Hostname: page-component-669899f699-g7b4s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T05:36:24.993Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Possibility Principle: Choosing Negative Cases in Comparative Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2004

JAMES MAHONEY  and
GARY GOERTZ
JAMES MAHONEY
Affiliation:
Brown University
GARY GOERTZ
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A central challenge in qualitative research is selecting the “negative” cases (e.g., nonrevolutions, nonwars) to be included in analyses that seek to explain positive outcomes of interest (e.g., revolutions, wars). Although it is widely recognized that the selection of negative cases is consequential for theory testing, methodologists have yet to formulate specific rules to inform this selection process. In this paper, we propose a principle—the Possibility Principle—that provides explicit, rigorous, and theoretically informed guidelines for choosing a set of negative cases. The Possibility Principle advises researchers to select only negative cases where the outcome of interest is possible. Our discussion elaborates this principle and its implications for current debates about case selection and strategies of theory testing. Major points are illustrated with substantive examples from studies of revolution, economic growth, welfare states, and war.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 98 , Issue 4 , November 2004 , pp. 653 - 669
Copyright
© 2004 by the American Political Science Association

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Amenta Edwin. 2003. “What We Know about the Development of Social Policy: Comparative and Historical Research in Comparative and Historical Perspective.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, ed. James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 91– 130.
Bartels Larry M. 1996. “Pooling Disparate Observations.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (August): 905– 42.Google Scholar
Bennett Andrew. 1999. Condemned to Repetition? The Rise, Fall, and Reprise of Soviet-Russian Military Interventionism, 1973–1996. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brady Henry E., and David Collier, eds. 2004. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Braumoeller Bear. 2003. “Causal Complexity and the Study of Politics.” Political Analysis 11 (Summer): 209– 33.Google Scholar
Braumoeller Bear, and Gary Goertz. 2000. “The Methodology of Necessary Conditions.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (October): 844– 58.Google Scholar
Braumoeller Bear, and Gary Goertz. 2002. “Watching Your Posterior: Comment on Seawright.” Political Analysis 10 (Spring): 198– 203.Google Scholar
Clark David H., and Timothy Nordstrom. 2003. “Risky Inference: Unobserved Treatment Effects in Conflict Studies.” International Studies Quarterly 47 (September): 417– 29.Google Scholar
Clarke Kevin A. 2002. “The Reverend and the Ravens: Comment on Seawright.” Political Analysis 10 (Spring): 194– 97.Google Scholar
Cohen Bernard P. 1989. Developing Sociological Knowledge: Theory and Method. Chicago: Nelson–Hall.
Collier David, and James Mahoney. 1996. “Insights and Pitfalls: Selection Bias in Qualitative Research.” World Politics 49 (October): 56– 91.Google Scholar
Dion Douglas. 1998. “Evidence and Inference in the Comparative Case Study.” Comparative Politics 30 (January): 127– 46.Google Scholar
Earman John. 1992. Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Foran John. 1997. “The Comparative-Historical Sociology of Third World Social Revolutions: Why a Few Succeed, Why Most Fail.” In Theorizing Revolutions, ed. John Foran. London: Routledge, 227– 67.
Geddes Barbara. 1990. “How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get: Selection Bias in Comparative Politics.” In Political Analysis, Vol. 2, ed. James A. Stimson. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 131– 50.Google Scholar
Geddes Barbara. 2003. Paradigms and Sandcastles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
George Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Forthcoming.
Gereffi Gary, ed. 1991. Manufacturing Miracles: Paths of Industrialization in Latin America and East Asia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ghosn Faten, and Scott Bennett. 2003. Codebook for the Dyadic Militarized Interstate Data, Version 3.02. online: http://cow2.la. psu.ed.
Goertz Gary, and James Mahoney. 2005. “Two-Level Theories and Fuzzy-Set Analysis.” Sociological Methods and Research. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Goldstone Jack A. 1991. Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Goldstone Jack A., et al. 2000. State Failure Task Force Report: Phase III Findings. University of Maryland.
Goodwin Jeff. 2001. No Other Way Out: States and Revolutionary Movements, 1945–1991. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Haggard Stephan. 1990. Pathways from the Periphery: The Politics of Growth in Newly Industrializing Countries. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Harff Barbara. 2003. “No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust? Assessing Risks of Genocide and Political Mass Murder Since 1955.” American Political Science Review 97 (February): 57– 74.Google Scholar
Haydu Jeffrey. 1998. “Making Use of the Past: Time Periods as Cases to Compare and as Sequences of Problem Solving.” American Journal of Sociology 104 (September): 339– 71.Google Scholar
Hempel Carl G. 1945. “Studies in the Logic of Confirmation.” Mind 54 (213–14): 1–26, 97– 121.Google Scholar
Hempel Carl G. 1965. “Postscript (1964) on Confirmation.” In Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science, ed. Carl G. Hempel. New York: Free Press, 47– 51.
Hewitt J. Joseph, and Gary Goertz. 2004. “Choosing Populations: Opportunity, Willingness, Political Relevance and the Possibility Principle.” Manuscript, University of Missouri.
Hicks Alexander. 1999. Social Democracy and Welfare Capitalism: A Century of Income Security Policies. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Honoré T., and H. L. A. Hart. 1985. Causation in the Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huber Evelyne, and John D. Stephens. 2001. Development and Crisis of the Welfare State. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jones Daniel, Stuart Bremer, and J. David Singer. 1996. “Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816–1922: Rationale, Coding Rules, and Empirical Patterns.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 15 (Spring): 163– 213.Google Scholar
King Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
King Gary, and Langche Zeng. 2001. “Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data.” Political Analysis 9 (Spring): 137– 63.Google Scholar
Kiser Edgar. 1996. “The Revival of Narrative in Historical Sociology: What Rational Choice Theory Can Contribute.” Politics and Society 24 (September): 249– 71.Google Scholar
Lemke Douglas and William Reed. 2001. “The Relevance of Politically Relevant Dyads.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 45 (February): 126– 44.Google Scholar
Lipset Seymour Martin. 1977. “Why No Socialism in the United States?” In Radicalism in the Contemporary Age, ed. Seweryn Bialer and Sophia Sluzar. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 31– 149.
Most Benjamin A., and Harvey Starr. 1989. Inquiry, Logic, and International Politics. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Pierson Paul. 2000. “Three Worlds of Welfare State Research.” Comparative Political Studies 33 (August): 791– 821.Google Scholar
Popper Karl R. 1968. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Przeworski Adam and Henry Tuene. 1970. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: John Wiley.
Ragin Charles C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ragin Charles C. 2000. Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Seawright Jason. 2002. “Testing for Necessary and/or Sufficient Causation: Which Cases Are Relevant?” Political Analysis 10 (Spring): 178– 93.Google Scholar
Skocpol Theda. 1979. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skocpol Theda. 1984. “Emerging Agendas and Recurrent Strategies in Historical Sociology.” In Vision and Method in Historical Sociology, ed. Theda Skocpol. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 356– 91.
Smithson Michael. 1987. Fuzzy Set Analysis for Behavioral and Social Sciences. New York: Springer Verlag.
Waldner David. 1999. State Building and Late Development. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Walker Henry A. and Bernard P. Cohen. 1985. “Scope Statements: Imperatives for Evaluating Theories.” American Sociological Review 50 (June): 288– 301.Google Scholar
Zelditch Morris Jr. 1971. “Intelligible Comparisons.” In Comparative Methods in Sociology: Essays on Trends and Applications, ed. Ivan Vallier. Berkeley: University of California, 267– 307.
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.