Advertisement

Quality & Quantity

, 43:173 | Cite as

Conjunctural causation in comparative case-oriented research

  • Jonathan P. Aus
Original Paper

Abstract

This article highlights one of the major benefits of qualitative comparative methodology as applied within a “small-N” research design, namely its potential use for specifying the scope conditions of (theoretically competing) causal mechanisms. It is argued that the identification of set-theoretic relationships, multiple paths, and analytic efforts in typological mapping can make valuable contributions to the elaboration and further development of middle-range theory.

Keywords

Comparative methodology Causal complexity Theory development Political science Social mechanisms Decision-making European Union 

References

  1. Abbott A.: Time Matters. On Theory and Method. University of Chicago Press (2001).Google Scholar
  2. Aickin M. (2004). Millsian causation. Qual. Quant. 38: 533–545 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allison G.T. and Zelikow P. (1999). Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2nd ed. Longman, New York Google Scholar
  4. Andersen, S.S.: “On a clear day you can see the EU”—Case Study Methodology in EU Research. ARENA—Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, Working Paper No. 16/2003, (2003)Google Scholar
  5. Aus J.P.: Logics of Decision-Making on Community Asylum Policy. A Case Study of the Evolvement of the Dublin II Regulation. ARENA—Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, Working Paper No. 03/2006 (2006a)Google Scholar
  6. Aus J.P.: Eurodac: A Solution Looking for a Problem? ARENA—Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo. Working Paper No. 09/2006 (2006b)Google Scholar
  7. Becker H.S.: Cases, causes, conjunctures, stories, and imagery. In: Ragin C. C., Becker H. S. (eds.) What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, pp. 205–216. Cambridge University Press (1992)Google Scholar
  8. Bennett A. and George A.L. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. The MIT Press, Cambridge and Boston Google Scholar
  9. Braumoeller B.F. (2003). Causal complexity and the study of politics. Political Analysis 11: 209–233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bunge M. (2004). How does it work? The search for explanatory mechanisms. Philos. Soc. Sci. 34: 182–210 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chan S. (2003). Explaining war termination: A Boolean analysis of causes. J. Peace Res. 40: 49–66 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Checkel J.T. and Moravcsik A. (2001). A constructivist research programme in EU Studies?. Euro. Union Politics 2: 219–249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Checkel, J.T.: Social mechanisms and the quality of cooperation: Are Europe and the EU really that different? ARENA—Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo. Working Paper No. 8/ 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. (2000a). Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 concerning the establishment of “Eurodac” for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention. Official J. Euro. Commun. L 316: 1–10 Google Scholar
  15. (2000b). Council decision of 28 September 2000 establishing a European Refugee Fund (2000/596/EC). Official J. Euro. Commun. L 252: 12–18 Google Scholar
  16. (2003). Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national. Official J. Euro. Union L 50: 1–10 Google Scholar
  17. Eckstein H. (1975). Case study and theory in political science. In: Greenstein, F.I. and Polsby, N.W. (eds) Strategies of Inquiry Handbook of Political Science, vol. 7, pp 97–137. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA Google Scholar
  18. Elster J. (1983). Explaining technical change. Norwegian University Press, Oslo Google Scholar
  19. Elster, J.: A plea for mechanisms. In: Hedstrøm, P., Swedberg, R. (eds.) Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, pp. 45–73. Cambridge University Press, (1998)Google Scholar
  20. Etzioni A. (2000). Social norms: Internalization, persuasion and history. Law Soc. Rev. 34: 157–178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Geertz C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. Selected Essays by Clifford Geertz. Basic Books, New York Google Scholar
  22. Glaser B.G. and Strauss A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. de Gruyter, New York Google Scholar
  23. Hacking, I.: Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge University Press (1983)Google Scholar
  24. Halmos P.R. (1960). Naive Set Theory. van Nostrand, Princeton NJ Google Scholar
  25. Jupille J., Caporaso J.A. and Checkel J.T. (2003). Integrating institutions: Rationalism, constructivism, and the study of the European Union. Comp. Polit. Stud. 36: 7–41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. King, G., Keohane, R.O., Verba, S.: Designing Social Inquiry. Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton University Press (1994)Google Scholar
  27. Lewis J. (2003). Informal integration and the supranational construction of the council. J. Euro. Publ. Policy 10: 996–1019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lieberson, S.: Small N’s and big conclusions: An examination of the reasoning in comparative studies based on a small number of cases. In: Ragin, C.C., Becker H. S. (eds.) What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, pp. 105–118. Cambridge University Press (1992)Google Scholar
  29. Lijphart A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 65: 682–693 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mahoney J. (2000). Strategies of causal inference in small-N analysis. Sociol. Methods Res. 28: 387–424 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. March J.G. and Olsen J.P. (1989). Rediscovering Institutions. The Organizational Basis of Politics. The Free Press, New York Google Scholar
  32. March J.G. and Olsen J.P. (1995). Democratic Governance. The Free Press, New York Google Scholar
  33. March, J.G., Olsen, J.P.: The logic of appropriateness. In: Moran, M., Rein, M., Goodin, R.E. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. pp. 689–708. Oxford University Press (2006)Google Scholar
  34. Marini M.M. and Singer B. (1988). Causality in the social sciences. Sociol. Methodol. 18: 347–409 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mattila M. (2004). Contested decisions: Empirical analysis of voting in the European Union Council of Ministers. Euro. J. Polit. Res. 43: 29–50 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mayntz R. (2004). Mechanisms in the analysis of social macro-phenomena. Philos. Soc. Sci. 34: 237–259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McKeown T.J. (1999). Case studies and the statistical worldview: review of King, Keohane and Verba’s “Designing social inquiry: scientific inference in qualitative research”. Int. Org. 53: 161–190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Merton R.K. (1949). Social Theory and Social Structure. Free Press, Glencose, IL Google Scholar
  39. Mill J.S. (1868). A System of Logic – Ratiocinative and Inductive. Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation, vol. I. Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer, London Google Scholar
  40. Mjøset L. (2000). Stein Rokkan’s thick comparisons. Acta Sociol. 43: 381–397 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mjøset, L.: Theory: conceptions in the social sciences. In: Smelser N.J., Bates P.B. (eds.) The International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, pp. 15641–15647. Elsevier Science Ltd. (2001)Google Scholar
  42. Moore B. (1967). Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy—Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Penguin Press, London Google Scholar
  43. Newsome G.L. (2003). The debate between current versions of covariation and mechanism approaches to causal inference. Philos. Psychol. 16: 87–107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nissen S. (1998). The case of case studies: on the methodological discussion in comparative political science. Qual. Quant. 32: 399–418 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Olsen J.P. (2002). The many faces of europeanization. J. Common Market Stud. 40: 921–952 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pennings P. (2005). The diversity and causality of welfare state reforms explored with fuzzy-sets. Qual. Quant. 39: 317–339 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ragin C.C. (1987). The Comparative Method. Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA Google Scholar
  48. Ragin C.C. (1999). Using qualitative comparative analysis to study causal complexity. Health Serv. Res. 34: 1225–1239 Google Scholar
  49. Ragin, C. C.: Fuzzy-Set Social Science. University of Chicago Press (2000)Google Scholar
  50. Rokkan, S.: State Formation, Nation-Building, and Mass Politics in Europe: The Theory of Stein Rokkan. In: Flora, P., Kuhnle, S., Urwin, D. Oxford University Press (1999)Google Scholar
  51. Scharpf F. W. (2000). Institutions in comparative policy research. Comp. Polit. Stud. 33: 762–790 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schimmelfennig, F.: The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe. Rules and Rhetoric. Cambridge University Press (2003a)Google Scholar
  53. Schimmelfennig F. (2003b). Strategic action in a community environment: the decision to enlarge the European Union to the East. Comp. Polit. Stud. 36: 156–183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sigelman L. and Gadbois G.H. (1983). Contemporary comparative politics. An inventory and assessment. Comp. Polit. Stud. 16: 275–305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Skocpol, T.: States and Social Revolutions. A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge University Press (1979)Google Scholar
  56. Skocpol T. and Somers M. (1980). The uses of comparative history in macrosocial inquiry. Comp. Stud. Soc. History 22: 174–197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Steel D. (2004). Social mechanisms and causal inference. Philos. Soc. Sci. 34: 55–78 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thielemann E.R. (2003). Between interests and norms: explaining burden-sharing in the European Union. J. Refugee Stud. 16: 253–273 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Varone F., Rothmayr C. and Montpetit E. (2006). Regulating biomedicine in Europe and North America: A qualitative comparative analysis. Euro. J. Polit. Res. 45: 317–343 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Verschuren P.J. (2001). Holism versus reductionism in modern social science research. Qual. Quant. 35: 389–405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Walker H.A. and Cohen B.P. (1985). Scope statements: imperatives for evaluating theory. Am. Sociol. Rev. 50: 288–301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Weber, M.: Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, vol. 1. In: Roth, G. Wittich C, University of California Press, Berkeley (1978)Google Scholar
  63. White P.A. (2000). Causal attribution and Mill’s methods of experimental inquiry: past, present and prospect. Brit. J. Soc. Psychol. 39: 429–447 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zuern M. and Checkel J.T. (2005). Getting socialized to build bridges: Constructivism and rationalism, Europe and the nation-state. Int. Org. 59: 1045–1079 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ARENA—Centre for European StudiesUniversity of OsloBlindernNorway

Personalised recommendations