within a single unit. Occasionally, the temporal boundaries of a case are more obvious than its spatial boundaries. This is true when the phenomena under study are eventful but the unit undergoing the event is amorphous. For example, if one is studying terrorist attacks it may not be clear how the spatial unit of analysis should be understood, but the events themselves may be well bounded.

A case study may be understood as the intensive study of a single case for the purpose of understanding a larger class of cases (a population). Case study research may incorporate several cases. However, at a certain point it will no longer be possible to investigate those cases intensively. At the point where the emphasis of a study shifts from the individual case to a sample of cases we shall say that a study is cross-case . Evidently, the distinction between a case study and cross-case study is a continuum. The fewer cases there are, and the more intensively they are studied, the more a work merits the appellation case study. Even so, this proves to be a useful distinction, for much follows from it.

A few additional terms will now be formally defined.

An observation is the most basic element of any empirical endeavor. Conventionally, the number of observations in an analysis is referred to with the letter N . (Confusingly, N may also be used to designate the number of cases in a study, a usage that I shall try to avoid.) A single observation may be understood as containing several dimensions, each of which may be measured (across disparate observations) as a variable. Where the proposition is causal, these may be subdivided into dependent (Y) and independent (X) variables. The dependent variable refers to the outcome of an investigation. The independent variable refers to the explanatory (causal) factor, that which the outcome is supposedly dependent on.

Note that a case may consist of a single observation (N = 1). This would be true, for example, in a cross-sectional analysis of multiple cases. In a case study, however, the case under study always provides more than one observation. These may be constructed diachronically (by observing the case or some subset of within-case units through time) or synchronically (by observing within-case variation at a single point in time).

This is a clue to the fact that case studies and cross-case usually operate at different levels of analysis. The case study is typically focused on within-case variation (if there a cross-case component it is probably secondary). The cross-case study, as the name suggests, is typically focused on cross-case variation (if there is also within-case variation, it is secondary in importance). They have the same object in view—the explanation of a population of cases—but they go about this task differently.

A sample consists of whatever cases are subjected to formal analysis; they are the immediate subject of a study or case study. (Confusingly, the sample may also refer to the observations under study, and will be so used at various points in this narrative. But at present, we treat the sample as consisting of cases.) Technically, one might say that in a case study the sample consists of the case or cases that are subjected to intensive study. However, usually when one uses the term sample one is implying that the number of cases is rather large. Thus, “sample-based work” will be understood as referring to large-N cross-case methods—the opposite of case study work. Again, the only feature distinguishing the case study format from a sample-based (or “cross-case”) research design is the number of cases falling within the sample—one or a few versus many. Case studies, like large-N samples, seek to represent, in all ways relevant to the proposition at hand, a population of cases. A series of case studies might therefore be referred to as a sample if they are relatively brief and relatively numerous; it is a matter of emphasis and of degree. The more case studies one has, the less intensively each one is studied, and the more confident one is in their representativeness (of some broader population), the more likely one is to describe them as a sample rather than a series of case studies. For practical reasons—unless, that is, a study is extraordinarily long—the case study research format is usually limited to a dozen cases or less. A single case is not at all unusual.

The sample rests within a population of cases to which a given proposition refers. The population of an inference is thus equivalent to the breadth or scope of a proposition. (I use the terms proposition , hypothesis , inference , and argument interchangeably.) Note that most samples are not exhaustive; hence the use of the term sample, referring to sampling from a population. Occasionally, however, the sample equals the population of an inference; all potential cases are studied.

For those familiar with the rectangular form of a dataset it may be helpful to conceptualize observations as rows, variables as columns, and cases as either groups of observations or individual observations.

2 What is a Case Study Good For? Case Study versus Cross-case Analysis

I have argued that the case study approach to research is most usefully defined as the intensive study of a single unit or a small number of units (the cases), for the purpose of understanding a larger class of similar units (a population of cases). This is put forth as a minimal definition of the topic. 4 I now proceed to discuss the non -definitional attributes of the case study—attributes that are often, but not invariably, associated with the case study method. These will be understood as methodological affinities flowing from a minimal definition of the concept. 5

The case study research design exhibits characteristic strengths and weaknesses relative to its large-N cross-case cousin. These tradeoffs derive, first of all, from basic research goals such as (1) whether the study is oriented toward hypothesis generating or hypothesis testing, (2) whether internal or external validity is prioritized, (3) whether insight into causal mechanisms or causal effects is more valuable, and (4) whether the scope of the causal inference is deep or broad. These tradeoffs also hinge on the shape of the empirical universe, i.e. (5) whether the population of cases under study is heterogeneous or homogeneous, (6) whether the causal relationship of interest is strong or weak, (7) whether useful variation on key parameters within that population is rare or common, and (8) whether available data are concentrated or dispersed.

Along each of these dimensions, case study research has an affinity for the first factor and cross-case research has an affinity for the second, as summarized in Table 51.1 . To clarify, these tradeoffs represent methodological affinities , not invariant laws. Exceptions can be found to each one. Even so, these general tendencies are often noted in case study research and have been reproduced in multiple disciplines and subdisciplines over the course of many decades.

It should be stressed that each of these tradeoffs carries a ceteris paribus caveat. Case studies are more useful for generating new hypotheses, all other things being equal . The reader must bear in mind that many additional factors also rightly influence a writer’s choice of research design, and they may lean in the other direction. Ceteris are not always paribus. One should not jump to conclusions about the research design appropriate to a given setting without considering the entire range of issues involved—some of which may be more important than others.

3 Hypothesis: Generating versus Testing

Social science research involves a quest for new theories as well as a testing of existing theories; it is comprised of both “conjectures” and “refutations.” 6 Regrettably, social science methodology has focused almost exclusively on the latter. The conjectural element of social science is usually dismissed as a matter of guesswork, inspiration, or luck—a leap of faith, and hence a poor subject for methodological reflection. 7 Yet, it will readily be granted that many works of social science, including most of the acknowledged classics, are seminal rather than definitive. Their classic status derives from the introduction of a new idea or a new perspective that is subsequently subjected to more rigorous (and refutable) analysis. Indeed, it is difficult to devise a program of falsification the first time a new theory is proposed. Path-breaking research, almost by definition, is protean. Subsequent research on that topic tends to be more definitive insofar as its primary task is limited: to verify or falsify a pre-existing hypothesis. Thus, the world of social science may be usefully divided according to the predominant goal undertaken in a given study, either hypothesis generating or hypothesis testing . There are two moments of empirical research, a lightbulb moment and a skeptical moment, each of which is essential to the progress of a discipline. 8

Case studies enjoy a natural advantage in research of an exploratory nature. Several millennia ago, Hippocrates reported what were, arguably, the first case studies ever conducted. They were fourteen in number. 9 Darwin’s insights into the process of human evolution came after his travels to a few select locations, notably Easter Island. Freud’s revolutionary work on human psychology was constructed from a close observation of fewer than a dozen clinical cases. Piaget formulated his theory of human cognitive development while watching his own two children as they passed from childhood to adulthood. Lévi-Strauss’s structuralist theory of human cultures built on the analysis of several North and South American tribes. Douglass North’s neo-institutionalist theory of economic development was constructed largely through a close analysis of a handful of early developing states (primarily England, the Netherlands, and the United States). 10 Many other examples might be cited of seminal ideas that derived from the intensive study of a few key cases.

Evidently, the sheer number of examples of a given phenomenon does not, by itself, produce insight. It may only confuse. How many times did Newton observe apples fall before he recognized the nature of gravity? This is an apocryphal example, but it illustrates a central point: case studies may be more useful than cross-case studies when a subject is being encountered for the first time or is being considered in a fundamentally new way. After reviewing the case study approach to medical research, one researcher finds that although case reports are commonly regarded as the lowest or weakest form of evidence, they are nonetheless understood to comprise “the first line of evidence.” The hallmark of case reporting, according to Jan Vandenbroucke, “is to recognize the unexpected.” This is where discovery begins. 11

The advantages that case studies offer in work of an exploratory nature may also serve as impediments in work of a confirmatory/disconfirmatory nature. Let us briefly explore why this might be so. 12

Traditionally, scientific methodology has been defined by a segregation of conjecture and refutation. One should not be allowed to contaminate the other. 13 Yet, in the real world of social science, inspiration is often associated with perspiration. “Lightbulb” moments arise from a close engagement with the particular facts of a particular case. Inspiration is more likely to occur in the laboratory than in the shower.

The circular quality of conjecture and refutation is particularly apparent in case study research. Charles Ragin notes that case study research is all about “casing”—defining the topic, including the hypothesis(es) of primary interest, the outcome, and the set of cases that offer relevant information vis-à-vis the hypothesis. 14 A study of the French Revolution may be conceptualized as a study of revolution, of social revolution, of revolt, of political violence, and so forth. Each of these topics entails a different population and a different set of causal factors. A good deal of authorial intervention is necessary in the course of defining a case study topic, for there is a great deal of evidentiary leeway. Yet, the “subjectivity” of case study research allows for the generation of a great number of hypotheses, insights that might not be apparent to the cross-case researcher who works with a thinner set of empirical data across a large number of cases and with a more determinate (fixed) definition of cases, variables, and outcomes. It is the very fuzziness of case studies that grants them an advantage in research at the exploratory stage, for the single-case study allows one to test a multitude of hypotheses in a rough-and-ready way. Nor is this an entirely “conjectural” process. The relationships discovered among different elements of a single case have a prima facie causal connection: they are all at the scene of the crime. This is revelatory when one is at an early stage of analysis, for at that point there is no identifiable suspect and the crime itself may be difficult to discern. The fact that A , B , and C are present at the expected times and places (relative to some outcome of interest) is sufficient to establish them as independent variables. Proximal evidence is all that is required. Hence, the common identification of case studies as “plausibility probes,” “pilot studies,” “heuristic studies,” “exploratory” and “theory-building” exercises. 15

A large-N cross-study, by contrast, generally allows for the testing of only a few hypotheses but does so with a somewhat greater degree of confidence, as is appropriate to work whose primary purpose is to test an extant theory. There is less room for authorial intervention because evidence gathered from a cross-case research design can be interpreted in a limited number of ways. It is therefore more reliable. Another way of stating the point is to say that while case studies lean toward Type 1 errors (falsely rejecting the null hypothesis), cross-case studies lean toward Type 2 errors (failing to reject the false null hypothesis). This explains why case studies are more likely to be paradigm generating, while cross-case studies toil in the prosaic but highly structured field of normal science.

I do not mean to suggest that case studies never serve to confirm or disconfirm hypotheses. Evidence drawn from a single case may falsify a necessary or sufficient hypothesis, as discussed below. Additionally, case studies are often useful for the purpose of elucidating causal mechanisms, and this obviously affects the plausibility of an X/Y relationship. However, general theories rarely offer the kind of detailed and determinate predictions on within-case variation that would allow one to reject a hypothesis through pattern matching (without additional cross-case evidence). Theory testing is not the case study’s strong suit. The selection of “crucial” cases is at pains to overcome the fact that the cross-case N is minimal. Thus, one is unlikely to reject a hypothesis, or to consider it definitively proved, on the basis of the study of a single case.

Harry Eckstein himself acknowledges that his argument for case studies as a form of theory confirmation is largely hypothetical. At the time of writing, several decades ago, he could not point to any social science study where a crucial case study had performed the heroic role assigned to it. 16 I suspect that this is still more or less true. Indeed, it is true even of experimental case studies in the natural sciences. “We must recognize,” note Donald Campbell and Julian Stanley,

that continuous, multiple experimentation is more typical of science than once-and-for-all definitive experiments. The experiments we do today, if successful, will need replication and cross-validation at other times under other conditions before they can become an established part of science … [E]ven though we recognize experimentation as the basic language of proof … we should not expect that “crucial experiments” which pit opposing theories will be likely to have clear-cut outcomes. When one finds, for example, that competent observers advocate strongly divergent points of view, it seems likely on a priori grounds that both have observed something valid about the natural situation, and that both represent a part of the truth. The stronger the controversy, the more likely this is. Thus we might expect in such cases an experimental outcome with mixed results, or with the balance of truth varying subtly from experiment to experiment. The more mature focus…avoids crucial experiments and instead studies dimensional relationships and interactions along many degrees of the experimental variables. 17

A single case study is still a single shot—a single example of a larger phenomenon.

The tradeoff between hypothesis generating and hypothesis testing helps us to reconcile the enthusiasm of case study researchers and the skepticism of case study critics. They are both right, for the looseness of case study research is a boon to new conceptualizations just as it is a bane to falsification.

4 Validity: Internal versus External

Questions of validity are often distinguished according to those that are internal to the sample under study and those that are external (i.e. applying to a broader—unstudied—population). Cross-case research is always more representative of the population of interest than case study research, so long as some sensible procedure of case selection is followed (presumably some version of random sampling). Case study research suffers problems of representativeness because it includes, by definition, only a small number of cases of some more general phenomenon. Are the men chosen by Robert Lane typical of white, immigrant, working-class, American males? 18 Is Middletown representative of other cities in America? 19 These sorts of questions forever haunt case study research. This means that case study research is generally weaker with respect to external validity than its cross-case cousin.

The corresponding virtue of case study research is its internal validity. Often, though not invariably, it is easier to establish the veracity of a causal relationship pertaining to a single case (or a small number of cases) than for a larger set of cases. Case study researchers share the bias of experimentalists in this regard: they tend to be more disturbed by threats to within-sample validity than by threats to out-of-sample validity. Thus, it seems appropriate to regard the tradeoff between external and internal validity, like other tradeoffs, as intrinsic to the cross-case/single-case choice of research design.

5 Causal Insight: Causal Mechanisms versus Causal Effects

A third tradeoff concerns the sort of insight into causation that a researcher intends to achieve. Two goals may be usefully distinguished. The first concerns an estimate of the causal effect ; the second concerns the investigation of a causal mechanism (i.e. pathway from X to Y).

By causal effect I refer to two things: (a) the magnitude of a causal relationship (the expected effect on Y of a given change in X across a population of cases) and (b) the relative precision or uncertainty associated with that point estimate. Evidently, it is difficult to arrive at a reliable estimate of causal effects across a population of cases by looking at only a single case or a small number of cases. (The one exception would be an experiment in which a given case can be tested repeatedly, returning to a virgin condition after each test. But here one faces inevitable questions about the representativeness of that much-studied case.) 20 Thus, the estimate of a causal effect is almost always grounded in cross-case evidence.

It is now well established that causal arguments depend not only on measuring causal effects, but also on the identification of a causal mechanism. 21   X must be connected with Y in a plausible fashion; otherwise, it is unclear whether a pattern of covariation is truly causal in nature, or what the causal interaction might be. Moreover, without a clear understanding of the causal pathway(s) at work in a causal relationship it is impossible to accurately specify the model, to identify possible instruments for the regressor of interest (if there are problems of endogeneity), or to interpret the results. 22 Thus, causal mechanisms are presumed in every estimate of a mean (average) causal effect.

In the task of investigating causal mechanisms, cross-case studies are often not so illuminating. It has become a common criticism of large-N cross-national research—e.g. into the causes of growth, democracy, civil war, and other national-level outcomes—that such studies demonstrate correlations between inputs and outputs without clarifying the reasons for those correlations (i.e. clear causal pathways). We learn, for example, that infant mortality is strongly correlated with state failure; 23 but it is quite another matter to interpret this finding, which is consistent with a number of different causal mechanisms. Sudden increases in infant mortality might be the product of famine, of social unrest, of new disease vectors, of government repression, and of countless other factors, some of which might be expected to impact the stability of states, and others of which are more likely to be a result of state instability.

Case studies, if well constructed, may allow one to peer into the box of causality to locate the intermediate factors lying between some structural cause and its purported effect. Ideally, they allow one to “see” X and Y interact—Hume’s billiard ball crossing the table and hitting a second ball. 24 Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss point out that in fieldwork “general relations are often discovered in vivo ; that is, the field worker literally sees them occur.” 25 When studying decisional behavior case study research may offer insight into the intentions, the reasoning capabilities, and the information-processing procedures of the actors involved in a given setting. Thus, Dennis Chong uses in-depth interviews with a very small sample of respondents in order to better understand the process by which people reach decisions about civil liberties issues. Chong comments:

One of the advantages of the in-depth interview over the mass survey is that it records more fully how subjects arrive at their opinions. While we cannot actually observe the underlying mental process that gives rise to their responses, we can witness many of its outward manifestations. The way subjects ramble, hesitate, stumble, and meander as they formulate their answers tips us off to how they are thinking and reasoning through political issues. 26

Similarly, the investigation of a single case may allow one to test the causal implications of a theory, thus providing corroborating evidence for a causal argument. This is sometimes referred to as pattern matching ( Campbell 1988 ).

Dietrich Rueschemeyer and John Stephens offer an example of how an examination of causal mechanisms may call into question a general theory based on cross-case evidence. The thesis of interest concerns the role of British colonialism in fostering democracy among postcolonial regimes. In particular, the authors investigate the diffusion hypothesis, that democracy was enhanced by “the transfer of British governmental and representative institutions and the tutoring of the colonial people in the ways of British government.” On the basis of in-depth analysis of several cases the authors report:

We did find evidence of this diffusion effect in the British settler colonies of North America and the Antipodes; but in the West Indies, the historical record points to a different connection between British rule and democracy. There the British colonial administration opposed suffrage extension, and only the white elites were “tutored” in the representative institutions. But, critically, we argued on the basis of the contrast with Central America, British colonialism did prevent the local plantation elites from controlling the local state and responding to the labor rebellion of the 1930s with massive repression. Against the adamant opposition of that elite, the British colonial rulers responded with concessions which allowed for the growth of the party– union complexes rooted in the black middle and working classes, which formed the backbone of the later movement for democracy and independence. Thus, the narrative histories of these cases indicate that the robust statistical relation between British colonialism and democracy is produced only in part by diffusion. The interaction of class forces, state power, and colonial policy must be brought in to fully account for the statistical result. 27

Whether or not Rueschemeyer and Stephens are correct in their conclusions need not concern us here. What is critical, however, is that any attempt to deal with this question of causal mechanisms is heavily reliant on evidence drawn from case studies. In this instance, as in many others, the question of causal pathways is simply too difficult, requiring too many poorly measured or unmeasurable variables, to allow for accurate cross-sectional analysis. 28

To be sure, causal mechanisms do not always require explicit attention. They may be quite obvious. And in other circumstances, they may be amenable to cross-case investigation. For example, a sizeable literature addresses the causal relationship between trade openness and the welfare state. The usual empirical finding is that more open economies are associated with higher social welfare spending. The question then becomes why such a robust correlation exists. What are the plausible interconnections between trade openness and social welfare spending? One possible causal path, suggested by David Cameron, 29 is that increased trade openness leads to greater domestic economic vulnerability to external shocks (due, for instance, to changing terms of trade). If so, one should find a robust correlation between annual variations in a country’s terms of trade (a measure of economic vulnerability) and social welfare spending. As it happens, the correlation is not robust and this leads some commentators to doubt whether the putative causal mechanism proposed by David Cameron and many others is actually at work. 30 Thus, in instances where an intervening variable can be effectively operationalized across a large sample of cases it may be possible to test causal mechanisms without resorting to case study investigation. 31

Even so, the opportunities for investigating causal pathways are generally more apparent in a case study format. Consider the contrast between formulating a standardized survey for a large group of respondents and formulating an in-depth interview with a single subject or a small set of subjects, such as that undertaken by Dennis Chong in the previous example. In the latter situation, the researcher is able to probe into details that would be impossible to delve into, let alone anticipate, in a standardized survey. She may also be in a better position to make judgements as to the veracity and reliability of the respondent. Tracing causal mechanisms is about cultivating sensitivity to a local context. Often, these local contexts are essential to cross-case testing. Yet, the same factors that render case studies useful for micro-level investigation also make them less useful for measuring mean (average) causal effects. It is a classic tradeoff.

6 Scope of Proposition: Deep versus Broad

The utility of a case study mode of analysis is in part a product of the scope of the causal argument that a researcher wishes to prove or demonstrate. Arguments that strive for great breadth are usually in greater need of cross-case evidence; causal arguments restricted to a small set of cases can more plausibly subsist on the basis of a single-case study. The extensive/intensive tradeoff is fairly commonsensical. 32 A case study of France probably offers more useful evidence for an argument about Europe than for an argument about the whole world. Propositional breadth and evidentiary breadth generally go hand in hand.

Granted, there are a variety of ways in which single-case studies can credibly claim to provide evidence for causal propositions of broad reach—e.g. by choosing cases that are especially representative of the phenomenon under study (“typical” cases) or by choosing cases that represent the most difficult scenario for a given proposition and are thus biased against the attainment of certain results (“crucial” cases). Even so, a proposition with a narrow scope is more conducive to case study analysis than a proposition with a broad purview, all other things being equal. The breadth of an inference thus constitutes one factor, among many, in determining the utility of the case study mode of analysis. This is reflected in the hesitancy of many case study researchers to invoke determinate causal propositions with great reach—“covering laws,” in the idiom of philosophy of science.

By the same token, one of the primary virtues of the case study method is the depth of analysis that it offers. One may think of depth as referring to the detail, richness, completeness, wholeness, or the degree of variance in an outcome that is accounted for by an explanation. The case study researcher’s complaint about the thinness of cross-case analysis is well taken; such studies often have little to say about individual cases. Otherwise stated, cross-case studies are likely to explain only a small portion of the variance with respect to a given outcome. They approach that outcome at a very general level. Typically, a cross-case study aims only to explain the occurrence/non-occurrence of a revolution, while a case study might also strive to explain specific features of that event—why it occurred when it did and in the way that it did. Case studies are thus rightly identified with “holistic” analysis and with the “thick” description of events. 33

Whether to strive for breadth or depth is not a question that can be answered in any definitive way. All we can safely conclude is that researchers invariably face a choice between knowing more about less, or less about more. The case study method may be defended, as well as criticized, along these lines. 34 Indeed, arguments about the “contextual sensitivity” of case studies are perhaps more precisely (and fairly) understood as arguments about depth and breadth. The case study researcher who feels that cross-case research on a topic is insensitive to context is usually not arguing that nothing at all is consistent across the chosen cases. Rather, the case study researcher’s complaint is that much more could be said—accurately—about the phenomenon in question with a reduction in inferential scope. 35

Indeed, I believe that a number of traditional issues related to case study research can be understood as the product of this basic tradeoff. For example, case study research is often lauded for its holistic approach to the study of social phenomena in which behavior is observed in natural settings. Cross-case research, by contrast, is criticized for its construction of artificial research designs that decontextualize the realm of social behavior by employing abstract variables that seem to bear little relationship to the phenomena of interest. 36 These associated congratulations and critiques may be understood as a conscious choice on the part of case study researchers to privilege depth over breadth.

7 The Population of Cases: Heterogeneous versus Homogeneous

The choice between a case study and cross-case style of analysis is driven not only by the goals of the researcher, as reviewed above, but also by the shape of the empirical universe that the researcher is attempting to understand. Consider, for starters, that the logic of cross-case analysis is premised on some degree of cross-unit comparability (unit homogeneity). Cases must be similar to each other in whatever respects might affect the causal relationship that the writer is investigating, or such differences must be controlled for. Uncontrolled heterogeneity means that cases are “apples and oranges;” one cannot learn anything about underlying causal processes by comparing their histories. The underlying factors of interest mean different things in different contexts (conceptual stretching) or the X/Y relationship of interest is different in different contexts (unit heterogeneity).

Case study researchers are often suspicious of large-sample research, which, they suspect, contains heterogeneous cases whose differences cannot easily be modeled. “Variable-oriented” research is said to involve unrealistic “homogenizing assumptions.” 37 In the field of international relations, for example, it is common to classify cases according to whether they are deterrence failures or deterrence successes. However, Alexander George and Richard Smoke point out that “the separation of the dependent variable into only two subclasses, deterrence success and deterrence failure,” neglects the great variety of ways in which deterrence can fail. Deterrence, in their view, has many independent causal paths (causal equifinality), and these paths may be obscured when a study lumps heterogeneous cases into a common sample. 38

Another example, drawn from clinical work in psychology, concerns heterogeneity among a sample of individuals. Michel Hersen and David Barlow explain:

Descriptions of results from 50 cases provide a more convincing demonstration of the effectiveness of a given technique than separate descriptions of 50 individual cases. The major difficulty with this approach, however, is that the category in which these clients are classified most always becomes unmanageably heterogeneous. “Neurotics,” [for example], …may have less in common than any group of people one would choose randomly. When cases are described individually, however, a clinician stands a better chance of gleaning some important information, since specific problems and specific procedures are usually described in more detail. When one lumps cases together in broadly defined categories, individual case descriptions are lost and the ensuing report of percentage success becomes meaningless. 39

Under circumstances of extreme case heterogeneity, the researcher may decide that she is better off focusing on a single case or a small number of relatively homogeneous cases. Within-case evidence, or cross-case evidence drawn from a handful of most-similar cases, may be more useful than cross-case evidence, even though the ultimate interest of the investigator is in a broader population of cases. (Suppose one has a population of very heterogeneous cases, one or two of which undergo quasi-experimental transformations. Probably, one gains greater insight into causal patterns throughout the population by examining these cases in detail than by undertaking some large-N cross-case analysis.) By the same token, if the cases available for study are relatively homogeneous, then the methodological argument for cross-case analysis is correspondingly strong. The inclusion of additional cases is unlikely to compromise the results of the investigation because these additional cases are sufficiently similar to provide useful information.

The issue of population heterogeneity/homogeneity may be understood, therefore, as a tradeoff between N (observations) and K (variables). If, in the quest to explain a particular phenomenon, each potential case offers only one observation and also requires one control variable (to neutralize heterogeneities in the resulting sample), then one loses degrees of freedom with each additional case. There is no point in using cross-case analysis or in extending a two-case study to further cases. If, on the other hand, each additional case is relatively cheap—if no control variables are needed or if the additional case offers more than one useful observation (through time)—then a cross-case research design may be warranted. 40 To put the matter more simply, when adjacent cases are unit homogeneous the addition of more cases is easy, for there is no (or very little) heterogeneity to model. When adjacent cases are heterogeneous additional cases are expensive, for every added heterogeneous element must be correctly modeled, and each modeling adjustment requires a separate (and probably unverifiable) assumption. The more background assumptions are required in order to make a causal inference, the more tenuous that inference is; it is not simply a question of attaining statistical significance. The ceteris paribus assumption at the core of all causal analysis is brought into question. In any case, the argument between case study and cross-case research designs is not about causal complexity per se (in the sense in which this concept is usually employed), but rather about the tradeoff between N and K in a particular empirical realm, and about the ability to model case heterogeneity through statistical legerdemain. 41

Before concluding this discussion it is important to point out that researchers’ judgements about case comparability are not, strictly speaking, matters that can be empirically verified. To be sure, one can look—and ought to look—for empirical patterns among potential cases. If those patterns are strong then the assumption of case comparability seems reasonably secure, and if they are not then there are grounds for doubt. However, debates about case comparability usually concern borderline instances. Consider that many phenomena of interest to social scientists are not rigidly bounded. If one is studying democracies there is always the question of how to define a democracy, and therefore of determining how high or low the threshold for inclusion in the sample should be. Researchers have different ideas about this, and these ideas can hardly be tested in a rigorous fashion. Similarly, there are longstanding disputes about whether it makes sense to lump poor and rich societies together in a single sample, or whether these constitute distinct populations. Again, the borderline between poor and rich (or “developed” and “undeveloped”) is blurry, and the notion of hiving off one from the other for separate analysis questionable, and unresolvable on purely empirical grounds. There is no safe (or “conservative”) way to proceed. A final sticking point concerns the cultural/historical component of social phenomena. Many case study researchers feel that to compare societies with vastly different cultures and historical trajectories is meaningless. Yet, many cross-case researchers feel that to restrict one’s analytic focus to a single cultural or geographic region is highly arbitrary, and equally meaningless. In these situations, it is evidently the choice of the researcher how to understand case homogeneity/heterogeneity across the potential populations of an inference. Where do like cases end and unlike cases begin?

Because this issue is not, strictly speaking, empirical it may be referred to as an ontological element of research design. An ontology is a vision of the world as it really is, a more or less coherent set of assumptions about how the world works, a research Weltanschauung analogous to a Kuhnian paradigm. 42 While it seems odd to bring ontological issues into a discussion of social science methodology it may be granted that social science research is not a purely empirical endeavor. What one finds is contingent upon what one looks for, and what one looks for is to some extent contingent upon what one expects to find. Stereotypically, case study researchers tend to have a “lumpy” vision of the world; they see countries, communities, and persons as highly individualized phenomena. Cross-case researchers, by contrast, have a less differentiated vision of the world; they are more likely to believe that things are pretty much the same everywhere, at least as respects basic causal processes. These basic assumptions, or ontologies, drive many of the choices made by researchers when scoping out appropriate ground for research.

8 Causal Strength: Strong versus Weak

Regardless of whether the population is homogeneous or heterogeneous, causal relationships are easier to study if the causal effect is strong, rather than weak. Causal “strength,” as I use the term here, refers to the magnitude and consistency of X’s effect on Y across a population of cases. (It invokes both the shape of the evidence at hand and whatever priors might be relevant to an interpretation of that evidence.) Where X has a strong effect on Y it will be relatively easy to study this relationship. Weak relationships, by contrast, are often difficult to discern. This much is commonsensical, and applies to all research designs.

For our purposes, what is significant is that weak causal relationships are particularly opaque when encountered in a case study format. Thus, there is a methodological affinity between weak causal relationships and large-N cross-case analysis, and between strong causal relationships and case study analysis.

This point is clearest at the extremes. The strongest species of causal relationships may be referred to as deterministic , where X is assumed to be necessary and/or sufficient for Y’s occurrence. A necessary and sufficient cause accounts for all of the variation on Y. A sufficient cause accounts for all of the variation in certain instances of Y. A necessary cause accounts, by itself, for the absence of Y. In all three situations, the relationship is usually assumed to be perfectly consistent, i.e. invariant. There are no exceptions.

It should be clear why case study research designs have an easier time addressing causes of this type. Consider that a deterministic causal proposition can be dis proved with a single case. 43 For example, the reigning theory of political stability once stipulated that only in countries that were relatively homogeneous, or where existing heterogeneity was mitigated by cross-cutting cleavages, would social peace endure. 44 Arend Lijphart’s case study of the Netherlands, a country with reinforcing social cleavages and very little social conflict, disproved this deterministic theory on the basis of a single case. 45 (One may dispute whether the original theory is correctly understood as deterministic. However, if it is , then it has been decisively refuted by a single case study.) Proving an invariant causal argument generally requires more cases. However, it is not nearly as complicated as proving a probabilistic argument for the simple reason that one assumes invariant relationships; consequently, the single case under study carries more weight.

Magnitude and consistency—the two components of causal strength—are usually matters of degree. It follows that the more tenuous the connection between X and Y, the more difficult it will be to address in a case study format. This is because the causal mechanisms connecting X with Y are less likely to be detectable in a single case when the total impact is slight or highly irregular. It is no surprise, therefore, that the case study research design has, from the very beginning, been associated with causal arguments that are deterministic, while cross-case research has been associated with causal arguments that are assumed to be minimal in strength and “probabilistic” in consistency. 46 (Strictly speaking, causal magnitude and consistency are independent features of a causal relationship. However, because they tend to covary, and because we tend to conceptualize them in tandem, I treat them as components of a single dimension.)

Now, let us now consider an example drawn from the other extreme. There is generally assumed to be a weak relationship between regime type and economic performance. Democracy, if it has any effect on economic growth at all, probably has only a slight effect over the near-to-medium term, and this effect is probably characterized by many exceptions (cases that do not fit the general pattern). This is because many things other than democracy affect a country’s growth performance and because there may be a significant stochastic component in economic growth (factors that cannot be modeled in a general way). Because of the diffuse nature of this relationship it will probably be difficult to gain insight by looking at a single case. Weak relationships are difficult to observe in one instance. Note that even if there seems to be a strong relationship between democracy and economic growth in a given country it may be questioned whether this case is actually typical of the larger population of interest, given that we have already stipulated that the typical magnitude of this relationship is diminutive and irregular. Of course, the weakness of democracy’s presumed relationship to growth is also a handicap in cross-case analysis. A good deal of criticism has been directed toward studies of this type, where findings are rarely robust. 47 Even so, it seems clear that if there is a relationship between democracy and growth it is more likely to be perceptible in a large cross-case setting. The positive hypothesis, as well as the null hypothesis, is better approached in a sample rather than in a case.

9 Useful Variation: Rare versus Common

When analyzing causal relationships we must be concerned not only with the strength of an X/Y relationship but also with the distribution of evidence across available cases. Specifically, we must be concerned with the distribution of useful variation —understood as variation (temporal or spatial) on relevant parameters that might yield clues about a causal relationship. It follows that where useful variation is rare—i.e. limited to a few cases—the case study format recommends itself. Where, on the other hand, useful variation is common, a cross-case method of analysis may be more defensible.

Consider a phenomenon like social revolution, an outcome that occurs very rarely. The empirical distribution on this variable, if we count each country-year as an observation, consists of thousands of non-revolutions (0) and just a few revolutions (1). Intuitively, it seems clear that the few “revolutionary” cases are of great interest. We need to know as much as possible about them, for they exemplify all the variation that we have at our disposal. In this circumstance, a case study mode of analysis is difficult to avoid, though it might be combined with a large-N cross-case analysis. As it happens, many outcomes of interest to social scientists are quite rare, so the issue is by no means trivial. 48

By way of contrast, consider a phenomenon like turnover, understood as a situation where a ruling party or coalition is voted out of office. Turnover occurs within most democratic countries on a regular basis, so the distribution of observations on this variable (incumbency/turnover) is relatively even across the universe of country-years. There are lots of instances of both outcomes. Under these circumstances a cross-case research design seems plausible, for the variation across cases is regularly distributed.

Another sort of variation concerns that which might occur within a given case. Suppose that only one or two cases within a large population exhibit quasi-experimental qualities: the factor of special interest varies, and there is no corresponding change in other factors that might affect the outcome. Clearly, we are likely to learn a great deal from studying this particular case—perhaps a lot more than we might learn from studying hundreds of additional cases that deviate from the experimental ideal. But again, if many cases have this experimental quality, there is little point in restricting ourselves to a single example; a cross-case research design may be justified.

A final sort of variation concerns the characteristics exhibited by a case relative to a particular theory that is under investigation. Suppose that a case provides a “crucial” test for a theory: it fits that theory’s predictions so perfectly and so precisely that no other explanation could plausibly account for the performance of the case. If no other crucial cases present themselves, then an intensive study of this particular case is de rigueur. Of course, if many such cases lie within the population then it may be possible to study them all at once (with some sort of numeric reduction of the relevant parameters).

The general point here is that the distribution of useful variation across a population of cases matters a great deal in the choice between case study and cross-case research designs.

10 Data Availability: Concentrated versus Dispersed

I have left the most prosaic factor for last. Sometimes, one’s choice of research design is driven by the quality and quantity of information that is currently available, or could be easily gathered, on a given question. This is a practical matter, and is distinct from the actual (ontological) shape of the world. It concerns, rather, what we know about the former at a given point in time. 49 The question of evidence may be posed as follows: How much do we know about the cases at hand that might be relevant to the causal question of interest, and how precise, certain, and case comparable is that data? An evidence-rich environment is one where all relevant factors are measurable, where these measurements are relatively precise, where they are rendered in comparable terms across cases, and where one can be relatively confident that the information is, indeed, accurate. An evidence-poor environment is the opposite.

The question of available evidence impinges upon choices in research design when one considers its distribution across a population of cases. If relevant information is concentrated in a single case, or if it is contained in incommensurable formats across a population of cases, then a case study mode of analysis is almost unavoidable. If, on the other hand, it is evenly distributed across the population—i.e. we are equally well informed about all cases—and is case comparable, then there is little to recommend a narrow focus. (I employ data, evidence, and information as synonyms in this section.)

Consider the simplest sort of example, where information is truly limited to one or a few cases. Accurate historical data on infant mortality and other indices of human development are currently available for only a handful of countries (these include Chile, Egypt, India, Jamaica, Mauritius, Sri Lanka, the United States, and several European countries). 50 This data problem is not likely to be rectified in future years, as it is exceedingly difficult to measure infant mortality except by public or private records. Consequently, anyone studying this general subject is likely to rely heavily on these cases, where in-depth analysis is possible and profitable. Indeed, it is not clear whether any large-N cross-case analysis is possible prior to the twentieth century. Here, a case study format is virtually prescribed, and a cross-case format proscribed.

Other problems of evidence are more subtle. Let us dwell for the moment on the question of data comparability. In their study of social security spending, Mulligan, Gil, and Sala-i-Martin note that

although our spending and design numbers are of good quality, there are some missing observations and, even with all the observations, it is difficult to reduce the variety of elderly subsidies to one or two numbers. For this reason, case studies are an important part of our analysis, since those studies do not require numbers that are comparable across a large number of countries. Our case study analysis utilizes data from a variety of country-specific sources, so we do not have to reduce “social security” or “democracy” to one single number. 51

Here, the incommensurability of the evidence militates towards a case study format. In the event that the authors (or subsequent analysts) discover a coding system that provides reasonably valid cross-case measures of social security, democracy, and other relevant concepts then our state of knowledge about the subject is changed, and a cross-case research design is rendered more plausible.

Importantly, the state of evidence on a topic is never entirely fixed. Investigators may gather additional data, recode existing data, or discover new repositories of data. Thus, when discussing the question of evidence one must consider the quality and quantity of evidence that could be gathered on a given question, given sufficient time and resources. Here it is appropriate to observe that collecting new data, and correcting existing data, is usually easier in a case study format than in a large-N cross-case format. It will be difficult to rectify data problems if one’s cases number in the hundreds or thousands. There are simply too many data points to allow for this.

One might consider this issue in the context of recent work on democracy. There is general skepticism among scholars with respect to the viability of extant global indicators intended to capture this complex concept (e.g. by Freedom House and by the Polity IV data project). 52 Measurement error, aggregation problems, and questions of conceptual validity are rampant. When dealing with a single country or a single continent it is possible to overcome some of these faults by manually recoding the countries of interest. 53 The case study format often gives the researcher an opportunity to fact-check, to consult multiple sources, to go back to primary materials, and to overcome whatever biases may affect the secondary literature. Needless to say, this is not a feasible approach for an individual investigator if one’s project encompasses every country in the world. The best one can usually manage, under the circumstances, is some form of convergent validation (by which different indices of the same concept are compared) or small adjustments in the coding intended to correct for aggregation problems or measurement error. 54

For the same reason, the collection of original data is typically more difficult in cross-case analysis than in case study analysis, involving greater expense, greater difficulties in identifying and coding cases, learning foreign languages, traveling, and so forth. Whatever can be done for a set of cases can usually be done more easily for a single case.

It should be kept in mind that many of the countries of concern to anthropologists, economists, historians, political scientists, and sociologists are still terra incognita. Outside the OECD, and with the exception of a few large countries that have received careful attention from scholars (e.g. India, Brazil, China), most countries of the world are not well covered by the social science literature. Any statement that one might wish to make about, say, Botswana, will be difficult to verify if one has recourse only to secondary materials. And these—very limited—secondary sources are not necessarily of the most reliable sort. Thus, if one wishes to say something about political patterns obtaining in roughly 90 percent of the world’s countries and if one wishes to go beyond matters that can be captured in standard statistics collected by the World Bank and the IMF and other agencies (and these can also be very sketchy when lesser-studied countries are concerned) one is more or less obliged to conduct a case study. Of course, one could, in principle, gather similar information across all relevant cases. However, such an enterprise faces formidable logistical difficulties. Thus, for practical reasons, case studies are sometimes the most defensible alternative when the researcher is faced with an information-poor environment.

However, this point is easily turned on its head. Datasets are now available to study many problems of concern to the social sciences. Thus, it may not be necessary to collect original information for one’s book, article, or dissertation. Sometimes in-depth single-case analysis is more time consuming than cross-case analysis. If so, there is no informational advantage to a case study format. Indeed, it may be easier to utilize existing information for a cross-case analysis, particularly when a case study format imposes hurdles of its own—e.g. travel to distant climes, risk of personal injury, expense, and so forth. It is interesting to note that some observers consider case studies to be “relatively more expensive in time and resources.” 55

Whatever the specific logistical hurdles, it is a general truth that the shape of the evidence—that which is currently available and that which might feasibly be collected by an author—often has a strong influence on an investigator’s choice of research designs. Where the evidence for particular cases is richer and more accurate there is a strong prima facie argument for a case study format focused on those cases. Where, by contrast, the relevant evidence is equally good for all potential cases, and is comparable across those cases, there is no reason to shy away from cross-case analysis. Indeed, there may be little to gain from case study formats.

11 Conclusions

At the outset, I took note of the severe disjuncture that has opened up between an often-maligned methodology and a heavily practiced method. The case study is disrespected but nonetheless regularly employed. Indeed, it remains the workhorse of most disciplines and subfields in the social sciences. How, then, can one make sense of this schizophrenia between methodological theory and praxis?

The torment of the case study begins with its definitional penumbra. Frequently, this key term is conflated with a set of disparate methodological traits that are not definitionally entailed. My first objective, therefore, was to craft a narrower and more useful concept for purposes of methodological discussion. The case study, I argued, is best defined as an intensive study of a single case with an aim to generalize across a larger set of cases. It follows from this definition that case studies may be small-or large-N, qualitative or quantitative, experimental or observational, synchronic or diachronic. It also follows that the case study research design comports with any macrotheoretical framework or paradigm—e.g. behavioralism, rational choice, institutionalism, or interpretivism. It is not epistemologically distinct. What differentiates the case study from the cross-case study is simply its way of defining observations, not its analysis of those observations or its method of modeling causal relations. The case study research design constructs its observations from a single case or a small number of cases, while cross-case research designs construct observations across multiple cases. Cross-case and case study research operate, for the most part, at different levels of analysis.

The travails of the case study are not simply definitional. They are also rooted in an insufficient appreciation of the methodological tradeoffs that this method calls forth. At least eight characteristic strengths and weaknesses must be considered. Ceteris paribus, case studies are more useful when the strategy of research is exploratory rather than confirmatory/disconfirmatory, when internal validity is given preference over external validity, when insight into causal mechanisms is prioritized over insight into causal effects, when propositional depth is prized over breadth, when the population of interest is heterogeneous rather than homogeneous, when causal relationships are strong rather than weak, when useful information about key parameters is available only for a few cases, and when the available data are concentrated rather than dispersed.

Although I do not have the space to discuss other issues in this venue, it is worth mentioning that other considerations may also come into play in a researcher’s choice between a case study and cross-case study research format. However, these additional issues—e.g. causal complexity and the state of research on a topic—do not appear to have clear methodological affinities. They may augur one way, or the other.

My objective throughout this chapter is to restore a greater sense of meaning, purpose, and integrity to the case study method. It is hoped that by offering a narrower and more carefully bounded definition of this method the case study may be rescued from some of its most persistent ambiguities. And it is hoped that the characteristic strengths of this method, as well as its limitations, will be more apparent to producers and consumers of case study research. The case study is a useful tool for some research objectives, but not all.

Abadie, A. and Gardeazabal, J.   2003 . The economic costs of conflict: a case study of the Basque Country.   American Economic Review , 93: 113–32.

Google Scholar

Abbott, A.   1990 . Conceptions of time and events in social science methods: causal and narrative approaches. Historical Methods , 23 (4): 140–50.

—— 1992 . From causes to events: notes on narrative positivism. Sociological Methods and Research , 20 (4): 428–55.

—— 2001 . Time Matters: On Theory and Method . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

——and Forrest, J.   1986 . Optimal matching methods for historical sequences. Journal of Interdisciplinary History , 16 (3): 471–94.

——and Tsay, A.   2000 . Sequence analysis and optimal matching methods in sociology.   Sociological Methods and Research , 29: 3–33.

Abell, P.   1987 . The Syntax of Social Life: The Theory and Method of Comparative Narratives . Oxford: Clarendon Press.

—— 2004 . Narrative explanation: an alternative to variable-centered explanation?   Annual Review of Sociology , 30: 287–310.

Acemoglu, D. , Johnson, S. , and Robinson, J. A.   2003 . An African success story: Botswana. Pp. 80–122 in In Search of Prosperity: Analytic Narratives on Economic Growth , ed. D. Rodrik . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Achen, C. H.   1986 . The Statistical Analysis of Quasi-Experiments . Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Google Preview

Achen, C. H.   2002 . Toward a new political methodology: microfoundations and ART. Annual Review of Political Science , 5: 423–50.

——and Snidal, D.   1989 . Rational deterrence theory and comparative case studies.   World Politics , 41: 143–69.

Alesina, A. , Glaeser, E. , and Sacerdote, B.   2001 . Why doesn’t the US have a European-style welfare state? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity , 2: 187–277.

Allen, W. S.   1965 . The Nazi Seizure of Power: The Experience of a Single German Town, 1930–1935 . New York: Watts.

Almond, G. A.   1956 . Comparative political systems.   Journal of Politics , 18: 391–409.

Angrist, J. D. and Krueger, A. B.   2001 . Instrumental variables and the search for identification: from supply and demand to natural experiments. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 15 (4): 69–85.

Bates, R. H. , Greif, A. , Levi, M. , Rosenthal, J.-L. and Weingast, B.   1998 . Analytic Narratives . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bendix, R.   1963 . Concepts and generalizations in comparative sociological studies.   American Sociological Review , 28: 532–9.

Bentley, A.   1908 /1967. The Process of Government . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Blumer, H.   1969 . Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method . Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Bollen, K. A.   1993 . Liberal democracy: validity and method factors in cross-national measures. American Journal of Political Science , 37: 1207–30.

Bonoma, T. V.   1985 . Case research in marketing: opportunities, problems, and a process. Journal of Marketing Research , 22 (2): 199–208.

Bowman, K. , Lehoucq, F. , and Mahoney, J.   2005 . Measuring political democracy: case expertise, data adequacy, and Central America. Comparative Political Studies , 38 (8): 939–70.

Brady, H. E. and Collier, D. (eds). 2004 . Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards . Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.

Braumoeller, B. F. and Goertz, G.   2000 . The methodology of necessary conditions. American Journal of Political Science , 44 (3): 844–58.

Bunge, M.   1997 . Mechanism and explanation.   Philosophy of the Social Sciences , 27: 410–65.

Buthe, T.   2002 . Taking temporality seriously: modeling history and the use of narratives as evidence. American Political Science Review , 96 (3): 481–93.

Cameron, D.   1978 . The expansion of the public economy: a comparative analysis. American Political Science Review , 72 (4): 1243–61.

Campbell, D. T.   1988 . Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science , ed. E. S. Overman . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

——and Stanley, J.   1963 . Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Chandra, K.   2004 . Why Ethnic Parties Succeed: Patronage and Ethnic Headcounts in India . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chernoff, B. and Warner, A.   2002 . Sources of fast growth in Mauritius: 1960–2000. Center for International Development, Harvard University.

Chong, D.   1993 . How people think, reason, and feel about rights and liberties. American Journal of Political Science , 37 (3): 867–99.

Coase, R. H.   1959 . The Federal Communications Commission.   Journal of Law and Economics , 2: 1–40.

—— 2000 . The acquisition of Fisher Body by General Motors.   Journal of Law and Economics , 43: 15–31.

Collier, D.   1993 . The comparative method. Pp. 105–19 in Political Science: The State of the Discipline II , ed. A. W. Finifter . Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.

Cook, T. and Campbell, D.   1979 . Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings . Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

De Soto, H.   1989 . The Other Path: The Invisible Revolution in the Third World . New York: Harper and Row.

Dessler, D.   1991 . Beyond correlations: toward a causal theory of war.   International Studies Quarterly , 35: 337–55.

Dion, D.   1998 . Evidence and inference in the comparative case study. Comparative Politics , 30: 127–45.

Eckstein, H.   1975 . Case studies and theory in political science. Pp. 79–133 in Handbook of Political Science , vii: Political Science: Scope and Theory , ed. F. I. Greenstein and N. W. Polsby . Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

—— 1975 /1992. Case studies and theory in political science. In Regarding Politics: Essays on Political Theory, Stability, and Change , by H. Eckstein . Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Elman, C.   2005 . Explanatory typologies in qualitative studies of international politics. International Organization , 59 (2): 293–326.

Elster, J.   1998 . A plea for mechanisms. Pp. 45–73 in Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory , ed. P. Hedstrom and R. Swedberg . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fearon, J.   1991 . Counter factuals and hypothesis testing in political science.   World Politics , 43: 169–95.

Feng, Y.   2003 . Democracy, Governance, and Economic Performance: Theory and Evidence . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Freedman, D. A.   1991 . Statistical models and shoe leather.   Sociological Methodology , 21: 291–313.

Friedman, M.   1953 . The methodology of positive economics. Pp. 3–43 in Essays in Positive Economics , by M. Friedman . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Geddes, B.   1990 . How the cases you choose affect the answers you get: selection bias in comparative politics. Pp. 131–52 in Political Analysis , vol. ii, ed. J. A. Stimson . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

—— 2003 . Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Geertz, C.   1973 . Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture. Pp. 3–30 in The Interpretation of Cultures , by C. Geertz . New York: Basic Books.

George, A. L. and Bennett, A.   2005 . Case Studies and Theory Development . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

——and Smoke, R.   1974 . Deterrence in American Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice . New York: Columbia University Press.

Gerring, J.   2001 . Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

—— 2005 . Causation: a unified framework for the social sciences.   Journal of Theoretical Politics , 17 (2): 163–98.

—— 2007 a. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

—— 2007 b . Global justice as an empirical question.   PS: Political Science and Politics , 40: 67–78.

——and Barresi, P. A.   2003 . Putting ordinary language to work: a min-max strategy of concept formation in the social sciences. Journal of Theoretical Politics , 15 (2): 201–32.

Gerring, J. and Thomas, C. 2005. Comparability: a key issue in research design. Manuscript.

Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L.   1967 . The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research . New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Goertz, G.   2003 . The substantive importance of necessary condition hypotheses. Ch. 4 in Necessary Conditions: Theory, Methodology and Applications , ed. G. Goertz and H. Starr . New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

——and Levy, J. (eds.) forthcoming . Causal explanations, necessary conditions, and case studies: World War I and the end of the Cold War. MS.

——and Starr, H. (eds.) 2003 . Necessary Conditions: Theory, Methodology and Applications . New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

Goldstone, J. A.   1997 . Methodological issues in comparative macrosociology.   Comparative Social Research , 16: 121–32.

—— Gurr, T. R. , Harff, B. , Levy, M. A. , Marshall, M. G. , Bates, R. H. , Epstein, D. L. , Kahl, C. H. , Surko, P. T. , Ulfelder, J. C., Jr. , and Unger, A. N. 2000. State Failure Task Force report: phase III findings. Available at: www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/stfail/SFTF%20Phase%20III%20Report%20Final.pdf .

Goldthorpe, J. H.   1997 . Current issues in comparative macrosociology: a debate on methodological issues. Comparative Social Research , 16: 121–32.

Griffin, L. J.   1993 . Narrative, event-structure analysis, and causal interpretation in historical sociology. American Journal of Sociology , 98: 1094–133.

Gutting, G. (ed.) 1980 . Paradigms and Revolutions: Appraisals and Applications of Thomas Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science . Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.

Hall, P. A.   2003 . Aligning ontology and methodology in comparative politics. In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences , ed. J. Mahoney and D. Rueschemeyer . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hedstrom, P. and Swedberg, R. (eds.). 1998 . Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hersen, M. and Barlow, D. H.   1976 . Single-Case Experimental Designs: Strategies for Studying Behavior Change . Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Hochschild, J. L.   1981 . What’s Fair? American Beliefs about Distributive Justice . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Jervis, R.   1989 . Rational deterrence: theory and evidence.   World Politics , 41 (2): 183–207.

Kennedy, P.   2003 . A Guide to Econometrics , 5th edn. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

King, C.   2004 . The micropolitics of social violence.   World Politics , 56 (3): 431–55.

King, G. , Keohane, R. O. , and Verba, S.   1994 . Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kittel, B.   1999 . Sense and sensitivity in pooled analysis of political data.   European Journal of Political Research , 35: 225–53.

——2005. A crazy methodology? On the limits of macroquantitative social science research. Unpublished MS. University of Amsterdam.

Kittel, B. and Winner, H.   2005 . How reliable is pooled analysis in political economy? The globalization–welfare state nexus revisited. European Journal of Political Research , 44 (2): 269–93.

Kuhn, T. S.   1962 /1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lane, R.   1962 . Political Ideology: Why the American Common Man Believes What He Does . New York: Free Press.

Lebow, R. N.   2000 . What’s so different about a counterfactual? World Politics , 52: 550–85.

Levine, R. and Renelt, D.   1992 . A sensitivity analysis of cross-country growth regressions. American Economic Review , 82 (4): 942–63.

Libecap, G. D.   1993 . Contracting for Property Rights . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lieberson, S.   1985 . Making it Count: The Improvement of Social Research and Theory . Berkeley: University of California Press.

—— 1992 . Einstein, Renoir, and Greeley: some thoughts about evidence in sociology: 1991 Presidential Address. American Sociological Review , 57 (1): 1–15.

—— 1994 . More on the uneasy case for using Mill-type methods in small-N comparative studies. Social Forces , 72 (4): 1225–37.

Lijphart, A.   1968 . The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands . Los Angeles: University of California Press.

—— 1969 . Consociational democracy.   World Politics , 21 (2): 207–25.

——. 1971 . Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review , 65 (3): 682–93.

Lipset, S. M.   1960 /1963. Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics . Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

—— Trow, M. A. , and Coleman, J. S.   1956 . Union Democracy: The Internal Politics of the International Typographical Union . New York: Free Press.

Little, D.   1998 . Microfoundations, Method, and Causation . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Lynd, R. S. and Lynd, H. M.   1929 /1956. Middletown: A Study in American Culture . New York: Harcourt, Brace.

McKeown, T. J.   1983 . Hegemonic stability theory and nineteenth-century tariff levels. International Organization , 37 (1): 73–91.

Mahoney, J.   2001 . Beyond correlational analysis: recent innovations in theory and method. Sociological Forum , 16 (3): 575–93.

——and Rueschemeyer, D. (eds.) 2003 . Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

——and Goertz, G.   2004 . The possibility principle: choosing negative cases in comparative research. American Political Science Review , 98 (4): 653–69.

Manski, C. F.   1993 . Identification problems in the social sciences.   Sociological Methodology , 23: 1–56.

Martin, C. J. and Swank, D.   2004 . Does the organization of capital matter? Employers and active labor market policy at the national and firm levels. American Political Science Review , 98 (4): 593–612.

Martin, L. L.   1992 . Coercive Cooperation: Explaining Multilateral Economic Sanctions . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Meehl, P. E.   1954 . Clinical versus Statistical Predictions: A Theoretical Analysis and a Review of the Evidence . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Mulligan, C. , Gil, R. , and Sala-i-Martin, X.   2002 . Social security and democracy. Manuscript, University of Chicago and Columbia University.

Munck, G. L. and Snyder, R. (eds.) 2007 . Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

——and Verkuilen, J.   2002 . Measuring democracy: evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies , 35 (1): 5–34.

Njolstad, O.   1990 . Learning from history? Case studies and the limits to theory-building. Pp. 220–46 in Arms Races: Technological and Political Dynamics , ed. O. Njolstad . Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

North, D. C. , Anderson, T. L. , and Hill, P. J.   1983 . Growth and Welfare in the American Past: A New American History , 3rd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

——and Thomas, R. P.   1973 . The Rise of the Western World . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

——and Weingast, B. R.   1989 . Constitutions and commitment: the evolution of institutions governing public choice in seventeenth-century England. Journal of Economic History , 49: 803–32.

Odell, J. S.   2004 . Case study methods in international political economy. Pp. 56–80 in Models, Numbers and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations , ed. D. F. Sprinz and Y. Wolinsky-Nahmias . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Orum, A. M. , Feagin, J. R. , and Sjoberg, G.   1991 . Introduction: the nature of the case study. Pp. 1–26 in A Case for the Case , ed. J. R. Feagin , A. M. Orum , and G. Sjoberg . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Papyrakis, E. and Gerlagh, R.   2003 . The resource curse hypothesis and its transmission channels. Journal of Comparative Economics , 32: 181–93.

Patton, M. Q.   2002 . Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods . Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.

Popper, K.   1934 /1968. The Logic of Scientific Discovery . New York: Harper and Row.

—— 1969 . Conjectures and Refutations . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Posner, D.   2004 . The political salience of cultural difference: why Chewas and Tumbukas are allies in Zambia and adversaries in Malawi. American Political Science Review , 98 (4): 529–46.

Przeworski, A. and Teune, H.   1970 . The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry . New York: John Wiley.

Ragin, C. C.   1987 . The Comparative Method: Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies . Berkeley: University of California Press.

—— 1992 . Cases of “what is a case?” Pp. 1–17 in What Is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry , ed. C. C. Ragin and H. S. Becker . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

—— 1997 . Turning the tables: how case-oriented research challenges variable-oriented research. Comparative Social Research , 16: 27–42.

—— 2000 . Fuzzy-Set Social Science . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

—— 2004 . Turning the tables. Pp. 123–38 in Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards , ed. H. E. Brady and D. Collier . Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.

Robinson, W. S.   1951 . The logical structure of analytic induction.   American Sociological Review , 16 (6): 812–18.

Rodrik, D. (ed.) 2003 . In Search of Prosperity: Analytic Narratives on Economic Growth . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rogowski, R.   1995 . The role of theory and anomaly in social-scientific inference. American Political Science Review , 89 (2): 467–70.

Ross, M.   2001 . Does oil hinder democracy? World Politics , 53: 325–61.

Rubin, D. B.   1974 . Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology , 66: 688–701.

Rueschemeyer, D. and Stephens, J. D.   1997 . Comparing historical sequences: a powerful tool for causal analysis. Comparative Social Research , 16: 55–72.

Sambanis, N.   2004 . Using case studies to expand economic models of civil war.   Perspectives on Politics , 2 (2): 259–79.

Sartori, G.   1976 . Parties and Party Systems . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sekhon, J. S.   2004 . Quality meets quantity: case studies, conditional probability and counter-factuals. Perspectives in Politics , 2 (2): 281–93.

Shalev, M. 1998. Limits of and alternatives to multiple regression in macro-comparative research. Paper prepared for presentation at the second conference on The Welfare State at the Crossroads, Stockholm.

Smelser, N. J.   1973 . The methodology of comparative analysis. Pp. 42–86 in Comparative Research Methods , ed. D. P. Warwick and S. Osherson . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Srinivasan, T. N. and Bhagwati, J. 1999. Outward-orientation and development: are revisionists right? Discussion Paper no. 806, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.

Stoecker, R.   1991 . Evaluating and rethinking the case study.   Sociological Review , 39: 88–112.

Symposium: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)   2004 . Qualitative Methods: Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section on Qualitative Methods , 1 (2): 2–25.

Temple, J.   1999 . The new growth evidence.   Journal of Economic Literature , 37: 112–56.

Tetlock, P. E. and Belkin, A. (eds.) 1996 . Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Thies, M. F.   2001 . Keeping tabs on partners: the logic of delegation in coalition governments. American Journal of Political Science , 45 (3): 580–98.

Tilly, C.   2001 . Mechanisms in political processes.   Annual Review of Political Science , 4: 21–41.

Treier, S. and Jackman, S.   2005 . Democracy as a latent variable. Department of Political Science, Stanford University.

Truman, D. B.   1951 . The Governmental Process . New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Vandenbroucke, J. P.   2001 . In defense of case reports and case series. Annals of Internal Medicine , 134 (4): 330–4.

Vreeland, J. R.   2003 . The IMF and Economic Development . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ward, M. D. and Bakke, K.   2005 . Predicting civil conflicts: on the utility of empirical research. Manuscript.

Winship, C. and Morgan, S. L.   1999 . The estimation of causal effects of observational data.   Annual Review of Sociology , 25: 659–707.

——and Sobel, M.   2004 . Causal inference in sociological studies. Pp. 481–503 in Handbook of Data Analysis , ed. M. Hardy and A. Bryman . London: Sage.

Wolin, S. S.   1968 . Paradigms and political theories. Pp. 125–52 in Politics and Experience , ed. P. King and B. C. Parekh . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Young, O. R. (ed.). 1999 . The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes: Causal Connections and Behavioral Mechanisms . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Znaniecki, F.   1934 . The Method of Sociology . New York: Rinehart.

Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson (2003) , Chernoff and Warner (2002) , Rodrik (2003) . See also studies focused on particular firms or regions, e.g. Coase ( 1959 ; 2000 ).

For general discussion of the following points see Achen (1986) , Freedman (1991) , Kittel ( 1999 , 2005 ), Kittel and Winner (2005) , Manski (1993) , Winship and Morgan (1999) , Winship and Sobel (2004) .

Achen and Snidal ( 1989 , 160). See also Geddes ( 1990 ; 2003 ), Goldthorpe (1997) , King, Keohane, and Verba (1994) , Lieberson ( 1985 , 107–15; 1992 ; 1994 ), Lijphart ( 1971 , 683–4), Odell (2004) , Sekhon (2004) , Smelser ( 1973 , 45, 57). It should be noted that these writers, while critical of the case study format, are not necessarily opposed to case studies per se (that is to say, they should not be classified as opponents of the case study).

My intention is to include only those attributes commonly associated with the case study method that are always implied by our use of the term, excluding those attributes that are sometimes violated by standard usage. Thus, I chose not to include “ethnography” as a defining feature of the case study, since many case studies (so called) are not ethnographic. For further discussion of minimal definitions see Gerring (2001 , ch. 4 ), Gerring and Barresi (2003) , Sartori (1976) .

These additional attributes might also be understood as comprising an ideal-type (“maximal”) definition of the topic ( Gerring 2001 , ch. 4 ; Gerring and Barresi 2003 ).

Popper (1969) .

Karl Popper (quoted in King, Keohane, and Verba 1994 , 14) writes: “there is no such thing as a logical method of having new ideas…Discovery contains ‘an irrational element,’ or a ‘creative intuition.”’ One recent collection of essays and interviews takes new ideas as its special focus ( Munck and Snyder 2007 ), though it may be doubted whether there are generalizable results.

Gerring (2001 , ch. 10 ). The tradeoff between these two styles of research is implicit in Achen and Snidal (1989) , who criticize the case study for its deficits in the latter genre but also acknowledge the benefits of the case study along the former dimension (1989, 167–8). Reichenbach also distinguished between a “context of discovery,” and a “context of justification.” Likewise, Peirce’s concept of abduction recognizes the importance of a generative component in science.

Bonoma ( 1985 , 199). Some of the following examples are discussed in Patton (2002 , 245).

North and Weingast (1989) ; North and Thomas (1973) .

Vandenbroucke ( 2001 , 331).

For discussion of this trade-off in the context of economic growth theory see Temple ( 1999 , 120).

Geddes (2003) , King, Keohane, and Verba (1994) , Popper ( 1934 /1968).

Ragin (1992) .

Eckstein (1975) , Ragin ( 1992 ; 1997 ), Rueschemeyer and Stephens (1997) .

Eckstein (1975) .

Campbell and Stanley ( 1963 , 3).

Lane (1962) .

Lynd and Lynd (1929/1956) .

Note that the intensive study of a single unit may be a perfectly appropriate way to estimate causal effects within that unit . Thus, if one is interested in the relationship between welfare benefits and work effort in the United States one might obtain a more accurate assessment by examining data drawn from the USA alone, rather than crossnationally. However, since the resulting generalization does not extend beyond the unit in question it is not a case study in the usual sense.

Achen (2002) , Dessler (1991) , Elster (1998) , George and Bennett (2005) , Gerring (2005) , Hedstrom and Swedberg (1998) , Mahoney (2001) , Tilly (2001) .

In a discussion of instrumental variables in two-stage least-squares analysis, Angrist and Krueger ( 2001 : 8) note that “good instruments often come from detailed knowledge of the economic mechanism, institutions determining the regressor of interest.”

Goldstone et al. (2000) .

This has something to do with the existence of process-tracing evidence, a matter discussed below. But it is not necessarily predicated on this sort of evidence. Sensitive time-series data, another specialty of the case study, is also relevant to the question of causal mechanisms.

Glaser and Strauss ( 1967 , 40).

Chong ( 1993 , 868). For other examples of in-depth interviewing see Hochschild (1981) , Lane (1962) .

Rueschemeyer and Stephens ( 1997 , 62).

Other good examples of within-case research that shed light on a broader theory can be found in Martin (1992) ; Martin and Swank (2004) ; Thies (2001) ; Young (1999) .

Cameron (1978) .

Alesina, Glaeser, and Sacerdote (2001) .

For additional examples of this nature, see Feng (2003) ; Papyrakis and Gerlagh (2003) ; Ross (2001) .

Eckstein ( 1975 , 122).

I am using the term “thick” in a somewhat different way than in Geertz (1973) .

See Ragin ( 2000 , 22).

Ragin (1987 , ch. 2 ). Herbert Blumer’s (1969 , ch. 7 ) complaints, however, are more far-reaching.

Orum, Feagin, and Sjoberg ( 1991 , 7).

Ragin ( 2000 , 35). See also Abbott (1990) ; Bendix (1963) ; Meehl (1954) ; Przeworski and Teune ( 1970 , 8–9); Ragin ( 1987 ; 2004 , 124); Znaniecki (1934 , 250–1).

George and Smoke (1974 , 514).

Hersen and Barlow (1976 , 11).

Shalev (1998) .

To be sure, if adjacent cases are identical , the phenomenon of interest is invariant then the researcher gains nothing at all by studying more examples of a phenomenon, for the results obtained with the first case will simply be replicated. However, virtually all phenomena of interest to social scientists have some degree of heterogeneity (cases are not identical), some stochastic element. Thus, the theoretical possibility of identical, invariant cases is rarely met in practice.

Gutting (1980) ; Hall (2003) ; Kuhn ( 1962 /1970); Wolin (1968) .

Dion (1998) .

Almond (1956) ; Bentley ( 1908 /1967); Lipset ( 1960 /1963); Truman (1951) .

Lijphart (1968) ; see also Lijphart (1969) . For additional examples of case studies disconfirming general propositions of a deterministic nature see Allen (1965) ; Lipset, Trow, and Coleman (1956) ; Njolstad (1990) ; discussion in Rogowski (1995) .

Znaniecki (1934) . See also discussion in Robinson (1951) .

Kittel ( 1999 ; 2005 ); Kittel and Winner (2005) ; Levine and Renelt (1992) ; Temple (1999) .

Consider the following topics and their—extremely rare—instances of variation: early industrialization (England, the Netherlands), fascism (Germany, Italy), the use of nuclear weapons (United States), world war (WWI, WWII), single non-transferable vote electoral systems (Jordan, Taiwan, Vanuatu, pre-reform Japan), electoral system reforms within established democracies (France, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Thailand). The problem of “rareness” is less common where parameters are scalar, rather than dichotomous. But there are still plenty of examples of phenomena whose distributions are skewed by a few outliers, e.g. population (China, India), personal wealth (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett), ethnic heterogeneity (Papua New Guinea).

Of course, what we know about the potential cases is not independent of the underlying reality; it is, nonetheless, not entirely dependent on that reality.

Gerring (2007 b ) .

Mulligan, Gil, and Sala-i-Martin (2002 , 13).

Bollen (1993) ; Bowman, Lehoucq, and Mahoney (2005) ; Munck and Verkuilen (2002) ; Treier and Jackman (2005) .

Bowman, Lehoucq, and Mahoney (2005) .

Bollen (1993) ; Treier and Jackman (2005) .

Stoecker ( 1991 , 91).

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.3: Case Selection (Or, How to Use Cases in Your Comparative Analysis)

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 135832

• Dino Bozonelos, Julia Wendt, Charlotte Lee, Jessica Scarffe, Masahiro Omae, Josh Franco, Byran Martin, & Stefan Veldhuis
• Victor Valley College, Berkeley City College, Allan Hancock College, San Diego City College, Cuyamaca College, Houston Community College, and Long Beach City College via ASCCC Open Educational Resources Initiative (OERI)

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Discuss the importance of case selection in case studies.
• Consider the implications of poor case selection.

Introduction

Case selection is an important part of any research design. Deciding how many cases, and which cases, to include, will clearly help determine the outcome of our results. If we decide to select a high number of cases, we often say that we are conducting large-N research. Large-N research is when the number of observations or cases is large enough where we would need mathematical, usually statistical, techniques to discover and interpret any correlations or causations. In order for a large-N analysis to yield any relevant findings, a number of conventions need to be observed. First, the sample needs to be representative of the studied population. Thus, if we wanted to understand the long-term effects of COVID, we would need to know the approximate details of those who contracted the virus. Once we know the parameters of the population, we can then determine a sample that represents the larger population. For example, women make up 55% of all long-term COVID survivors. Thus, any sample we generate needs to be at least 55% women.

Second, some kind of randomization technique needs to be involved in large-N research. So not only must your sample be representative, it must also randomly select people within that sample. In other words, we must have a large selection of people that fit within the population criteria, and then randomly select from those pools. Randomization would help to reduce bias in the study. Also, when cases (people with long-term COVID) are randomly chosen they tend to ensure a fairer representation of the studied population. Third, your sample needs to be large enough, hence the large-N designation for any conclusions to have any external validity. Generally speaking, the larger the number of observations/cases in the sample, the more validity we can have in the study. There is no magic number, but if using the above example, our sample of long-term COVID patients should be at least over 750 people, with an aim of around 1,200 to 1,500 people.

When it comes to comparative politics, we rarely ever reach the numbers typically used in large-N research. There are about 200 fully recognized countries, with about a dozen partially recognized countries, and even fewer areas or regions of study, such as Europe or Latin America. Given this, what is the strategy when one case, or a few cases, are being studied? What happens if we are only wanting to know the COVID-19 response in the United States, and not the rest of the world? How do we randomize this to ensure our results are not biased or are representative? These and other questions are legitimate issues that many comparativist scholars face when completing research. Does randomization work with case studies? Gerring suggests that it does not, as “any given sample may be widely representative” (pg. 87). Thus, random sampling is not a reliable approach when it comes to case studies. And even if the randomized sample is representative, there is no guarantee that the gathered evidence would be reliable.

One can make the argument that case selection may not be as important in large-N studies as they are in small-N studies. In large-N research, potential errors and/or biases may be ameliorated, especially if the sample is large enough. This is not always what happens, errors and biases most certainly can exist in large-N research. However, incorrect or biased inferences are less of a worry when we have 1,500 cases versus 15 cases. In small-N research, case selection simply matters much more.

This is why Blatter and Haverland (2012) write that, “case studies are ‘case-centered’, whereas large-N studies are ‘variable-centered’". In large-N studies we are more concerned with the conceptualization and operationalization of variables. Thus, we want to focus on which data to include in the analysis of long-term COVID patients. If we wanted to survey them, we would want to make sure we construct questions in appropriate ways. For almost all survey-based large-N research, the question responses themselves become the coded variables used in the statistical analysis.

Case selection can be driven by a number of factors in comparative politics, with the first two approaches being the more traditional. First, it can derive from the interests of the researcher(s). For example, if the researcher lives in Germany, they may want to research the spread of COVID-19 within the country, possibly using a subnational approach where the researcher may compare infection rates among German states. Second, case selection may be driven by area studies. This is still based on the interests of the researcher as generally speaking scholars pick areas of studies due to their personal interests. For example, the same researcher may research COVID-19 infection rates among European Union member-states. Finally, the selection of cases selected may be driven by the type of case study that is utilized. In this approach, cases are selected as they allow researchers to compare their similarities or their differences. Or, a case might be selected that is typical of most cases, or in contrast, a case or cases that deviate from the norm. We discuss types of case studies and their impact on case selection below.

Types of Case Studies: Descriptive vs. Causal

There are a number of different ways to categorize case studies. One of the most recent ways is through John Gerring. He wrote two editions on case study research (2017) where he posits that the central question posed by the researcher will dictate the aim of the case study. Is the study meant to be descriptive? If so, what is the researcher looking to describe? How many cases (countries, incidents, events) are there? Or is the study meant to be causal, where the researcher is looking for a cause and effect? Given this, Gerring categorizes case studies into two types: descriptive and causal.

Descriptive case studies are “not organized around a central, overarching causal hypothesis or theory” (pg. 56). Most case studies are descriptive in nature, where the researchers simply seek to describe what they observe. They are useful for transmitting information regarding the studied political phenomenon. For a descriptive case study, a scholar might choose a case that is considered typical of the population. An example could involve researching the effects of the pandemic on medium-sized cities in the US. This city would have to exhibit the tendencies of medium-sized cities throughout the entire country. First, we would have to conceptualize what we mean by ‘a medium-size city’. Second, we would then have to establish the characteristics of medium-sized US cities, so that our case selection is appropriate. Alternatively, cases could be chosen for their diversity . In keeping with our example, maybe we want to look at the effects of the pandemic on a range of US cities, from small, rural towns, to medium-sized suburban cities to large-sized urban areas.

Causal case studies are “organized around a central hypothesis about how X affects Y” (pg. 63). In causal case studies, the context around a specific political phenomenon or phenomena is important as it allows for researchers to identify the aspects that set up the conditions, the mechanisms, for that outcome to occur. Scholars refer to this as the causal mechanism , which is defined by Falleti & Lynch (2009) as “portable concepts that explain how and why a hypothesized cause, in a given context, contributes to a particular outcome”. Remember, causality is when a change in one variable verifiably causes an effect or change in another variable. For causal case studies that employ causal mechanisms, Gerring divides them into exploratory case-selection, estimating case-selection, and diagnostic case-selection. The differences revolve around how the central hypothesis is utilized in the study.

Exploratory case studies are used to identify a potential causal hypothesis. Researchers will single out the independent variables that seem to affect the outcome, or dependent variable, the most. The goal is to build up to what the causal mechanism might be by providing the context. This is also referred to as hypothesis generating as opposed to hypothesis testing. Case selection can vary widely depending on the goal of the researcher. For example, if the scholar is looking to develop an ‘ideal-type’, they might seek out an extreme case. An ideal-type is defined as a “conception or a standard of something in its highest perfection” (New Webster Dictionary). Thus, if we want to understand the ideal-type capitalist system, we want to investigate a country that practices a pure or ‘extreme’ form of the economic system.

Estimating case studies start with a hypothesis already in place. The goal is to test the hypothesis through collected data/evidence. Researchers seek to estimate the ‘causal effect’. This involves determining if the relationship between the independent and dependent variables is positive, negative, or ultimately if no relationship exists at all. Finally, diagnostic case studies are important as they help to “confirm, disconfirm, or refine a hypothesis” (Gerring 2017). Case selection can also vary in diagnostic case studies. For example, scholars can choose an least-likely case, or a case where the hypothesis is confirmed even though the context would suggest otherwise. A good example would be looking at Indian democracy, which has existed for over 70 years. India has a high level of ethnolinguistic diversity, is relatively underdeveloped economically, and a low level of modernization through large swaths of the country. All of these factors strongly suggest that India should not have democratized, or should have failed to stay a democracy in the long-term, or have disintegrated as a country.

Most Similar/Most Different Systems Approach

The discussion in the previous subsection tends to focus on case selection when it comes to a single case. Single case studies are valuable as they provide an opportunity for in-depth research on a topic that requires it. However, in comparative politics, our approach is to compare. Given this, we are required to select more than one case. This presents a different set of challenges. First, how many cases do we pick? This is a tricky question we addressed earlier. Second, how do we apply the previously mentioned case selection techniques, descriptive vs. causal? Do we pick two extreme cases if we used an exploratory approach, or two least-likely cases if choosing a diagnostic case approach?

Thankfully, an English scholar by the name of John Stuart Mill provided some insight on how we should proceed. He developed several approaches to comparison with the explicit goal of isolating a cause within a complex environment. Two of these methods, the 'method of agreement' and the 'method of difference' have influenced comparative politics. In the 'method of agreement' two or more cases are compared for their commonalities. The scholar looks to isolate the characteristic, or variable, they have in common, which is then established as the cause for their similarities. In the 'method of difference' two or more cases are compared for their differences. The scholar looks to isolate the characteristic, or variable, they do not have in common, which is then identified as the cause for their differences. From these two methods, comparativists have developed two approaches.

What Is the Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD)?

This approach is derived from Mill’s ‘method of difference’. In a Most Similar Systems Design Design, the cases selected for comparison are similar to each other, but the outcomes differ in result. In this approach we are interested in keeping as many of the variables the same across the elected cases, which for comparative politics often involves countries. Remember, the independent variable is the factor that doesn’t depend on changes in other variables. It is potentially the ‘cause’ in the cause and effect model. The dependent variable is the variable that is affected by, or dependent on, the presence of the independent variable. It is the ‘effect’. In a most similar systems approach the variables of interest should remain the same.

A good example involves the lack of a national healthcare system in the US. Other countries, such as New Zealand, Australia, Ireland, UK and Canada, all have robust, publicly accessible national health systems. However, the US does not. These countries all have similar systems: English heritage and language use, liberal market economies, strong democratic institutions, and high levels of wealth and education. Yet, despite these similarities, the end results vary. The US does not look like its peer countries. In other words, why do we have similar systems producing different outcomes?

What Is the Most Different Systems Design (MDSD)?

This approach is derived from Mill’s ‘method of agreement’. In a Most Different System Design, the cases selected are different from each other, but result in the same outcome. In this approach, we are interested in selecting cases that are quite different from one another, yet arrive at the same outcome. Thus, the dependent variable is the same. Different independent variables exist between the cases, such as democratic v. authoritarian regime, liberal market economy v. non-liberal market economy. Or it could include other variables such as societal homogeneity (uniformity) vs. societal heterogeneity (diversity), where a country may find itself unified ethnically/religiously/racially, or fragmented along those same lines.

A good example involves the countries that are classified as economically liberal. The Heritage Foundation lists countries such as Singapore, Taiwan, Estonia, Australia, New Zealand, as well as Switzerland, Chile and Malaysia as either free or mostly free. These countries differ greatly from one another. Singapore and Malaysia are considered flawed or illiberal democracies (see chapter 5 for more discussion), whereas Estonia is still classified as a developing country. Australia and New Zealand are wealthy, Malaysia is not. Chile and Taiwan became economically free countries under the authoritarian military regimes, which is not the case for Switzerland. In other words, why do we have different systems producing the same outcome?

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Contentious Politics and Political Violence
• Governance/Political Change
• Groups and Identities
• History and Politics
• International Political Economy
• Policy, Administration, and Bureaucracy
• Political Anthropology
• Political Behavior
• Political Communication
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Philosophy
• Political Psychology
• Political Sociology
• Political Values, Beliefs, and Ideologies
• Politics, Law, Judiciary
• Post Modern/Critical Politics
• Public Opinion
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• World Politics
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Qualitative research and case studies in public administration.

• Jason L. Jensen Jason L. Jensen Institute of Policy and Business Analytics, University of North Dakota
•  and  Laura C. Hand Laura C. Hand College of Business and Public Administration, University of North Dakota
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1747
• Published online: 29 November 2021

Public administration has experienced academic growing pains and longstanding debates related to its identity as a social and administrative science. The field’s evolution toward a narrow definition of empiricism through quantitative measurement has limited knowledge cumulation. Because the goal of all scientific endeavors is to advance by building upon and aggregating knowledge across studies, a field-level point of view eschewing traditional dichotomies such as qualitative/quantitative debates in favor of methodological pluralism allows for examination of both the art and science of public administration.

To accomplish this, traditional notions of quality, namely rigor, must be reconceptualized in a way that is appropriate for the philosophical commitments of a selected methodology. Rigor should focus on the accuracy, exhaustiveness, and systematicity of data collection and analysis. This allows for quality judgments about the degree to which the methods resulted in evidence that addresses the research questions and supports stated conclusions. This is a much broader approach to rigor that addresses multiple types of inquiry and knowledge creation. Once the question of rigor is not limiting the types of research done in the field, attention can be turned to the ways in which high-quality studies can contribute to knowledge cumulation.

Case studies can be used as an example of a field-level point of view, as they have the ability to utilize abductive reasoning to consider both the whole (the entire case) and the particular (factors that contribute to outcomes, processes, or theories). Case studies explore the relationship between context-independent theories and context-dependent factors using different types of data collection and analysis: a triangulation of sorts. They can test theories in multiple ways and create or suggest new theories. Considering field-level questions as a case study and synthesizing findings from multiple related studies, regardless of methodology, can help move the field forward in terms of its connection between theory and practice, art and science.

• methodological pluralism
• case studies
• qualitative methods
• metasynthesis
• public administration and policy

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 14 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.80.149.115]
• 185.80.149.115

Character limit 500 /500

Case Study Method and Policy Analysis

Cite this chapter.

• Leslie A. Pal  

468 Accesses

10 Citations

6 Altmetric

Case studies are a good part of the backbone of policy analysis and research. This chapter illustrates case study methodology with a specific example drawn from the author’s current research on Internet governance.

Real-world problems are embedded in complex systems, in specific institutions, and are viewed differently by different policy actors. The case study method contributes to policy analysis in two ways. First, it provides a vehicle for fully contextualized problem definition. For example, in dealing with rising crime rates in a given city, the case approach allows the analyst to develop a portrait of crime in that city, for that city, and for that city’s decision makers. Second, case studies can illuminate policy-relevant questions (more as research than analysis) and can eventually inform more practical advice down the road. The chapter reviews the relationship between case study research and the aspirations of more nomothetic (law-like generalizations) social science. To study a case is not to study a unique phenomenon, but one that provides insight into a broader range of phenomena.

The author’s example of ICANN illustrates issues pertaining to globalization, global governance, and the internationalization of policy processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Abbot, Andrew. 1992. What Do Cases Do? Some Notes on Activity in Sociological Analysis. In What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry . Charles C. Ragin and Howard S. Becker, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar  

Abramson, P.R. and R. Inglehart. 1995. Value Change in a Global Perspective . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Eckstein, Harry. 1975. Case Study and Theory in Political Science. In Strategies of Inquiry, Handbook of Political Science , vol. 7. Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby, eds. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.

Feagin, Joe R, Anthony M. Oram and Gideon Sjoberg, eds. 1991. A Case for the Case Study . Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.

Geva-May, Iris with Aaron Wildavsky. 1997. An Operational Approach to Policy Analysis: The Craft . Boston, CA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Book   Google Scholar  

Hafner, Katie and Matthew Lyon. 1996. Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins of the Internet . New York: Simon and Schuster.

Hall, Peter A. 1999. Social capital in Britain. British Journal of Political Science 29 (July): 417–61.

Article   Google Scholar  

Hettich, Walter and Stanley L. Winer. 1999. Democratic Choice and Taxation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

ICANN. 2002. President’s report: The case for reform. Online February 24, 2002: < http://www.icann.org /general/lynn-reform-proposal-24feb02.htm>.

ICANN. 2002. Mission statement. Online March 7, 2002: www.icann.org /general/toward-mission-statement-07mar02.htm>.

—. 2002. Working paper on ICANN core mission and values. Online May 6, 2002: < http://www.icann.org /committees/evol-reform/working-paper-mission-06may02.htm>.

Klein, Hans. 2001. The feasibility of global democracy: Understanding ICANN’s at-large elections, info 3 (August): 333–45.

Kleinwächter, Wolfgang. 2001. The silent subversive: ICANN and the new global governance, info 3 (August): 259–78.

Mittelman, James H. 2000. The Globalization Syndrome: Transformation and Resistance . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Mueller, Milton. 2001. Rough justice: A statistical assessment of ICANN’s Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy. The Information Society 17: 151–63.

—. 2002. Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Pal, Leslie A. 1988. State, Class and Bureaucracy: Canadian Unemployment Insurance and Public Policy . Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Pal, Leslie A. and R. Kent Weaver, eds. 2003. The Government Taketh Away: The Politics of Pain in the United States and Canada . Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Pauly, L.W. 1997. Who Elected the Bankers? Surveillance and Control in the World Economy . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Pierson, Paul. 1993. When effect becomes cause: Policy feedback and political change. World Politics 45: 595–628.

Przeworski, Adam and Henry Teune. 1970. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry . New York: WileyTnterscience.

Putnam, R.D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community . New York: Simon and Schuster.

Rheingold, Howard. 1993. The Virtual Community . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ruggie, John Gerard. 1998. Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization . London: Routledge.

Scholte, Jan Art. 2002. Globalization: An Introduction . Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Schön, David and Martin Rein. 1994. Frame Reflection . New York: Basic Books.

Sjoberg, Gideon, Norma Williams, Ted R. Vaughan and Andrée F. Sjoberg. 1991. The Case Approach in Social Research: Basic Methodological Issues. In A Case for the Case Study . Joe R. Feagin, Anthony M. Orum and Gideon Sjoberg, eds. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.

Stake, Robert E. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stone, Deborah. 1997. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision-Making . New York: W.W. Norton.

Tuohy, Carolyn Hughes. 1999. Accidental Logics: The Dynamics of Change in the Health Care Arena in the United States, Britain, and Canada . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Weinberg, J. 2000. ICANN and the problem of legitimacy. Duke Law Journal 50: 187–260.

Weiss, Carol. 1998. Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Yin, Robert K. 1989. Case Study Research: Design and Methods . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada

Iris Geva-May ( Professor of Public Policy ) ( Professor of Public Policy )

Copyright information

© 2005 Iris Geva-May

About this chapter

Pal, L.A. (2005). Case Study Method and Policy Analysis. In: Geva-May, I. (eds) Thinking Like a Policy Analyst. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403980939_12

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403980939_12

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, New York

Print ISBN : 978-1-349-53119-6

Online ISBN : 978-1-4039-8093-9

eBook Packages : Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies Collection Political Science and International Studies (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Writing a Case Study

• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Reading Research Effectively
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Essays
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Bibliography

The term case study refers to both a method of analysis and a specific research design for examining a problem, both of which are used in most circumstances to generalize across populations. This tab focuses on the latter--how to design and organize a research paper in the social sciences that analyzes a specific case.

A case study research paper examines a person, place, event, phenomenon, or other type of subject of analysis in order to extrapolate  key themes and results that help predict future trends, illuminate previously hidden issues that can be applied to practice, and/or provide a means for understanding an important research problem with greater clarity. A case study paper usually examines a single subject of analysis, but case study papers can also be designed as a comparative investigation that shows relationships between two or among more than two subjects. The methods used to study a case can rest within a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method investigative paradigm.

Case Studies . Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010 ; “What is a Case Study?” In Swanborn, Peter G. Case Study Research: What, Why and How? London: SAGE, 2010.

How to Approach Writing a Case Study Research Paper

General information about how to choose a topic to investigate can be found under the " Choosing a Research Problem " tab in this writing guide. Review this page because it may help you identify a subject of analysis that can be investigated using a single case study design.

However, identifying a case to investigate involves more than choosing the research problem . A case study encompasses a problem contextualized around the application of in-depth analysis, interpretation, and discussion, often resulting in specific recommendations for action or for improving existing conditions. As Seawright and Gerring note, practical considerations such as time and access to information can influence case selection, but these issues should not be the sole factors used in describing the methodological justification for identifying a particular case to study. Given this, selecting a case includes considering the following:

• Does the case represent an unusual or atypical example of a research problem that requires more in-depth analysis? Cases often represent a topic that rests on the fringes of prior investigations because the case may provide new ways of understanding the research problem. For example, if the research problem is to identify strategies to improve policies that support girl's access to secondary education in predominantly Muslim nations, you could consider using Azerbaijan as a case study rather than selecting a more obvious nation in the Middle East. Doing so may reveal important new insights into recommending how governments in other predominantly Muslim nations can formulate policies that support improved access to education for girls.
• Does the case provide important insight or illuminate a previously hidden problem? In-depth analysis of a case can be based on the hypothesis that the case study will reveal trends or issues that have not been exposed in prior research or will reveal new and important implications for practice. For example, anecdotal evidence may suggest drug use among homeless veterans is related to their patterns of travel throughout the day. Assuming prior studies have not looked at individual travel choices as a way to study access to illicit drug use, a case study that observes a homeless veteran could reveal how issues of personal mobility choices facilitate regular access to illicit drugs. Note that it is important to conduct a thorough literature review to ensure that your assumption about the need to reveal new insights or previously hidden problems is valid and evidence-based.
• Does the case challenge and offer a counter-point to prevailing assumptions? Over time, research on any given topic can fall into a trap of developing assumptions based on outdated studies that are still applied to new or changing conditions or the idea that something should simply be accepted as "common sense," even though the issue has not been thoroughly tested in practice. A case may offer you an opportunity to gather evidence that challenges prevailing assumptions about a research problem and provide a new set of recommendations applied to practice that have not been tested previously. For example, perhaps there has been a long practice among scholars to apply a particular theory in explaining the relationship between two subjects of analysis. Your case could challenge this assumption by applying an innovative theoretical framework [perhaps borrowed from another discipline] to the study a case in order to explore whether this approach offers new ways of understanding the research problem. Taking a contrarian stance is one of the most important ways that new knowledge and understanding develops from existing literature.
• Does the case provide an opportunity to pursue action leading to the resolution of a problem? Another way to think about choosing a case to study is to consider how the results from investigating a particular case may result in findings that reveal ways in which to resolve an existing or emerging problem. For example, studying the case of an unforeseen incident, such as a fatal accident at a railroad crossing, can reveal hidden issues that could be applied to preventative measures that contribute to reducing the chance of accidents in the future. In this example, a case study investigating the accident could lead to a better understanding of where to strategically locate additional signals at other railroad crossings in order to better warn drivers of an approaching train, particularly when visibility is hindered by heavy rain, fog, or at night.
• Does the case offer a new direction in future research? A case study can be used as a tool for exploratory research that points to a need for further examination of the research problem. A case can be used when there are few studies that help predict an outcome or that establish a clear understanding about how best to proceed in addressing a problem. For example, after conducting a thorough literature review [very important!], you discover that little research exists showing the ways in which women contribute to promoting water conservation in rural communities of Uganda. A case study of how women contribute to saving water in a particular village can lay the foundation for understanding the need for more thorough research that documents how women in their roles as cooks and family caregivers think about water as a valuable resource within their community throughout rural regions of east Africa. The case could also point to the need for scholars to apply feminist theories of work and family to the issue of water conservation.

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” Academy of Management Review 14 (October 1989): 532-550; Emmel, Nick. Sampling and Choosing Cases in Qualitative Research: A Realist Approach . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2013; Gerring, John. “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?” American Political Science Review 98 (May 2004): 341-354; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Seawright, Jason and John Gerring. "Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research." Political Research Quarterly 61 (June 2008): 294-308.

Structure and Writing Style

The purpose of a paper in the social sciences designed around a case study is to thoroughly investigate a subject of analysis in order to reveal a new understanding about the research problem and, in so doing, contributing new knowledge to what is already known from previous studies. In applied social sciences disciplines [e.g., education, social work, public administration, etc.], case studies may also be used to reveal best practices, highlight key programs, or investigate interesting aspects of professional work. In general, the structure of a case study research paper is not all that different from a standard college-level research paper. However, there are subtle differences you should be aware of. Here are the key elements to organizing and writing a case study research paper.

I.  Introduction

As with any research paper, your introduction should serve as a roadmap for your readers to ascertain the scope and purpose of your study . The introduction to a case study research paper, however, should not only describe the research problem and its significance, but you should also succinctly describe why the case is being used and how it relates to addressing the problem. The two elements should be linked. With this in mind, a good introduction answers these four questions:

• What was I studying? Describe the research problem and describe the subject of analysis you have chosen to address the problem. Explain how they are linked and what elements of the case will help to expand knowledge and understanding about the problem.
• Why was this topic important to investigate? Describe the significance of the research problem and state why a case study design and the subject of analysis that the paper is designed around is appropriate in addressing the problem.
• What did we know about this topic before I did this study? Provide background that helps lead the reader into the more in-depth literature review to follow. If applicable, summarize prior case study research applied to the research problem and why it fails to adequately address the research problem. Describe why your case will be useful. If no prior case studies have been used to address the research problem, explain why you have selected this subject of analysis.
• How will this study advance new knowledge or new ways of understanding? Explain why your case study will be suitable in helping to expand knowledge and understanding about the research problem.

Each of these questions should be addressed in no more than a few paragraphs. Exceptions to this can be when you are addressing a complex research problem or subject of analysis that requires more in-depth background information.

II.  Literature Review

The literature review for a case study research paper is generally structured the same as it is for any college-level research paper. The difference, however, is that the literature review is focused on providing background information and  enabling historical interpretation of the subject of analysis in relation to the research problem the case is intended to address . This includes synthesizing studies that help to:

• Place relevant works in the context of their contribution to understanding the case study being investigated . This would include summarizing studies that have used a similar subject of analysis to investigate the research problem. If there is literature using the same or a very similar case to study, you need to explain why duplicating past research is important [e.g., conditions have changed; prior studies were conducted long ago, etc.].
• Describe the relationship each work has to the others under consideration that informs the reader why this case is applicable . Your literature review should include a description of any works that support using the case to study the research problem and the underlying research questions.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research using the case study . If applicable, review any research that has examined the research problem using a different research design. Explain how your case study design may reveal new knowledge or a new perspective or that can redirect research in an important new direction.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies . This refers to synthesizing any literature that points to unresolved issues of concern about the research problem and describing how the subject of analysis that forms the case study can help resolve these existing contradictions.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research . Your review should examine any literature that lays a foundation for understanding why your case study design and the subject of analysis around which you have designed your study may reveal a new way of approaching the research problem or offer a perspective that points to the need for additional research.
• Expose any gaps that exist in the literature that the case study could help to fill . Summarize any literature that not only shows how your subject of analysis contributes to understanding the research problem, but how your case contributes to a new way of understanding the problem that prior research has failed to do.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important!] . Collectively, your literature review should always place your case study within the larger domain of prior research about the problem. The overarching purpose of reviewing pertinent literature in a case study paper is to demonstrate that you have thoroughly identified and synthesized prior studies in the context of explaining the relevance of the case in addressing the research problem.

III.  Method

In this section, you explain why you selected a particular subject of analysis to study and the strategy you used to identify and ultimately decide that your case was appropriate in addressing the research problem. The way you describe the methods used varies depending on the type of subject of analysis that frames your case study.

If your subject of analysis is an incident or event . In the social and behavioral sciences, the event or incident that represents the case to be studied is usually bounded by time and place, with a clear beginning and end and with an identifiable location or position relative to its surroundings. The subject of analysis can be a rare or critical event or it can focus on a typical or regular event. The purpose of studying a rare event is to illuminate new ways of thinking about the broader research problem or to test a hypothesis. Critical incident case studies must describe the method by which you identified the event and explain the process by which you determined the validity of this case to inform broader perspectives about the research problem or to reveal new findings. However, the event does not have to be a rare or uniquely significant to support new thinking about the research problem or to challenge an existing hypothesis. For example, Walo, Bull, and Breen conducted a case study to identify and evaluate the direct and indirect economic benefits and costs of a local sports event in the City of Lismore, New South Wales, Australia. The purpose of their study was to provide new insights from measuring the impact of a typical local sports event that prior studies could not measure well because they focused on large "mega-events." Whether the event is rare or not, the methods section should include an explanation of the following characteristics of the event: a) when did it take place; b) what were the underlying circumstances leading to the event; c) what were the consequences of the event.

If your subject of analysis is a person. Explain why you selected this particular individual to be studied and describe what experience he or she has had that provides an opportunity to advance new understandings about the research problem. Mention any background about this person which might help the reader understand the significance of his/her experiences that make them worthy of study. This includes describing the relationships this person has had with other people, institutions, and/or events that support using him or her as the subject for a case study research paper. It is particularly important to differentiate the person as the subject of analysis from others and to succinctly explain how the person relates to examining the research problem.

If your subject of analysis is a place. In general, a case study that investigates a place suggests a subject of analysis that is unique or special in some way and that this uniqueness can be used to build new understanding or knowledge about the research problem. A case study of a place must not only describe its various attributes relevant to the research problem [e.g., physical, social, cultural, economic, political, etc.], but you must state the method by which you determined that this place will illuminate new understandings about the research problem. It is also important to articulate why a particular place as the case for study is being used if similar places also exist [i.e., if you are studying patterns of homeless encampments of veterans in open spaces, why study Echo Park in Los Angeles rather than Griffith Park?]. If applicable, describe what type of human activity involving this place makes it a good choice to study [e.g., prior research reveals Echo Park has more homeless veterans].

If your subject of analysis is a phenomenon. A phenomenon refers to a fact, occurrence, or circumstance that can be studied or observed but with the cause or explanation to be in question. In this sense, a phenomenon that forms your subject of analysis can encompass anything that can be observed or presumed to exist but is not fully understood. In the social and behavioral sciences, the case usually focuses on human interaction within a complex physical, social, economic, cultural, or political system. For example, the phenomenon could be the observation that many vehicles used by ISIS fighters are small trucks with English language advertisements on them. The research problem could be that ISIS fighters are difficult to combat because they are highly mobile. The research questions could be how and by what means are these vehicles used by ISIS being supplied to the militants and how might supply lines to these vehicles be cut? How might knowing the suppliers of these trucks from overseas reveal larger networks of collaborators and financial support? A case study of a phenomenon most often encompasses an in-depth analysis of a cause and effect that is grounded in an interactive relationship between people and their environment in some way.

NOTE:   The choice of the case or set of cases to study cannot appear random. Evidence that supports the method by which you identified and chose your subject of analysis should be linked to the findings from the literature review. Be sure to cite any prior studies that helped you determine that the case you chose was appropriate for investigating the research problem.

IV.  Discussion

The main elements of your discussion section are generally the same as any research paper, but centered around interpreting and drawing conclusions about the key findings from your case study. Note that a general social sciences research paper may contain a separate section to report findings. However, in a paper designed around a case study, it is more common to combine a description of the findings with the discussion about their implications. The objectives of your discussion section should include the following:

Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings Briefly reiterate the research problem you are investigating and explain why the subject of analysis around which you designed the case study were used. You should then describe the findings revealed from your study of the case using direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results. Highlight any findings that were unexpected or especially profound.

Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important Systematically explain the meaning of your case study findings and why you believe they are important. Begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most important or surprising finding first, then systematically review each finding. Be sure to thoroughly extrapolate what your analysis of the case can tell the reader about situations or conditions beyond the actual case that was studied while, at the same time, being careful not to misconstrue or conflate a finding that undermines the external validity of your conclusions.

Relate the Findings to Similar Studies No study in the social sciences is so novel or possesses such a restricted focus that it has absolutely no relation to previously published research. The discussion section should relate your case study results to those found in other studies, particularly if questions raised from prior studies served as the motivation for choosing your subject of analysis. This is important because comparing and contrasting the findings of other studies helps to support the overall importance of your results and it highlights how and in what ways your case study design and the subject of analysis differs from prior research about the topic.

Consider Alternative Explanations of the Findings It is important to remember that the purpose of social science research is to discover and not to prove. When writing the discussion section, you should carefully consider all possible explanations for the case study results, rather than just those that fit your hypothesis or prior assumptions and biases. Be alert to what the in-depth analysis of the case may reveal about the research problem, including offering a contrarian perspective to what scholars have stated in prior research.

Acknowledge the Study's Limitations You can state the study's limitations in the conclusion section of your paper but describing the limitations of your subject of analysis in the discussion section provides an opportunity to identify the limitations and explain why they are not significant. This part of the discussion section should also note any unanswered questions or issues your case study could not address. More detailed information about how to document any limitations to your research can be found here .

Suggest Areas for Further Research Although your case study may offer important insights about the research problem, there are likely additional questions related to the problem that remain unanswered or findings that unexpectedly revealed themselves as a result of your in-depth analysis of the case. Be sure that the recommendations for further research are linked to the research problem and that you explain why your recommendations are valid in other contexts and based on the original assumptions of your study.

V.  Conclusion

As with any research paper, you should summarize your conclusion in clear, simple language; emphasize how the findings from your case study differs from or supports prior research and why. Do not simply reiterate the discussion section. Provide a synthesis of key findings presented in the paper to show how these converge to address the research problem. If you haven't already done so in the discussion section, be sure to document the limitations of your case study and needs for further research.

The function of your paper's conclusion is to: 1)  restate the main argument supported by the findings from the analysis of your case; 2) clearly state the context, background, and necessity of pursuing the research problem using a case study design in relation to an issue, controversy, or a gap found from reviewing the literature; and, 3) provide a place for you to persuasively and succinctly restate the significance of your research problem, given that the reader has now been presented with in-depth information about the topic.

Consider the following points to help ensure your conclusion is appropriate:

• If the argument or purpose of your paper is complex, you may need to summarize these points for your reader.
• If prior to your conclusion, you have not yet explained the significance of your findings or if you are proceeding inductively, use the conclusion of your paper to describe your main points and explain their significance.
• Move from a detailed to a general level of consideration of the case study's findings that returns the topic to the context provided by the introduction or within a new context that emerges from your case study findings.

Note that, depending on the discipline you are writing in and your professor's preferences, the concluding paragraph may contain your final reflections on the evidence presented applied to practice or on the essay's central research problem. However, the nature of being introspective about the subject of analysis you have investigated will depend on whether you are explicitly asked to express your observations in this way.

Problems to Avoid

Overgeneralization One of the goals of a case study is to lay a foundation for understanding broader trends and issues applied to similar circumstances. However, be careful when drawing conclusions from your case study. They must be evidence-based and grounded in the results of the study; otherwise, it is merely speculation. Looking at a prior example, it would be incorrect to state that a factor in improving girls access to education in Azerbaijan and the policy implications this may have for improving access in other Muslim nations is due to girls access to social media if there is no documentary evidence from your case study to indicate this. There may be anecdotal evidence that retention rates were better for girls who were on social media, but this observation would only point to the need for further research and would not be a definitive finding if this was not a part of your original research agenda.

Failure to Document Limitations No case is going to reveal all that needs to be understood about a research problem. Therefore, just as you have to clearly state the limitations of a general research study , you must describe the specific limitations inherent in the subject of analysis. For example, the case of studying how women conceptualize the need for water conservation in a village in Uganda could have limited application in other cultural contexts or in areas where fresh water from rivers or lakes is plentiful and, therefore, conservation is understood differently than preserving access to a scarce resource.

Failure to Extrapolate All Possible Implications Just as you don't want to over-generalize from your case study findings, you also have to be thorough in the consideration of all possible outcomes or recommendations derived from your findings. If you do not, your reader may question the validity of your analysis, particularly if you failed to document an obvious outcome from your case study research. For example, in the case of studying the accident at the railroad crossing to evaluate where and what types of warning signals should be located, you failed to take into consideration speed limit signage as well as warning signals. When designing your case study, be sure you have thoroughly addressed all aspects of the problem and do not leave gaps in your analysis.

Case Studies . Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Gerring, John. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices . New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007; Merriam, Sharan B. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education . Rev. ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1998; Miller, Lisa L. “The Use of Case Studies in Law and Social Science Research.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14 (2018): TBD; Mills, Albert J., Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Putney, LeAnn Grogan. "Case Study." In Encyclopedia of Research Design , Neil J. Salkind, editor. (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010), pp. 116-120; Simons, Helen. Case Study Research in Practice . London: SAGE Publications, 2009;  Kratochwill,  Thomas R. and Joel R. Levin, editors. Single-Case Research Design and Analysis: New Development for Psychology and Education .  Hilldsale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992; Swanborn, Peter G. Case Study Research: What, Why and How? London : SAGE, 2010; Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods . 6th edition. Los Angeles, CA, SAGE Publications, 2014; Walo, Maree, Adrian Bull, and Helen Breen. “Achieving Economic Benefits at Local Events: A Case Study of a Local Sports Event.” Festival Management and Event Tourism 4 (1996): 95-106.

Writing Tip

At Least Five Misconceptions about Case Study Research

Social science case studies are often perceived as limited in their ability to create new knowledge because they are not randomly selected and findings cannot be generalized to larger populations. Flyvbjerg examines five misunderstandings about case study research and systematically "corrects" each one. To quote, these are:

Misunderstanding 1 :  General, theoretical [context-independent knowledge is more valuable than concrete, practical (context-dependent) knowledge. Misunderstanding 2 :  One cannot generalize on the basis of an individual case; therefore, the case study cannot contribute to scientific development. Misunderstanding 3 :  The case study is most useful for generating hypotheses; that is, in the first stage of a total research process, whereas other methods are more suitable for hypotheses testing and theory building. Misunderstanding 4 :  The case study contains a bias toward verification, that is, a tendency to confirm the researcher’s preconceived notions. Misunderstanding 5 :  It is often difficult to summarize and develop general propositions and theories on the basis of specific case studies [p. 221].

While writing your paper, think introspectively about how you addressed these misconceptions because to do so can help you strengthen the validity and reliability of your research by clarifying issues of case selection, the testing and challenging of existing assumptions, the interpretation of key findings, and the summation of case outcomes. Think of a case study research paper as a complete, in-depth narrative about the specific properties and key characteristics of your subject of analysis applied to the research problem.

Flyvbjerg, Bent. “Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 12 (April 2006): 219-245.

• << Previous: Reviewing Collected Essays
• Next: Writing a Field Report >>
• Last Updated: Jan 17, 2023 10:50 AM
• URL: https://libguides.pointloma.edu/ResearchPaper

The Politics Shed- A Free Text Book for all students of Politics.

Case Study US Election 2020

Presidential elections in the us take place every four years, on the first tuesday after 1 november. this has been the unvarying practice even in wartime conditions, as in 1864 (the civil war) and 1944 (second world war)., context of the campaign - the pandemic.

The Covid-19 global pandemic affected the US from late January 2020 and became the subject of a national emergency in mid-March. Criticism of President Trump’s handling of the pandemic was the most significan t facto r in the outcome of the contest.

Perhaps the biggest reason Biden won the presidency was something entirely out of his control.

The coronavirus pandemic, as well as claiming more than 230,000 lives, also transformed American life and politics in 2020. And in the final days of the general election campaign, Donald Trump himself seemed to acknowledge this.

" With the fake news, everything is Covid, Covid, Covid, Covid, " the president said at a rally last week in Wisconsin, where cases have spiked in recent days.

The media focus on Covid, however, was a reflection rather than a driver of the public's concern about the pandemic - which translated into unfavorable polling on the president's handling of the crisis. A poll by Pew Research, suggested Biden held a 17 percentage point lead over Trump when it came to confidence about their handling of the Covid outbreak.

The increased use of mail-in ballots led the Trump campaign to claim that the election might be unfairly ‘rigged’ against him, and he refused to give a binding commitment to accept the result. Trump’s critics argued that this was a partisan attempt to suppress voting for his opponent, as Democrat voters were less likely to vote in person in the pandemic. They also pointed out that the incidence of fraud in modern elections is very low. The deadlines for accepting mailed ballots for counting became a politicised issue, with the Supreme Court ruling in October against a bid by Republicans to block extensions beyond 3 November in Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

By election day the US had suffered the highest number of deaths from the virus in the world (over 200,000), with more than eight million confirmed cases. Trump was widely perceived as having been too complacent about the spread of the virus, inconsistent in his public statements and failing to give a clear lead at a time of crisis.

The Economy 'It' the economy, stupid!'

In 1992 Clinton's campaign manager, James Carville, told his staff that if they wondered what elections were about they should tell themselves ' It's the economy, stupid ' and indeed this is true of most elections in the USA and UK. In 1980 Reagan asked the American people to judge Carter's four years in power by asking themselves 'Am I better off now than I was four years ago' .

Without the advent of the pandemic, it's likely that a majority of Americans in 2020 would have answered 'yes' and voted for Trump. However, t he severe economic effects of the virus undermined the President’s claim to have guaranteed prosperity for the American people. The unemployment rate reached a peak of 15 % in April before dropping to just under 8 % by October. This was still almost double the rate that Trump inherited in 2017. A week before election day, it was shown that GDP had risen by 33 % in the third quarter of the year – an impressive recovery, given that the second quarter had seen a 31% decrease - but it was too late to reverse the decline in Trump’s fortunes.

The significance of the running mate.

The two major party candidates, Trump (aged 74) and Biden (77), were the oldest individuals in US history to run in a presidential election. This made the choice of Vice- Presidential candidate unusually important, as there was a real possibility that the winner might not serve a full four-year term. Trump stuck with his first-term choice, the conservative Mike Pence. Biden selected a leading African-American female candidate, Kamala Harris, as his running mate. She was a California senator and former attorney-general for the state, some 20 years younger than Biden, who had herself launched and then discontinued a campaign for the presidential nomination.

During the campaign to be the Democratic candidate, Biden's competition came from his left, with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who ran well-financed and organised campaigns that generated rock-concert sized crowds.

Despite this pressure from his liberal flank, Biden stuck with a centrist strategy, refusing to back universal government-run healthcare, free college education, or a wealth tax. This allowed him maximise his appeal to moderates and disaffected Republicans during the general election campaign.

This strategy was reflected in Biden's choice of Kamala Harris as his running mate when he could have opted for someone with stronger support from the party's left wing.

Law and Order

Another issue which made this an exceptionally divided election was the demon strations in many US cities. This followed the killing on 25 May of the African- American George Floyd by a Minnesota policeman. Demonstrations organised by the pressure group Black Lives Matter focused attention on the treatment of ethnic minorities by the police. Many cities also saw campaigns to remove statues perceived as racist, such as those commemorating figures from the slave-owning Confederate side in the Civil War.

Trump’s attempt to depict himself as the guardian of law and order drew parallels with the 1968 election, when Republican candidate Richard Nixon similarly appointed himself the spokesman of the ‘silent majority’ in his bid for the White House. By deploying federal troops to areas where riots took place and opposing the campaign to remove monuments, Trump came into conflict with the civil rights movement. He won approval from conservatives by attacking the Democrat Party faction that proposed defunding the police but Biden himself was careful not to support this radical option. Less positive for Trump was public reaction to his decision to stage a photo opportunity outside a Washington DC church, holding a Bible, which was widely seen as inappropriate. Law and order became a salient issue during the summer as disturbances broke out in states including Oregon and Wisconsin. Trump accused the Democrats of being soft on crime and excusing violent law-breakers, whilst Biden charged the President of having fomented disorder through his divisive language . Law and order, therefore, was not a decisive issue- supporters of both candidates tended to have their views confirmed by events.

Why Biden won Atlantic Magazine

How Biden Won in diagrams

Party policies and the polarisation of US politics

Joe Biden did not adopt the most radical policies of his party’s progressive wing, as advocated by Bernie Sanders. For example, he does not favour ‘Medicare for all’ – universal, government-funded health insurance replacing private insurance. Nor has he adopted the radical ‘Green New Deal’ espoused by the left of his party, which seeks to transition to renewable energy within ten years. However, Biden has moved away from the party’s centre in some key areas. At the Republican Convention Trump did not announce a new policy platform but restated his commitment to the ‘America first’ agenda announced for the 2016 election. This slogan, though never precisely defined, carried connotations of nationalism, isolationism and possibly intolerance. In office Trump distanced the US from international commitments entered into by previous Democrat and Republican administrations. There is a continuing gulf between the two parties. Democrats stand for diversity and support for minority groups, and a more internationalist view of the USA’s role in the world. Republicans have a more traditionalist, conservative vision of America, and under Trump’s leadership have become more inward-looking. Social and moral issues have become an increasingly important dividing line. Democrats are the more socially liberal of the two parties. For example, on abortion Biden is committed to reversing Trump’s executive order which stopped taxpayer funding of the pro-choice Planned Parenthood organisation. This reflects his party’s greater sensitivity to women’s rights issues. Gun control is another issue. The Democrats do not directly challenge the Second Amendment right to gun ownership, but they favour more controls, including a ban on the sale of assault weapons and stricter background checks on purchasers of firearms. This contrasts with Trump’s more clear-cut commitment to the right to own firearms; he has stated that ‘the right of self-defence doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway’.

Policy area How the parties differ

Biden would increase the top rate of income tax and corporation tax and use the revenue to invest in ‘green infrastructure’ projects. Trump has cut both income tax and corporation tax. This links to the different philosophies of the parties – Democrats prioritise helping middle- and low income people, whereas Republicans focus more on business interests and reducing the role of government in the economy.

Health care

Biden would extend the 2010 Affordable Care Act, known as ‘Obamacare’, which extended healthcare insurance to uninsured people. Republicans are hostile to the level of government intervention represented by the policy. Trump removed the requirement to buy insurance or pay a tax penalty.

Immigration

Biden would make it easier for people to claim asylum at the border with Mexico, reversing Trump’s more restrictive policies. He supports the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy, which allows people brought illegally into the US as children to stay. Trump is opposed to this policy.

Biden is keener than the Republicans on renewable energy. He has promised net-zero emissions by 2050 and the electrification of the transport sector. Trump supports the continued exploitation of oil and gas. He replaced Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which set targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, with the less ambitious Affordable Clean Energy Rule. He repudiated the Paris climate agreement, to which Biden would return.

Campaign finance : what part did it play?

The 2020 election reinforces the argument that the ability to raise campaign finance is crucial to success for candidates in the USA, both for the Presidency and Congress. Spending on all the November elections was close to a total of $14 billion – more than twice the amount spent in 2016. In the presidential race, Trump’s team began with the advantages associated with incumbency, building on the 2016 support network to establish a $72 million lead in the spring of 2020. By early October, however, the Biden campaign had $144 million more cash in hand than the Trump campaign. This enabled the Democrats to run extensive TV and digital advertising campaigns in battleground states, outspending Trump by a wide margin. The Democrats’ impressive resources enabled them to target particular demographics such as Puerto Rican voters in Florida and Mexican Americans in Arizona. Although they did not win all the swing states, their efforts put the Trump campaign on the defensive.

The origin of political donations is an important issue. Both candidates ignored the availability of public funding for their campaigns. This was because the official system, established in 1974, allowed candidates to claim federal funding to match privately raised contributions, but in return they have to accept relatively low spending limits. Biden and Trump followed a pattern established in the three previous elections, in which the major party candidates relied exclusively on private funding, thus allowing them to increase their legally permitted expenditure. The 2020 election saw 20 per cent of campaign funds come from small donors, who contributed a maximum of $200 each, an increase of 6 per cent on 2016. This is an encouraging sign for US democracy. More than half of Democrat fundraising came from small online donations. It was boosted by public reaction to several incidents in the course of the campaign, including the popular selection of Kamala Harris, the death of Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg and the first presidential debate. However, the role of a small number of wealthy contributors continued to be a concern. These are people who do not reflect the wider community whose interests are at stake in the election. One research group found that in 2020, more cash came from Washington DC than from twenty states combined, and that Biden raised 10 per cent of his funds from just six zip codes, concentrated in Washington DC, New York and Indianapolis. Soft money , indirectly donated to a campaign by individuals or organisations, remains an issue in US politics. Super PACs , which seek to influence electoral outcomes without directly supporting a candidate, played an important role as they had in 2016. The highest-spending PACs were almost equally divided between conservative and liberal positions, with two (America First Action and Preserve America PAC) backing Trump and two (American Bridge 21st Century and Unite the Country) for Biden.

The importance of presidential debates

In the wake of potentially damaging revelations about Donald Trump’s tax affairs , polls suggest that he came off second best in a very scrappy first debate with Joe Biden . Then news broke that the President was hospitalised after testing positive for COVID-19, and his general health and recovery were questioned. The attention then switched to his running mate Mike Pence and his debate with Democratic opponent Kamala Harris. After all, if Trump’s condition were to deteriorate then Pence might be playing a much bigger role in the future. The first 2020 presidential debate did not go well for Donald Trump. Viewers were turned off by the president’s constant hectoring of Joe Biden. And many were alarmed when he not only declined to denounce white supremacists but went so far as to tell a far-right neofascist group to “stand by.” Polling by FiveThirtyEight revealed that 50 percent of people who watched the event rated Trump’s performance as “very poor.”

Pence and Harris produced a more orderly contest than the chaotic display put on by the presidential candidates, featuring fewer interruptions and more policy discussion, despite headlines being bizarrely hijacked by the fly that landed on the Vice President’s head .

In another twist, after the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) determined that the next Trump-Biden head to head would be an online affair, the President announced that he wouldn’t participate on the basis that the whole idea was “ridiculous” and that the moderator could “cut you off whenever they want”. The second debate was then cancelled, and the clear reluctance of Trump to take to an online platform to debate, combined with the safety concerns of a face-to-face interaction have led to uncertainty not just over the format and schedule of the this year’s debates, but also about the future of Presidential debates altogether.

While the first televised debate was clearly newsworthy and headline grabbing, there is compelling evidence showing that these televised contests matter little to voters.

The appearances of two white men aged 74 and 77 could also be key in 2020 given the continuing jibes from both sides doubting the other’s physical and mental wellbeing. Given Trump and his wife’s positive COVID tests and his wider family’s refusal to wear face masks in the studio when asked to do so , the first debate might yet prove to be of critical importance to the health of those coming into contact with them, especially in light of the increasing number of COVID cases within the Trump camp.

The electoral college and the outcome of the presidential contest

The outcome of the US presidential election is not determined by the total popular vote, even though Biden received a record number of votes. Instead, voters choose an ‘elector’ to represent them in the electoral college. Each state is allocated a number of votes in the college linked to its representation in Congress. This ensures a balance in terms of the weighting given to smaller and larger states, but it is not strictly proportional to population. To win the presidency a candidate must win a majority of electoral college votes – at least 270 votes out of a total of 538. Apart from Maine and Nebraska, all states have a ‘winner takes all’ policy, whereby the candidate who wins a majority of the vote takes all of the electoral college votes for the state. The election result proved closer than many commentators expected. Biden was consistently more than 8 per cent ahead in national polling but it was the ‘swing states’ that mattered most, and here his lead was smaller. Trump held Florida, even though it was reported that the high percentage of retired voters in the state had become disillusioned with him for his stance on the virus. The state’s 29 electoral college votes went to Trump, largely because of the sizeable, conservative Cuban exile community, who responded to his depiction of Biden as a puppet of the radical left. Trump also retained Texas, Ohio and North Carolina. However, the other key swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona declared for Biden. He won the largest popular vote in US presidential history, as well as a clear majority in the electoral college. This was the largest turnout since 1900 – 66.7 %. At the same time, it is important to note that Trump won the second-largest vote share of any presidential candidate, which helped to generate claims on the Republican side that he had been unfairly robbed of victory. Third-party and independent candidates, of whom the most successful was Jo Jorgensen of the Libertarian Party, gained less than 2 % of the national vote between them.

Vote counting was an issue in the 2020 contest. As a result of the pandemic 101 million votes were cast early, many of them by post. Democrat voters were more likely to use this method in order to avoid physical contact at polling stations. It is up to the states to set the rules on when they start to count mail-in ballots, with most not allowing them to be opened until the end of polling day. This was one reason why there was a delay of several days in announcing the election result. Trump then refused to concede defeat, making baseless claims that he had in fact won. His legal team launched lawsuits in states such as Pennsylvania, to disqualify votes that they regarded as illegitimate. However, they produced no substantive evidence and failed to change the result of the election. Trump continued to dispute the result but eventually agreed to the transfer of power to Biden. Nonetheless, before he left the White House there were violent scenes on 6 January 2021 when, after a Trump rally in Washington DC, some of his supporters invaded Congress in a bid to disrupt the formal approval of the election result. Despite the violence, a handful of Republican senators and a larger number of Congressmen still voted against certification.

Voting patterns

It is important to understand the part played by various demographics in the outcome of the election, although it should be noted that experts do not claim that the available data is entirely accurate. Race was an important factor in voting behaviour. As expected, Biden was the more popular choice for ethnic minority voters, winning up to 90 percent of African American votes and 70 percent of Latinos. This reflects the Democratic Party’s traditionally strong links to these communities. However, Trump was relatively successful with Hispanic people in areas such as Florida and Texas. As noted above, this can be attributed to the politically and socially conservative attitudes of these voters. In Texas, Trump’s economic policies may have garnered support among workers in the oil and gas industries. Gender had been predicted to be another major dividing line between the two sides, with women less likely than men to vote for Trump. This turned out to be justified, with an estimated gender gap of between 8 and 12 points. Levels of education continue to be an important divide. College-educated non-white voters remained loyal to the Democrats, with female voters in this category preferring Biden by an average of 22 points. Trump raised his support among non-college-educated non-white voters from 20 to 25 percent between 2016 and 2020. He won 63 percent of non-college-educated white voters. Trump lost some support among older voters – 51 percent of over-65 voters supported him, compared to 52 percent in 2016. It had been expected that the oldest voters, who were most vulnerable to the virus, would desert Trump, but the results do not bear this out. However, younger voters remained loyal to the Democrats. Among voters in the 18 to 29 age group, 62 percent supported Biden and just 35 percent supported Trump.

An important development that helped Biden was a shift towards the Democrats in suburban areas, particularly those in rust belt and southern swing states. These included Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, which had been historically Democrat prior to 2016, and Georgia, which went Democrat in 2020 for the first time since 1992. This may be because these areas, although still mainly white, are becoming more racially diverse. By contrast Trump’s vote held up in rural areas and small towns.

Explaining the outcome

As the incumbent Trump possessed the advantages of the office itself: instant name recognition and media attention; an aura of authority as the nation’s chief executive; and a ready-made, well-resourced campaign team. He also had authority over his own party – though he did face four short-lived challenges from other Republicans in 2019 before finally securing the nomination. Only one previous president in the previous 30 years, George HW Bush in 1992, had failed to win a second term. Trump’s main disadvantage, however, was that his poll ratings suffered as he was perceived to have mishandled the health emergency and to have dissipated the promise of economic prosperity made in 2016. A decade of manufacturing jobs growth disappeared in a matter of months as the disease took hold. This was the record on which Trump was judged by voters. The polls began to narrow by the end of August. This was largely due to the outbreak of race-related rioting, much of which took place in Democrat-controlled cities such as New York, Portland and Seattle. Trump sought to shore up his core vote by arguing that his opponents had lost control and that lawlessness was the responsibility of their far-left supporters. Ultimately, however, this proved to offer false hope to the Trump campaign.

Trump’s gaffes, such as suggesting that injections of household cleaning products should be tested as coronavirus treatment, were relentlessly highlighted by the media. It also worked in the Democrats’ interests that their candidate had a track record of executive experience as Vice-President and could be presented as a ‘safe pair of hands’. Trump’s attempts to depict Biden as ‘Sleepy Joe’, a candidate who was simply not up to the task of being President, did not gain traction. Nor did voters believe the allegations that Biden was the passive tool of his party’s far left. His plans for increased public investment in infrastructure were consistent with the policies of earlier Democratic Presidents, notably Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s. They were viewed as essentially mainstream rather than ‘socialist’ policies. Trump was no more successful in depicting Biden’s running mate as an extreme left-winger. Although radical on issues of racial equality, Kamala Harris was to the right on law and order, with a track record of toughness on crime as a former California attorney-general. This was an extremely divisive election. Virtually every issue was politicised in a highly partisan manner. When wildfires devastated large parts of California and Oregon in September, the candidates out forward starkly divergent explanations. For Biden, this was further evidence of climate change, whilst Trump blamed the disaster on poor forest management by the state authorities. Another front in the campaign was opened when a longserving member of the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, died on 18 September after a long illness. The removal of a key liberal justice gave Trump an opportunity to nominate a more ideologically congenial conservative to the Court. In a similar situation in 2016, when conservative justice Antonin Scalia died, the Republican-controlled Senate refused to hold a confirmation hearing for a replacement put forward by outgoing President Obama, on the grounds that this decision should be left until after the election.

In 2020, however, the Senate supported Trump by approving his nominee, Catholic conservative Amy Coney Barrett, just a week before election day. This infuriated liberals because it meant that the Court would have an inbuilt 6–3 conservative majority. It raised the possibility of previous liberal positions on issues such as abortion and Obamacare being reversed. The first televised presidential debate on 29 September highlighted the bitterness of the personal rivalry between the two candidates. It was widely condemned for bringing US democracy into disrepute, with the two men trading insults and talking over each other rather than seriously debating the issues. Afterwards, the commission responsible for supervising the debates proposed to change the rules in time for the next round. Then the announcement that Trump had tested positive for Covid19 disrupted the schedule. This dramatic news was what commentators call an October surprise – an unexpected news event, late in an election campaign, which may affect the outcome. At the height of the pandemic some commentators had argued that Biden would be disadvantaged by not being able to campaign in the traditional way, instead being obliged to broadcast from his home. This meant that he initially struggled to gain publicity, although he later made some public appearances. By contrast, as the sitting President, Trump automatically received continuous media coverage. He also placed great stress on attending campaign events in person, mocking Biden for being less publicly visible. Trump’s meetings were usually large, with supporters not wearing masks or socially distancing. Biden’s events were typically smaller-scale and much more cautiously managed. When Trump was hospitalised, this appeared a sign of recklessness rather than vitality, seriously damaging his credibility. It confirmed a growing impression among voters that he was not competent to be entrusted with power for a second term.

It did not help Trump’s cause when, returning to the White House, apparently cured after three days in hospital, he minimised the seriousness of the disease by claiming that he was now immune. Biden consistently presented a quietly reassuring persona which contrasted markedly with Trump’s flamboyant and aggressive style. This difference was highlighted by the ‘duelling town halls’ event which replaced the planned second televised debate on 15 October. Instead of appearing together, the two candidates were interviewed separately and appeared simultaneously on different TV channels. The final debate took place as planned on 22 October and saw the candidates engage more with the issues. However, the more orderly atmosphere was because the organisers had imposed stricter rules, including provision for turning off the participants’ microphones. Overall, this was one of the most ill-tempered and confrontational campaigns in US presidential history

The Congressional elections: from divided to united government

The Congressional elections produced some close results . The Democrats still controlled the House of Representatives, although losses meant that their majority (with New York’s 22nd Congressional district undecided) was now just 222 to 211 – a markedly weaker performance than Biden’s in the presidential contest. In the Senate the Democrats defeated incumbents in Arizona and Colorado but lost a seat in Alabama. Key Republican senators retained their seats – both those identified with Trump such as majority leader Mitch McConnell (Kentucky) and Lindsey Graham (South Carolina), and those who had consistently distanced themselves from him, notably Susan Collins (Maine). This points to the continuing power of incumbency as a factor in securing re-election, with long-serving senators running on the basis of their local record and connections.

One state whose representation was not resolved in November was Georgia where, uniquely, both Senate seats were contested. In both cases, neither of the top two candidates won 50% of the vote, which meant that, under the state’s rules, a run-off had to be held on 5 January. In a close contest both seats were taken by the Democrats. As a result, the Senate was split evenly, with both parties holding 50 seats. The Senate is chaired by the VicePresident, who has a casting vote in the event of a tie. This ended the situation of divided government which had prevailed since 2019, giving the Democrats the opportunity to pass their legislation and secure confirmation of their Cabinet appointments. The incoming Biden administration therefore had the benefit of a potentially strong political position. It is common for a new president to have his party in control of Congress at the start of his term, but this advantage is often lost in mid-term elections. The new administration faced major challenges, not only in public health and the economy, but also the need to reunite a deeply divided country whose institutions had been subjected to the most severe testing in living memory

Case Studies in Political Science Research Paper

View sample Case Studies in Political Science Research Paper. Browse other research paper examples and check the list of political science  research paper topics for more inspiration. If you need a research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Also, chech our custom research proposal writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

I. Introduction

Academic writing, editing, proofreading, and problem solving services, get 10% off with 24start discount code, ii. the debate within the discipline, iii. examples of the case study approach, a. u.s. politics, b. comparative politics, c. international relations, iv. conclusion.

The case study method has always been an integral tool in the investigation of social science phenomena, being of particular value when the number of observations, or cases studied, is limited in number, restricting the utility of statistical approaches. However, for some time the individual case study approach had been supplanted by large-N, data-intensive quantitative methods as the preferred technique for empirical studies. More recently, the case study has seen a revival of interest by social scientists as part of a multimethod, holistic approach that includes formal, qualitative, and quantitative methods. Indeed, each major methodological approach plays an important role in the research cycle, with the qualitative application of the case study enlightening the inductive aspect of theory development through the identification of alternate causal explanations, new variables, or complex interactions of variables. Fundamentally, case studies allow one to go beyond often simplistic quantitative analysis and develop contextually rich and in-depth pictures of the phenomena being observed.

By itself, a case study is the history of an event, be it of short or long duration—a civil protest movement, for example, or the evolutionary process from colonial rule toward stable democracy. As such, a case study identifies the expected, predictable aspects of an event, while ideally it also captures additional but less quantifiable detail, such as the cultural context, that potentially asserts a causal role as well. Individual or comparative case studies of specific, individual events, actors, or systems allow the researcher to obtain a depth of knowledge and understanding about the object being studied that large-N quantitative studies fail to provide.

A carefully crafted case study serves several purposes within the research cycle. First, while quantitative studies identify outlying or deviant cases, those well beyond the expected normal distribution, quantitative methods are generally not able to explain the specific reasons for a particular case’s extreme variation from its population mean. The case study, however, not only provides the opportunity to identify likely reasons for these individual deviations but may illuminate previously unidentified causal variables and possible alternate explanations as well. This information potentially leads to the extension of existing theory, if not its revision, and may suggest new theoretical explanations altogether.

Additionally, the case study may be the best, or only, way to study certain phenomena because of the relatively small number of identified cases and a resulting scarcity of data, which restricts the use of quantitative methods. And while much of the earliest criticism of case studies (by social scientists) centered on their application as a mainly historical narrative, the substantive purpose of case study is to understand that history but to do so in a way that allows for the identification of critical actions, structures, or other aspects that contribute to the end result. Being able to examine with scientific rigor phenomena that either do not lend themselves well to quantitative study, or for which only a limited set of objective measures is available, makes such an approach valuable. The role case studies can play in identifying and understanding previously unknown variables and in establishing causal paths and the interdependency of variables, as well as being critical tests of existing theory, makes them not just a complement to quantitative methods but potentially of equal value (Geddes, 1990; Gerring, 2004).

Case studies are by definition qualitative, meaning that the focus of the study is not primarily the systematic manipulation of aggregated points of data, an objective exercise, but rather a study that focuses on the quality of the potential data observed, a much more subjective work. This is not to say that case studies are not objective as well: In reality, for a case study to have any influence, it must identify and measure variables to allow for reliable comparison and to build theory that is testable, replicable, and generalizable. Case study is ultimately a method that falls into two forms: the individual, within case study and the comparative across case study, usually limited to a small number of cases. Both types work to identify causal relationships and enlighten theoretical explanations. Good case study work can be either accumulating (building on previous knowledge) or original (establishing entirely new avenues of research).

Political scientists have had an ongoing discussion about the role of the case study approach in their field. This discussion has focused on the relative value of case study compared with other methods for evaluating and advancing theoretical understanding. Of central concern is the perceived methodological limitation of single and small-N case work within a discipline that favors quantitative methodologies. A tension results between the benefits accrued from this method and its limitations. What value can a unique examination contribute? Are hypotheses and theory valid only if they are testable and generalizable? Within these debates over the fundamental usefulness of deliberative case study work are questions that address both the inherent strengths and weaknesses of such an approach. Scholars have generally fallen into two camps, those who argue for its usefulness and those who contend it has limited utility in a discipline with a strong quantitative emphasis and reliance on scientific method.

Addressing this fundamental question over the potentially ambiguous nature of a case study finding, which alone can neither directly inform nor disprove a generalizable finding, Arend Lijphart (1971) states that because of its singular nature, the case study in and of itself does not directly satisfy the standards of scientific research. He does, however, credit the case study with multiple indirect benefits, making it a valuable component in establishing political science theory. He identifies six types of case studies that fall into roughly two categories: those chosen because the case itself is of interest and that are purely descriptive and those chosen to inform and build theory. The first category encompasses single case studies, which are generally detailed histories of a specific event or result and which, he argues, have value for this history alone. The thorough knowledge of a country gained by such an intensive, rich study provides critical information that others can also benefit from. Additionally, these in-depth analyses not only are a source of data for larger comparative studies but may also identify new variables of interest or suggest potentially new theoretical explanations. Lijphart’s other typologies include those case studies that are chosen specifically for theory-building purposes. They include hypothesis-generating cases in areas in which no established theory exists; theory-confirming and -informing cases, both of which test existing theories; and deviant case analysis, for cases known to have varied from the expectations predicted by theory. This third type of case often reveals additional variables previously unidentified. It may suggest a temporal ordering of variables (path dependency) or identify the sometimes critical interactions of variables. The study of deviant cases may merely suggest refinements to the way variables are operationalized within the study, still an important theoretical contribution. These last three case typologies constitute the core of comparative case study, with their usefulness coming from their deliberate selection as a test to existing theory. While Lijphart identifies certain benefits of the case study approach, his praise is still conditional, and he favors the value of large-N quantitative studies whenever possible.

Harry Eckstein (1975) addresses the utility of case studies by first noting the predominant status held by historiographic work in earlier political science research. His main contention is that this early case study work, at both the micro and the macro level, although insightful in its own right, was perceived to be severely limited in its usefulness for producing generalizable theory, because of its singular focus and the statistical consequence of an N of 1. The prevailing assumption was that what theory-building utility case study work had was inductively drawn from the events studied, and those inferences might or might not represent replicable conclusions. Eckstein questions this assumption and lays out a detailed argument supporting the utility of case study work in all stages of the theory development process, not just the nascent ones. He additionally contends that case studies may actually be most valuable at the theory testing stage. Particularly in the field of comparative politics and when studying complex, potentially unique systems, Eckstein suggests that well-designed case study methods may be the best way of testing hypotheses and cumulating generalizable theories. Indeed, he emphasizes the role of case study in its comparative application and perspective.

Before he makes his argument for the value of case study to theory building, Eckstein (1975) provides valuable definitions of case study by emphasizing the concentrated, yet flexible, aspect of an investigation into a single event or individual. This focused yet not narrowly defined approach allows the investigator to be open to unexpected observations and new conclusions. Eckstein additionally makes the important distinction that the study of one event does not necessarily mean only one measure of the results. Rather, he contends that how an event or thing is studied will dictate its number of observations. Thus, one event can be broken down into numerous observations. For example, “Astudy of six general elections in Britain may be, but need not be, an N = 1 study. It might also be an N = 6 study. It can also be an N = 120,000,000 study” (p. 85). This example illustrates his definition of a case as the single measurement of a pertinent variable observed, so that comparative study is then defined as “simply numerous cases along the same lines, with a view to reporting and interpreting numerous measures on the same variables of different ‘individuals’” (p. 85).

After he provides a useful review of the steps toward the development of theory, first the question or puzzle, followed by the formulation of a hypothesis and then a test, with the cycle likely repeating itself as refinements are made, Eckstein proceeds to describe five distinct varieties of the case study and identifies the particular uses each has. The first of these, the configurative idiographic study, is meant to be a comprehensive study of its target but one that allows for intuitive interpretation of the facts. By definition, idiographic is individualizing rather than nomographic or generalizing. Indeed, Eckstein acknowledges that this type of case study was the predominant type he first alluded to in this work. But he makes the point that the strengths of these types of case studies are their very weakness. Their rich description and often persuasive intuitive interpretations may be individually factual, but they aren’t systematic, which makes generalizable conclusions problematic and substantive theories unlikely.

The disciplined configurative study, a term Eckstein (1975) credits to Sidney Verba, turns this relationship around somewhat; rather than building theories on interpretations, interpretations should be driven by theory. This implies that the details of a case should either confirm or disprove a theory that ought to apply to it. The problem with this approach is, as Eckstein points out, its “discipline.” The strict and usually narrow application to a case of a hypothesized theory should either confirm or deny it. In essence, Eckstein suggests that this approach may be too restrictive. It may also lack the flexibility to accommodate more intricate relationships not already identified or suggested by existing theory. He also worries that interpretation of cases on an existing theory presumes that the theory itself is correct and suggests that existing theory, however valid, may “compel particular case interpretations” (p. 104, italics added) with its emphasis on generalizability at the expense of more individualized findings.

Eckstein’s (1975) third type is heuristic case studies, which are deliberate searches for discovery, often a result of trial and error. These are meant to be creative, stimulating the imagination of the researcher toward new ways of looking at a problem, focusing on broader, more generalizable relationships. This discovery is incremental and is often developed in sequential studies as the new theory is further refined. The reason for heuristic case study is given rather succinctly by Eckstein: Theories do not arise from data alone but rather from the imagination of the researcher, after discerning puzzles and then patterns. Case studies, with their intensive analysis, increase the likelihood that these critical relationships will be found, particularly when they are carefully chosen to advance theory building. One caveat Eckstein offers on heuristic case studies is that they often produce too much—multiple explanations, too many variables, and a resulting complexity of interactions that are not only unwieldy but make generalization impossible.

Case studies are also used to probe the likelihood of proposed theories, a form that Eckstein (1975) calls plausibility probes. These are an intervening step before testing, to determine whether the expense of testing is warranted. Although the usefulness of such a study is limited to this end, and alone it cannot confirm a theory, it can, however, improve the prospects of testing, and for this reason it has value.

A more critical example of case study in theory building is the crucial case study. Eckstein (1975) confronts the dilemma of a single observation and the inability to correctly determine a statistical relationship on the basis of such limited information as a source of potential error for any theory based on it. The inductive fallacy is the error made when one derives a theory from only the observed (gathered) data, without further testing. The critical caveat is that one cannot test a theory with the same data used to originate the theory, and therefore another such example must be found. The crucial case is just such a test of a proposed theory. If all those variables deemed critical to a theory exist, then the results should be as predicted by the theory. Conversely, one can study a case similar in most respects, yet lacking in the hypothesized critical components, as a way of demonstrating that similar results did not result because the causal variable was missing. Although these most likely and least likely case study designs cannot absolutely confirm or deny theory, they are important tests of the likelihood of the theory and the correctness of the causal relationships being proposed.

Eckstein’s (1975) thorough typology and analysis of the case study method methodically crafts an argument for the benefits of case study work. These include the insight made possible by the rigorous, thorough inspection in a carefully crafted case study and its across-discipline utility in identifying new variables and new causal mechanisms leading to the generation of new theory. To accomplish this goal, Eckstein emphasizes that case study selection must be driven by theory, and not by interest or convenience.

Charles Ragin (1987), in The Comparative Method, devotes a chapter to the discussion of case-oriented comparative methods and addresses the likelihood that even the most meticulously performed case study is unlikely to produce definitive explanations. However, identifying critical contextual facts may help determine the causal relationships underlying the observed phenomena. It is important to note that Ragin emphasizes the value that an intensive case study accrues to its researcher. Deep understanding of an event or case in its entirety, rather than merely knowing pieces of information, allows for more contextually rich comparison to other events. This richness can only enhance the reliability of the causal inferences drawn. Such depth of knowledge is likely limited to a small number of cases, and indeed this complexity is a constraint on the case study researcher. Case study is, as Ragin shows, a successful strategy for analyzing complex, multicausal events and at the same time still cohesively connecting them theoretically. He concludes with a nice summation of the strengths of the case study method: Case studies make possible the discovery of patterns of relationships and difference, with all deviations requiring an explanation, necessitating a thorough knowledge of the data. Since case study work does not rely on statistical probabilities such as frequency or distribution, a single case can be critical and can potentially prove or disprove a hypothesis. Case study work is holistic and requires a thorough understanding of the entire event, not just targeted aspects of it, and finally, case study encourages creative new ways of examining behavior and events. Particularly in the identification of complex interactions and the importance of context in understanding their role, Ragin makes the point that case studies provide a methodologically distinct approach.

In Designing Social Inquiry, Gary King, Robert O. Koehane, and Verba (1994) argue that the same level of testable, scientific rigor can be applied to qualitative work that quantitative scholars are able to use in their statistically based work; qualitative work includes, of course, case studies. King et al. focus on research design with an emphasis on the logic of inference, to use the facts that are known to learn about facts as yet unknown. This is then used to identify causal relationships and construct theories that can then be tested. King et al.’s emphasis on the latter stages of research design, producing theory that is testable and thus falsifiable, challenges case study researchers to think rigorously about their work, to recognize the similarities of quantitative and qualitative work with respect to empirical rigor, and to approach their work as such. King et al. argue that the primary way to do this is to see qualitative data more quantitatively, and to accomplish this from a practical standpoint, they advise maximizing the number of observations (from which measures are taken) whenever possible. At the same time, when adding an observation is not possible, they recommend summarizing on the outcome of interest instead, in order to avoid issues of micronumerosity (having more variables than observations). Echoing Eckstein (1975), King et al. remind us that the size of a case study, its N, is often determined by the level of analysis chosen: Is it one single event, several incidents within that event, or many more individual acts? In addition to constructing a design that allows for multiple observations, the authors emphasize the requirement of designing theories that can be falsified (i.e., the null hypothesis can be tested). King et al. also address the importance of reducing the potential bias introduced through case selection. They emphasize the care with which cases must be chosen, as there must be “the possibility of at least some variation on the dependent variable” (p. 129). Other potential sources of selection bias they cite are investigator induced: choosing cases because data are available or because one has a particular interest in or understands the language, or the larger bias that often occurs when case selection is correlated with the dependent variable. In this instance, the process being studied has already been selected for over time, leaving as evidence only its most recent iteration and losing any obvious trace of what may have been critically important in the intervening stages.

Not all scholars implicitly agreed with the arguments made by King et al. (1994), and a lively review symposium in response to it appeared in the journal American Political Science Review. In it, Ronald Rogowski (1995) challenges King et al.’s concern with the testability of single-observation studies and relates three examples of just such single-case studies that do succeed under this limitation. He offers additional examples in response to their admonitions against dependent variable selection bias and comments that without deliberate selection based on a case’s anomaly (its status as a statistical outlier), one of the core benefits of case study work would be lost. Rogowski sums up by emphasizing the importance of not losing the benefits of good qualitative work at the expense of increased quantifiability. In the same symposium, David Collier (1995) also takes issue with how King et al. address selection bias. However, although Collier generally concurs with their position, he argues for a bit more nuance when one is faced with some of the realities of the comparative method. Additionally he identifies the importance of valuing the context of research findings as more important perhaps than their generalizability, and he gently suggests that King et al. could be less rigid in their appraisal of qualitative methods.

Since case study is just that, an intensive examination of at least one item, how cases are selected is a fundamental issue. In comparative case studies, this issue is particularly relevant because small-N studies suggest that there exists more than one unique example of what is being examined and therefore a larger population to choose from. As a result, concerns over potential selection bias contribute prominently in discussions of the case study method. In “How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get: Selection Bias in Comparative Politics,” Barbara Geddes (1990) addresses this issue by reexamining three prominent comparative studies. She neatly demonstrates how the potential error of case selection on the dependent variable can particularly impact results in small-N studies. Essentially a primer on selection bias, this article outlines the importance not only of identifying the most likely causal reasons some event occurred, but also of examining the counterfactual as well. Geddes makes the point that by not providing a larger sample, selected randomly (rather than on the dependent variable) for testing the proposed relationship between cause and effect, one is really comparing only “the differences among the selected cases” (p. 132). She then shows how such an error can also occur in a path-dependent argument. In both examples, misleading findings resulted from researchers’ not expanding the population from which the targeted cases were drawn. Had they done so, they would have had a larger and likely more random sample to test. Geddes’s final example involves time-series studies and the determination of the appropriate end point of a case study. In this instance, she shows how changing the dates of a study would affect its results drastically, and she also makes the point that historical case studies are especially vulnerable to selection bias based on the time frames chosen for analysis.

The more recent discussion of case study work has focused increasingly on understanding the role of this method as part of a comprehensive research strategy. John Gerring (2004) emphasizes how, by failing to accommodate the bounded aspect of case work, most commonly used definitions for case study are inadequate. He offers the definition of case study as “an intensive study of a single unit for the purpose of understanding a larger class of (similar) units,” with units being “spatially bounded phenomena” (p. 342). This implies the study of a unique event or thing, at one point in time, with the goal of generalizability, which, he argues, provides a more theoretically useful interpretation. Gerring then provides a comprehensive discussion of the methodological ambiguities that occur in case studies and identifies six areas in which case studies are vulnerable. With these as a guide, he outlines the strengths and weaknesses of case (within-unit) study versus across-unit study. He notes that the case study method is more suited to descriptive inferences than to causal ones. It is a method that has a special affinity with intensive, focused studies rather than those that are extensive and broad. Case study is more likely to have high internal validity and weak external validity. It facilitates the defining of causal mechanisms, and not the testing of causal effects, performing better when causal mechanisms are deterministic instead of probabilistic. Finally, case studies are well suited to exploratory research but are limited in their uses for confirming hypotheses, yet they are preferred when across-case studies cannot provide adequate variance for the relationship being studied. With this enhanced clarity, and by situating case studies not apart from but as a complement to noncase methods, Gerring suggests that case study methods should be accepted as an equally worthy methodological approach by the entire discipline and that rather than favoring one method over another (often exclusively), scholars should use the method most suited to their question, their data, and their theory.

With Alexander George and Andrew Bennett’s (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, the debate within the discipline over case studies is brought up to date. Both authors have been longtime advocates of case study methods, and this latest work is a very thorough argument for the value of case study methods as part of a research strategy that includes both quantitative and qualitative methods as well as formal theory (Bennett, 2004, offers a chapter-length article distilled from this material, as well). George and Bennett disagree with King et al.’s (1994) contention that there can be only one “logic of Inference” (p. 11). George and Bennett discuss the relationship between case studies and the systematic building of theory. They compare the strengths and weaknesses of case studies and first identify four strengths, all areas in which statistical methods tend to be weak. These include concept validity, the potential for discovering new causal variables and deriving new hypotheses, a better understanding of the relationship between causal variables and possible path dependency, and the ability to identify or model the complex interactions of these variables. Weaknesses of case studies include the potential for introducing selection bias from the cases chosen and the inability to accurately measure the relative strength of an effect. Also, because of their single or very small number, case studies are relatively unique and not necessarily representative; cases chosen from a small pool may not necessarily be independent of one another, and they do not have a rich number of observations from which to judge the strength of associations between variables. George and Bennett advocate the use of the structured, focused comparison, which allows for the collection of data that can be systematically compared with other cases as well as accumulated. In this way, scientific rigor is added, and the utility of case methods is likely increased. The authors then outline the method of case study, from designing the research to executing the study and to drawing conclusions from the findings. In all steps, the role of theory is predominant: It drives the design and motivates the findings. In addition to being the definitive authority on case methods, George and Bennett present a compelling argument for using multiple methodological approaches in a research program. Not only do they show how qualitative and quantitative methods complement each other; they integrate formal modeling as well. This approach is gaining momentum in political science today, making a qualitative skill set not merely useful but necessary.

In the field of U.S. politics, the classic example of a grounded, participant observer case study must be Alexis de Tocqueville’s (1835/2004) Democracy in America. Although most modern scholars of U.S. politics solve their N of 1 problem by focusing on the subunits of U.S. government, using states or administrations, court terms or congressional voting records as their unit of analysis, Tocqueville analyzed the United States as a single entity. He drew his conclusion, that it is citizens’ affinity for joining in and participating at all levels of civic life that strengthens democracy and enables it to flourish, from his personal observations as he extensively toured the country in the early 1800s. A more modern work in U.S. politics that is rooted in qualitative case study work is Richard Fenno’s (1978) examination of congressional members, Home Style: House Members in Their Districts, in which he used extensive interviews and considerable time observing congressmen, both in Washington, D.C., and, critically, in their districts. This self-styled “soaking and poking” enabled a comprehensive, in-depth observation that allowed Fenno to identify the paradox of individual representatives’ being very well-liked by their constituents at the same time as the institution of Congress is collectively viewed much more critically, and he explains much of the paradox by the personal relationships developed through district service. David Mayhew’s (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection also looks at the relationship between members of Congress and their constituents and is another example of a work based on inductive reasoning rooted in extensive in-depth participant observation. Mayhew finds that it is the incentive for reelection that motivates the individual behavior of both congressmen and the Congress. Through committee assignments, leadership positions, and vote trading (among other means), congressmen ensure their reelection chances. Mayhew suggests that with Congress motivated as a whole by mutual self-interest, it is no surprise that the structural arrangements of Congress, its organization of the leadership and committee system, have evolved to facilitate this behavior.

The case study method is used most extensively in the subfield of comparative politics. Using primarily small-N research designs, many significant works have been produced. Included among these is Barrington Moore’s (1966) Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Moore examines five societies to compare their experiences with modernization and the economic revolution that ensues. He concludes that there are three likely outcomes, dependent on the country’s social structure, and these in turn predict the likelihood of a successful transition to democracy or descent into dictatorship. The most well-known example of an intensive single-country case study must be Robert Putnam’s (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, also an excellent example of historiographic work. The subject of lively debate within the discipline, social capital, that is, the extent to which citizens are participatory and invested in their communities as a result of their civic relationships, was found by Putnam to be a necessary component of a successful democratic society. Putnam argues that the associational experience of northern and central Italy developed interpersonal trust and fostered more democratic local governments, but the lack of similar groups in the south left them with less. Another such single-case work is Robert Bates’s (1989) Beyond the Miracle of the Market: The Political Economy of Agrarian Development in Kenya. This work, which focuses on the intersection between land use, government institutions, and public policies, relies on a critical understanding of the economic, political, and cultural forces at work in Kenyan society. The complex interplay of economics and politics that Bates studies is only fully appreciated when the cultural context is included; the influence of tribal affiliations and Kenya’s British colonial legacy are just two examples. These kinds of rich, multilayered observations and intimate knowledge of a society can be accomplished only with case study methods, with which Bates combines quantitative rigor as well.

International relations scholars have also extensively used the case study method to selectively examine the actions of elite actors and organizations during critical events. Case study work is used to evaluate existing theory as well as propose alternate explanations to better understand the often complex motivations of and among nation-states. In Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Graham T. Allison (1971) examines the Cuban missile crisis and, primarily through interviews, reconstructs the often conflicted decision-making process of all the major participants. To do this, he approaches the same event from the perspective of three different decisional- behavior models. These competing approaches are collectively used to illustrate the author’s thesis: that despite internal pressures to the contrary, it was the actions and the decisions of the two leaders that successfully resolved the issue. Alexander George and Richard Smoke’s (1974) Deterrence in American Foreign Policy is an example of a focused-comparison case study that examines 11 instances of the failure of U.S. deterrence policy. George and Smoke use process tracing to establish the causal explanation, which would not be possible without the depth of knowledge acquired in these case histories. In doing so, they critique existing theory and are able to offer a new, more dynamic, explanation. In another example of a focused-comparison study, Stephen M. Walt (1987), in The Origins of Alliances, looks at alliance formation and contrasts two distinct types: those made for mutual support to defend against a threat and those that are more opportunistic (or perhaps pragmatic), in which one aligns with the threat itself. Walt then explores the likely causes of these choices, looking specifically at shared ideology and the influences of foreign aid. His concentrated case study of states in the Middle East during a single period allows him to develop the depth of knowledge necessary for such a study, in which data alone would be inadequate.

As the previous examples illustrate, case study work is applicable to a broad range of theoretical questions. Indeed, for many situations, a case study examination is the only way to rigorously examine an event. Case study can be used in either half of the research cycle: to deductively test the hypothesized research question or to inductively explore the results of empirical observations. It is also a valuable method for developing original theoretical insight, which can often form the basis of a research design using more statistically robust methods. Case study in and of itself serves a vital informative purpose as well, allowing in-depth appreciation of often nuanced yet critical conditions of the larger phenomenon being observed. Finally, the case study is increasingly being appreciated as a necessary component of comprehensive political science research today: Together with traditional quantitative methods that provide reliable statistical probabilities for a tightly focused view, and formal theory methods that produce more soft-focused or abstract explanations, case study work provides a necessary contribution by filling in the gaps, compensating for the inevitable shortcomings when formal and quantitative methods are applied to real-life questions and problems. Most critically, a well-crafted case study gives the researcher a level of knowledge and understanding of the matter being examined that no other method allows. This benefit alone justifies the application of case study methods to social science research today and in the future.

Bibliography:

• Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston: Little, Brown.
• Bates, R. (1989). Beyond the miracle of the market: The political economy of agrarian development in Kenya. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Bennett, A. (2004). Case study methods: Design, use and comparative advantages. In D. F. Sprinz & Y. Wolinsky Nahmias (Eds.), Models, numbers and cases: Methods for studying international relations (pp. 19-55). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Collier, D. (1995). Review: Translating quantitative methods for qualitative researchers: The case of selection bias. American Political Science Review, 89, 461-466.
• Collier, D., & Mahoney, J. (1996). Insights and pitfalls: Selection bias in qualitative research. World Politics, 49, 56-91.
• Eckstein, H. (1975). Case study and theory in political science. In F. Greenstein & N. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of political science: Vol. 7. Strategies of inquiry (pp. 79-137). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
• Fenno, R. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. Boston: Little, Brown.
• Geddes, B. (1990). How the cases you choose affect the answers you get: Selection bias in comparative politics. Political Analysis, 2, 131-150.
• George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• George, A. L., & Smoke, R. (1974). Deterrence in American foreign policy: Theory and practice. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review, 98, 341-354.
• King, G., Koehane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682-693.
• Mayhew, D. R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Moore, B., Jr. (1966). Social origins of dictatorship and democracy: Lord and peasant in the making of the modern world. Boston: Beacon Press.
• Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Rogowski, R. (1995). Review: The role of theory and anomaly in social scientific inference. American Political Science Review, 89, 467-470.
• Tocqueville, A. de. (2004). Democracy in America. New York: Library of America. (Original work published 1835)
• Walt, S. M. (1987). The origins of alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

5 Benefits of Learning Through the Case Study Method

• 28 Nov 2023

While several factors make HBS Online unique —including a global Community and real-world outcomes —active learning through the case study method rises to the top.

In a 2023 City Square Associates survey, 74 percent of HBS Online learners who also took a course from another provider said HBS Online’s case method and real-world examples were better by comparison.

Here’s a primer on the case method, five benefits you could gain, and how to experience it for yourself.

Access your free e-book today.

What Is the Harvard Business School Case Study Method?

The case study method , or case method , is a learning technique in which you’re presented with a real-world business challenge and asked how you’d solve it. After working through it yourself and with peers, you’re told how the scenario played out.

HBS pioneered the case method in 1922. Shortly before, in 1921, the first case was written.

“How do you go into an ambiguous situation and get to the bottom of it?” says HBS Professor Jan Rivkin, former senior associate dean and chair of HBS's master of business administration (MBA) program, in a video about the case method . “That skill—the skill of figuring out a course of inquiry to choose a course of action—that skill is as relevant today as it was in 1921.”

Originally developed for the in-person MBA classroom, HBS Online adapted the case method into an engaging, interactive online learning experience in 2014.

In HBS Online courses , you learn about each case from the business professional who experienced it. After reviewing their videos, you’re prompted to take their perspective and explain how you’d handle their situation.

You then get to read peers’ responses, “star” them, and comment to further the discussion. Afterward, you learn how the professional handled it and their key takeaways.

HBS Online’s adaptation of the case method incorporates the famed HBS “cold call,” in which you’re called on at random to make a decision without time to prepare.

“Learning came to life!” said Sheneka Balogun , chief administration officer and chief of staff at LeMoyne-Owen College, of her experience taking the Credential of Readiness (CORe) program . “The videos from the professors, the interactive cold calls where you were randomly selected to participate, and the case studies that enhanced and often captured the essence of objectives and learning goals were all embedded in each module. This made learning fun, engaging, and student-friendly.”

If you’re considering taking a course that leverages the case study method, here are five benefits you could experience.

5 Benefits of Learning Through Case Studies

1. take new perspectives.

The case method prompts you to consider a scenario from another person’s perspective. To work through the situation and come up with a solution, you must consider their circumstances, limitations, risk tolerance, stakeholders, resources, and potential consequences to assess how to respond.

Taking on new perspectives not only can help you navigate your own challenges but also others’. Putting yourself in someone else’s situation to understand their motivations and needs can go a long way when collaborating with stakeholders.

2. Hone Your Decision-Making Skills

Another skill you can build is the ability to make decisions effectively . The case study method forces you to use limited information to decide how to handle a problem—just like in the real world.

Throughout your career, you’ll need to make difficult decisions with incomplete or imperfect information—and sometimes, you won’t feel qualified to do so. Learning through the case method allows you to practice this skill in a low-stakes environment. When facing a real challenge, you’ll be better prepared to think quickly, collaborate with others, and present and defend your solution.

3. Become More Open-Minded

As you collaborate with peers on responses, it becomes clear that not everyone solves problems the same way. Exposing yourself to various approaches and perspectives can help you become a more open-minded professional.

When you’re part of a diverse group of learners from around the world, your experiences, cultures, and backgrounds contribute to a range of opinions on each case.

On the HBS Online course platform, you’re prompted to view and comment on others’ responses, and discussion is encouraged. This practice of considering others’ perspectives can make you more receptive in your career.

“You’d be surprised at how much you can learn from your peers,” said Ratnaditya Jonnalagadda , a software engineer who took CORe.

In addition to interacting with peers in the course platform, Jonnalagadda was part of the HBS Online Community , where he networked with other professionals and continued discussions sparked by course content.

“You get to understand your peers better, and students share examples of businesses implementing a concept from a module you just learned,” Jonnalagadda said. “It’s a very good way to cement the concepts in one's mind.”

4. Enhance Your Curiosity

One byproduct of taking on different perspectives is that it enables you to picture yourself in various roles, industries, and business functions.

“Each case offers an opportunity for students to see what resonates with them, what excites them, what bores them, which role they could imagine inhabiting in their careers,” says former HBS Dean Nitin Nohria in the Harvard Business Review . “Cases stimulate curiosity about the range of opportunities in the world and the many ways that students can make a difference as leaders.”

Through the case method, you can “try on” roles you may not have considered and feel more prepared to change or advance your career .

5. Build Your Self-Confidence

Finally, learning through the case study method can build your confidence. Each time you assume a business leader’s perspective, aim to solve a new challenge, and express and defend your opinions and decisions to peers, you prepare to do the same in your career.

According to a 2022 City Square Associates survey , 84 percent of HBS Online learners report feeling more confident making business decisions after taking a course.

“Self-confidence is difficult to teach or coach, but the case study method seems to instill it in people,” Nohria says in the Harvard Business Review . “There may well be other ways of learning these meta-skills, such as the repeated experience gained through practice or guidance from a gifted coach. However, under the direction of a masterful teacher, the case method can engage students and help them develop powerful meta-skills like no other form of teaching.”

How to Experience the Case Study Method

If the case method seems like a good fit for your learning style, experience it for yourself by taking an HBS Online course. Offerings span seven subject areas, including:

• Business essentials
• Leadership and management
• Entrepreneurship and innovation
• Finance and accounting
• Business in society

No matter which course or credential program you choose, you’ll examine case studies from real business professionals, work through their challenges alongside peers, and gain valuable insights to apply to your career.

Are you interested in discovering how HBS Online can help advance your career? Explore our course catalog and download our free guide —complete with interactive workbook sections—to determine if online learning is right for you and which course to take.

About the Author

Eurasia Review

A Journal of Analysis and News

Georgia's flag. Photo by Frank Miller, Wikipedia Commons.

Religion And Its Importance In International Politics: A Case Study Of 2008 Russian-Georgian War

By Dr. Ines-Jacqueline Werkner

War is “contrary to the will of God”, according to a 1948 statement from the World Council of Churches (WCC) in Amsterdam.2 The declared goal of the WCC’s religious communities is therefore to oppose war, or at least to refrain from promoting it. The WCC’s demand is a consequence of World War II, and overcoming violence is an essential part of the official WCC programmatic structure.3 But are religious communities able and willing to meet this requirement? There has been an increasing tendency by politicians as well as social scientists to view religions as a perpetual source of hatred and conflict, especially since the end of the Cold War and the emergence of identity conflicts,4 in particular since the attacks on September 11, 2001.5

Despite the lack of importance placed on religion, partially due to the secularisation thesis, religions’ potential for violence has become increasingly important in the social sciences. Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations has essentially contributed to this point of view, as have other recent publications that contemplate the subjects of Terror in the Name of God,6 Religious Conflicts in World Politics,7 Unpeaceful Religions,8 and Religious Wars in the Age of Globalisation.9 However, in international politics and peace and conflict studies, the question about the peace-making potential of religions increasingly arises. For example, the Catholic Church in Poland and the Protestant Church in Germany placed a critical amount of importance on peaceful regime change at the end of the 1980s. Markus Weingardt’s Religion Macht Frieden (Religion Makes Peace)10 lists over 40 positive case studies to provide an eloquent testimony for the peace-building role of religion.

An empirical study of the role of the Orthodox Church in the Russian-Georgian war of 2008 is conducted below in the form of a current case study. My findings show that the Russian and Georgian Orthodox Churches acted as “double players” during this military conflict whereby they could not release their peace-making potential. I argue that the churches were perceived not only as religious players with a religious peace message but also as political players who supported national claims. As a consequence, the status of religion as an intervening variable, such as assumed in the constructivist approach, is called into question.

The Return of Religion to the International System

Repression of Religion in the Westphalian System

Europe has been the scene of great wars fought over denomination and religion with the Thirty Years’ War, in particular, claiming a huge number of victims. In the Peace of Westphalia (1648), when the system of sovereign nation-states was also formed, warring parties agreed to leave the decision on the denominational affiliation of their dominions to individual ruling princes. The principle of cuius regio eius religio, agreed upon in the Peace of Augsburg in 1555, introduced the primacy of politics over religion. With the introduction of the reason of State by means of which the ruling princes also decided on religious issues themselves, religion finally lost its significance as a basis for foreign policy. For the first time, a system of sovereign territorial states was developed in Europe. This was based on three cornerstones: (1) the balance of power as a basis for international stability; (2) institutionalisation of the international order and the development of international diplomacy; and (3) international law. Here, the international law included substantial parts of the just war theory which were also liberated from their original religious context. States were now considered the only legitimate players in the international system and replaced the cross-border authority of the Catholic Church. Religion and politics therefore had to be disentangled and religious wars overcome. Accordingly, Pope Innocent X also adamantly rejected the Peace of Westphalia, declaring it “null, void, invalid, iniquitous, unjust, damnable, reprobate, inane and devoid of meaning for all time”.11

The separation of religion and politics and the establishment of politics as a separate, independent sphere continued to develop with the enlightenment and civil revolution, even within States. The functional differentiation of society in the 19th and 20th centuries therefore became one of the core elements of theories of the modern age and a central component of secularisation. The social function of religion became independent with regard to institutions and administration, alongside other functions, such as politics, economics, law and science. Religion in the modern age had therefore lost its role as a basis for the legitimation of the social and political order both in the international system and within the nation-state. Religion lost its importance in wars, and from then on the interests of nation-states dictated and legitimised the fighting of wars.

Revitalisation of Religion after the End of the Cold War

The discussion has now turned to a renaissance and/or revitalisation of religion. This denotes the increasing significance of religious convictions, actions and discourses in private and public life, as well as the growing role in domestic policy of religious or religion-based individuals, non-governmental groups, political parties, communities and organisations, associated with substantial implications for international policy.12 In social terms, the reappraisal of the role of religion is explained by a crisis of the modern age.13 In this context, Jürgen Habermas speaks of the dangers of “derailing modernisation”.14 He claimed that new dimensions of uncertainty and powerlessness had opened up, such as nuclear technology, gene technology or even politically unrestrained dynamics in global economy and global community, which add fuel to concerns about losing livelihoods and about the future.

In the area of international politics, the renaissance of religion is closely associated with the change in the international system and the decline of statehood. Two moments characterise this development: (1) globalisation with the increasing emergence of international, transnational and private players, and (2) the end of the Cold War with the abolition of rigid, bipolar structures and the eruption of previously concealed ethnic and identity conflicts.15 One expression of this change is the emergence of so-called new wars.16 While modern warfare was traced to the nation-state and resulted in an internal pacification of the State, the new wars are essentially characterized by the emergence of private non-governmental players. Wars between regular armies are being replaced by a variety of violent players, who primarily target the civilian population.17 The State is thereby losing its monopoly when it comes to fighting wars. The interests of the State no longer constitute the primary reference frameworks, thereby freeing the way to a cultural restructuring of war. Many of these new wars follow the logic of an “ethnicization” of social relationships, and in many cases this is equivalent to “religicization”.18 Mark Duffield speaks of a “neo-medieval situation” in this context.19

Religion and religious identities are increasingly gaining significance. In this, their capacity to mobilise people is frequently utilised. Violent players and protagonists of the new wars may exploit this religious impetus in order to reach their goals or mobilise members of their respective religious group, especially if economic and political sources are no longer sufficient. In particular, the group’s sense of belonging is addressed here, the claim of truth made by religion enters their consciousness, and a distinction is made between good and evil, as well as between an in-group and an out-group.20

Religion in Current Conflict Theories

How do conflict theories assess the influence of religion in violent conflicts? To what extent is there a differentiated view on religion? Three positions can be distinguished within the social science literature: primordialism, instrumentalism and constructivism, each with its own specific praxeological recommendations.21 The primordialists include, in particular, representatives such as Samuel P. Huntington who regard religions as independent forces in international politics and thereby as a cause of conflict and an independent variable in violent conflicts.22 With the end of the Cold War, alliances were allegedly no longer developed primarily on the basis of political, ideological or economic interests, but along cultural and religious conflict lines, which according to Huntington may result in a culture clash – a “clash of civilisations”. In order to repel the threat of war between civilisations, the classical instruments of power politics used during the Cold War (e.g. a balance of power) may be considered. This type of intimidation would increase the cost of violent rebellions. Military supremacy should therefore particularly restrict the political capacity to act and counterbalance the willingness to make sacrifices. An example is the US anti-terror policy of the Bush administration.23

This is opposed to the group of instrumentalists, to which Dieter Senghaas is attributed.24 In their view, religions only represent a genuine cause of conflict in a very rare number of cases. Rather, they allege, there is a spurious correlation between religion and violent conflict. Religion is consciously being exploited by elites for political purposes as a consequence of economic and social crises. In praxeological terms, instrumentalists rely primarily on development and democratisation with the goal of an equal distribution of life opportunities. This is intended to weaken the willingness to mobilise and support violent strategies. In empirical terms, this position may be based on two findings. First, that no block-formation processes can be identified along religiously or culturally defined lines of conflict. Many wars would therefore be fought in relatively homogeneous areas as far as culture and religion are concerned. Secondly, there would be a series of inter-civilizational alliances.25

A third perspective on the role of religion in violent conflicts is generated by constructivism.26 Under this approach, the players involved are incorporated into inter-subjective structures. Ideas, standards, values, ideologies, as well as nationalism, ethnicity and religion would thus largely characterise the self-perception and external image of those involved. Based on the constructivist version, the way in which opposing parties perceive each other makes a significant difference in the progress of a conflict. In this context, religion is assigned a completely independent role. It allegedly determines the identity and behaviour of the players involved and thereby assumes the role of an intervening variable. Representatives of this line of thought rely, in praxeological terms, on dialogue, enlightenment and conviction in order to facilitate cooperation by means of increased mutual trust.27

One thing that all three theoretical approaches have in common is the recognition of the relevance of religion to life and conflict. In their empirical forms, they differ analytically in respect to their assumptions on the escalating and deescalating effect of religion. While both primordialists and instrumentalists focus on the violence factor, the constructivist approach creates an opportunity to examine religion in part from the viewpoint of its peace-making potential.

The constructivist approach is used because this study focuses on the peace-making potential of the Orthodox Churches during the Russian–Georgian war. In particular, the perceptions of the religious actions during this war will be investigated. In this context, the assumed status of religion as an intervening variable will be analysed.

Requirements for the Release of Religious Peace-Making Potential

With regard to the release of such religious peace-making potential,28 various levels of its influence must be distinguished. Research usually includes approaches on the micro- and meso-level (i.e. approaches that focus on the religious players and/or the internal character of the religious community). For example, Markus Weingardt examines common characteristics of religion-based players on the micro-level. In order to allow for the development of religious peace-making potential, the players would have to combine attributes such as expertise, credibility, connectivity and confidence.29 According to Weingardt, religious players have a good knowledge of the conflict due to their nearness (expertise). Generally, they are impartial, unselfish and can arbitrate between different societal and hostile groups (credibility). Religious players have not only a regional nearness to the conflict but also an emotional nearness to the population (connectivity). Finally, they embody confidence concerning their moral and ethical competence. Andreas Hasenclever and Alexander De Juan have conducted studies on the meso-level and defined features of anti-violent religious communities, such as religious enlightenment, structural tolerance, potential for autonomy, and openness within the religious community.30

On the other hand, research often neglects the macro-level where the peace ethics positions of religious communities play an essential role as a benchmark for evaluating action and political action in particular. The specific peace ethics and thereby questions on the ethical legitimacy of military force rarely tend to be handled within the context of the peace-making and violence potential of religions. Yet it is precisely this perspective that provides an overview of the principles for methods used by religious communities to adopt positions with regard to issues of war and peace and in positioning themselves on social and political concepts of order irrespective of the specific individual case. Given that the peace ethics principles of religious communities have a much wider scope than the specific and current actions of players involved in religion, they may also serve to raise awareness of religious peace-making potential. Based on religious writings and doctrines, the existing concepts in current social discourse are of central importance. An examination shall be conducted of the religious doctrines and concepts referred to by religious communities and their members in current conflicts and wars, as well as the extent to which these doctrines and concepts contain an ethical legitimacy of military force. The discussion will show which peaceful strategies they have at their disposal.

The Orthodox Churches in the 2008 Russian-Georgian War: An Empirical Analysis

In order to illustrate the factors discussed above, the Russian-Georgian war of August 2008 is used as a case study. The military conflict between Georgia and Russia, which ended with the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia by Russia, clearly worsened the political situation in Georgia. The unresolved conflicts surrounding the two separatist provinces prove not only to be a significant obstacle to development in Georgia but also resonate beyond the region. The Russian-Georgian war is considered an example where both political sides allowed the conflict to escalate, but at the same time both religious communities advocated peace and an end to the war.

The Position of the Churches in Russia and Georgia

There is separation between Church and State in both countries. Traditionally, however, closer relations exist between Church and State in Orthodox Christianity, as expressed in the term Symphonia. Symphonia means “harmony” of Church and State; both realities are different manifestations of one and the same truth, but both institutions are independent and equally important.31 State and Church therefore have their own autonomy and they cooperate with each other in certain cases. Cooperation is also regarded as necessary in some respects. This relationship is legally expressed in the accentuated position of the Orthodox Church as opposed to other religious communities, such as through the 1997 Russian Religion Law or the 2001 Concordat between the Georgian State and the Georgian Orthodox Church.

A high value is also placed on the Russian and Georgian Orthodox Church in each society. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union the Orthodox Churches experienced an enormous upturn in support. Many churches were reopened, congregations re-formed and many people publicly professed their Orthodox faith. In the meantime, around 71 per cent of the population in Russia32 and around 84 per cent of the population in Georgia33 refer to themselves as Orthodox. According to the fifth wave of the World Values Survey carried out from 2005 to 2007, as many as 74 per cent of the Russian and 97 per cent of the Georgian populations see themselves as religious persons.34 Both churches are held in high public esteem.35 Sixty-eight per cent of the Russian and 94 per cent of the Georgian respondents have a lot of confidence in the church.36 This confidence also includes the religious elites. Thus, the census in Georgia also reveals a high popularity rating for the Georgian Patriarch Ilia II. Ninety-seven per cent of respondents assess his social activity as positive.37 Moreover, 47 per cent of the Russian and 85 per cent of the Georgian populations agree that it would be better if more people with strong religious beliefs were in public office.38 In the light of this situation, the prerequisite of releasing religious peace-making potential, according to Weingardt (2007), is definitely present.

The Role of Religious Players in the Russian-Georgian War

How did the religious players (i.e. the religious elites), in particular the two Patriarchs Alexei II on the Russian side and Ilia II on the Georgian side, act during the conflict and how did they influence it? To what extent can we refer to a peace-building effect here in the sense of the ability to de-escalate violence and use peace-promoting initiatives?

Throughout the duration of the military conflict, both churches called for peace, for an end to violence and for a peaceful resolution to the problems. Both Church dignitaries addressed the population in prayers and sermons, but also called on their governments to settle the conflict by peaceful means. Both patriarchs emphasized the dramatic nature of the military confrontation in which people of the same Orthodox faith fought one another. These efforts culminated in a joint call from both Church dignitaries to support a ceasefire and negotiations between the opposing parties. They also appealed for respect for the peoples involved.39

Furthermore, both Churches provided humanitarian assistance. Patriarch Alexei II arranged for a circular to be sent to all bishops in the Russian Orthodox Church with regard to the organisation of humanitarian aid for South Ossetia. In parallel, the Georgian Patriarch conducted relief operations for refugees from South Ossetia. Moreover, by virtue of the mediation of the Russian Orthodox Church, a humanitarian corridor was also set up between Georgia and South Ossetia in order to evacuate the dead and injured.

The potential for autonomy of the Churches, as demanded by Hasenclever (2000), is revealed in the actions of the Russian and Georgian Orthodox Church. Not only did this include the call for policy makers to resolve problems by peaceful means. The Russian Orthodox Church also adhered to the position to recognize the unity of the autocephalous canonical area of the Georgian Orthodox Church, thereby recognizing the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as officially belonging to the sphere of influence of the Georgian Orthodox Church – a clear demarcation from the policy of the Russian State.

On the other hand, the Churches consciously relied on an internal and inter-religious dialogue in the conflict. For example, the Moscow Patriarch asked the World Council of Churches (WCC) to send an ecumenical delegation to the conflict zone. In this context, numerous discussions were held with leading clergy, local archbishops and representatives of other Churches in Georgia, South Ossetia and Russia. Finally, the Russian and Georgian Orthodox Church each dispatched one “Church ambassador” to the other country in order to resurrect frozen diplomatic relations between the two countries.

These efforts seem to suggest that religion played a positive and peace-building role. External assessments, on the other hand, provide a different picture. As the President of the World Conference of Religions for Peace/Europe, Hans Ucko explains, “I don’t think the churches were much involved either as trouble-shooters or peacemakers. […] Apart from statements I don’t think that there were any religiously inspired initiatives to end the conflict.”40

What is the explanation for such a view? Why were the peace messages of the churches not perceived as peace-making activities? Another factor here is that only the specific conduct of the religious players was taken into consideration without incorporating this conduct into the social and regulatory concepts of the religious communities. In concrete terms, it can be shown that the religious players have an impressive awareness of peace and peaceful conflict resolution, but, at the same time, they left no doubt about the injustice of the opposing party. Thus, in the view of the Russian Orthodox Church, the only solution to be found would be in granting autonomy to South Ossetia.41 In this context, the former Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad and current Patriarch, Cyril stated in a sermon, “We bow our heads before the fallen Russian soldiers. Russia is confronted with the risk of war and with the new risk of a new wave of defamation against our fatherland.”42 The Georgian Orthodox Church also placed the main cause of the war with the opposing party. Thus, Patriarch Ilia explicitly spoke out against the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In a letter to the General Secretary of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon, the Patriarch stated that autonomy of the two provinces was a product of the Soviet regime and should not be used for the purpose of separatism.43

Peace Ethics Positions of the Orthodox Churches in the Russian-Georgian War

From a peace ethics perspective, the positions of the religious players in the Russian-Georgian war allow for two opposing lines of argument. On the one hand, the comments “in the light of the injustice experienced” could be perceived as a religious call to resolve the conflict solely by peaceful means. This point of view would comply with the specific conduct of the players. However, the absence of any attempt to provide conflict resolution proved counterproductive, and the calls for peace were bound to go unheeded in the end.

On the other hand, the injustices could be construed as a legitimisation of military force, pursuant to a just war. Just cause (an essential criterion in relation to this doctrine) may include the restoration and preservation of territorial order on the Georgian side. On the Russian side it may include the restoration of justice in the face of Georgian aggression against South Ossetia. This view would comply with the 2000 document The Basis of the Social Concept produced by the Russian Orthodox Church.44 Chapter VIII of this document is devoted to the subject of “War and Peace”. A clear rejection of the war is issued here: “War is evil. Just as the evil in man in general, war is caused by the sinful abuse of the God-given freedom.”45 However, the referred to criteria of the just war theory, dating back to Augustine also states, “While recognising war as evil, the Church does not prohibit her children from participating in hostilities if at stake is the security of their neighbours and the restoration of trampled justice. Then war is considered to be a necessary though undesirable means.”46 A parallel reference can also be found in the Georgian Orthodox Church. Patriarch Ilia also points out that “peace is not possible without justice”.47 The problem resulting from this point of view was already addressed by the late scholastic philosopher Francisco de Vitoria with his question, “Can a war be just on both sides?”48

The peace ethics positions of the two Orthodox Churches thereby produce a variety of interpretative options which make the role of religion seem ambivalent. The importance of peaceful conflict resolution remains vague in the face of dilemmas resulting from the criteria for the just war, and the constant adjustment thereof to current political concepts of social order. Thus, the criterion of iusta causa has assumed various forms in the course of History: from Plato’s call to fight the barbarians to Augustine’s and Thomas Aquinas’ calls to avenge the violation of a system created by God; and from Vitoria’s idea of the right to self-defence and the obligation to defend your fellow man to the protection of human rights in contemporary debate.

What are the conclusions that can now be drawn in light of this ambivalence towards the theoretical assumption of religion as an intervening variable in wars and conflicts? It has been shown that a Christian-based peace ethic combines two viewpoints as described in the social doctrine of the Russian Orthodox Church. The document states that, “Bringing to people the good news of reconciliation (Rom, 10:15), but being in ‘this world’ lying in evil (1 Jn. 5:19) and filled with violence, Christians involuntarily come to face the vital need to take part in various battles.”49 On the one hand, the Christian message forms the basis for peace ethics positions with the commandment on peacefulness and loving thy neighbour. A religiously motivated ethic is characterised by the requirement for ethical action and is defined by the divine gift and the prospect of the Kingdom of God. On the other hand, actions in the here and now (i.e. in the worldly kingdom) are focused on world social and political orders and on the goal of peace on Earth. Against this background, the theologian Helmut Thielicke sees an eschatological challenge to Christian acts. He states, “It is an impossible enterprise inasmuch as it lies under the disruptive fire of the coming world. Yet it is also a necessary enterprise inasmuch as we live in that field of tension between the two aeons and must find a modus Vivendi.”50

So much for the theoretical findings. From a political science perspective, this means that on their path to eschatological peace, Christian churches always take “worldly concepts” of order into account. This is typical for religions focused on the changing of the secular world towards their religious dogma. In contrast, Hinduism and Buddhism accept the world as it is and concentrate on the individual soul and the individual convergence towards the dogma.51 Thus, the Christian religion always sees itself as being integrated in the real world. This interwoven nature, with its political and frequently national aspects, makes it difficult for all parties involved to disentangle religious and worldly motives and to isolate the religious factor even when viewed from an external perspective. As a consequence, the peace-making potential inherent in religion is often not enforced in the specific conflict event. The current challenge consists in avoiding the role of religious players as “double players”. In this context, it would be useful to focus intensively on transnational and international religious councils and associations. A strengthening of such global organisations could be an answer to current worldwide developments such as the decline of nation-states, as well as a way to avoid the double role of religious players, especially in times of globalisation. Dr. Ines-Jacqueline Werkner is acting professor for International Politics and Society at the University of Kiel, Germany.

This article first appeared in the Caucasian Review of International Affairs , Vol. 4 (2) – Summer 2010 edition, pp. 237-247, ( http://cria-online.org/12_3.html ). The Caucasian Review of International Affairs  is a German-based, quarterly peer-reviewed free, not-for-profit and online academic journal. The article is reprinted with permission.

1 The secularisation thesis assumes a set of tensions between modernity and religion. In this context, the processes of the rationalisation, individualisation and differentiation of society are seen as responsible for these tensions. Proponents of this thesis include Steve Bruce, Religion in the Modern World: From Cathedrals to Cults, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996); Bryan Wilson, Religion in Secular Society. A Sociological Comment, (London: Pelican, 1966); and Detlef Pollack, Säkularisierung – ein moderner Mythos? [Secularization: A Modern Myth?] (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck Verlag, 2003).

2 World Council of Churches, 1st WCC Assembly, Amsterdam 1948, http://archives.oikoumene.org/query/Detail.aspx?D=40913 (accessed August 03, 2010).

3 See the International Ecumenical Peace Convocation of the WCC, http://www.oikoumene.org/programmes/public-witness-addressing-power-affirming-peace/overcoming-violence/international-ecumenical-peace-convocation.html (accessed August 01, 2010); http://www.oikoumene.org/news/news-management/eng/a/article/1634/youth-at-the-internationa.html (accessed August 1, 2010).

4 Identity conflicts can be seen as conflicts where “the opponents […] assign an identity to themselves and their adversaries, each side believing the fight is between ‘us’ and ‘them’.” See Cate Malek, “Identity (Inter-Group) Conflicts”, http://crinfo.org/CK_Essays/ck_identity_issues.jsp (accessed August 01, 2010). One main characteristic of conflicts after the end of the Cold War such as the latest conflicts on the Balkans is that in place of ideological reference points ethnic and religious incentives occur. See Mary Kaldor, New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999), as described herein, sect. 2.2.

5 See Madeleine Albright, The Mighty and the Almighty: Reflections on America, God, and World Affairs (Norwalk, Connecticut: Easton Press, 2006).

6 Mark Juergensmeyer, Terror im Namen Gottes. Ein Blick hinter die Kulissen des gewalttätigen Fundamentalismus [Terror in the Name of God. A Look behind the Scenes of Violent Fundamentalism] (Freiburg: Herder, 2004).

7 Wilfried Röhrich, Die Macht der Religionen: Glaubenskonflikte in der Weltpolitik [The Power of Religions: Religious Conflicts in World Politics] (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2004).

8 Mathias Hildebrandt and Manfred Brocker, eds., Unfriedliche Religionen? Das politische Gewalt- und Konfliktpotenzial von Religionen [Unpeaceful Religions? The Political Potential of Religions for Generating Violence and Conflict] (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2005).

9 Hans G. Kippenberg, Gewalt als Gottesdienst. Religionskriege im Zeitalter der Globalisierung [Violence as Worship. Religious Wars in the Age of Globalization] (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2008).

10 Markus A. Weingardt, Religion Macht Frieden. Das Friedenspotenzial von Religionen in politischen Gewaltkonflikten [Religion Makes Peace. The Potential of Religion for Peace-making during Violent Political Conflicts] (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2007).

11 As cited in Michael F. Feldkamp, “Breve “Zelo domus Dei” from 26th of November 1648,” in Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 31 (1993), 293-305. See too Scott M. Thomas, The Global Resurgence of Religion and the Transformation of International Relations. The Struggle for the Soul of the Twenty-First Century (New York: Palgrave, 2005), 54-55; Jonathan Fox and Shmuel Sandler, Bringing Religion into International Relations (New York: Palgrave, 2006), 22-26; Jeffrey Haynes, An Introduction to International Relations and Religion (London: Pearson, 2007), 31-32 & 100-107; Claudia Baumgart-Ochse, Religion in den Internationalen Beziehungen [Religion in International Relations], epd-Dokumentation, vol. 5 (2009): 18.

12 Scott M. Thomas, The Global Resurgence of Religion and the Transformation of International Relations. The Struggle for the Soul of the Twenty-First Century (New York: Palgrave, 2005), 26.

13 See, among others, Martin Riesebrodt, Die Rückkehr der Religionen Fundamentalismus und der ‚Kampf der Kulturen’ [The Return of Religions. Fundamentalism and the “Clash of Civilizations”] (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2000), 35-57; Jonathan Fox and Shmuel Sandler, Bringing Religion into International Relations (New York: Palgrave, 2006), 12.

14 Jürgen Habermas, „Vorpolitische Grundlagen des demokratischen Rechtsstaates?” [Pre-political Foundations of the Democratic Constitutional State?], in Dialektik der Säkularisierung. Über Vernunft und Religion [The Dialectics of Secularization. On Reason and Religion], Jürgen Habermas and Joseph Ratzinger (Freiburg, Basel & Wien: Herder, 2005), 26.

15 See Jeffrey Haynes, An Introduction to International Relations and Religion (London: Pearson, 2007), 117.

16 See Mary Kaldor, New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999); Herfried Münkler, Die neuen Kriege [The New Wars] (Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, 2002).

18 Heinrich Schäfer, “The Janus Face of Religion: On the Religious Factor in ‘New Wars’,” NUMEN, vol. 51:4 (2004): 414. According to Schäfer, the most important distinction between new and classically modern wars is that in “new wars” ethnic and religious identities play a major role in mobilising the conflict parties.

19 Mark Duffield, Global Governance and the New Wars: The Merging of Development and Security (London: Zed Books, 2001). Against the background of new wars, Duffield reveals a neo-medieval situation in which fragmented sovereignties confront a weakened or absent central authority. Consequently, religious actors are potentially able to exert a great deal of influence over people.

20 Heinrich Schäfer, “The Janus Face of Religion: On the Religious Factor in ‘New Wars’,” NUMEN, vol. 51:4 (2004): 407-431.

21 This chapter refers to Volker Rittberger and Andreas Hasenclever’s “Religionen in Konflikten – Religiöser Glaube als Quelle von Gewalt und Frieden” [Religions in Conflicts: Religious Faith as a Source of Violence and Peace], in Politisches Denken: Jahrbuch 2000 [Political Thinking: Yearbook 2000] (Stuttgart: Metzler, 2000), 35-60; see further Jonathan Fox and Shmuel Sandler, Bringing Religion into International Relations (New York: Palgrave, 2006), 50; Markus A. Weingardt, Religion Macht Frieden. Das Friedenspotenzial von Religionen in politischen Gewaltkonflikten [Religion Makes Peace. The Potential of Religion for Peace-making during Violent Political Conflicts] (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2007), 23-28.

22 See Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996); see further Bassam Tibi, Krieg der Zivilisationen. Politik und Religion zwischen Vernunft und Fundamentalismus [War of Civilizations. Politics and Religion between Reason and Fundamentalism] (Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe, 1995).

23 See Volker Rittberger and Andreas Hasenclever, “Religionen in Konflikten – Religiöser Glaube als Quelle von Gewalt und Frieden [Religions in Conflicts: Religious Faith as a Source of Violence and Peace],” in Politisches Denken: Jahrbuch 2000 [Political Thinking: Yearbook 2000] (Stuttgart: Metzler, 2000), 36-37 and 50-51.

24 Dieter Senghaas, “Die Wirklichkeiten der Kulturkämpfe [The Realities of the Cultural Clashes”],” Leviathan, vol. 23:1 (1995): 197-212; Dieter Senghaas, “Schluß mit der Fundamentalismus-Debatte! Plädoyer für eine Reorientierung des interkulturellen Dialogs” [Enough of the Debate about Fundamentalism! A Plea for Reorientation of Intercultural Dialogue], Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik, vol. 40:2 (1995): 180-191; Dieter Senghaas, Zivilisierung wider Willen: der Konflikt der Kulturen mit sich selbst [Reluctant Civilization: The conflict cultures have with themselves] (Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, 1998).

25 See Volker Rittberger and Andreas Hasenclever, “Religionen in Konflikten – Religiöser Glaube als Quelle von Gewalt und Frieden” [Religions in Conflicts: Religious Faith as a Source of Violence and Peace], in Politisches Denken: Jahrbuch 2000 [Political Thinking: Yearbook 2000] (Stuttgart: Metzler, 2000), 36-39 & 49-50.

26 See among others Valery Tishkov, Ethnicity, Nationalism and Conflicts in and after the Soviet Union: The Mind Aflame (London: Sage Publications, 1997); Ted Hopf, “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory,” International Security, vol. 23:1 (1998): 171-200.

27 See Volker Rittberger and Andreas Hasenclever, “Religionen in Konflikten – Religiöser Glaube als Quelle von Gewalt und Frieden” [Religions in Conflicts: Religious Faith as a Source of Violence and Peace], in Politisches Denken: Jahrbuch 2000 [Political Thinking: Yearbook 2000] (Stuttgart: Metzler, 2000), 39-40 & 51-56.

28 This article focuses on the peace-making potential of religious communities. In general, religions can be extremely ambivalent. They can be considered both as accelerants and as trouble-shooters and peacemakers.

29 Markus A. Weingardt, Religion Macht Frieden. Das Friedenspotenzial von Religionen in politischen Gewaltkonflikten [Religion Makes Peace. The Potential of Religion for Peace-making during Violent Political Conflicts] (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2007), 394-404.

30 Andreas Hasenclever and Alexander De Juan, “Religionen in Konflikten – eine Herausforderung für die Friedenspolitik [Religions in Conflicts: A Challenge for the Peace Policy],” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, vol. 6 (2007): 10-16.

31 See, among others, Thomas Bremer, Kreuz und Kreml: Kleine Geschichte der orthodoxen Kirche in Russland [Cross and Kremlin: A Short History of the Orthodox Church in Russia] (Freiburg: Herder, 2007); Jelena W. Beljakowa, “Der Begriff “symphonia” in der russischen Geschichte ” [The Term “Symphonia” in Russian History], Ost-West. Europäische Perspektiven, vol. 1 (2010): 16-22; Jennifer Wasmuth, “Politisches und soziales Engagement der orthodoxen Kirche in Russland” [Political and Social Engagement of the Orthodox Church in Russia], Ost-West. Europäische Perspektiven, vol. 1 (2010): 23-31.

32 See the Public Opinion Foundation’s poll carried out from the 19th to 20th of April 2008, http://bd.fom.ru/report/map/dominant/dam08116/d081623 (accessed January 2, 2010).

33 See Der Fischer Weltalmanach 2010. Zahlen – Daten – Fakten [Fischer World Almanac 2010. Figures, Data & Facts] (Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 2009).

34 See World Values Survey, 5th Wave (data for Russia from 2006 and for Georgia from 2008), http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org (accessed July 04, 2010). Nevertheless, according to the same survey, there is a difference in religious practice. This is especially the case in Russia. For example, only 13 per cent of the Russian and 39 per cent of the Georgian populations attend religious services at least once a month. By contrast, 64 per cent of the Russian and 29 per cent of the Georgian populations attend religious services only once a year, less often or never.

35 Interview of the author with Rudolf Prokschi, Vice-President of Pro Oriente Vienna, from the 7th of July 2009.

36 See World Values Survey, 5th Wave (data for Russia from 2006 and for Georgia from 2008), http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org (accessed July 04, 2010).

37 See the Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation’s poll about “Religion und Politik in Georgien. Eine Umfrage unter der Stadtbevölkerung” [Religion and Politics in Georgia. A Survey of the Urban Population] carried out in June 2008, http://www.kas.de/kaukasus (accessed January 25, 2010).

38 See World Values Survey, 4th Wave (data for Russia from 1999) and 5th Wave (data for Georgia from 2008), http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org (accessed July 04, 2010). Tim Müller states that lower degrees of modernization and higher levels of income inequality increase individual religiosity and the preferences for a stronger connection of religion and politics. According to the Human Development Index, Russia belongs to the group of countries with high human development (0.817), whereas Georgia belongs to the group of countries with medium human development (0.778). See Tim Müller, “Religiosity and Attitudes towards the Involvement of Religious Leaders in Politics: A Multilevel-Analysis of 55 Societies”, World Values Research, vol. 1 (2009): 1-29; Human Development Report 2009, http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ (accessed July 04, 2010).

39 Statement from August 15, 2008, http://www.interfax-religion.ru/gry/?act=news&div=26037 (accessed January 28, 2010).

40 Interview with Hans Ucko, President of the World Conference of Religions for Peace/Europe, on June 7, 2009.

41 Interview with Archbishop Mark, Russian Orthodox Church in Germany, on June 18, 2009.

42 Statement on August 11, 2008, http://interfax-religion.ru/gry/?act=news&div=25978 (accessed January 28, 2010).

43 See letter of Ilia II, Patriarch of the Georgian Orthodox Church, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, on June 12, 2009; interview with Archpriest Tamaz Lomidze, Georgian Orthodox Church in Germany, on September 15, 2009; statement on August 26, 2008, http://www.interfax-religion.ru/gry/?act=news&div=26178 (accessed January 28, 2010).

44 Russian Orthodox Church, The Basis of the Social Concept (Moscow, 2000).

45 Ibid., section VIII.1.

46 Ibid., section VIII.2.

47 Interview with Archpriest Tamaz Lomidze, Georgian Orthodox Church in Germany, on September 15, 2009.

48 Francisco de Vitoria, De Indis Recenter Inventis Et De Jure Belli Hispanoru In Barbaros (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1952 [1532]), 147.

49 Russian Orthodox Church, The Basis of the Social Concept (Moscow, 2000), section VIII.2.

50 Helmut Thielicke, Theologische Ethik, Vol. 1: Prinzipienlehre. Dogmatische, philosophische und kontroverstheologische Grundlegung [Theological Ethics, vol. 1: Foundations. Doctrinal, Philosophical and Controversial Theological Foundation] (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1958), 75.

51 See Michael Minkenberg, “Staat und Kirche in westlichen Demokratien” [Church and State in Western Democracies], in Politik und Religion [Politics and Religion], ed. Michael Minkenberg and Ulrich Willems (Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 2003), 116.

• ← Pro-Democracy Protests Spread to Oman
• In Wrong Hands: Los Zetas And Gun Laws That Help Them Thrive →

The Caucasian Review of International Affairs (CRIA) is a German-based, quarterly peer-reviewed free, not-for-profit and online academic journal.

One thought on “ Religion And Its Importance In International Politics: A Case Study Of 2008 Russian-Georgian War ”

Let me throw this out there. While “cuius regio, eius religio” diminished the role of religion in inter-state conflict, it enshrined the role of religion in intra-state conflicts by saying yes, religion is a matter than a country has a right to dictate to its citizens. Moreover, it more dangerously entangles religious and national identities, and identity in the era of the nation-state has become a vital trigger of both inter-state and intra-state conflict.

Perhaps a way to disentangle this is to attempt to move identity politics outside of governmental debates and into cultural ones. A vital requirement for this is vigorous freedom of speech which protects even the unpopular opinions, thus allowing those with such opinions to avoid taking it up via arms (. Identities are no more constant than people, and thus identities will come into conflict. Space then must be put aside for this conflict to fight itself out non-violently. Moreover, by letting these debates occur non-violently inside of the society it helps prevent a boil-over into inter-state conflicts.

As Churchill said, “Jaw-Jaw-Jaw is better than war-war-war”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

share this!

May 13, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

Psychological research offers strategies for healthy political discussions among people with opposing views

by American Psychological Association

Civilized political debates may seem increasingly out of reach as democracies across the world face rising polarization, but people still want to discuss issues with people they disagree with—especially those who present themselves as balanced and willing to seek solutions that work for everyone or open to learning new information, according to two studies published by the American Psychological Association.

One study, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , examines how U.S. politicians and ordinary Americans with opposing political beliefs could share their ideas on divisive issues in a way that improved respect regardless of political party.

While reviewing a video series featuring real-world politicians solving political dilemmas designed to help voters evaluate the thoughtfulness of political candidates, researchers realized that the videos made viewers from the opposing party more open to learning about the politicians' platform. They found this was because the videos made the politicians look balanced and pragmatic, two key characteristics of wise decision-makers.

"It's easy for us to think about members of both parties as being completely biased in favor of their side. But what happens so much of the time is that people talk past each other or show more interest in pointing out the ridiculous things the other side is doing rather than actually finding solutions," said co-author Curtis Puryear, Ph.D., a post-doctoral researcher in the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University.

"Our findings suggest that if you show you care about understanding the other side's concerns, it goes a long way towards fostering respect."

Puryear and co-author Kurt Gray, Ph.D., of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, conducted eight experiments with more than 3,500 participants to test the effectiveness of political messages that relied on balanced pragmatism, an approach to conflict that focuses on showing concern for both sides' interests while prioritizing practical solutions.

In one experiment, 505 Americans from different political parties evaluated a series of posts on the social media platform X by members of the U.S. House of Representatives. From a sample of more than 50,000 posts made by the representatives' official accounts, the researchers selected 120 posts that discussed political issues without criticizing the opposing party and varied in how balanced and pragmatic each post was.

Each participant evaluated 30 posts, rating them based on how balanced and pragmatic each post seemed, the post's overall tone, how divisive the post seemed, how much they respected the politician and how interested they would be in hearing more about the politician's point of view.

The researchers found that posts that combined balance with pragmatism were the most likely to increase participants' respect for a politician and their willingness to engage with them. Posts in which a politician mainly expressed a desire to find effective solutions improved participants' respect regardless of party, but this was not as effective at garnering respect compared with politicians who also presented a balanced view of an issue.

The benefits of balanced pragmatism for fostering respect were even more pronounced for posts discussing highly divisive issues, like immigration and abortion.

"Logical analyses and strong arguments can make us see someone as competent, which is a trait we value in leaders and friends," said Puryear. "But people also want leaders who understand their constituents, who care about their concerns, and have the practical knowledge to find solutions. These are the qualities of balanced and pragmatic leaders."

In another experiment, researchers focused on whether ordinary Americans could also use balanced pragmatism to improve their political conversations. They recruited 211 Democrats in favor of decreasing deportations of undocumented immigrants and 85 Republicans in favor of increasing deportations. The participants were shown four comments written by participants in a previous experiment who argued their position on deportation using either balanced pragmatism or logical reasoning.

Overall, people were just as likely to say they wanted to have a conversation with someone who disagreed with their views on immigration when that person appeared balanced and pragmatic as they were to say they wanted to talk with someone from their own political party.

While it can be difficult for people to present their views on a divisive issue in a way that respects an opposing viewpoint and looks for a common solution, it could help solve the rising political animosity that we are facing, Puryear said.

"Being balanced and pragmatic takes effort," he said. "But it is like building any other habit: Changing how we approach politics takes commitment and practice. We can each take it upon ourselves to do that."

Another study, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , found that people could be willing to discuss controversial topics, such as gender-neutral language, with people who had opposing views when both express intellectual humility.

Intellectual humility is the recognition that your knowledge has limits and your beliefs could be wrong. It does not mean that someone who is intellectually humble is insecure or that they don't have informed opinions, only that they are willing to acknowledge that they do not know everything.

"Intellectual humility could be an important aspect when trying to understand how to help people engage in these discussions on divisive issues," said the study's lead author, Larissa Knöchelmann, MSc, a research fellow and advanced Ph.D. student at Philipps-Universität Marburg. "Political discussions are important for a democratic society. When people have conversations, they can learn about new perspectives, reduce misunderstandings and work together."

The researchers conducted four experiments with more than 1,600 participants. In one experiment, they asked 451 Germans about their beliefs regarding the COVID-19 vaccine and whether it should be mandatory, a highly polarized debate in Germany when the experiment was conducted.

They were then asked to imagine an online meeting with a new neighbor whose views on vaccination were either the same as or contrary to theirs. They also saw a statement from their neighbor that indicated whether controversial discussions were "boring" because the neighbor felt they knew enough about the topic already or "exciting" because it was an opportunity to learn more.

The researchers found that intellectually humble participants had warmer feelings and more positive evaluations toward groups of people with different political opinions.

Additionally, intellectual humility shaped whether participants were willing to interact with others or not. While non-humble participants would rather talk with someone who shared their opinion, intellectually humble participants did not discriminate between those having the same or a contrary opinion.

Overall, intellectually humble conversation partners were approached more and avoided less because participants perceived them as more likable and the respective conversation as more calm, comfortable and open.

"Many German citizens have the impression that open political debates and an exchange of opinions are not possible anymore. This is especially the case when it comes to emotionally charged political topics," said Knöchelmann. "Our research now shows that intellectual humility can help to make people more willing to engage with others."

Curtis Puryear et al, Using "Balanced Pragmatism" in Political Discussions Increases Cross-Partisan Respect, PsyArXiv (2021). DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/yhpdt

Journal information: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Provided by American Psychological Association

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Exploring the ultrasmall and ultrafast through advances in attosecond science

6 hours ago

Machine learning and AI aid in predicting molecular selectivity of chemical reactions

Persistent strain of cholera defends itself against forces of change, scientists find

Study reveals insights into protein evolution

7 hours ago

Scientists help unravel life's cosmic beginnings

Physicists create five-lane superhighway for electrons

Fruit fly testes offer potential tool against harmful insects

Researchers find new approach for antibiotic development

Exceptionally large transverse thermoelectric effect produced by combining thermoelectric and magnetic materials

8 hours ago

Chemical analysis of natural CO₂ rise over the last 50,000 years shows that today's rate is 10 times faster

Relevant physicsforums posts, today's fusion music: t square, cassiopeia, rei & kanade sato.

2 hours ago

Cover songs versus the original track, which ones are better?

May 12, 2024

Music to Lift Your Soul: 4 Genres & Honorable Mention

Interesting anecdotes in the history of physics.

May 11, 2024

How does academic transcripts translation work?

May 10, 2024

Definition of Maoil

More from Art, Music, History, and Linguistics

Related Stories

Research suggests darker side of being politically confident

Apr 15, 2024

Talking politics with strangers isn't as awful as you'd expect, research suggests

Apr 3, 2024

Republicans and Democrats consider each other immoral. Even when treated fairly and kindly by the opposition

Feb 1, 2024

Want to avoid heated arguments? Try this technique before having a difficult conversation

Feb 9, 2023

When processing misinformation, British voters are divided more along party lines than over Brexit: Study

Feb 2, 2023

How to depolarize political toxicity on social media

Aug 22, 2023

Recommended for you

The power of ambiguity: Using computer models to understand the debate about climate change

Study finds avoiding social media before an election has little to no effect on people's political views

9 hours ago

Study shows AI conversational agents can help reduce interethnic prejudice during online interactions

Study finds liberals and conservatives differ on climate change beliefs—but are relatively united in taking action

May 9, 2024

Analysis of millions of posts shows that users seek out echo chambers on social media

The spread of misinformation varies by topic and by country in Europe, study finds

May 8, 2024

Let us know if there is a problem with our content

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

A Better Wisconsin Together: Speaks out on importance of ballot drop boxes as oral arguments kick off in SCOWIS case

• May 13, 2024

Home » Press Releases » A Better Wisconsin Together: Speaks out on importance of ballot drop boxes as oral arguments kick off in SCOWIS case

MADISON, Wis. — Oral arguments begin today in a  case  before the Wisconsin Supreme Court that seeks to once again allow voters in the Badger State to utilize secure ballot drop boxes to cast their votes. 

In 2022, the MAGA-controlled state Supreme Court  banned  most use of ballot drop boxes, a ruling that created severe barriers for voters across the state, but especially for  rural voters  and  voters with disabilities . 

Now, with a state supreme court doing what Wisconsinites elected them to do – protecting our constitutional rights, including our right to representative democracy – A Better Wisconsin Together is hopeful that equal access to the ballot box will have a chance to be restored across the state.

The following are statements from Mike Browne, deputy director of A Better Wisconsin Together:

“Secure drop boxes are a common sense way to help people participate in their communities and hold those who govern in our name accountable.

“It’s not the place of politically-motivated MAGA judges and politicians to take that freedom away, yet prior action from right-wing judges and lawmakers have caused some of Wisconsin’s most vulnerable voters to bear the brunt of extremist attempts to hold onto power.

“Those we elect into office ought to be helping, not hindering, our ability to make our voices heard in our elections. Together, we must ensure that every Wisconsinite has a fair opportunity to cast a ballot and have their voice heard.”

Upcoming Events

Wispolitics luncheon with assembly minority leader greta neubauer, wispolitics dc breakfast with aau pollster ken goldstein, newsmaker luncheon with u.s. rep. gwen moore, wispolitics luncheon with uw experts on the national convention rhetoric, wispolitics luncheon with psc chair summer strand, the rnc in milwaukee — kickoff to a pivotal election year in wisconsin.

Order copies of the 2024 WisPolitics Directory

Read chapters on Wisconsin and Gov. Tony Evers

Advertisement

Trump on Trial

Stormy daniels, unfiltered, takes the stand.

The porn star at the center of Donald Trump’s criminal trial testified, at times in graphic detail, about the sexual encounter she said she had with Trump in 2006.

• Share full article

By Jesse McKinley

The woman who walked into Donald Trump’s Manhattan courtroom today was a sharp departure from many of the week’s earlier witnesses, who testified on such procedural topics as ledgers, invoices and common accounting practices.

This witness, Stormy Daniels, a former porn star, instead offered a vivid, unsavory and sometimes uneven account of something that has made her far more famous than her adult film career: a 2006 sexual encounter she said she had with Trump that lies at the heart of the criminal case he faces in Manhattan.

Daniels, dressed in all black, wearing glasses and her long blonde hair pulled back, was a complicated and imperfect witness, who was scolded by the judge, Juan Merchan, for wandering off topic.

Prosecutors, too, seemed sometimes frustrated by both the quicksilver pace of her answers — she is a fast talker, with little filter — and the consistent objections by the defense, many of which Merchan upheld. He appeared to want to avoid graphic testimony, meandering answers and leading questions.

Still, Daniels, 45, gave the jury — and assembled members of the press and public — a lurid portrait of her interactions with Trump, who she said invited her to a Lake Tahoe hotel suite and suggested she might appear on the “Apprentice.” Then, after she went to the bathroom, she found him in his boxers and T-shirt and posed on the bed, waiting, she said.

“The room spun in slow motion,” Daniels said on the stand, adding, “I thought, ‘Oh, my God, what did I misread to get here?’”

Daniels said the sexual encounter that followed was consensual but traumatizing, describing herself as bewildered and shaking afterward. She hadn’t said no, she recalled, “because I didn’t say anything at all.”

A payment of $130,000 to Daniels forms the backbone of the case brought by the Manhattan district attorney: Prosecutors contend that Trump falsified 34 business records to cover up a reimbursement to his onetime lawyer, Michael Cohen, who paid off Daniels to keep her story to herself shortly before the 2016 election.

Cohen — a felon — is expected to testify later this month and is also considered a problematic witness. He has been repeatedly denigrated during the trial, now in its fourth week.

Trump has denied the sexual encounter with Daniels, and the charges.

A portrait of Trump emerges

Despite the scuff marks on Daniels and Cohen, the portrait being painted of Trump is unflattering: a man obsessed with his own image, and fond of much younger women, including Daniels, who is 33 years his junior. (She said she told him in the hotel suite in Lake Tahoe, when she was 27 and he was 60, that he was “pompous” and “arrogant.”)

After they met in Tahoe, Trump called Daniels repeatedly, she testified, and said he wanted to see her again. He called her “Honeybunch” and said she reminded him of his daughter, presumably Ivanka. (“She’s smart and blonde and beautiful and people underestimate her as well,” Daniels recalled Trump said.)

Shedding more light on Trump’s psyche, an earlier witness, Sally Franklin, an employee with Penguin Random House, read a series of statements from Trump’s own books, including ones expressing his attitude toward revenge.

“For many years, I have said that if someone screws you, screw them back,” Trump wrote, adding, “Like it says in the Bible, an eye for an eye.” Another book passage suggested “all the women on ‘The Apprentice’ flirted with me.”

‘Better left unsaid’

It wasn’t an easy day for Merchan, who seemed bothered by Daniels’s tendency for tangents. His voice grew sharp at several moments, and he called a series of sidebars after defense objections. After lunch, Merchan — after denying a request for a mistrial — said he believed Daniels, as a witness, “was a little difficult to control.”

“There were some things that would have been better left unsaid,” the judge said, adding “I was surprised that there were not more objections” by the defense.

In moving for a mistrial, Todd Blanche, a defense attorney, complained that the prosecution had elicited a series of negative stories about Trump that had little bearing on the case.

“There’s no way to un-ring the bell,” Blanche said, saying that Daniels’s testimony that Trump didn’t wear a condom during their encounter, for instance, was deeply prejudicial.

“This has nothing to do with this case,” he added, saying the intention was “pure embarrassment” to the former president, and “to inflame this jury.”

During cross-examination, which will continue on Thursday when court resumes, another defense lawyer, Susan Necheles, was blistering in her questioning from the jump. She tried to get Daniels to admit a lie when she said she hadn’t rehearsed her testimony but had participated in a mock cross-examination with prosecutors.

Necheles soon got even more direct, asking Daniels if she hated Trump.

Daniels didn’t pause. “Yes,” she said.

Necheles continued: “And you want him to go to jail?”

Daniels parried: “I want him to be held accountable.”

Necheles suggested that Daniels was only motivated by desire for financial gain in recounting her story of what happened in Lake Tahoe. “That story has made you a lot of money, right?” she said.

“It has also cost me a lot of money,” Daniels shot back.

The jury’s opinion of this sensational testimony is impossible to know; they were mostly expressionless, even during its most salacious portions. Trump himself seemed glum and bothered by Daniels’s testimony, but only to a point: During some of the most combative moments, he sat — as he often does — with his eyes closed.

As for Daniels, she seemed unfazed talking about sex, though her voice did quiver when she sought to explain why she had pursued a hush-money deal, saying she wasn’t after money and wanted the story of her experience with Trump to be made public.

But in her sharp-elbowed cross-examination, Necheles pushed back, suggesting that negotiations before Election Day 2016 — and the eventual $130,000 deal with Cohen, which buried the story — suggested that Daniels had other motivations.

And finally, as the clock ticked down on an extraordinary day, Daniels offered a concession of sorts, saying she wanted to “get the story out.”

“And,” she added, “make some money.”

Here’s the team we have reporting on the trial . During the proceedings, we’ll be sending you updates more frequently, including breaking news alerts and our weekly analysis on Thursdays.

Your questions

We’re asking readers what they’d like to know about the Trump cases: the charges, the procedure, the important players or anything else. You can send us your question by filling out this form.

If Trump is sleeping in court, why does the judge allow it? Isn’t sleeping in court disrespectful and showing disdain? — John Krerowicz, Kenosha, Wis.

Jesse: There is no rule against sleeping in the courtroom, though the optics of a defendant snoozing during testimony may be bad. For his part, Trump has denied slumbering, saying instead that he’s simply resting his “beautiful blue eyes” and listening “intensely.” The judge has not said anything about it thus far, though time will tell if the jury has an opinion.

What else to watch

We’re keeping our eyes on a new dispute simmering in the classified documents case involving allegations by Trump’s lawyers that prosecutors failed to preserve the integrity of the boxes of documents at the heart of the case. Judge Aileen Cannon has not yet decided how she plans to handle the accusations.

After hearing arguments on April 25 about Trump’s claim of immunity in the Jan. 6 case, the Supreme Court could issue a ruling in late June or early July.

Where does each criminal case stand?

Trump is at the center of at least four separate criminal investigations, at both the state and federal levels, into matters related to his business and political careers. Here is where each case stands .

Jesse McKinley is a Times reporter covering upstate New York, courts and politics. More about Jesse McKinley

Michael Cohen to testify in Donald Trump's hush money trial as prosecution's star witness

Michael Cohen, the star witness in Donald Trump's criminal trial, could potentially shape the outcome of the former president's criminal case.

As Trump's former lawyer and personal fixer, Cohen is considered the most crucial witness for the Manhattan District Attorney . His expected appearance indicates that the trial is nearing its conclusion, with prosecutors suggesting they may conclude their evidence presentation by week's end.

Cohen is set to testify about his role in arranging hush money payments on behalf of Trump during his initial presidential campaign. This includes an alleged payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels , who testified last week that she received $130,000 in 2016 to prevent her from disclosing a sexual encounter she claims to have had with Trump in a hotel suite ten years prior.

READ MORE: Donald Trump brags about eating hot dogs before branding Joe Biden a 'moron' at New Jersey rally

READ MORE: Girl, 5, placed on end-of-life care after being strangled by swing set in freak accident

The importance of Cohen's testimony also lies in the reimbursements he received, which form the basis of the charges against Trump - 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Prosecutors argue that these reimbursements were recorded as legal expenses to hide the true purpose of the payments.

Defense attorneys are preparing for a tough cross-examination of Cohen, labeling him an "admitted liar" with an "obsession to get President Trump" during their opening statements. The testimony from a witness so closely acquainted with Trump's activities could increase the legal risks for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee if the jury finds him credible.

However, the prosecution's dependence on a witness with such a tarnished history - Cohen pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the payments and to lying to Congress - could be advantageous for Trump as he uses his legal troubles to fundraise and portrays the case as the result of a corrupt criminal justice system.

Regardless, his role as the star prosecution witness further highlights the breakdown of a once mutually beneficial relationship, so close that Cohen famously said he'd "take a bullet for Trump." After the FBI raided Cohen's home and office in 2018, Trump showered him with praise on social media, describing him as a "fine person with a wonderful family" and predicting - incorrectly - that Cohen would not "flip."

Join the Mirror's SMS news service to get the biggest breaking stories delivered straight to your phone. Click here to subscribe.

Months later, Cohen did just that, pleading guilty in August to federal campaign-finance charges in which he implicated Trump. By the time their relationship had soured beyond repair, Trump took to the platform formerly known as Twitter to advise: "If anyone is looking for a good lawyer, I would strongly suggest that you don't retain the services of Michael Cohen! ".

Cohen confessed to lying to Congress about a Moscow real estate deal he pursued on behalf of Trump during the intense 2016 Republican campaign, aiming to align with Trump's "political messaging." The defense is set to depict Cohen as unreliable and motivated by spite and a personal vendetta.

Since their split, Cohen has become a vocal detractor of Trump, even participating in a Tik Tok last week sporting a shirt with an image resembling a handcuffed Trump behind bars. The judge recently requested prosecutors to instruct Cohen to cease making public comments about the case or Trump.

Prosecutors plan to have Cohen lay bare his criminal history to mitigate the effect of the defense's cross-examination and demonstrate transparency regarding his wrongdoings. However, the success of this strategy remains uncertain, as defense attorneys will undoubtedly seize every opportunity to highlight the difficulties associated with a witness like Cohen.

"He has talked extensively about his desire to see President Trump go to prison," Trump attorney Todd Blanche said during opening statements. "He has talked extensively about his desire to see President Trump's family go to prison. He has talked extensively about President Trump getting convicted in this case."