Weird IR pp 1-13 | Cite as




This chapter serves as an introduction to the book. It defines the idea of a deviant case and then provides an epistemological rationale for studying deviant cases in international relations. The last section provides an overview of the entire volume.


Degenerate Case Islands Dispute Weird Stories Neorealist Theory Sealand 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References and Suggested Readings

  1. Brady, Henry, and David Collier, eds. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, 2nd edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010.Google Scholar
  2. Cantril, Hadley, Hazel Gaudet, and Herta Herzog. The Invasion from Mars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1940.Google Scholar
  3. Crawford, Timothy. “Wedge Strategy, Balancing, and the Deviant Case of Spain, 1940–41,” Security Studies 17, no. 1 (2008): 1–38.Google Scholar
  4. Elman, Colin. “Explanatory Typologies in Qualitative Studies of International Politics,” International Organization 59 (2005): 293–326.Google Scholar
  5. Elman, Colin, and Miriam Fendius Elman, eds. Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  6. George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005.Google Scholar
  7. Geortz, Gary, and Jack S. Levy, eds. Case Studies and Necessary Conditions Counterfactuals. New York: Routledge, 2007.Google Scholar
  8. Gerring, John. Case Study Research: Principles and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  9. Gordon, Milton. “Sociological Law and the Deviant Case,” Sociometry 10 (1947): 250–258.Google Scholar
  10. Horst, Paul. “The Prediction of Personal Adjustment,” in Social Science Research Council Bulletin 48. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1941: 17–18.Google Scholar
  11. Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics. New York: Routledge, 2010.Google Scholar
  12. Kendall, Patricia L., and Katherine M. Wolf. “The Analysis of Deviant Cases in Communications Research,” in Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Frank N. Stanton, editors, Communications Research, 1948–1949. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1949.Google Scholar
  13. King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. Komarovsky, Mira. The Unemployed Man and His Family. New York: The Dryden Press, Inc., 1940.Google Scholar
  15. Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  16. Lakatos, Imre. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, editors, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, volume 4. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1970: 91–196.Google Scholar
  17. Levy, Jack S. “Domestic Politics in War,” in Robert I. Rotberg and Theodore K. Rabb, editors, The Origin and Prevention of Major Wars. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  18. ———. “Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference,” Conflict Management and Peace Science 25 (2008): 1–18.Google Scholar
  19. Lijphart, Arend. “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method,” American Political Science Review 65, no. 3 (1971, September): 682–693.Google Scholar
  20. Lipset, Seymour Martin, Martin A. Trow, and James S. Coleman. Union Democracy: The Internal Politics of the International Typographers Union. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1956.Google Scholar
  21. Merton, Robert K. Mass Persuasion. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1947.Google Scholar
  22. Molnar, George. “Deviant Case Analysis in Social Science,” Politics 2, no. 1 (1967): 1–11.Google Scholar
  23. Waltz, Kenneth N. “Foreward: Thoughts About Assaying Theories,” in Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, editors, Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003: vii–xii.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.American UniversityWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.School of Human SciencesOsaka UniversitySuitaJapan

Personalised recommendations