Advertisement

Soft Power pp 227-294 | Cite as

A Methodological Roadmap for the Study of Soft Power

  • Hendrik W. Ohnesorge
Chapter
  • 428 Downloads
Part of the Global Power Shift book series (GLOBAL)

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.

References

  1. Allison, Graham. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston, Mass.: Little Brown, 1971.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, Nathaniel. “Is Causal-Process Observation an Oxymoron?” Political Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 3 (2006), pp. 347–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ben-Menahem, Yemima. “The Inference to the Best Explanation.” Erkenntnis, Vol. 33, No. 3 (November 1990), pp. 319–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Bennett, Andrew and Jeffrey Checkel, eds. Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Bertram, Christoph. “US-German Relations in a World at Sea.” Daedalus, Vol. 121, No. 4 (Fall 1992), pp. 119–128.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Breight, Curtis C. Surveillance, Militarism and Drama in the Elizabethan Era. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 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).
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Collier, David. “Understanding Process Tracing.” PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 44, No. 4 (October 2011), pp. 823–830.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Creswell, John W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, Cal.: SAGE Publications, 2003.Google Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Czempiel, Ernst-Otto. Weltpolitik im Umbruch: Die Pax Americana, der Terrorismus und die Zukunft der internationalen Beziehungen. München: C. H. Beck, 2002.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. de Vaus, David. Research Design in Social Research. London: SAGE Publications, 2001.Google Scholar
  27. Doyle, Arthur Conan. Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Stories. Ware: Wordsworth Editions Limited, 2007.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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).
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Fehér, Ferenc, ed. The French Revolution and the Birth of Modernity. Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gaddis, John Lewis. Surprise, Security, and the American Experience. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  41. Gaddis, John Lewis. The Cold War. London: Penguin Books, 2005.Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. George, Alexander L. and Andrew Bennett. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005.Google Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Gerring, John. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. Glatzer, Ruth, ed. Das Wilhelminische Berlin: Panorama einer Metropole, 1890–1918. Berlin: Siedler, 1997.Google Scholar
  52. Goldstone, Jack A. “Methodological Issues in Comparative Macrosociology.” Comparative Social Research, Vol. 16 (1997), pp. 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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).
  55. 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
  56. Gu, Xuewu. Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen: Einführung. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Haass, Richard N. The Reluctant Sheriff: The United States After the Cold War. New York, N.Y.: Council on Foreign Relations, 1997.Google Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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
  61. Harman, Gilbert H. “The Inference to the Best Explanation.” Philosophical Review, Vol. 74 (January 1964), pp. 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Harrison, Ewan. The Post-Cold War System: Strategies, Institutions, and Reflexivity. London: Routledge, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Hegel, Georg Friedrich Wilhelm. Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1961.Google Scholar
  66. 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
  67. Herz, John H. “Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma.” World Politics, Vol. 2, No. 2 (January 1950), pp. 157–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Hinz, Andreas. Zeit als Bildungsaufgabe in theologischer Perspektive. Münster: LIT, 2003.Google Scholar
  69. Hollis, Martin and Steven Smith. Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  70. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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
  72. 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
  73. 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
  74. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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
  77. 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
  78. Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy. New York, N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 1994.Google Scholar
  79. Kittel, Bernhard and David Kuehn. “Introduction: Reassessing the Methodology of Process Tracing.” European Political Science, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2013), pp. 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 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
  81. Krauthammer, Charles. “The Neoconservative Convergence.” Commentary, Vol. 120, No. 1 (July/August 2005), pp. 21–26.Google Scholar
  82. 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
  83. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  84. Landman, Todd. Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics: An Introduction. Abingdon: Routledge, 2008.Google Scholar
  85. Lange, Matthew. Comparative-Historical Methods. Los Angeles, Cal.: SAGE Publications, 2013.Google Scholar
  86. 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
  87. 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
  88. Lesaffer, Randall. European Legal History: A Cultural and Political Perspective. Translated by Jan Arriens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
  89. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 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
  92. 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
  93. Lipton, Peter. Inference to the Best Explanation. London: Routledge, 2004.Google Scholar
  94. 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
  95. 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
  96. 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
  97. Lukes, Steven. “Power and the Battle for the Hearts and Minds.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3 (2005), pp. 477–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 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
  99. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 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
  101. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 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
  103. Mandelbaum, Michael. Mission Failure: America and the World in the Post-Cold War Era. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2016.Google Scholar
  104. 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
  105. 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
  106. 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
  107. 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).
  108. 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).
  109. 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).
