Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T22:15:19.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cases of Convenience? The Divergence of Theory from Practice in Case Selection in Qualitative and Mixed-Methods Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2017

Kendra L. Koivu  and
Annika Marlen Hinze
Kendra L. Koivu
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
Annika Marlen Hinze
Affiliation:
Fordham University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Symposium: The Road Less Traveled: An Agenda for Mixed-Methods Research
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , October 2017 , pp. 1023 - 1027
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2017 

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

REFERENCES

Beach, Derek, and Pedersen, Rasmus. 2013. Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, David. 2011. “Understanding Process Tracing.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44 (4): 823–30.Google Scholar
Denzin, Norman. 1978. The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Research Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Eckstein, Harry. 1975. “Case Studies and Theory in Political Science.” In Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 7, ed. Greenstein, Fred and Polsby, Nelson, 94–137. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, Kathleen. 1989. “Building Theories from Case-Study Research.” Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 532–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, James D., and Laitin, David D.. 2008. “Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods.” In Oxford Handbook for Political Methodology, ed. Brady, Henry E., Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Collier, David, 756–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
George, Alexander L., and Bennett, Andrew. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 2007a. Case-Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 2007b. “Is There a (Viable) Crucial-Case Method?” Comparative Political Studies 40 (3): 231–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goertz, Gary. 2017. Multimethod Research, Causal Mechanisms, and Case Studies: An Integrated Approach. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goertz, Gary, and Mahoney, James. 2012. A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, Jennifer C., Caracelli, Valerie J., and Graham, Wendy F.. 1989. “Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Methods Evaluation Designs.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11 (3): 255–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jick, Todd. 1979. “Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.” Administrative Science Quarterly 24 (4): 602–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, Evan. 2005. “Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research.” American Political Science Review 99 (3): 435–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1940. “Bureaucratic Structure and Personality.” Social Forces 18: 560–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morse, Janice M. 1991. “Approaches to Qualitative–Quantitative Methodological Triangulation.” Nursing Research 40 (2): 120–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragin, Charles. 2000. Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rogowski, Ronald. 2010. “How Inference in the Social (but Not the Physical) Sciences Neglects Theoretical Anomaly.” In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, second edition, ed. Brady, Henry E. and Collier, David, 89–98. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Seawright, Jason. 2016. Multi-Method Social Science: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Tools. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seawright, Jason, and Gerring, John. 2008. “Case-Selection Techniques in Case-Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options.” Political Research Quarterly 61 (2): 294–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarrow, Sidney. 1995. “Bridging the Quantitative–Qualitative Divide in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 89 (02): 471–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teune, Henry, and Przeworski, Adam. 1970. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Koivu and Hinze supplementary material

Koivu and Hinze supplementary material 1

Download Koivu and Hinze supplementary material(File)
File 96.6 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Koivu and Hinze supplementary material

Appendix A

Download Koivu and Hinze supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 73.7 KB