Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by
Crossref.
Libman, A.
2009.
Scientific Communities and Spatial Concentration in Economic Science.
Voprosy Ekonomiki,
p.
105.
EXADAKTYLOS, THEOFANIS
and
RADAELLI, CLAUDIO M.
2009.
Research Design in European Studies: The Case of Europeanization*.
JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies,
Vol. 47,
Issue. 3,
p.
507.
Pedersen, Rasmus Brun
and
Beach, Derek
2010.
Observing Causal Mechanisms with Process-Tracing Methods – The Benefits of Using a ‘Mechanism’ Understanding of Causality.
SSRN Electronic Journal,
Collier, David
Brady, Henry E.
and
Seawright, Jason
2010.
Outdated Views of Qualitative Methods: Time to Move On.
Political Analysis,
Vol. 18,
Issue. 4,
p.
506.
Wolf, Frieder
2010.
Enlightened Eclecticism or Hazardous Hotchpotch? Mixed Methods and Triangulation Strategies in Comparative Public Policy Research.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research,
Vol. 4,
Issue. 2,
p.
144.
Tarrow, Sidney
2010.
The Strategy of Paired Comparison: Toward a Theory of Practice.
Comparative Political Studies,
Vol. 43,
Issue. 2,
p.
230.
Beck, Nathaniel
2010.
Causal Process “Observation”: Oxymoron or (Fine) Old Wine.
Political Analysis,
Vol. 18,
Issue. 4,
p.
499.
Bisschop, Lieselot
2010.
Corporate environmental responsibility and criminology.
Crime, Law and Social Change,
Vol. 53,
Issue. 4,
p.
349.
Ton, Giel
Vellema, Sietze
and
de Ruyter de Wildt, Marieke
2011.
Development impacts of value chain interventions: how to collect credible evidence and draw valid conclusions in impact evaluations?.
Journal on Chain and Network Science,
Vol. 11,
Issue. 1,
p.
69.
Glynn, Adam N.
and
Quinn, Kevin M.
2011.
Why Process Matters for Causal Inference.
Political Analysis,
Vol. 19,
Issue. 3,
p.
273.
Crasnow, Sharon
2011.
Evidence for Use: Causal Pluralism and the Role of Case Studies in Political Science Research.
Philosophy of the Social Sciences,
Vol. 41,
Issue. 1,
p.
26.
Fischer, Manuel
2011.
Social Network Analysis and Qualitative Comparative Analysis: Their Mutual Benefit for the Explanation of Policy Network Structures.
Methodological Innovations Online,
Vol. 6,
Issue. 2,
p.
27.
Rezende, Flávio da Cunha
2011.
Razões emergentes para a validade dos estudos de caso na ciência política comparada.
Revista Brasileira de Ciência Política,
p.
297.
Sager, Fritz
and
Andereggen, Céline
2012.
Dealing With Complex Causality in Realist Synthesis.
American Journal of Evaluation,
Vol. 33,
Issue. 1,
p.
60.
Ton, Giel
2012.
The mixing of methods: A three-step process for improving rigour in impact evaluations.
Evaluation,
Vol. 18,
Issue. 1,
p.
5.
VOIGT, STEFAN
2013.
How (not) to measure institutions: a reply to Robinson and Shirley.
Journal of Institutional Economics,
Vol. 9,
Issue. 1,
p.
35.
Hug, Simon
2013.
Qualitative Comparative Analysis: How Inductive Use and Measurement Error Lead to Problematic Inference.
Political Analysis,
Vol. 21,
Issue. 2,
p.
252.
Rohlfing, Ingo
and
Starke, Peter
2013.
Building on Solid Ground: Robust Case Selection in Multi‐Method Research.
Swiss Political Science Review,
Vol. 19,
Issue. 4,
p.
492.
Goertz, Gary
and
Mahoney, James
2013.
Methodological Rorschach Tests.
Comparative Political Studies,
Vol. 46,
Issue. 2,
p.
236.
Nikolakis, William D.
Grafton, R. Quentin
and
To, Hang
2013.
Indigenous values and water markets: Survey insights from northern Australia.
Journal of Hydrology,
Vol. 500,
Issue. ,
p.
12.