The Return of the Qualitative Case Study: The Impact of the Presidency and Congress on US Policy Toward North Korea

  • Taehyung Ahn


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.


  1. 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). PAGESGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Bruckman, Daniel. 1977. Boundary Role Conflict: Negotiation as Dual Responsiveness. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 21 (4): 639–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. Elgie, Robert, ed. 2001. Divided Government in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Frye, Charles E. 1965. Parties and Pressure Groups in Weimar and Bonn. World Politics 17 (4): 635–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Lee, Frances E. 2009. Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lijphart, Arend. 1971. Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method. The American Political Science Review 65 (3): 682–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mill, John S. 2011. A System of Logic: Ratiocinative and Inductive. Toronto: University of Toronto Libraries.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. Putnam, Robert. 1988. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games. International Organization 42 (3): 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Sayer, Andrew. 2000. Realism and Social Science. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schmitt, Carl. 2007. The Concept of the Political. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Smith, Alastair. 1998. International Crises and Domestic Politics. The American Political Science Review 92 (3): 623–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sprinz, Detlef F., and Yael Wolinsky-Nahmias, eds. 2004. Models, Numbers & Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  25. Van Evera, Stephen. 1997. Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca: The Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Wittkopf, Eugene R., and James M. McCormick, eds. 2008. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Taehyung Ahn
    • 1
  1. 1.Korean Unification Strategies Research CouncilLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations