Abstract
This chapter examines the case study as an essential research method for the fields of political science and international relations (IR). By taking research on US policy toward North Korea under the Clinton and Bush administrations, it presents when and how to use a qualitative case study effectively. It argues that in order to improve our knowledge and understanding of political science and IR issues, we must make the most of all the accessible research methods, and emphasizes that a research method selection should be subject to research topics and questions. A qualitative case study shows that the inter-branch relationship between the presidency and Congress played a pivotal role in US policy toward North Korea.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
In addition, different methods can be used together in a single study or sequentially. For more details , see Bennett (2002).
- 2.
The case study method is defined in this chapter as “the detailed examination of an aspect of a historical episode to develop or test historical explanations that may be generalizable to other events” (George and Bennett 2005, 5). For more details on the definitions of case studies, see George and Bennett (2005, 17–19).
- 3.
“Ratification” may entail a formal voting procedure at Level II, such as the constitutionally required two-thirds vote of the United States. In his study, however, the term generally refers to any decision process at Level II that is required to endorse or implement a Level I agreement, whether formally or informally (Putnam 1988, 436).
- 4.
Expectation effects are also remarkably significant in this sequential decomposition into a negotiation phase and a ratification phase, because there are likely to be prior consultations to hammer out an initial position for negotiations. In fact, the need for Level II ratifications seriously influences the Level I bargaining. Furthermore, expectations of rejection at Level II may abort negotiations at Level I even without any formal action at Level II before the Level I negotiations. More often than not, the constituents’ views may themselves evolve in the course of the negotiations (Putnam 1988, 436).
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
However, it is evident that although both the least-likely case study and the most-likely case study help reduce the effects of the problem of representativeness, large-n methods provide more convincing tests and support (Odell 2004, 69).
- 8.
For more details, see Van Evera (1997, 55–75); according to Lijphart, meanwhile, there are six ideal types of single case studies: atheoretical case studies, interpretative case studies, hypotheses-generating case studies, theory-confirming case studies, theory-infirming case studies, and deviant case studies. For more details, see Lijphart (1971, 691–693).
- 9.
Although selection bias in case studies can be partially overcome by large-n studies, it is common to all different kinds of methods, and quantitative analyses are not immune to self-selection problems. See Sprinz and Wolinsky-Nahmias (2004, 368–369).
- 10.
For more details, see Part II and Part III in Sprinz and Wolinsky-Nahmias. Many scholars agree with the view that the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the respective methods “allow the strengths of one method to compensate for the weaknesses of another” (Bennett 2004, 48; see also Odell 2004, 60). According to Van Evera, while “large-n methods tell us more about whether hypotheses hold than why they hold, case studies say more about why they hold” (Van Evera 1997, 55).
- 11.
See Carl Schmitt (2007) for a philosophical discussion on the origins of partisan politics based on the “friend-enemy” distinction.
References
Avey, Paul C., Michael C. Desch, Daniel Maliniak, James D. Long, Susan Peterson, and Michael J. Tierney. 2012. The Beltway vs. Ivory Tower: Why Academics and Policymakers Don’t Get Along. Foreign Policy (Jan/Feb). PAGES
Bennett, Andrew. 2002. Where the Model Frequently Meets the Road: Combining Statistical, Formal, and Case Study Methods. Paper Presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Conference, Boston.
———. 2004. Case Study Methods: Design, Use, and Comparative Advantages. In Models, Numbers & Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations, ed. Detlef F. Sprinz and Yael Wolinsky-Nahmias, 9–55. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.
Bruckman, Daniel. 1977. Boundary Role Conflict: Negotiation as Dual Responsiveness. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 21 (4): 639–661.
Carter, Ralph G., and James M. Scott. 2010. Institutional Actors in Foreign Policy Analysis. In The International Studies Encyclopedia, ed. Robert A. Denemark, 3688–3709. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Eckstein, Harry. 1975. Case Study and Theory in Political Science. In Handbook of Political Science, ed. Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby, 79–138. Reading: Addison-Wesley Press.
Elgie, Robert, ed. 2001. Divided Government in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frye, Charles E. 1965. Parties and Pressure Groups in Weimar and Bonn. World Politics 17 (4): 635–665.
George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lee, Frances E. 2009. Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lijphart, Arend. 1971. Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method. The American Political Science Review 65 (3): 682–693.
McKeown, Timothy J. 1999. Case Studies and the Statistical Worldview: Review of King, Keohane, and Verba’s Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. International Organization 53 (1): 161–190.
Mill, John S. 2011. A System of Logic: Ratiocinative and Inductive. Toronto: University of Toronto Libraries.
Moravcsik, Andrew. 1999. Introduction: Integrating International and Domestic Theories of International Bargaining. In International Bargaining and Domestic Politics: Double-Edged Diplomacy, ed. Peter B. Evans, Harold K. Jacobson, and Robert D. Putnam, 1–42. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Morgan, Patrick M. 2007. The Role of the United States in the North Korean Nuclear Crisis. In Korean Security in a Changing East Asia, ed. Terence Roehrig, Jungmin Seo, and Uk Heo, 13–32. Westport: Praeger Security International.
Odell, John S. 2004. Case Study Methods in International Political Economy. In Models, Numbers & Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations, ed. Detlef F. Sprinz and Yael Wolinsky-Nahmias, 56–80. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Putnam, Robert. 1988. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games. International Organization 42 (3): 427–460.
Rosenau, James N. 1968. Private Preferences and Political Responsibilities: The Relative Potency of Individual and Role Variables in the Behavior of U.S. Senators. In Quantitative International Politics: Insights and Evidence, ed. J. David Singer, 17–50. New York: Free Press.
Sayer, Andrew. 2000. Realism and Social Science. London: Sage.
Schmitt, Carl. 2007. The Concept of the Political. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Scott, James M., and A. Lane Crothers. 1998. Out of the Cold: The Post-Cold War Context of U.S. Foreign Policy. In After the End: Making U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War World, ed. James M. Scott, 1–28. Durham: Duke University Press.
Smith, Alastair. 1998. International Crises and Domestic Politics. The American Political Science Review 92 (3): 623–638.
Sprinz, Detlef F., and Yael Wolinsky-Nahmias, eds. 2004. Models, Numbers & Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Van Evera, Stephen. 1997. Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca: The Cornell University Press.
Wittkopf, Eugene R., and James M. McCormick, eds. 2008. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ahn, T. (2018). The Return of the Qualitative Case Study: The Impact of the Presidency and Congress on US Policy Toward North Korea. In: Kachuyevski, A., Samuel, L. (eds) Doing Qualitative Research in Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72230-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72230-6_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-72229-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-72230-6
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)