A Methodological Roadmap for the Study of Soft Power

Ohnesorge, Hendrik W.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-29922-4_4

Hendrik W. Ohnesorge¹⁰

Part of the book series: Global Power Shift ((GLOBAL))

2378 Accesses
1 Citations

Abstract

Hitherto a major criticism frequently directed toward the concept, the chapter develops and discusses resilient methodological approaches for a robust examination of soft power. To that end, the author spreads out a comprehensive methodological roadmap for empirical analyses of the workings of soft power in international relations.

Initially, after discussing fundamental epistemological and ontological positions, conceivable research methods are explored and contrasted. Building upon the taxonomy and its indicators previously developed and deduced by the author, qualitative research methods are thus identified as solely meeting the requirements posed by the highly complex and often long-term character of soft power. Against this backdrop, the method of comparative-historical analysis (CHA), innovatively complemented by the technique of structured, focused comparison, is identified as an eminently applicable research approach. Subsequently, the author discusses and identifies conceivable timeframes as well as possible actors and cases for comparative empirical studies of soft power in international relations both past and present. Finally, different data sources to draw upon for substantiated empirical analyses are identified.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 89.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 119.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 119.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Robert K. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Los Angeles, Cal.: SAGE Publications, 2014), p. 28.
2.
Charles C. Ragin, Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method (Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Pine Forge Press, 1994), p. 191.
3.
David A. de Vaus, Research Design in Social Research (London: SAGE Publications, 2001), p. 9.
4.
Uwe Flick, “Design und Prozess qualitativer Forschung,” in Qualitative Forschung: Ein Handbuch, eds. Uwe Flick, Ernst von Kardorff, and Ines Steinke (Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, 2012), p. 253.
5.
de Vaus, Research Design in Social Research, pp. 8–9. Comparisons of literature to works of architecture have, of course, a long history and date back as far as Horace, who in the first century bc famously wrote in his Odes, “Exegi monumentum aere perennius/ Regalique situ pyramidum altius,/ Quod non imber edax, non aquilo imoptens/ Possit diruere aut innumerabilis/ Annorum series et fuga temporum;” Horaz, “Carmina/Oden,” in Sämtliche Werke: Teil I, Opden und Eopden, edited by Hans Färber after Kayser, Nordenflycht, and Burger (München: Ernst Heimeran Verlag, 1960, p. 176 (Hor. Carm. III, 30). A. Hamilton Bryce provides an English translation, “A monument I have reared more durable than brass, and loftier than the princely structure of the pyramids, which neither biting rain can overthrow, nor fierce north wind nor lapse of countless years and flight of time;” Horace, The Odes of Horace: Books III and IV, with the Carmen Seculare and the Epodes, Translated by A. Hamilton Bryce (London: George Bell and Sons, 1909), p. 72.
6.
de Vaus, Research Design in Social Research, p. 9.
7.
Bob Hancké, “The Challenge of Research Design,” in Theory and Methods in Political Science, eds. David Marsh and Gerry Stoker (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), pp. 235–236.
8.
Jean-Marc F. Blanchard and Fujia Lu, “Thinking Hard about Soft Power: A Review and Critique of the Literature on China and Soft Power,” Asian Perspective, Vol. 36, No. 4 (2012), p. 575.
9.
Matthew Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods (Los Angeles, Cal.: SAGE Publications, 2013), p. 3.
10.
Gerry Stoker, “Introduction to Part 2,” in Theory and Methods in Political Science, eds. David Marsh and Gerry Stoker (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), p. 181.
11.
John W. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (Thousand Oaks, Cal.: SAGE Publications, 2003), p. 3.
12.
While those questions are decisive and shall therefore be considered in the following, the subsequent paragraphs are considered to provide merely an outline of select approaches, rather than a comprehensive discussion of some of the most fundamental (and contested) questions in the philosophy of science. Frequently, further literature is referenced allowing for a deepened engagement with respective issues.
13.
Paul Furlong and David Marsh, “A Skin Not a Sweater: Ontology and Epistemology in Political Science,” in Theory and Methods in Political Science, eds. David Marsh and Gerry Stoker (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), p. 184.
14.
Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier, “Political Science Methodology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, eds. Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 5. See also Mark Bevir, “Meta-Methodology: Clearing the Underbrush,” in The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, eds. Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 60.
15.
Xuewu Gu, Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen: Einführung (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2018), p. 15.
16.
Furlong and Marsh, “A Skin Not a Sweater,” p. 185.
17.
Gu, Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen, p. 15.
18.
Todd Landman, Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics: An Introduction (Abingdon: Routledge, 2008), p. 17.
19.
Gu, Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen, p. 15.
20.
Furlong and Marsh, “A Skin Not a Sweater,” pp. 189–190.
21.
Furlong and Marsh, “A Skin Not a Sweater,” p. 190.
22.
George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 159; Lakoff’s and Johnson’s emphasis.
23.
Bevir, “Meta-Methodology,” p. 60.
24.
Furlong and Marsh, “A Skin Not a Sweater,” p. 191.
25.
Furlong and Marsh, “A Skin Not a Sweater,” p. 191.
26.
Box-Steffensmeier, Brady, and Collier, “Political Science Methodology,” p. 5.
27.
Gu, Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen, pp. 15-16. See also Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 4.
28.
Furlong and Marsh, “A Skin Not a Sweater,” p. 191; Gu, Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen, pp. 15–16.
29.
Furlong and Marsh, “A Skin Not a Sweater,” p. 199.
30.
Craig Parsons, “Constructivism and Interpretative Theory,” in Theory and Methods in Political Science, eds. David Marsh and Gerry Stoker (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), p. 80.
31.
Furlong and Marsh, “A Skin Not a Sweater,” p. 199; Gu, Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen, pp. 15–16. On socially constructed knowledge claims see also Creswell, Research Design, pp. 8–9.
32.
Richard Ned Lebow, “Social Science and History: Ranchers versus Farmers?,” in Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Relations, eds. Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001), p. 134.
33.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, pp. 4–5.
34.
Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, “Negotiating International History and Politics,” in Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Politics, eds. Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2001), p. 4.
35.
Furlong and Marsh, “A Skin Not a Sweater,” pp. 193–194. See also Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 5.
36.
Lebow, “Social Science and History,” p. 134.
37.
Furlong and Marsh, “A Skin Not a Sweater,” p. 191; Gu, Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen, pp. 15–16.
38.
Furlong and Marsh, “A Skin Not a Sweater,” p. 204.
39.
Furlong and Marsh, “A Skin Not a Sweater,” p. 204.
40.
Martin Hollis and Steven Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), p. 207.
41.
Hollis and Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations, p. 207.
42.
Gilbert H. Harman, “The Inference to the Best Explanation,” Philosophical Review, Vol. 74 (January 1964), pp. 88–89.
43.
See, for example, Peter Lipton, Inference to the Best Explanation (London: Routledge, 2004) and Yemima Ben-Menahem, “The Inference to the Best Explanation,” Erkenntnis, Vol. 33, No. 3 (November 1990), pp. 319–344.
44.
Peter Lipton, “Causation and Explanation,” in The Oxford Handbook of Causation, eds. Helen Beebee, Christopher Hitchcock, Peter Menzies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 628–629.
45.
Arthur Conan Doyle, “The Beryl Coronet,” p. 632. Modified expressions to the same effect appear, frequently almost verbatim, elsewhere in the Holmesian canon, including in 1 of its 4 novels and 2 of its 56 short stories: The Sign of the Four, p. 122; “The Bruce-Partington Plans”, p. 1161; and “The Blanched Soldier,” p. 1268. All page references apply to Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Stories (Ware: Wordsworth Editions Limited, 2007).
46.
Furlong and Marsh, “A Skin Not a Sweater,” p. 205.
47.
Gu, Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen, pp. 14–15.
48.
Furlong and Marsh, “A Skin Not a Sweater,” p. 205.
49.
Furlong and Marsh, “A Skin Not a Sweater,” p. 205.
50.
James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, “Comparative Historical Analysis: Achievements and Agendas,” in Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, eds. James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 15 & 24.
51.
Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. 3.
52.
Philip A. Schrodt, “Beyond the Linear Frequentist Orthodoxy,“ Political Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 3 (2006), pp. 335.
53.
James Mahoney and Gary Goertz, “A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research,” Political Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 3 (2006), p. 227.
54.
Ragin, Constructing Social Research, p. 190.
55.
Carrie Williams, “Research Methods,” Journal of Business & Economic Research, Vol. 5, No. 3 (March 2007), p. 66.
56.
King, Keohane, and Verba, Designing Social Inquiry, p. 3.
57.
Jonathan Hopkin, “The Comparative Method,” in Theory and Methods in Political Science, eds. David Marsh and Gerry Stoker (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), pp. 294–300.
58.
Hancké, “The Challenge of Research Design,” p. 240. See also King, Keohane, and Verba, Designing Social Inquiry, p. 24.
59.
Hopkin, “The Comparative Method,” p. 301.
60.
Charles H. Franklin, “Quantitative Methodology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, eds. Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 797.
61.
Ragin, Constructing Social Research, p. 190.
62.
King, Keohane, and Verba, Designing Social Inquiry, p. 4.
63.
Thomas Geschwend and Frank Schimmelfennig, “Introduction: Designing Research in Political Science – A Dialogue between Theory and Data,” in Research Design in Political Science: How to Practice What They Preach, eds. Thomas Geschwend and Frank Schimmelfennig (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), p. 10. James Mahoney and Gary Goertz provide a tabular overview of differences regarding ten identified criteria (including approaches to explanations, scope, generalization, case selection, etc.); Mahoney and Goertz, “A Tale of Two Cultures,” p. 229.
64.
David Collier and Colin Elman, “Qualitative and Multimethod Research: Organizations, Publications, and Reflections on Integration,” in The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, eds. Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 779.
65.
Ariadne Vromen, “Debating Methods: Rediscovering Qualitative Approaches,” In Theory and Methods in Political Science, eds. David Marsh and Gerry Stoker (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), pp. 252 & 265.
66.
Hubert Knobloch, “Zukunft und Perspektiven qualitativer Forschung,” in Qualitative Forschung: Ein Handbuch, eds. Uwe Flick, Ernst von Kardorff, and Ines Steinke (Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, 2012), pp. 623–624.
67.
Hopkin, “The Comparative Method,” p. 300.
68.
Christian Lüders, “Herausforderungen qualitativer Forschung,” in Qualitative Forschung: Ein Handbuch, eds. Uwe Flick, Ernst von Kardorff, and Ines Steinke (Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, 2012), pp. 632–633.
69.
Hopkin, “The Comparative Method,” p. 306. For further information on integrating both research methods see, for example, James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin, “Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods,” in The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, eds. Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 756–776; Udo Kelle and Christian Erzberger, “Qualitative und quantitative Methoden: Kein Gegensatz,” in Qualitative Forschung: Ein Handbuch, eds. Uwe Flick, Ernst von Kardorff, and Ines Steinke (Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, 2012), pp. 299–309; Norbert Groeben and Ruth Rustemeyer, “On the Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Methodological Paradigms (Bases on the Example of Content Analysis),” in Trends and Perspectives in Empirical Social Research, eds. Ingwer Borg and Peter Ph. Mohler (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1994), pp. 308–326; and Collier and Elman, “Qualitative and Multimethod Research, pp. 779–795.
70.
Creswell, Research Design, pp. 4 & 22. See also R. Burke Johnson and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, “Mixed Method Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come,” Educational Researcher, Vol. 33, No. 7 (October 2004), pp. 14–26.
71.
King, Keohane, and Verba, Designing Social Inquiry, pp. 4–5.
72.
Creswell, Research Design, p. 21.
73.
Gu, Theorien der Internationale Beziehungen, pp. 16–17.
74.
Hopkin, “The Comparative Method,” p. 301.
75.
Vromen, “Debating Methods,” p. 255.
76.
Anselm L. Strauss, Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 2; Strauss’ emphasis.
77.
de Vaus, Research Design in Social Research, p. 2.
78.
Vromen, “Debating Methods,” p. 249.
79.
Charles C. Ragin, “Turning the Tables: How Case-Oriented Research Challenges Variable-Oriented Research,” Comparative Social Research, Vol. 16 (1997), p. 37.
80.
In applying this metaphor, Mahoney and Goertz reference other scholars who have made similar comparisons including Jack A. Goldstone, “Methodological Issues in Comparative Macrosociology,” Comparative Social Research, Vol. 16 (1997), pp. 107–120; Stephen Van Evera, Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science (Ithaca. N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1997); Timothy J. McKeown, “Case Studies and the Statistical Worldview: Review of King, Keohane, and Verba’s Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research,” International Organization, Vol. 53, No. 1 (Winter 1999), pp. 161–190; and Alexander L. George and Andrew Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005), p. 90.
81.
Mahoney and Goertz, “A Tale of Two Cultures,” p. 241.
82.
King, Keohane, and Verba, Designing Social Inquiry, p. 4.
83.
Geschwend and Schimmelfennig, “Introduction,” p. 11.
84.
Vromen, “Debating Methods,” p. 257.
85.
Ragin, Constructing Social Research, p. 190.
86.
Mahoney and Goertz, “A Tale of Two Cultures,” p. 244.
87.
Charles C. Ragin and Lisa M. Amoroso, Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method (Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Pine Forge Press, 2011), p. 115.
88.
Hopkin, “The Comparative Method,” p. 300. See also Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, “Comparative Historical Analysis,” pp. 17–18.
89.
Vromen, “Debating Methods,” p. 255.
90.
Fearon and Laitin, “Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods,” p. 756. See also de Vaus, Research Design in Social Research, p. 237.
91.
Hopkin, “The Comparative Method,” p. 303;
92.
Andreas Dür, “Discriminating Among Rival Explanations: Some Tools for Small-n Researchers,” in Research Design in Political Science: How to Practice What They Preach, eds. Thomas Geschwend and Frank Schimmelfennig (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), pp. 183–184.
93.
Vromen, “Debating Methods,” p. 255. See also James Mahoney and P. Larkin Terrie, “Comparative-Historical Analysis in Contemporary Political Science,” in The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, eds. Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 746; Nathaniel Beck, “Is Causal-Process Observation an Oxymoron?,” Political Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 3 (2006), pp. 347–352; W. Phillips Shively, “Case Selection: Insights from Rethinking Social Inquiry,” Political Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 3 (2006), pp. 344–347; and Fearon and Laitin, “Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods,” p. 773.
94.
Mahoney and Goertz, “A Tale of Two Cultures,” p. 230.
95.
Craig Hayden, “Scope, Mechanism, and Outcome: Arguing Soft Power in the Context of Public Diplomacy,” Journal of International Relations and Development, Vol. 20, No. 2 (2017), p. 349.
96.
Eytan Gilboa, “Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy,” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, Vol. 616, Public Diplomacy in a Changing World, No. 1 (March 2008), p. 70.
97.
Vromen, “Debating Methods,” p. 257.
98.
Vromen, “Debating Methods,” p. 258.
99.
Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York, N.Y.: PublicAffairs, 2004), p. 7.
100.
Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and the Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Edited, with an Introduction, Notes, Marginal Summary and an Enlarged Index by Edwin Cannan, Volume 1 (Methuen & Co.: London, 1904), p. 421. As Emma Rothschild has shown, Smith referred to the metaphor of the “invisible hand” (which can already be found in Ovid’s Metamorphoses or Shakespeare’s Macbeth) in two further works, his History of Astronomy (published in 1795) and The Theory of Moral Sentiments (first published in 1759); Emma Rothschild, “Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand,” The American Economic Review, Vol. 84, No. 2 (May 1994), pp. 319–320.
101.
Ingrid d’Hooghe, The Limits of China’s Soft Power in Europe: Beijing’s Public Diplomacy Puzzle (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael, 2010), p. 12.
102.
Su Changhe, “Soft Power,” in The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, eds. Andrew F. Cooper, Jorge Heine, and Ramesh Thakur (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 551; Su’s emphasis.
103.
Till Geiger, “The Power Game, Soft Power and the International Historian,” in Soft Power and US Foreign Policy: Theoretical, Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, eds. Inderjeet Parmar and Michael Cox (Abingdon: Routledge, 2010), pp. 86–87.
104.
Jaroslaw Ćwiek-Karpowicz, “Limits to Russian Soft Power in the Post-Soviet Area,” in Economization versus Power Ambitions: Rethinking Russia’s Policy towards Post-Soviet States, ed. Stefan Meister (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2013), p. 47.
105.
Christopher B. Whitney and David Shambaugh, “Soft Power in Asia: Results of a 2008 Multinational Survey of Public Opinion,” The Chicago Council on Global Affairs in partnership with the East Asia Institute, Chicago, Ill., 2009, online at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Events/2008/6/17%20east%20asia/0617_east_asia_report.pdf (accessed October 1, 2015).
106.
Ernst & Young, “Rapid-Growth Markets Soft Power Index: Spring 2012,” 2012, online at: http://emergingmarkets.ey.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/05/TBF-606-Emerging-markets-soft-power-index-2012_LR.pdf (accessed October 1, 2015).
107.
Jonathan McClory, “The New Persuaders: An International Ranking of Soft Power,” Institute for Government, London, December 7, 2010, online at: http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/The%20new%20persuaders_0.pdf (accessed October 1, 2015); Jonathan McClory, “The New Persuaders II: A 2011 Global Ranking of Soft Power,” Institute for Government, London, December 1, 2011, online at: http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/The%20New%20PersuadersII_0.pdf (accessed October 1, 2015); Jonathan McClory, “The New Persuaders III: A 2012 Global Ranking of Soft Power,” Institute for Government, London, September 6, 2013, online at: http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/The%20new%20persuaders%20III_0.pdf (accessed October 1, 2015).
108.
Simon Anholt, “Anholt Nation Brands Index: How Does the World See America?,” Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 45, No. 3 (September 2005), pp. 296–304.
109.
Jonathan McClory, “The Soft Power 30: A Global Ranking of Soft Power,” Portland, London, 2015, online at: http://www.comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Report_Final-published.pdf (accessed August 16, 2016).
110.
Jonathan McClory, “The Soft Power 30: A Global Ranking of Soft Power, 2016,” Portland, London, 2016, online at: http://softpower30.portland-communications.com/wp-content/themes/softpower/pdfs/the_soft_power_30.pdf (accessed August 16, 2016).
111.
Jonathan McClory, “The Soft Power 30: A Global Ranking of Soft Power, 2017,” Portland, London, 2017, online at: http://softpower30.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/The-Soft-Power-30-Report-2017-Web-1.pdf (accessed July 30, 2017).
112.
McClory, “The Soft Power 30, 2016,” p. 7.
113.
Quoted in McClory, “The Soft Power 30, 2016,” p. 5.
114.
Blanchard and Lu, “Thinking Hard about Soft Power,” p. 570.
115.
Peter Morriss, Power: A Philosophical Analysis (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), p. 18. See above, Sect. 2.2.
116.
Joseph S. Nye, Jr., “Responding to My Critics and Concluding Thoughts,” in Soft Power and US Foreign Policy: Theoretical, Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, eds. Inderjeet Parmar and Michael Cox (Abingdon: Routledge, 2010), p. 219. See also Edward Lock, “Soft Power and Strategy: Developing a ‘Strategic’ Concept of Power,” in Soft Power and US Foreign Policy: Theoretical, Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, eds. Inderjeet Parmar and Michael Cox (Abingdon: Routledge, 2010), pp. 45–46.
117.
Blanchard and Lu, “Thinking Hard about Soft Power,” p. 582.
118.
Laura Roselle, Alister Miskimmon, and Ben O’Loughlin, “Strategic Narrative: A New Means to Understand Soft Power,” Media, War & Conflict, Vol. 7, No. 1 (2014), p. 71.
119.
Cameron G. Thies, “A Pragmatic Guide to Qualitative Historical Analysis in the Study of International Relations,” International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 3, No. 4 (2002), p. 351.
120.
Jack S. Levy, “Explaining Events and Developing Theories: History, Political Science, and the Analysis of International Relations,” in Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Relations, eds. Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001), p. 45. See also de Vaus, Research Design in Social Research, p. 233.
121.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 7.
122.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 7.
123.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 11.
124.
Levy, “Explaining Events and Developing Theories,” p. 41; see Jack S. Levy, “Too Important to Leave to the Other: History and Political Science in the Study of International Relations,” International Security, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Summer 1997), pp. 22–33.
125.
Joseph S. Nye, Jr., “Old Wars and Future Wars: Causation and Prevention,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Spring 1988), p. 581. See also Paul W. Schroeder, “International History: Why Historians Do it Differently than Political Scientists,” in Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Relations, eds. Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001), pp. 406–407.
126.
Robert Jervis, “International History and International Politics: Why Are They Studied Differently,” in Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Relations, eds. Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001), p. 389.
127.
Nye, “Old Wars and Future Wars,” p. 581.
128.
Elman and Elman, “Negotiating International History and Politics,” p. 16.
129.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 2.
130.
Levy, “Explaining Events and Developing Theories,” p. 82. For democratic peace theory (and its critics) see, for example, Bruce Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994) and Sebastian Rosato, “The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 97, No. 4 (November 2003), pp. 585–602.
131.
Elman and Elman, “Negotiating International History and Politics,” pp. 1 & 28.
132.
Stephen Haber, David M. Kennedy, and Stephen D. Krasner, “Brothers under the Skin: Diplomatic History and International Relations,” International Security, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Summer 1997), p. 34.
133.
Lebow, “Social Science and History,” p. 111.
134.
Elman and Elman, “Negotiating International History and Politics,” pp. 11–27.
135.
Stephen Pelz, “Toward a New Diplomatic History: Two and a Half Cheers for International Relations Methods,” in Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Relations, eds. Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001), p. 110.
136.
Elman and Elman, “Negotiating International History and Politics,” pp. 32–33.
137.
Levy, “Explaining Events and Developing Theories,” p. 76.
138.
Andrew Bennett and Alexander L. George, “Case Studies and Process Tracing in History and Political Science: Similar Strokes for Different Foci,” in Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Relations, eds. Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001), p. 137.
139.
King, Keohane, and Verba, Designing Social Inquiry, pp. 4–5.
140.
Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, “Comparative Historical Analysis,” p. 10. For an elaboration on the decisive features of CHA as identified by Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, see pp. 11–14.
141.
John Gerring, “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 98, No. 2 (May 2004), pp. 351–352.
142.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, pp. 7 & 176.
143.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 182.
144.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, pp. 13–14.
145.
Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, “Comparative Historical Analysis,” p. 6.
146.
Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, “Comparative Historical Analysis,” pp. 10 & 14. See also Mahoney and Terrie, “Comparative-Historical Analysis in Contemporary Political Science,” p. 739.
147.
Kathleen Thelen and James Mahoney, “Comparative-Historical Analysis in Contemporary Political Science,” in Advances in Comparative-Historical Analysis, eds. James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), p. 7.
148.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, pp. 1–2, 23 & 175. For an extend overview of the history of comparative-historical analysis, including prominent proponents and their works, see Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, pp. 22–39. See also Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, “Comparative Historical Analysis,” p. 3; Theda Skocpol, “Doubly Engaged Social Science: The Promise of Comparative Historical Analysis,” in Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, eds. James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 410; and Mahoney and Terrie, “Comparative-Historical Analysis in Contemporary Political Science,” p. 737.
149.
Thelen and Mahoney, “Comparative-Historical Analysis in Contemporary Political Science,” p. 3.
150.
Wolfgang Streeck, “Epilogue: Comparative-Historical Analysis, Past, Present, Future,” in Advances in Comparative-Historical Analysis, eds. James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), p. 276.
151.
Thelen and Mahoney provide an overview of recent examples of award-winning books applying CHA; Thelen and Mahoney, “Comparative-Historical Analysis in Contemporary Political Science,” pp. 28–31.
152.
Skocpol, “Doubly Engaged Social Science,” p. 413.
153.
Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, “Comparative Historical Analysis,” p. 3.
154.
Skocpol, “Doubly Engaged Social Science,” p. 424.
155.
Pavel Osinsky and Jari Eloranta, “Comparative Historical Analysis: Some Insights from Political Transitions of the First Half of the Twentieth Century,” online at: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/events/seminars-workshops-conferences/conferences/conf/eloranta.pdf (accessed September 22, 2015), p. 2. This observation accounts for the fact that today “comparative historical analysis” rather than the previously used “comparative-historical sociology” has become the prevalent designation; Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 2.
156.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 7.
157.
Thelen and Mahoney, “Comparative-Historical Analysis in Contemporary Political Science,” p. 19.
158.
Skocpol, “Doubly Engaged Social Science,” p. 411.
159.
Skocpol, “Doubly Engaged Social Science,” p. 419. See also Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 181.
160.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, pp. 14–15. See also Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, “Comparative Historical Analysis,” p. 6.
161.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, pp. 34–37. See also Edwin Amenta, “Comparative and Historical Research in Comparative and Historical Perspective,” in Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, eds. James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 91.
162.
Osinsky and Eloranta, “Comparative Historical Analysis,” p. 2.
163.
Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, “Comparative Historical Analysis,” p. 4. Mahoney and Rueschemeyer also present a number of (prominent) works applying CHA.
164.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 182.
165.
Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, “Comparative Historical Analysis,” p. 5.
166.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, pp. 1 & 6.
167.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 3.
168.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 5.
169.
Thelen and Mahoney, “Comparative-Historical Analysis in Contemporary Political Science,” p. 5. See also Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 5.
170.
Amenta, “Comparative and Historical Research in Comparative and Historical Perspective,” p. 105.
171.
Skocpol, “Doubly Engaged Social Science,” p. 409. See James B. Rule, Theory and Progress in Social Science (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 45–47.
172.
Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, “Comparative Historical Analysis,” p. 7. See also Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 33.
173.
Charles Tilly, Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons (New York, N.Y.: Russell Sage Foundation, 1984).
174.
Thelen and Mahoney, “Comparative-Historical Analysis in Contemporary Political Science,” pp. 5–6.
175.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 5.
176.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 5. It may arguably be more than mere coincidence that Weber, among the last century’s most influential and prolific sociological, political, or historical scholars, also decisively shaped the concept of charisma; see above, Sect. 3.1.4.
177.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 4.
178.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, pp. 86–87.
179.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, pp. 14 & 178. See also David Collier, “Comparative Historical Analysis: Where Do We Stand?,” Newsletter of the APSA Organized Section in Comparative Politics, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 1998), p. 2 and Jack A. Goldstone, “Comparative Historical Analysis and Knowledge Accumulation in the Study of Revolutions,” in Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, eds. James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 46.
180.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 87.
181.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 95.
182.
Osinsky and Eloranta, “Comparative Historical Analysis,” p. 21.
183.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 149; emphasis added.
184.
Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, “Comparative Historical Analysis,” p. 13.
185.
Dietrich Rueschemeyer, “Can One or a Few Cases Yield Theoretical Gains?,” in Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, eds. James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 305.
186.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 113.
187.
Rueschemeyer, “Can One or a Few Cases Yield Theoretical Gains?,” p. 305.
188.
Goldstone, “Comparative Historical Analysis and Knowledge Accumulation in the Study of Revolutions,” p. 51.
189.
Rueschemeyer, “Can One or a Few Cases Yield Theoretical Gains?,” pp. 307–324 & 332.
190.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 176.
191.
Thelen and Mahoney, “Comparative-Historical Analysis in Contemporary Political Science,” p. 14.
192.
For an overview over these modes of comparison, which at this point shall not be elaborated upon in greater detail, see Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 118.
193.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 96.
194.
Skocpol, “Doubly Engaged Social Science,” p. 419. See also Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 181.
195.
Gilboa, “Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy,” pp. 70 & 72.
196.
Alexander L. George, “Case Studies and Theory Development: The Method of Structured, Focused Comparison,” in Diplomacy: New Approaches in History, Theory, and Policy, ed. Paul Gordon Lauren (New York, N.Y.: Free Press, 1979), pp. 43–68.
197.
George and Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, p. 67. See also Alexander L. George and Timothy J. McKeown, “Case Studies and Theories of Organizational Decision-Making,” Advances in Information Processing in Organizations, Vol. 2 (1995), pp. 41–43.
198.
Levy, “Explaining Events and Developing Theories,” p. 76.
199.
de Vaus, Research Design in Social Research, pp. 224–225; de Vaus’ emphasis.
200.
Gary Goertz and James Mahoney, A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2012), p. 89.
201.
Ulrich Sieberer, “Selecting Independent Variables: Competing Recommendations for Factor-Centric and Outcome-Centric Research Designs,” in Research Design in Political Science: How to Practice What They Preach, eds. Thomas Geschwend and Frank Schimmelfennig (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), p. 163.
202.
Sieberer, “Selecting Independent Variables,” p. 165.
203.
George and Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, p. 71.
204.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 4.
205.
Amenta, “Comparative and Historical Research in Comparative and Historical Perspective,” p. 94.
206.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 176.
207.
George and McKeown, “Case Studies and Theories of Organizational Decision-Making,” p. 23.
208.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 40.
209.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, pp. 4 & 43.
210.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 48. It should be noted that others propose different varieties of within-case methods; Goldstone, “Comparative Historical Analysis and Knowledge Accumulation in the Study of Revolutions,” p. 44. The triad of “pattern matching,” “process tracing,” and “causal narrative,” however, is widely shared; see, for example, James Mahoney, “Strategies of Causal Assessment in Comparative Historical Analysis,” in Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, eds. James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 360–367.
211.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 55.
212.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 42. For a further reference to detective work, see also p. 15.
213.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 4.
214.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 53.
215.
Mahoney, “Strategies of Causal Assessment in Comparative Historical Analysis,” p. 361.
216.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 169.
217.
Bennett and George, “Case Studies and Process Tracing in History and Political Science,” p. 144.
218.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 4; see also p. 48.
219.
Goldstone, “Comparative Historical Analysis and Knowledge Accumulation in the Study of Revolutions,” p. 47.
220.
Bennett and George, “Case Studies and Process Tracing in History and Political Science,” p. 148.
221.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 51. For further literature on the highly influential method see, for example, David Collier, “Understanding Process Tracing,” PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 44, No. 4 (October 2011), pp. 823–830; Andrew Bennett, “Process Tracing: A Bayesian Perspective,” in The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, eds. Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 702–721; David Waldner, “Process Tracing and Causal Mechanisms,” in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Social Science, ed. Harold Kincaid (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 65–84; Bernhard Kittel and David Kuehn, “Introduction: Reassessing the Methodology of Process Tracing,” European Political Science, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2013), pp. 1–9; Pascal Vennesson and Ina Wiesner, “Process Tracing in Case Studies,” in Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Military Studies, eds. Joseph Soeters, Patricia M. Shields, and Sebastiaan Rietjens (London: Routledge, 2014), pp. 92–103; and Andrew Bennett and Jeffrey Checkel, eds., Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).
222.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 51.
223.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 4.
224.
Mahoney, “Strategies of Causal Assessment in Comparative Historical Analysis,” p. 365; see William H. Sewell, Jr., “Three Temporalities: Toward an Eventful Sociology,” in The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences, ed. Terrence J. McDonald (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996).
225.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 117.
226.
Mahoney, “Strategies of Causal Assessment in Comparative Historical Analysis,” p. 365.
227.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 43.
228.
Lawrence Stone, The Past and the Present Revisited (London: Routledge, 1987), p. 74.
229.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 44.
230.
Stone, The Past and the Present Revisited, p. 74.
231.
James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1988), p. ix.
232.
Mahoney, “Strategies of Causal Assessment in Comparative Historical Analysis,” p. 365.
233.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 45.
234.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, pp. 55–57.
235.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, pp. 58–67.
236.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 56.
237.
See, for example, Hancké, “The Challenge of Research Design,” pp. 240–242; de Vaus, Research Design in Social Research, p. 227; Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, “Comparative Historical Analysis,” p. 7; and Thelen and Mahoney, “Comparative-Historical Analysis in Contemporary Political Science,” p. 22.
238.
Yin, Case Study Research, p. 33.
239.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 41.
240.
Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, “Comparative Historical Analysis,” p. 13.
241.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, pp. 41–42.
242.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 144.
243.
Thelen and Mahoney, “Comparative-Historical Analysis in Contemporary Political Science,” p. 22; see Deborah Yashar, Contesting Citizenship in Latin America: The Rise of Indigenous Movements and the Postliberal Challenge (New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
244.
Richard W. Bulliet, “9/11: Landmark or Watershed,” Ten Years after September 11: A Social Science Research Council Essay Forum, online at: http://essays.ssrc.org/10yearsafter911/911-landmark-or-watershed/ (accessed September 24, 2015).
245.
Jay Winik, April 1865: The Month That Saved America (New York, N.Y.: Harper Perennial, 2006), pp. xii-xiii.
246.
Ralph W. Mathisen, People, Personal Expression, and Social Relations in Late Antiquity, Volume II: Selected Latin Texts from Gaul and Western Europe (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 2003), p. 15. See also Andreas Hinz, Zeit als Bildungsaufgabe in theologischer Perspektive (Münster: LIT, 2003), pp. 67–70.
247.
Randall Lesaffer, European Legal History: A Cultural and Political Perspective, Translated by Jan Arriens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 11.
248.
In fact, in the course of the French Revolution, a calendrier républicain français had been introduced and subsequently used for a decade; Matthew Shaw, Time and the French Revolution: The Republican Calendar, 1789-Year XIV (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2011).
249.
See, for example, Ferenc Fehér, ed., The French Revolution and the Birth of Modernity (Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press, 1990); Eli Sagan, Citizens and Cannibals: The French Revolution, the Struggle for Modernity, and the Origins of Ideological Terror (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001); and Noah Schusterman, The French Revolution: Faith, Desire, and Politics (London: Routledge, 2014).
250.
John Lewis Gaddis, The Cold War (London: Penguin Books, 2005), p. 27.
251.
Other dates have been suggested as well; see, for example, John Mueller, “When did the Cold War End?,” Paper Prepared for Delivery at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, Mass., August 29–September 1, 2002.
252.
Christoph Bertram, “US-German Relations in a World at Sea,” Daedalus, Vol. 121, No. 4 (Fall 1992), p. 120.
253.
Lothar Rühl, “Das Ende des Kalten Krieges,” in Neue Dimensionen internationaler Sicherheitspolitik, eds. Reinhard Meier-Walser and Alexander Wolf (München: Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung, 2011), p. 21.
254.
Richard N. Haass, The Reluctant Sheriff: The United States After the Cold War (New York, N.Y.: Council on Foreign Relations, 1997), p. 21.
255.
Linda B. Miller, “The Clinton Years: Reinventing US Foreign Policy?,” International Affairs, Vol. 70, No. 4 (October 1994), p. 622.
256.
Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy (New York, N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 1994), p. 762.
257.
Bertram, “US-German Relations in a World at Sea,” p. 127. The same metaphor of an earthquake is applied in Steven Muller, “Introduction: America and Germany, A New Chapter Opens,” in From Occupation to Cooperation: The United States and United Germany in a Changing World Order, eds. Steven Muller and Gebhard Schweigler (New York, N.Y.: W. W. Norton & Company, 1992), pp. 15–16.
258.
Hans-Peter Schwarz, Republik ohne Kompaß: Anmerkungen zur deutschen Außenpolitik (Berlin: Ullstein, 2005), p. 11.
259.
Hans-Peter Schwarz, “America, Germany, and the Atlantic Community after the Cold War,” in The United States and Germany in the Era of the Cold War, 1945-1990: A Handbook, Volume II: 1968-1990, ed. Detlef Junker, associated editors Philipp Gassert, Wilfried Mausbach, and David B. Morris (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 535.
260.
Andreas Wirsching, Der Preis der Freiheit: Geschichte Europas in unserer Zeit (München: C. H. Beck, 2012), p. 12.
261.
Andreas Rödder, 21.0: Eine kurze Geschichte der Gegenwart (München: C. H. Beck, 2015), p. 339.
262.
Ewan Harrison, The Post-Cold War System: Strategies, Institutions, and Reflexivity (London: Routledge, 2004).
263.
Gebhard Schweigler, “Conclusion: Problems and Prospects for Partners in Leadership,” in From Occupation to Cooperation: The United States and United Germany in a Changing World Order, eds. Steven Muller and Gebhard Schweigler (New York, N.Y.: W. W. Norton & Company, 1992), pp. 227, 243, & 249.
264.
Michael A. McFaul and James M. Goldgeier, “A Tale of Two Worlds: Core and Periphery in the Post-Cold War Era,” International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Spring 1992), pp. 467–491. According to Michael Mandelbaum, the post-Cold War order came to an end with the 2014 Russian invasion in Ukraine; Michael Mandelbaum, Mission Failure: America and the World in the Post-Cold War Era (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2016), pp. 311–366.
265.
Paul H. Nitze, “Visions of Leadership: The United States,” in From Occupation to Cooperation: The United States and United Germany in a Changing World Order, eds. Steven Muller and Gebhard Schweigler (New York, N.Y.: W. W. Norton & Company, 1992), pp. 27 & 46.
266.
Colin L. Powell, “A Strategy of Partnerships,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 83, No. 1 (January/February 2004), p. 28.
267.
See, for example, George H. W. Bush, “Remarks at the Fundraising Dinner for Gubernatorial Candidate Pete Wilson in San Francisco, California,” San Francisco, Cal., February 28, 1990, in Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George Bush, 1990, Book I – January 1 to June 30, 1990 (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1991), p. 289.
268.
Mikhail S. Gorbachev, “End of the Soviet Union: Text of Gorbachev’s Farewell Address,” The New York Times, December 26, 1991, online at: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/26/world/end-of-the-soviet-union-text-of-gorbachev-s-farewell-address.html (accessed September 28, 2015).
269.
John Lewis Gaddis compared the psychological impact of the events not only to December 7, 1941, but also to November 22, 1963, the day President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas; John Lewis Gaddis, Surprise, Security, and the American Experience (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004), p. 2.
270.
Walter LaFeber, “The Rise and Fall of Colin Powell and the Powell Doctrine,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 124, No. 1 (Spring 2009), p. 84.
271.
See, for example, John Dumbrell, “The Neoconservative Roots of the War in Iraq,” in Intelligence and National Security Policymaking on Iraq: British and American Perspectives, eds. James P. Pfiffner and Mark Pythian (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2008), p. 29 and Charles Krauthammer, “The Neoconservative Convergence,” Commentary, Vol. 120, No. 1 (July/August 2005), p. 26.
272.
Additionally, the very concept of soft power was introduced at this particular point in time. However, as we have seen, the concept itself can look back on a long and illustrious tradition and the workings of soft power can be detected throughout the ages.
273.
Yin, Case Study Research, p. 24.
274.
Gerring, “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?,” pp. 341–342.
275.
Peter G. Swanborn, Case Study Research: What, Why and How? (London: SAGE Publications, 2010), p. 13; Swanborn’s emphasis.
276.
Yin, Case Study Research, p. 3.
277.
George and Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, p. 5.
278.
Gerring, “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?,” p. 341; Gerring’s emphasis.
279.
John Gerring, Case Study Research: Principles and Practices (New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 19; Gerring’s emphasis.
280.
George and Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, p. 5.
281.
Wolfgang Schadewaldt, Die Anfänge der Geschichtsschreibung bei den Griechen: Herodot, Thukydides (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1982), pp. 306–307.
282.
This tradition harks back to Cicero; M. Tullius Cicero, Über die Gesetze: De Legibus/Stoische Paradoxien: Paradoxa Stoicum, Edited, Translated, and Annotated by Rainer Nickel (München: Artemis & Winkler, 1994), p. 11 (Cic. Leg. I, 5); Hegel, for example, likewise considers Herodotus the father of history; Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1961), p. 41. For two recent studies on the perception of Thucydides through the centuries, see Katherine Harloe and Neville Morley, eds. Thucydides and the Modern World: Reception, Reinterpretation and Influence from Renaissance to the Present (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) and Klaus Meister, Thukydides als Vorbild der Historiker: Von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2013).
283.
Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, A New Translation by Martin Hammond (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 13 (Thuc. I, 23).
284.
George and Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, p. 5.
285.
John H. Herz, “Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma,” World Politics, Vol. 2, No. 2 (January 1950), p. 157. See also Gaddis, The Cold War, p. 27.
286.
Yin, Case Study Research, pp. 7–8. See also Rueschemeyer, “Can One or a Few Cases Yield Theoretical Gains?,” p. 307 and Gerring, “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?,” p. 341.
287.
Graham Allison, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston, Mass.: Little Brown, 1971).
288.
William F. Whyte, Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum (Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chicago Press, 1943).
289.
Yin, Case Study Research, pp. 7–8. Further famous case studies are mentioned, for example, in Rueschemeyer, “Can One or a Few Cases Yield Theoretical Gains?,” pp. 307–310 as well as in Gerring, “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?,” p. 341.
290.
George and Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, p. 5.
291.
George and Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, p. 68.
292.
de Vaus, Research Design in Social Research, p. 219.
293.
Gerring, “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?,” p. 341.
294.
Yin, Case Study Research, p. 4; Robert K. Yin, Applications of Case Study Research (Los Angeles, Cal.: SAGE Publications, 2012), pp. 4–5.
295.
Gilboa, “Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy,” p. 56.
296.
Dirk Leuffen, “Case Selection and Selection Bias in Small-n Research,” in Research Design in Political Science: How to Practice What They Preach, eds. Thomas Geschwend and Frank Schimmelfennig (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), p. 158. See also Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, pp. 41–42 and Hancké, “The Challenge of Research Design,” p. 240.
297.
King, Keohane, and Verba, Designing Social Inquiry, p. 128. See also Hans Merkens, “Auswahlverfahren, Sampling, Fallkonstruktion,” in Qualitative Forschung: Ein Handbuch, eds. Uwe Flick, Ernst von Kardorff, and Ines Steinke (Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, 2012), p. 287.
298.
Leuffen, “Case Selection and Selection Bias in Small-n Research,” p. 158.
299.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 148.
300.
Leuffen, “Case Selection and Selection Bias in Small-n Research,” p. 145.
301.
John Gerring, “Case Selection for Case-Study Analysis: Qualitative and Quantitative Techniques,” in The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, eds. Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 645.
302.
Mahoney and Goertz, “A Tale of Two Cultures,” pp. 229 & 239; Gerring, “Case Selection for Case-Study Analysis,” p. 645; King, Keohane, and Verba, Designing Social Inquiry, p. 124; Leuffen, “Case Selection and Selection Bias in Small-n Research,” p. 145.
303.
Gerring, “Case Selection for Case-Study Analysis,” p. 645. Gerring offers a tabular overview of some of these techniques on pp. 647–648.
304.
Leuffen, “Case Selection and Selection Bias in Small-n Research,” p. 147.
305.
Benoît Rihoux, “Case-Oriented Configurational Research: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), and Related Techniques,” in The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, eds. Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 723.
306.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, pp. 158–160; Janina Thiem, “Dealing Effectively with Selection Bias in Large-n Research,” in Research Design in Political Science: How to Practice What They Preach, eds. Thomas Geschwend and Frank Schimmelfennig (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), p. 130.
307.
Hancké, “The Challenge of Research Design,” p. 240.
308.
Nye, “Responding to My Critics and Concluding Thoughts,” p. 220.
309.
Carl von Clausewitz, On War, Translated by Colonel J. J. Graham. New and Revised Edition with Introduction and Notes by Colonel F. N. Maude, Volume 2 (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1918), p. 2.
310.
See, for example, Peter R. Mansoor, “US Grand Strategy in the Second World War,” in Successful Strategies: Triumphing in War and Peace from Antiquity to Present, eds. Williamson Murray and Richard Hart Sinnreich (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 346.
311.
See, for example, Steven Lukes, “Power and the Battle for the Hearts and Minds,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3 (2005), pp. 477–493; Gilboa, “Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy,” p. 55; Jan Melissen, “The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice,” in The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, ed. Jan Melissen (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), p. 4; and Alexander T. J. Lennon, ed., The Battle for Hearts and Minds: Using Soft Power to Undermine Terrorist Networks (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003); emphasis added.
312.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 41.
313.
Osinsky and Eloranta, “Comparative Historical Analysis,” p. 1; Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, “Comparative Historical Analysis,” p. 14.
314.
Gerring, “Case Selection for Case-Study Analysis,” pp. 645–684; esp. 647–648. See also Jason Seawright and John Gerring, “Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options,” Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 2 (June 2008), pp. 294–308; esp. 297–298.
315.
Mahoney and Goertz, “A Tale of Two Cultures,” p. 242.
316.
Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, “Comparative Historical Analysis,” p. 13; emphasis added.
317.
Gerring, “Case Selection for Case-Study Analysis,” p. 679.
318.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 152. See Harry Eckstein, “Case Selection and Theory in Political Science,” in Handbook of Political Science, Volume 7. Political Science: Scope and Theory, eds. Fred Greenstein and Nelson Polsby (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975).
319.
Goldstone, “Comparative Historical Analysis and Knowledge Accumulation in the Study of Revolutions,” pp. 45-46.
320.
Gerring, “Case Selection for Case-Study Analysis,” p. 679; Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 151. The selection of data sources will be discussed below; see Sect. 4.5.
321.
Gerring, “Case Selection for Case-Study Analysis,” p. 679.
322.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 151.
323.
Gerring, “Case Selection for Case-Study Analysis,” p. 679.
324.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 151.
325.
Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, “Comparative Historical Analysis,” p. 14.
326.
Although, as has been argued above, the taxonomy of soft power does not dictate such an approach and a variety of different actor types may be selected, empirical examples in the following refer to nation states for the sake of simplicity.
327.
Artem Patalakh, “Assessment of Soft Power Strategies: Towards an Aggregative Analytical Model for Country-Focused Case Study Research,” Croatian International Relations Review, Vol. 22, No. 76 (2016), pp. 100–103.
328.
Amenta, “Comparative and Historical Research in Comparative and Historical Perspective,” p. 93.
329.
Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, “Comparative Historical Analysis,” p. 15; emphasis added.
330.
Jeffrey Haydu, “Making Use of the Past: Time Periods as Cases to Compare and as Sequences of Problem Solving,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 104, No. 2 (September 1998), p. 340.
331.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 58; emphasis added.
332.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 58.
333.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 8.
334.
Tulia G. Falleti and James Mahoney, “The Comparative Sequential Method,” in Advances in Comparative-Historical Analysis, eds. James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), p. 235.
335.
Gerring, “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?,” p. 343.
336.
Gerring, “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?,” p. 344.
337.
Ira Katznelson, “Periodization and Preferences: Reflections on Purposive Action in Comparative Historical Social Science,” in Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, eds. James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 289.
338.
Paul Pierson, “Big, Slow-Moving, and … Invisible: Macrosocial Processes in the Study of Comparative Politics,” in Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, eds. James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 179.
339.
See, for example, Henry Thompson Rowell, Rome in the Augustan Age (Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1962). For a classical reference to this designation, see C. Suetonius Tranquillus, Die Kaiserviten: De Vita Caesarum/Berühmte Männer: De Viris Illustribus, Edited and Translated by Hans Martinet (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2014), p. 315 (Suet. Aug. 100).
340.
See, for example, Curtis C. Breight, Surveillance, Militarism and Drama in the Elizabethan Era (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1996).
341.
See, for example, Ruth Glatzer, ed., Das Wilhelminische Berlin: Panorama einer Metropole, 1890-1918 (Berlin: Siedler, 1997).
342.
Mathisen, People, Personal Expression, and Social Relations in Late Antiquity, Volume II, pp. 14–15.
343.
However, not incomparable to the Roman ab urbe condita or the French Revolutionary Calendar, U.S. presidential proclamations frequently refer to the independence of the United States as a starting date for time reckoning. In proclaiming “Flag Day and National Flag Week” on June 11, 1977, Jimmy Carter hence (to just offer one example of this practice) declared, “In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this eleventh day of June in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred seventy-seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and first;” Jimmy Carter, “Flag Day and National Flag Week, 1977,” Proclamation 4508, June 11, 1977, in Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Jimmy Carter, 1977, Book I – January 20 to June 24, 1977 (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1977), p. 1098; emphasis added.
344.
See, for example, Richard Polenberg, The Era of Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933-1945: A Brief History with Documents (New York, N.Y.: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000).
345.
See, for example, Asa McKercher, Camelot and Canada: Canadian-American Relations in the Kennedy Era (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2016).
346.
See, for example, Doug Rossinow, The Reagan Era: A History of the 1980s (New York, N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 2015).
347.
Bob Woodward, The Choice (New York, N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 1996), p. 11.
348.
James Petras, “US-Venezuela Relations: A Case Study of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism,” Voltaire Network, October 22, 2013, online at: http://www.voltairenet.org/article180663.html#nb1 (accessed September 30, 2015).
349.
Lucas Pettersson, “Changing Images of the USA in German Media Discourse During Four American Presidencies,” International Journal of Cultural Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1 (2011), pp. 35–51.
350.
Bastiaan van Apeldoorn and Naná de Graaff, “Corporate Elite Networks and US Post-Cold War Grand Strategy from Clinton to Obama,” European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 20, No. 1 (2012), pp. 29–55; Bastiaan van Apeldoorn and Naná de Graaff. American Grand Strategy and Corporate Elite Networks: The Open Door Since the End of the Cold War (London: Routledge, 2016).
351.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, pp. 5–6.
352.
See above, Sect. 3.1.1.
353.
Ernst-Otto Czempiel, Weltpolitik im Umbruch: Die Pax Americana, der Terrorismus und die Zukunft der internationalen Beziehungen (München: C. H. Beck, 2002), p. 97.
354.
Duncan Watts, British Government and Politics: A Comparative Guide (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012), pp. 115 & 154.
355.
Margret G. Hermann and Thomas Preston, “Presidents, Advisers, and Foreign Policy: The Effect of Leadership Style on Executive Arrangements,” Political Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 1, Special Issue: Political Psychology and the Work of Alexander L. George (March 1994), pp. 75–96; David Mitchell, “Does Context Matter: Advisory Systems and the Management of the Foreign Policy Decision-Making Process,” Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 4 (December 2010), pp. 631–659.
356.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, pp. 140 & 143.
357.
Michael S. Lewis-Beck, “Data,” in The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods: Volume 1, eds. Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Alan Bryman and Tim Futing Liao (Thousand Oaks, Cal.: SAGE Publications, 2004), p. 234; Lewis-Beck’s emphasis.
358.
See above, Chap. 3 and Sect. 4.2.2.
359.
Lewis-Beck, “Data,” p. 234.
360.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 141.
361.
Quoted in James M. Shiveley and Phillip J. VanFossen, Using Internet Primary Sources to Teach Critical Thinking Skills in Government, Economics, and Contemporary World Issues (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2000), p. 17.
362.
Vromen, “Debating Methods,” pp. 261–262.
363.
Strauss, Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, p. 1. For a discussion of different sources, see also Yin, Case Study Research, pp. 103–130 and Yin, Applications of Case Study Research, pp. 10–13.
364.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 141.
365.
Vromen, “Debating Methods,” pp. 258–259; Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 142.
366.
Mahoney and Goertz, “A Tale of Two Cultures,” p. 245.
367.
Lewis-Beck, “Data,” p. 234.
368.
Goldstone, “Comparative Historical Analysis and Knowledge Accumulation in the Study of Revolutions,” p. 49.
369.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 142.
370.
Levy, “Explaining Events and Developing Theories,” p. 59.
371.
Collier, “Comparative Historical Analysis,” p. 4.
372.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 145.
373.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, p. 172.
374.
Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods, pp. 142–143. For example, the published collection of transcripts of tapes recorded in the White House during the Cuban Missile Crisis not only includes transcriptions of said tapes but also interpretations and analyses by the editors; Ernest R. May and Philip D. Zelikow, eds., The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis (New York, N.Y.: W. W. Norton & Co, 2002).
375.
Jack Shafer, “Who Said It First: Journalism Is the ‘First Rough Draft of History,’” Slate, August 30, 2010, online at: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2010/08/who_said_it_first.html (accessed September 2, 2017).
376.
Arthur Conan Doyle, “The Bruce-Partington Plans,” p. 1155. A similar statement can be found in Arthur Conan Doyle, “The Devil’s Foot,” p. 1209. Again, pages refer to Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Stories (Ware: Wordsworth Editions Limited, 2007).
377.
Robert Frost, “The Road Not Taken,” in The Road Not Taken and Other Poems (New York, N.Y.: Dover Publications, 1993), p. 1.

References

Allison, Graham. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston, Mass.: Little Brown, 1971.
Google Scholar
Amenta, Edwin. “Comparative and Historical Research in Comparative and Historical Perspective.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, pp. 91–130. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Chapter Google Scholar
Anholt, Simon. “Anholt Nation Brands Index: How Does the World See America?.” Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 45, No. 3 (September 2005), pp. 296–304.
Article Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel. “Is Causal-Process Observation an Oxymoron?” Political Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 3 (2006), pp. 347–352.
Article Google Scholar
Ben-Menahem, Yemima. “The Inference to the Best Explanation.” Erkenntnis, Vol. 33, No. 3 (November 1990), pp. 319–344.
Article Google Scholar
Bennett, Andrew and Alexander L. George. “Case Studies and Process Tracing in History and Political Science: Similar Strokes for Different Foci.” In Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Relations, edited by Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, pp. 137–166. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001.
Google Scholar
Bennett, Andrew and Jeffrey Checkel, eds. Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Google Scholar
Bennett, Andrew. “Process Tracing: A Bayesian Perspective.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier, pp. 702–721. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Google Scholar
Bertram, Christoph. “US-German Relations in a World at Sea.” Daedalus, Vol. 121, No. 4 (Fall 1992), pp. 119–128.
Google Scholar
Bevir, Mark. “Meta-Methodology: Clearing the Underbrush.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier, pp. 48–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Google Scholar
Blanchard Jean-Marc F. and Fujia Lu. “Thinking Hard about Soft Power: A Review and Critique of the Literature on China and Soft Power.” Asian Perspective Vol. 36, No. 4 (2012), pp. 565–589.
Article Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Henry E. Brady, and David Collier. “Political Science Methodology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier, pp. 3–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Google Scholar
Breight, Curtis C. Surveillance, Militarism and Drama in the Elizabethan Era. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1996.
Google Scholar
Bulliet, Richard W. “9/11: Landmark or Watershed.” Ten Years after September 11: A Social Science Research Council Essay Forum. Online at: http://essays.ssrc.org/10yearsafter911/911-landmark-or-watershed/ (accessed September 24, 2015).
Bush, George H. W. “Remarks at the Fundraising Dinner for Gubernatorial Candidate Pete Wilson in San Francisco, California.” San Francisco, Cal., February 28, 1990. In Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George Bush, 1990, Book I – January 1 to June 30, 1990, pp. 288–291. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1991.
Google Scholar
Carter, Jimmy. “Flag Day and National Flag Week, 1977.” Proclamation 4508, June 11, 1977. In Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Jimmy Carter, 1977, Book I – January 20 to June 24, 1977, pp. 1097–1098. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1977.
Google Scholar
Cicero, M. Tullius. Über die Gesetze: De Legibus/Stoische Paradoxien: Paradoxa Stoicum. Edited, Translated, and Annotated by Rainer Nickel. München: Artemis & Winkler, 1994 (Cic. Leg./Cic. Parad.).
Google Scholar
Clausewitz, Carl von. On War. Translated by Colonel J. J. Graham. New and Revised Edition with Introduction and Notes by Colonel F. N. Maude, Volume 2. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1918.
Google Scholar
Collier, David. “Comparative Historical Analysis: Where Do We Stand?.” Newsletter of the APSA Organized Section in Comparative Politics, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 1998), pp. 1–2 & 4–5.
Google Scholar
Collier, David. “Understanding Process Tracing.” PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 44, No. 4 (October 2011), pp. 823–830.
Google Scholar
Collier, David and Colin Elman. “Qualitative and Multimethod Research: Organizations, Publications, and Reflections on Integration.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier, pp. 779–795. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Google Scholar
Creswell, John W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, Cal.: SAGE Publications, 2003.
Google Scholar
Ćwiek-Karpowicz, Jaroslaw. “Limits to Russian Soft Power in the Post-Soviet Area.” In Economization versus Power Ambitions: Rethinking Russia’s Policy towards Post-Soviet States, edited by Stefan Meister, pp. 47–58. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2013.
Chapter Google Scholar
Czempiel, Ernst-Otto. Weltpolitik im Umbruch: Die Pax Americana, der Terrorismus und die Zukunft der internationalen Beziehungen. München: C. H. Beck, 2002.
Google Scholar
D’Hooghe, Ingrid. The Limits of China’s Soft Power in Europe: Beijing’s Public Diplomacy Puzzle. The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael, 2010.
Google Scholar
de Vaus, David. Research Design in Social Research. London: SAGE Publications, 2001.
Google Scholar
Doyle, Arthur Conan. Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Stories. Ware: Wordsworth Editions Limited, 2007.
Google Scholar
Dumbrell, John. “The Neoconservative Roots of the War in Iraq.” In Intelligence and National Security Policymaking on Iraq: British and American Perspectives, edited by James P. Pfiffner and Mark Pythian, pp. 19–39. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2008.
Google Scholar
Dür, Andreas. “Discriminating Among Rival Explanations: Some Tools for Small-n Researchers.” In Research Design in Political Science: How to Practice What They Preach, edited by Thomas Geschwend and Frank Schimmelfennig, pp. 183–200. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
Google Scholar
Eckstein, Harry. “Case Selection and Theory in Political Science.” In Handbook of Political Science, Volume 7. Political Science: Scope and Theory, edited by Fred Greenstein and Nelson Polsby, pp. 94–137. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975.
Google Scholar
Elman, Colin and Miriam Fendius Elman. “Negotiating International History and Politics.” In Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Relations, edited by Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, pp. 1–36. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001.
Google Scholar
Ernst & Young. “Rapid-Growth Markets Soft Power Index: Spring 2012.” 2012. Online at: http://emergingmarkets.ey.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/05/TBF-606-Emerging-markets-soft-power-index-2012_LR.pdf (accessed October 1, 2015).
Falleti, Tulia G. and James Mahoney. “The Comparative Sequential Method.” In Advances in Comparative-Historical Analysis, edited by James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen, pp. 211–239. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Chapter Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. and David D. Laitin. “Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier, pp. 756–776. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Google Scholar
Fehér, Ferenc, ed. The French Revolution and the Birth of Modernity. Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press, 1990.
Google Scholar
Flick, Uwe. “Design und Prozess qualitativer Forschung.” In Qualitative Forschung: Ein Handbuch, edited by Uwe Flick, Ernst von Kardorff, and Ines Steinke, pp. 252–265. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, 2012.
Google Scholar
Franklin, Charles H. “Quantitative Methodology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier, pp. 796–813. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Google Scholar
Frost, Robert. “The Road Not Taken.” In The Road Not Taken and Other Poems (New York, N.Y.: Dover Publications, 1993), p. 1.
Google Scholar
Furlong, Paul and David Marsh. “A Skin Not a Sweater: Ontology and Epistemology in Political Science.” In Theory and Methods in Political Science, edited by David Marsh and Gerry Stoker, pp. 184–211. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
Chapter Google Scholar
Gaddis, John Lewis. Surprise, Security, and the American Experience. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004.
Google Scholar
Gaddis, John Lewis. The Cold War. London: Penguin Books, 2005.
Google Scholar
Geiger, Till. “The Power Game, Soft Power and the International Historian.” In Soft Power and US Foreign Policy: Theoretical, Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Inderjeet Parmar and Michael Cox, pp. 83–107. Abingdon: Routledge, 2010.
Google Scholar
George, Alexander L. “Case Studies and Theory Development: The Method of Structured, Focused Comparison.” In Diplomacy: New Approaches in History, Theory, and Policy, edited by Paul Gordon Lauren, pp. 43–68. New York, N.Y.: Free Press, 1979.
Google Scholar
George, Alexander L. and Andrew Bennett. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005.
Google Scholar
George, Alexander L. and Timothy J. McKeown. “Case Studies and Theories of Organizational Decision-Making.” Advances in Information Processing in Organizations, Vol. 2 (1995), pp. 21–58.
Google Scholar
Gerring, John. “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?” American Political Science Review, Vol. 98, No. 2 (May 2004), pp. 341–354.
Article Google Scholar
Gerring, John. “Case Selection for Case-Study Analysis: Qualitative and Quantitative Techniques.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier, pp. 645–684. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Google Scholar
Gerring, John. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Google Scholar
Geschwend, Thomas and Frank Schimmelfennig. “Introduction: Designing Research in Political Science – A Dialogue between Theory and Data.” In Research Design in Political Science: How to Practice What They Preach, edited by Thomas Geschwend and Frank Schimmelfennig, pp. 1–18. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
Google Scholar
Gilboa, Eytan. “Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 616, Public Diplomacy in a Changing World (March 2008), pp. 55–77.
Google Scholar
Glatzer, Ruth, ed. Das Wilhelminische Berlin: Panorama einer Metropole, 1890–1918. Berlin: Siedler, 1997.
Google Scholar
Goldstone, Jack A. “Methodological Issues in Comparative Macrosociology.” Comparative Social Research, Vol. 16 (1997), pp. 107–120.
Google Scholar
Goldstone, Jack A. “Comparative Historical Analysis and Knowledge Accumulation in the Study of Revolutions.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, pp. 41–90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Chapter Google Scholar
Gorbachev, Mikhail S. “End of the Soviet Union: Text of Gorbachev’s Farewell Address.” The New York Times, December 26, 1991. Online at: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/26/world/end-of-the-soviet-union-text-of-gorbachev-s-farewell-address.html (accessed September 28, 2015).
Groeben, Norbert and Ruth Rustemeyer. “On the Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Methodological Paradigms (Bases on the Example of Content Analysis).” In Trends and Perspectives in Empirical Social Research, edited by Ingwer Borg and Peter Ph. Mohler, pp. 308–326. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1994.
Google Scholar
Gu, Xuewu. Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen: Einführung. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 2018.
Book Google Scholar
Haass, Richard N. The Reluctant Sheriff: The United States After the Cold War. New York, N.Y.: Council on Foreign Relations, 1997.
Google Scholar
Haber, Stephen, David M. Kennedy, and Stephen D. Krasner. “Brothers under the Skin: Diplomatic History and International Relations.” International Security, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Summer 1997), pp. 34–43.
Article Google Scholar
Hancké, Bob. “The Challenge of Research Design.” In Theory and Methods in Political Science, edited by David Marsh and Gerry Stoker, pp. 232–248. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
Chapter Google Scholar
Harloe, Katherine and Neville Morley, eds. Thucydides and the Modern World: Reception, Reinterpretation and Influence from Renaissance to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert H. “The Inference to the Best Explanation.” Philosophical Review, Vol. 74 (January 1964), pp. 88–95.
Article Google Scholar
Harrison, Ewan. The Post-Cold War System: Strategies, Institutions, and Reflexivity. London: Routledge, 2004.
Book Google Scholar
Hayden, Craig. “Scope, Mechanism, and Outcome: Arguing Soft Power in the Context of Public Diplomacy.” Journal of International Relations and Development, Vol. 20, No. 2 (2017), pp. 331–357.
Article Google Scholar
Haydu, Jeffrey. “Making Use of the Past: Time Periods as Cases to Compare and as Sequences of Problem Solving.” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 104, No. 2 (September 1998), pp. 339–371.
Article Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg Friedrich Wilhelm. Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1961.
Google Scholar
Hermann, Margret G. and Thomas Preston. “Presidents, Advisers, and Foreign Policy: The Effect of Leadership Style on Executive Arrangements.” Political Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 1, Special Issue: Political Psychology and the Work of Alexander L. George (March 1994), pp. 75–96.
Google Scholar
Herz, John H. “Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma.” World Politics, Vol. 2, No. 2 (January 1950), pp. 157–180.
Article Google Scholar
Hinz, Andreas. Zeit als Bildungsaufgabe in theologischer Perspektive. Münster: LIT, 2003.
Google Scholar
Hollis, Martin and Steven Smith. Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.
Google Scholar
Hopkin, Jonathan. “The Comparative Method.” In Theory and Methods in Political Science, edited by David Marsh and Gerry Stoker, pp. 285–307. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
Chapter Google Scholar
Horace (Q. Horatius Flaccus). The Odes of Horace: Books III and IV, with the Carmen Seculare and the Epodes. Translated by A. Hamilton Bryce. London: George Bell and Sons, 1909.
Google Scholar
Horaz (Q. Horatius Flaccus). “Carmina/Oden.” In Sämtliche Werke: Teil I, Oden und Epoden. Edited by Hans Färber after Kayser, Nordenflycht, and Burger, pp. 6–219. München: Ernst Heimeran Verlag, 1960 (Hor. Carm.).
Google Scholar
Jervis, Robert. “International History and International Politics: Why Are They Studied Differently.” In Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Relations, edited by Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, pp. 387–402. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001.
Google Scholar
Johnson, R. Burke and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie. “Mixed Method Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come.” Educational Researcher, Vol. 33, No. 7 (October 2004), pp. 14–26.
Article Google Scholar
Katznelson, Ira. “Periodization and Preferences: Reflections on Purposive Action in Comparative Historical Social Science.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, pp. 270–301. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Chapter Google Scholar
Kelle, Udo and Christian Erzberger. “Qualitative und quantitative Methoden: Kein Gegensatz.” In Qualitative Forschung: Ein Handbuch, edited by Uwe Flick, Ernst von Kardorff, and Ines Steinke, pp. 299–309. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, 2012.
Google Scholar
King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994.
Google Scholar
Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy. New York, N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 1994.
Google Scholar
Kittel, Bernhard and David Kuehn. “Introduction: Reassessing the Methodology of Process Tracing.” European Political Science, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2013), pp. 1–9.
Article Google Scholar
Knobloch, Hubert. “Zukunft und Perspektiven qualitativer Forschung.” In Qualitative Forschung: Ein Handbuch, edited by Uwe Flick, Ernst von Kardorff, and Ines Steinke, pp. 623–632. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, 2012.
Google Scholar
Krauthammer, Charles. “The Neoconservative Convergence.” Commentary, Vol. 120, No. 1 (July/August 2005), pp. 21–26.
Google Scholar
LaFeber, Walter. “The Rise and Fall of Colin Powell and the Powell Doctrine.” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 124, No. 1 (Spring 2009), pp. 71–93.
Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Google Scholar
Landman, Todd. Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics: An Introduction. Abingdon: Routledge, 2008.
Google Scholar
Lange, Matthew. Comparative-Historical Methods. Los Angeles, Cal.: SAGE Publications, 2013.
Google Scholar
Lebow, Richard Ned. “Social Science and History: Ranchers versus Farmers?.” In Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Relations, edited by Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, pp. 112–135. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001.
Google Scholar
Lennon, Alexander T. J., ed. The Battle for Hearts and Minds: Using Soft Power to Undermine Terrorist Networks. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003.
Google Scholar
Lesaffer, Randall. European Legal History: A Cultural and Political Perspective. Translated by Jan Arriens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Google Scholar
Leuffen, Dirk. “Case Selection and Selection Bias in Small-n Research.” In Research Design in Political Science: How to Practice What They Preach, edited by Thomas Geschwend and Frank Schimmelfennig, pp. 145–161. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
Chapter Google Scholar
Levy, Jack S. “Too Important to Leave to the Other: History and Political Science in the Study of International Relations.” International Security, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Summer 1997), pp. 22–33.
Article Google Scholar
Levy, Jack S. “Explaining Events and Developing Theories: History, Political Science, and the Analysis of International Relations.” In Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Relations, edited by Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, pp. 39–83. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001.
Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. “Data.” In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods: Volume 1, edited by Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Alan Bryman and Tim Futing Liao, p. 234. Thousand Oaks, Cal.: SAGE Publications, 2004.
Google Scholar
Lipton, Peter. Inference to the Best Explanation. London: Routledge, 2004.
Google Scholar
Lipton, Peter. “Causation and Explanation.” In The Oxford Handbook of Causation, edited by Helen Beebee, Christopher Hitchcock, Peter Menzies, pp. 619–631. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Google Scholar
Lock, Edward. “Soft Power and Strategy: Developing a ‘Strategic’ Concept of Power.” In Soft Power and US Foreign Policy: Theoretical, Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Inderjeet Parmar and Michael Cox, pp. 32–50. Abingdon: Routledge, 2010.
Google Scholar
Lüders, Christian. “Herausforderungen qualitativer Forschung.” In Qualitative Forschung: Ein Handbuch, edited by Uwe Flick, Ernst von Kardorff, and Ines Steinke, pp. 632–642. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, 2012.
Google Scholar
Lukes, Steven. “Power and the Battle for the Hearts and Minds.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3 (2005), pp. 477–493.
Article Google Scholar
Mahoney, James. “Strategies of Causal Assessment in Comparative Historical Analysis.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, pp. 337–372. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Google Scholar
Mahoney, James and Gary Goertz. “A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research.” Political Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 3 (2006), pp. 227–249.
Article Google Scholar
Mahoney, James and Gary Goertz. A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2012.
Google Scholar
Mahoney, James and Dietrich Rueschemeyer. “Comparative Historical Analysis: Achievements and Agendas.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, pp. 3–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Chapter Google Scholar
Mahoney, James and P. Larkin Terrie. “Comparative-Historical Analysis in Contemporary Political Science.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier, pp. 737–755. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Google Scholar
Mandelbaum, Michael. Mission Failure: America and the World in the Post-Cold War Era. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Google Scholar
Mansoor, Peter R. “US Grand Strategy in the Second World War.” In Successful Strategies: Triumphing in War and Peace from Antiquity to Present, edited by Williamson Murray and Richard Hart Sinnreich, pp. 314–352. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Google Scholar
Mathisen, Ralph W. People, Personal Expression, and Social Relations in Late Antiquity, Volume II: Selected Latin Texts from Gaul and Western Europe. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 2003.
Google Scholar
May, Ernest R. and Philip D. Zelikow, eds. The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York, N.Y.: W. W. Norton & Co, 2002.
Google Scholar
McClory, Jonathan. “The New Persuaders: An International Ranking of Soft Power.” Institute for Government, London, December 7, 2010. Online at: http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/The%20new%20persuaders_0.pdf (accessed October 1, 2015).
McClory, Jonathan. “The New Persuaders II: A 2011 Global Ranking of Soft Power.” Institute for Government, London, December 1, 2011. Online at: http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/The%20New%20PersuadersII_0.pdf (accessed October 1, 2015).
McClory, Jonathan. “The New Persuaders III: A 2012 Global Ranking of Soft Power.” Institute for Government, London, September 6, 2013. Online at: http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/The%20new%20persuaders%20III_0.pdf (accessed October 1, 2015).
McClory, Jonathan. “The Soft Power 30: A Global Ranking of Soft Power.” Portland, London, 2015. Online at: http://www.comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Report_Final-published.pdf (accessed August 16, 2016).
McClory, Jonathan. “The Soft Power 30: A Global Ranking of Soft Power, 2016.” Portland, London, 2016. Online at: http://softpower30.portland-communications.com/wp-content/themes/softpower/pdfs/the_soft_power_30.pdf (accessed August 16, 2016).
McClory, Jonathan. “The Soft Power 30: A Global Ranking of Soft Power, 2017.” Portland, London, 2017. Online at: http://softpower30.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/The-Soft-Power-30-Report-2017-Web-1.pdf (accessed July 30, 2017).
McFaul, Michael A. and James M. Goldgeier. “A Tale of Two Worlds: Core and Periphery in the Post-Cold War Era.” International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Spring 1992), pp. 467–491.
Article Google Scholar
McKeown, Timothy J. “Case Studies and the Statistical Worldview: Review of King, Keohane, and Verba’s Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research.” International Organization, Vol. 53, No. 1 (Winter 1999), pp. 161–190.
Article Google Scholar
McKercher, Asa. Camelot and Canada: Canadian-American Relations in the Kennedy Era. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Google Scholar
McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Google Scholar
Meister, Klaus. Thukydides als Vorbild der Historiker: Von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2013.
Book Google Scholar
Melissen, Jan. “The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice.” In The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, edited by Jan Melissen, pp. 3–27. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
Chapter Google Scholar
Merkens, Hans. “Auswahlverfahren, Sampling, Fallkonstruktion.” In Qualitative Forschung: Ein Handbuch, edited by Uwe Flick, Ernst von Kardorff, and Ines Steinke, pp. 286–299. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, 2012.
Google Scholar
Miller, Linda B. “The Clinton Years: Reinventing US Foreign Policy?.” International Affairs, Vol. 70, No. 4 (October 1994), pp. 621–634.
Article Google Scholar
Mitchell, David. “Does Context Matter: Advisory Systems and the Management of the Foreign Policy Decision-Making Process.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 4 (December 2010), pp. 631–659.
Article Google Scholar
Morriss, Peter. Power: A Philosophical Analysis. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002.
Google Scholar
Mueller, John. “When did the Cold War End?.” Paper Prepared for Delivery at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, Mass., August 29–September 1, 2002.
Google Scholar
Muller, Steven. “Introduction: America and Germany, A New Chapter Opens.” In From Occupation to Cooperation: The United States and United Germany in a Changing World Order, edited by Steven Muller and Gebhard Schweigler, pp. 14–26. New York, N.Y.: W. W. Norton & Company, 1992.
Google Scholar
Nitze, Paul H. “Visions of Leadership: The United States.” In From Occupation to Cooperation: The United States and United Germany in a Changing World Order, edited by Steven Muller and Gebhard Schweigler, pp. 27–47. New York, N.Y.: W. W. Norton & Company, 1992.
Google Scholar
Nye, Joseph S., Jr. “Old Wars and Future Wars: Causation and Prevention.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Spring 1988), pp. 581–590.
Google Scholar
Nye, Joseph S., Jr. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York, N.Y.: PublicAffairs, 2004.
Google Scholar
Nye, Joseph S., Jr. “Responding to My Critics and Concluding Thoughts.” In Soft Power and US Foreign Policy: Theoretical, Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Inderjeet Parmar and Michael Cox, pp. 215–227. Abingdon: Routledge, 2010.
Google Scholar
Osinsky, Pavel and Jari Elonranta. “Comparative Historical Analysis: Some Insights from Political Transitions of the First Half of the Twentieth Century.” Online at: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/events/seminars-workshops-conferences/conferences/conf/eloranta.pdf (accessed September 22, 2015).
Parsons, Craig. “Constructivism and Interpretative Theory.” In Theory and Methods in Political Science, edited by David Marsh and Gerry Stoker, pp. 80–98. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
Chapter Google Scholar
Patalakh, Artem. “Assessment of Soft Power Strategies: Towards an Aggregative Analytical Model for Country-Focused Case Study Research.” Croatian International Relations Review, Vol. 22, No. 76 (2016), pp. 85–112.
Article Google Scholar
Pelz, Stephen. “Toward a New Diplomatic History: Two and a Half Cheers for International Relations Methods.” In Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Relations, edited by Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, pp. 85–110. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001.
Google Scholar
Petras, James. “US-Venezuela Relations: A Case Study of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism.” Voltaire Network, October 22, 2013. Online at: http://www.voltairenet.org/article180663.html#nb1 (accessed September 30, 2015).
Pettersson, Lucas. “Changing Images of the USA in German Media Discourse During Four American Presidencies.” International Journal of Cultural Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1 (2011), pp. 35–51.
Article Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. “Big, Slow-Moving, and … Invisible: Macrosocial Processes in the Study of Comparative Politics.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, pp. 177–207. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Chapter Google Scholar
Polenberg, Richard. The Era of Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933–1945: A Brief History with Documents. New York, N.Y.: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000.
Google Scholar
Powell, Colin L. “A Strategy of Partnerships.” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 83, No. 1 (January/February 2004), pp. 22–34.
Article Google Scholar
Ragin, Charles C. Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method. Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Pine Forge Press, 1994.
Google Scholar
Ragin, Charles C. “Turning the Tables: How Case-Oriented Research Challenges Variable-Oriented Research. Comparative Social Research, Vol. 16 (1997), pp. 27–42.
Google Scholar
Ragin, Charles C. and Lisa M. Amoroso. Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method. Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Pine Forge Press, 2011.
Google Scholar
Rihoux, Benoît. “Case-Oriented Configurational Research: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), and Related Techniques.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier, pp. 722–736. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Google Scholar
Rödder, Andreas. 21.0: Eine kurze Geschichte der Gegenwart. München: C. H. Beck, 2015.
Google Scholar
Rosato, Sebastian. “The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory.” American Political Science Review, Vol. 97, No. 4 (November 2003), pp. 585–602.
Article Google Scholar
Roselle, Laura, Alister Miskimmon, and Ben O’Loughlin. “Strategic Narrative: A New Means to Understand Soft Power.” Media, War & Conflict, Vol. 7, No. 1 (2014), pp. 70–84.
Article Google Scholar
Rossinow, Doug. The Reagan Era: A History of the 1980s. New York, N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 2015.
Google Scholar
Rothschild, Emma. “Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand.” The American Economic Review, Vol. 84, No. 2 (May 1994), pp. 319–322.
Google Scholar
Rowell, Henry Thompson. Rome in the Augustan Age. Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1962.
Google Scholar
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich. “Can One or a Few Cases Yield Theoretical Gains?” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, pp. 305–336. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Chapter Google Scholar
Rühl, Lothar. “Das Ende des Kalten Krieges.” In Neue Dimensionen internationaler Sicherheitspolitik, edited by Reinhard Meier-Walser and Alexander Wolf, pp. 21–33. München: Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung, 2011.
Google Scholar
Rule, James B. Theory and Progress in Social Science. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Book Google Scholar
Russett, Bruce. Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994.
Google Scholar
Sagan, Eli. Citizens and Cannibals: The French Revolution, the Struggle for Modernity, and the Origins of Ideological Terror. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001.
Google Scholar
Schadewaldt, Wolfgang. Die Anfänge der Geschichtsschreibung bei den Griechen: Herodot, Thukydides. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1982.
Google Scholar
Schrodt, Philip A. “Beyond the Linear Frequentist Orthodoxy.” Political Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 3 (2006), pp. 335–339.
Article Google Scholar
Schroeder, Paul W. “International History: Why Historians Do it Differently than Political Scientists.” In Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Relations, edited by Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, pp. 403–416. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001.
Google Scholar
Schusterman, Noah. The French Revolution: Faith, Desire, and Politics. London: Routledge, 2014.
Google Scholar
Schwarz, Hans-Peter. “America, Germany, and the Atlantic Community after the Cold War.” In The United States and Germany in the Era of the Cold War, 1945-1990: A Handbook, Volume II: 1968-1990, edited by Detlef Junker, associated editors Philipp Gassert, Wilfried Mausbach, and David B. Morris, pp. 535–565. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Google Scholar
Schwarz, Hans-Peter. Republik ohne Kompaß: Anmerkungen zur deutschen Außenpolitik. Berlin: Ullstein, 2005.
Google Scholar
Schweigler, Gebhard. “Conclusion: Problems and Prospects for Partners in Leadership.” In From Occupation to Cooperation: The United States and United Germany in a Changing World Order, edited by Steven Muller and Gebhard Schweigler, pp. 224–249. New York, N.Y.: W. W. Norton & Company, 1992.
Google Scholar
Seawright, Jason and John Gerring. “Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options.” Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 2 (June 2008), pp. 294–308.
Google Scholar
Sewell, William H., Jr. “Three Temporalities: Toward an Eventful Sociology.” in The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences, edited by Terrence J. McDonald, pp. 245–280. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996.
Google Scholar
Shafer, Jack. “Who Said It First: Journalism Is the ‘First Rough Draft of History.” Slate, August 30, 2010. Online at: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2010/08/who_said_it_first.html (accessed September 2, 2017).
Shaw, Matthew. Time and the French Revolution: The Republican Calendar, 1789-Year XIV. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2011.
Google Scholar
Shiveley, James M. and Phillip J. VanFossen. Using Internet Primary Sources to Teach Critical Thinking Skills in Government, Economics, and Contemporary World Issues. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2000.
Google Scholar
Shively, W. Phillips. “Case Selection: Insights from Rethinking Social Inquiry.” Political Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 3 (2006), pp. 344–347.
Article Google Scholar
Sieberer, Ulrich. “Selecting Independent Variables: Competing Recommendations for Factor-Centric and Outcome-Centric Research Designs.” In Research Design in Political Science: How to Practice What They Preach, edited by Thomas Geschwend and Frank Schimmelfennig, pp. 163–182. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
Chapter Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. “Doubly Engaged Social Science: The Promise of Comparative Historical Analysis.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, pp. 407–428. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Chapter Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and the Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Edited, with an Introduction, Notes, Marginal Summary and an Enlarged Index by Edwin Cannan, Volume 1. Methuen & Co.: London, 1904.
Google Scholar
Stoker, Gerry. “Introduction to Part 2.” In Theory and Methods in Political Science, edited by David Marsh and Gerry Stoker, pp. 181–183. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
Google Scholar
Stone, Lawrence. The Past and the Present Revisited. London: Routledge, 1987.
Google Scholar
Strauss, Anselm L. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Book Google Scholar
Streeck, Wolfgang. “Epilogue: Comparative-Historical Analysis, Past, Present, Future.” In Advances in Comparative-Historical Analysis, edited by James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen, pp. 264–288. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Google Scholar
Su Changhe. “Soft Power.” In The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, edited by Andrew F. Cooper, Jorge Heine, and Ramesh Thakur, pp. 544–558. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Google Scholar
Suetonius Tranquillus, C. Die Kaiserviten: De Vita Caesarum/Berühmte Männer: De Viris Illustribus. Edited and Translated by Hans Martinet. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2014 (here: Suet. Aug. & Suet. Ves.).
Google Scholar
Swanborn, Peter G. Case Study Research: What, Why and How?. London: SAGE Publications, 2010.
Book Google Scholar
Thelen, Kathleen and James Mahoney. “Comparative-Historical Analysis in Contemporary Political Science.” In Advances in Comparative-Historical Analysis, edited by James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen, pp. 3–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Chapter Google Scholar
Thiem, Janina. “Dealing Effectively with Selection Bias in Large-n Research.” In Research Design in Political Science: How to Practice What They Preach, edited by Thomas Geschwend and Frank Schimmelfennig, pp. 127–144. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
Google Scholar
Thies, Cameron G. “A Pragmatic Guide to Qualitative Historical Analysis in the Study of International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 3, No. 4 (2002), pp. 351–372.
Article Google Scholar
Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War. A New Translation by Martin Hammond. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2009 (Thuc.).
Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles. Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons. New York, N.Y.: Russell Sage Foundation, 1984.
Google Scholar
Van Apeldoorn, Bastiaan and Naná de Graaff. “Corporate Elite Networks and US Post-Cold War Grand Strategy from Clinton to Obama.” European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 20, No. 1 (2012), pp. 29–55.
Article Google Scholar
Van Apeldoorn, Bastiaan and Naná de Graaff. American Grand Strategy and Corporate Elite Networks: The Open Door Since the End of the Cold War. London: Routledge, 2016.
Google Scholar
Van Evera, Stephen. Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca. N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1997.
Google Scholar
Vennesson, Pascal and Ina Wiesner. “Process Tracing in Case Studies.” In Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Military Studies, edited by Joseph Soeters, Patricia M. Shields, and Sebastiaan Rietjens, pp. 92–103. London: Routledge, 2014.
Google Scholar
Vromen, Ariadne. “Debating Methods: Rediscovering Qualitative Approaches.” In Theory and Methods in Political Science, edited by David Marsh and Gerry Stoker, pp. 249–266. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
Chapter Google Scholar
Waldner, David. “Process Tracing and Causal Mechanisms.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Social Science, edited by Harold Kincaid, pp. 65–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Google Scholar
Watts, Duncan. British Government and Politics: A Comparative Guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012.
Book Google Scholar
Whitney, Christopher B. and David Shambaugh. “Soft Power in Asia: Results of a 2008 Multinational Survey of Public Opinion.” The Chicago Council on Global Affairs in partnership with the East Asia Institute. Chicago, Ill., 2009. Online at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Events/2008/6/17%20east%20asia/0617_east_asia_report.pdf (accessed October 1, 2015).
Whyte, William F. Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum. Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chicago Press, 1943.
Google Scholar
Williams, Carrie. “Research Methods.” Journal of Business & Economic Research, Vol. 5, No. 3 (March 2007), pp. 65–72.
Google Scholar
Winik, Jay. April 1865: The Month That Saved America. New York, N.Y.: Harper Perennial, 2006.
Google Scholar
Wirsching, Andreas. Der Preis der Freiheit: Geschichte Europas in unserer Zeit. München: C. H. Beck, 2012.
Book Google Scholar
Woodward, Bob. The Choice. New York, N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 1996.
Google Scholar
Yashar, Deborah. Contesting Citizenship in Latin America: The Rise of Indigenous Movements and the Postliberal Challenge. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Google Scholar
Yin, Robert K. Applications of Case Study Research. Los Angeles, Cal.: SAGE Publications, 2012.
Google Scholar
Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Los Angeles, Cal.: SAGE Publications, 2014.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Center for Global Studies, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
Hendrik W. Ohnesorge

Authors

Hendrik W. Ohnesorge
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ohnesorge, H.W. (2020). A Methodological Roadmap for the Study of Soft Power. In: Soft Power. Global Power Shift. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29922-4_4

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29922-4_4
Published: 23 November 2019
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-29921-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-29922-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics