Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T20:23:03.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Nested analysis: toward the integration of comparative-historical analysis with other social science methods

from Part IV - Issues of method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2015

Evan S. Lieberman
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
James Mahoney
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Illinois
Kathleen Thelen
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Get access

Summary

In the decade following publication of the original edited volume, Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (Mahoney and Rueschemeyer 2003), multimethod research became an important strand of comparative-historical analysis, which now warrants attention and reflection. Almost one-third of books published between 2003 and 2013 at leading university presses using comparative-historical analysis (CHA) also employ some form of quantitative analysis. In this chapter, I review the motivation for multimethod research and focus on a single variant, which I call “nested analysis.” I use that discussion as a point of departure for considering the possible integration of CHA with other forms of empirical analysis, including matching analyses and experimental methods.

The integration of multiple methods is not merely a defensive strategy to address the “few cases, many variables” critique that has long been leveled at canonical “small-N” comparative scholarship, such as Moore (1966), Skocpol (1979), Hall (1986), and Collier and Collier (1991). Mahoney and others have written extensively on the underappreciated leverage associated with the detailed over-time analyses contained in these seminal volumes and in CHA more generally (Gerring 2004; Lieberman 2001; Mahoney 1999). And Collier, Brady, and Seawright (2004) provide useful vocabulary with their notion of “causal process observations,” and contributors to their volume offered a balanced view to methodology in political science. Building on these strengths, the integration of methodological approaches has sought to leverage additional synergies for identifying causal mechanisms, addressing plausible rival explanations, and providing additional testable implications of central propositions. When done well, mixed methods research ought to substantially enhance the credibility of the social scientific claims being made.

My goal in this chapter is to review the prospects for successfully integrating CHA with other types of empirical methods, especially quantitative and experimental approaches. But before I proceed any further, let me make clear three key points that structure the discussion.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

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

Achen, Christopher H. 1982. Interpreting and Using Regression. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Andrea Louise. 2003. How Policies Make Citizens: Senior Political Activism and the American Welfare State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavaille, Charlotte. 2014. “Demand for Redistribution in the Age of Inequality.” Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Government and Social Policy, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Chattopadhyay, Raghabendra, and Duflo, Esther. 2004. “Women as Policy Makers: Evidence from a Randomized Policy Experiment in India.” Econometrica 72 (5): 1409–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, David, Brady, Henry E., and Seawright, Jason. 2004. “Sources of Leverage in Causal Inference: Toward an Alternative View of Methodology.” In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, edited by Brady, H. E. and Collier, D.. Berkeley, CA: Rowman & Littlefield and Berkeley Public Policy Press.Google Scholar
Collier, Ruth B., and Collier, David. 1991. Shaping the Political Arena. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dunning, Thad. 2008. Crude Democracy: Natural Resource Wealth and Political Regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, Thad 2010. “Design-Based Inference: Beyond the Pitfalls of Regression Analysis?” In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, 2nd ed., edited by Brady, H. E. and Collier, D., 273–311. Berkeley, CA: Rowman & Littlefield and Berkeley Public Policy Press.Google Scholar
Dunning, Thad 2012. Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, Thad, and Nilekani, Janhavi. 2013. “Ethnic Quotas and Political Mobilization: Caste, Parties, and Distribution in Indian Village Councils.” American Political Science Review 107 (1): 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falleti, Tulia G., and Lynch, Julia F.. 2009. “Context and Causal Mechanisms in Political Analysis.” Comparative Political Studies 42 (9): 1143–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, John. 2001. Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, John 2004. “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good For?American Political Science Review 98 (2): 341–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, John 2011. “How Good Is Good Enough? A Multidimensional, Best-Possible Standard for Research Design.” Political Research Quarterly 64 (3): 625–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, Adam, and Ichino, Nahomi. 2014. “Using Qualitative Information to Improve Causal Inference.” American Journal of Political Science. doi:10.1111/ajps.12154.CrossRef
Hall, Peter. 1986. Governing the Economy: The Politics of State Intervention in Britain and France. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter 2003. “Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Politics.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by Mahoney, James and Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, chap. 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holland, Paul W. 1986. “Statistics and Causal Inference.” Journal of the American statistical Association 81 (396): 945–60.Google Scholar
Holland, Paul W., and Rubin, Donald B.. 1988. “Causal Inference in Retrospective Studies.” Evaluation Review 12 (3): 203–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, and Van Dyk, David A.. 2004. “Causal Inference with General Treatment Regimes.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 99 (467): 854–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffman, Craig. 2012. “More Than the Sum of the Parts: Nested Analysis in Action.” Qualitative and Multi-method Research 10 (2): 26–30.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert, and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Evan. 2001. “Causal Inference in Historical Institutional Analysis: A Specification of Periodization Strategies.” Comparative Political Studies 34 (9): 1011–35.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
Lieberman, Evan 2010. “Bridging the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide: Best Practices in the Development of Historically Oriented Replication Databases.” Annual Review of Political Science 13:37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1971. “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method.” American Political Science Review 65 (3): 682–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lustick, I. S. 1996. “History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias.” American Political Science Review 90 (3): 605–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James. 1999. “Nominal, Ordinal, and Narrative Appraisal in Macrocausal Analysis.” American Journal of Sociology 104 (4): 1154–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James 2010. Colonialism and Postcolonial Development: Spanish America in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James, and Goertz, Gary. 2006. “A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research.” Political Analysis 14 (3): 227–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James, and Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, eds. 2003. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Barrington. 1966. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Richard. 2014. “Case Selection via Matching.” Sociological Methods and Research. doi:10.1177/0049124114547054.CrossRef
Pierson, Paul. 2000. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics.” American Political Science Review 94 (2): 251–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawlings, Laura. B., and Rubio, Gloria M.. 2005. “Evaluating the Impact of Conditional Cash Transfer Programs.” World Bank Research Observer 20 (1): 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohlfing, Ingo. 2008. “What You See and What You Get: Pitfalls and Principles of Nested Analysis in Comparative Research.” Comparative Political Studies 41 (11): 1492–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Carsten Q., and Rohlfing, Ingo. 2013. “Combining QCA and Process Tracing in Set-Theoretic Multi-Method Research.” Sociological Methods and Research 42 (4): 559–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verghese, Ajay. 2012. “Multi-Method Fieldwork in Practice: Colonial Legacies and Ethnic Conflict in India.” Qualitative and Multi-Method Research 10 (2): 41–4.Google 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
×