Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T09:19:50.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - CAN ONE OR A FEW CASES YIELD THEORETICAL GAINS?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2014

Dietrich Rueschemeyer
Affiliation:
Brown's Watson Institute of International Studies
James Mahoney
Affiliation:
Brown University, Rhode Island
Dietrich Rueschemeyer
Affiliation:
Brown University, Rhode Island
Get access

Summary

The Issue

The crux of skepticism about comparative historical analysis is the “small-N problem” – the combination of many factors assumed to be causally relevant with evidence from only a small number of comparable cases. Exploring the impact of a large number of relevant factors and conditions in only a few cases seems to run into insuperable obstacles for learning anything that is theoretically relevant. In this essay, I will turn a skeptical eye on these skeptical objections. I go deliberately to the extreme and ask what can be learned theoretically from the study of a single historical case and from comparative analyses of two or very few more cases, a kind of research that permits close attention to the complexities of historical developments.

I begin with two opposite positions that I consider problematic and in their starkest form mistaken. One of these is the most conventional view, taught in countless classes on the methodology of social research. It holds that studying a single case yields only one reasonable theoretical outcome, the generation of hypotheses that may be tested in other, more numerous cases. And conventional methodological wisdom holds the same for single comparisons unless they offer by near-miraculous chance a naturally occurring experiment.

The other position is implied in innumerable assertive historical explanations of singular processes. E. P. Thompson's essay “The Poverty of Theory” offers sophisticated, explicit formulations of such views, though I will argue that its overall argument must be understood in a less historicist way than it at first appears.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2003

Access options

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

References

Campbell, Donald T. 1961. “The Mutual Methodological Relevance of Anthropology and Psychology.” Pp. 333–52 in Psychological Anthropology: Approaches to Culture and Personality, edited by F. L. K. Hsu. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press
Campbell, Donald T. 1975. “‘Degrees of Freedom’ and the Case Study.” Comparative Political Studies 8: 178–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Donald T. and J. C. Stanley. 1966. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Design for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally
Coleman, James S. 1964. Introduction to Mathematical Sociology. New York: Free Press of Glencoe
Collier, David and Mahoney, James. 1996. “Insights and Pitfalls: Selection Bias in Qualitative Research.” World Politics 49: 56–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dion, Douglas. 1998. “Evidence and Inference in the Comparative Case Study.” Comparative Politics 30: 127–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djilas, Milovan. 1957. The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System. New York: Praeger
Eckstein, Harry. 1975. “Case Studies and Theory in Political Science.” Pp. 79–138 in Handbook of Political Science 7, edited by Fred Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Emigh, Rebecca Jean. 1997. “The Power of Negative Thinking: The Use of Negative Case Methodology in the Development of Sociological Theory. Theory and Society 26: 649–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freidson, Eliot. 1970. Profession of Medicine: A Study of the Sociology of Applied Knowledge. New York: Dodd, Mead
Hedström, Peter and Richard Swedberg. 1998. Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Johnson, T. J. 1972. Professions and Power. London: Macmillan
King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
Larson, Magali Sarfatti. 1977. The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press
Lichbach, Mark. 1995. The Rebel's Dilemma. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
Lichbach, Mark 1996. The Cooperator's Dilemma. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
Lijphart, Arend. 1971. “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method.” American Political Science Review 65: 682–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arend 1975. “The Comparable Cases Strategy in Comparative Research.” Comparative Political Studies 8: 158–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipset, Seymour M., Martin Trow, and James Coleman. 1956. Union Democracy: The Internal Politics of the International Typographical Union. What Makes Democracy Work in Labor Unions and Other Organizations? Glencoe, IL: The Free Press
Mahoney, James. 1999. “Nominal, Ordinal, and Narrative Appraisal in Macrocausal Analysis.” American Journal of Sociology 104: 1154–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James 2000. “Strategies of Causal Inference in Small-NAnalysis.” Sociological Methods and Research 28: 387–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, Robert K. [1949] 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure, 3rd ed. New York: Free Press
Michels, Robert. [1911] 1999. Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers
Moore, Barrington, Jr. 1966. The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press
Munck, Gerardo L. 1998. “Canons of Research Design in Qualitative Analysis.” Studies in Comparative International Development 33: 18–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 1996. “Does Television Erode Social Capital? A Reply to Putnam.” PS: Political Science and Politics 29: 474–80Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam and Henry Teune. 1970. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: Wiley-Interscience
Putnam, Robert D. 1995a. “Bowling Alone.” Journal of Democracy 6: 65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 1995b. “Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America.” PS: Political Science and Politics 28: 664–83Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 1998. “Democracy in America at the End of the Twentieth Century.” Pp. 233–65 in Participation and Democracy East and West: Comparisons and Interpretations, edited by D. Rueschemeyer, M. Rueschemeyer, and B. Wittrock. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe
Ragin, Charles C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press
Ragin, Charles C. and Howard S. Becker, eds. 1992. What Is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Raser, J. R., Campbell, D. T., and Chadwick, R. W.. 1970. “Gaming and Simulation for Developing Theory Relevant to International Relations.” General Systems 15: 183–204Google Scholar
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich. 1973. Lawyers and Their Societies: A Comparative Study of the Legal Profession in Germany and the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich. 1984. “Theoretical Generalization and Historical Particularity in the Comparative Sociology of Reinhard Bendix.” Pp. 129–69 in Vision and Method in Historical Sociology, edited by Theda Skocpol. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich. 1986. Power and the Division of Labour. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich. 1989. “Comparing Legal Professions Cross-Nationally: From a Professions-Centered Approach to a State-Centered Approach.” Pp. 289–321 in Lawyers in Society, vol. III: Comparative Theories, edited by Richard L. Abel and Philip S. Lewis. Berkeley: University of California Press
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, Marilyn Rueschemeyer, and Björn Wittrock. 1998. “Conclusion: Contrasting Patterns of Participation and Democracy.” Pp. 266–84 in Participation and Democracy East and West: Comparisons and Interpretations, edited by D. Rueschemeyer, M. Rueschemeyer, and B. Wittrock. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, Evelyne Huber Stephens, and John D. Stephens. 1992. Capitalist Development and Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich and Stephens, John D.. 1997. “Comparing Historical Sequences – A Powerful Tool for Causal Analysis. A Reply to John Goldthorpe's ‘Current Issues in Comparative Macrosociology’.” Comparative Social Research 16: 55–72Google Scholar
Schriewer, Jürgen. 1999. “Vergleich und Erklärung zwischen Kausalität und Komplexität.” Pp. 53–102 in Diskurse und Entwicklungspfade: Der Gesellschaftsvergleich in den Geschichts- und Sozialwissenschaften, edited by Hartmut Kaelble and Jürgen Schriewer. Frankfurt: Campus
Sewell, William H., Jr. 1996. “Three Temporalities: Toward an Eventful Sociology.” Pp. 245–80 in The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences, edited by Terrence J. McDonald. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
Shalev, Michael. 1998–9. “Limits of and Alternatives to Multiple Regression in Macro-Comparative Research.” Paper presented at the second conference on “The Welfare State at the Crossroads,” Stockholm, June 1998
Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Smelser, Neil J. 1976. Comparative Methods in the Social Sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 1968. Constructing Sociological Theories. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World
Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 1978. Theoretical Methods in Social History. New York: Academic Press
Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 1991. “The Conditions of Fruitfulness of Theorizing about Mechanisms in Social Science.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 21: 367–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 1998. “Monopolistic Competition as a Mechanism: Corporations, Universities, and Nation-States in Competitive Fields.” Pp. 267–305 in Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, edited by P. Hedström and R. Swedberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Thompson, E. P. 1963. The Making of the English Working Class. London: Gollancz
Thompson, E. P. 1978. The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays. New York: Monthly Review Press
Trimberger, Ellen Kay. 1984. “E. P. Thompson: Understanding the Process of History.” Pp. 211–43 in Vision and Method in Historical Sociology, edited by Theda Skocpol. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Trubek, David M. 1972. “Max Weber on Law and the Rise of Capitalism.” Wisconsin Law Review 3: 720–53Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×