Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences - Alexander L. George [119]
We offer an example that illustrates the difference between ″macrocorrelation″ and ″microcorrelation″ and depicts reliance on microcorrelation for explaining a complex phenomenon. In States and Social Revolutions, Theda Skocpol wanted to provide a causal explanation for three social revolutions (the French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions). She identified and worked with two independent variables: international pressures on the state and peasant rebellion. To show how these two variables were causally related to the revolutionary social transformation in each of these countries, Skocpol employed a complex form of microcorrelation. 453 She used the process-tracing procedure to identify a complex sequence of events to depict how each of the two independent variables set into motion a complex causal chain. She also showed how the two causal sequences came together to trigger a revolutionary social transformation in each country. The procedure she employed for tracing each step (or link) in the causal chain was supported by combining Mill’s methods with micro process-tracing. That is, Skocpol did not attempt to support the causal relationship between the two independent variables and the outcome of the dependent variable by means of macrotype covering laws; she identified a sequence of several steps or links between each independent variable and the outcome, supporting each by a form of micro process-tracing.454
Roberts recognizes that some explanations—particularly those supported by probabilistic laws—will be weak, and he discusses various strategies historians employ to develop stronger explanations. Of particular interest is “redescription,” which describes the event to be explained in a less concrete, more abstract manner. Doing so may enable the investigator to use a credible covering law. This is similar to the practice in political science research of moving up the ladder of generality in formulating concepts.455 A similar practice is frequently employed in statistical studies—“cell reduction” being a way of obtaining enough cases in a broader cell to permit statistical analysis. The new, larger cell necessarily requires a less concrete, more abstract label than the concepts attached to the old, smaller cells.
Roberts is particularly supportive of another strategy for strengthening weak explanations. ″Microcorrelation,″ to which he referred earlier as noted above, strengthens an explanation via “the minute tracing of the explanatory narrative to the point where the events to be explained are microscopic and the covering laws correspondingly more certain.” At the same time, Roberts recognizes that “the more microscopic the event to be explained, the more likely that the covering law will be a platitude … or a truism.”456
Implicit in Roberts’ disquisition is a rejection of the widespread belief that historians do not make use of covering laws. He attributes this misconception to the fact that most of the laws historians make use of are not only “parochial” but also are not generally visible in their historical narratives. Such laws are not visible because they are generally implicit in the explanatory accounts historians provide. Roberts defends this practice on the ground that many of the covering laws are “platitudinous,” and therefore it would be tedious continually to list them and to assert their validity. Besides, these covering laws are so numerous in historical narratives that to list and justify them “would hopelessly clog the narrative.”
Roberts recognizes that historians have an obligation to make sure that the implicit covering laws they employ are true.