  110. 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).
  111. 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).
  112. 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).
  113. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. McKercher, Asa. Camelot and Canada: Canadian-American Relations in the Kennedy Era. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2016.Google Scholar
  116. McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  117. Meister, Klaus. Thukydides als Vorbild der Historiker: Von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 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
  120. Miller, Linda B. “The Clinton Years: Reinventing US Foreign Policy?.” International Affairs, Vol. 70, No. 4 (October 1994), pp. 621–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Morriss, Peter. Power: A Philosophical Analysis. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  123. 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
  124. 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
  125. 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
  126. 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
  127. Nye, Joseph S., Jr. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York, N.Y.: PublicAffairs, 2004.Google Scholar
  128. 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
  129. 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).
  130. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 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
  133. 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).
  134. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 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
  137. Powell, Colin L. “A Strategy of Partnerships.” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 83, No. 1 (January/February 2004), pp. 22–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Ragin, Charles C. Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method. Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Pine Forge Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  139. 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
  140. 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
  141. 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
  142. Rödder, Andreas. 21.0: Eine kurze Geschichte der Gegenwart. München: C. H. Beck, 2015.Google Scholar
  143. Rosato, Sebastian. “The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory.” American Political Science Review, Vol. 97, No. 4 (November 2003), pp. 585–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Rossinow, Doug. The Reagan Era: A History of the 1980s. New York, N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
  146. Rothschild, Emma. “Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand.” The American Economic Review, Vol. 84, No. 2 (May 1994), pp. 319–322.Google Scholar
  147. Rowell, Henry Thompson. Rome in the Augustan Age. Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  148. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. 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
  150. Rule, James B. Theory and Progress in Social Science. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Russett, Bruce. Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  152. 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
  153. Schadewaldt, Wolfgang. Die Anfänge der Geschichtsschreibung bei den Griechen: Herodot, Thukydides. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1982.Google Scholar
  154. Schrodt, Philip A. “Beyond the Linear Frequentist Orthodoxy.” Political Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 3 (2006), pp. 335–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. 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
  156. Schusterman, Noah. The French Revolution: Faith, Desire, and Politics. London: Routledge, 2014.Google Scholar
  157. 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
  158. Schwarz, Hans-Peter. Republik ohne Kompaß: Anmerkungen zur deutschen Außenpolitik. Berlin: Ullstein, 2005.Google Scholar
  159. 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
  160. 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
  161. 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
  162. 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).
  163. Shaw, Matthew. Time and the French Revolution: The Republican Calendar, 1789-Year XIV. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2011.Google Scholar
  164. 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
  165. Shively, W. Phillips. “Case Selection: Insights from Rethinking Social Inquiry.” Political Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 3 (2006), pp. 344–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. 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
  169. 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
  170. Stone, Lawrence. The Past and the Present Revisited. London: Routledge, 1987.Google Scholar
  171. Strauss, Anselm L. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. 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
  173. 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
  174. 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
  175. Swanborn, Peter G. Case Study Research: What, Why and How?. London: SAGE Publications, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. 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
  178. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War. A New Translation by Martin Hammond. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2009 (Thuc.).Google Scholar
  180. Tilly, Charles. Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons. New York, N.Y.: Russell Sage Foundation, 1984.Google Scholar
  181. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. 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
  183. Van Evera, Stephen. Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca. N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  184. 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
  185. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. 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
  187. Watts, Duncan. British Government and Politics: A Comparative Guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012.Google Scholar
  188. 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).
  189. Whyte, William F. Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum. Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chicago Press, 1943.Google Scholar
  190. Williams, Carrie. “Research Methods.” Journal of Business & Economic Research, Vol. 5, No. 3 (March 2007), pp. 65–72.Google Scholar
  191. Winik, Jay. April 1865: The Month That Saved America. New York, N.Y.: Harper Perennial, 2006.Google Scholar
  192. Wirsching, Andreas. Der Preis der Freiheit: Geschichte Europas in unserer Zeit. München: C. H. Beck, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. Woodward, Bob. The Choice. New York, N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 1996.Google Scholar
  194. 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
  195. Yin, Robert K. Applications of Case Study Research. Los Angeles, Cal.: SAGE Publications, 2012.Google Scholar
  196. Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Los Angeles, Cal.: SAGE Publications, 2014.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hendrik W. Ohnesorge
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Global StudiesUniversity of BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations