Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences - Alexander L. George [169]
To ensure systematic comparison of the cases, the two project leaders formulated a set of questions to be asked of each case in order to obtain the data required to satisfy the research objective of the study. To assess the adequacy of the questions, an iterative procedure was followed. After initial case study drafts were written, the questions were reformulated and used as the basis for the final analysis of the seven cases.
The project leaders asked writers of each case analysis to answer a common set of questions and to structure the organization and presentation of each case according to the framework the questions provided. “As a result,” the coeditors note, “the case studies … have been written on the basis of a common analytical and organizational framework, and comparison across cases has thereby been facilitated.”669
The set of standardized questions fell into five substantive areas: the international political context of the treaty; the domestic political context; the role of the president; executive-congressional relations; and public opinion and the role of interest groups.
Given the deliberately limited selection of cases, the coeditors appropriately note that attempts to extrapolate the findings of the study to other types of treaties would “require the utmost caution.”670 This was a hypothesis-forming exercise that relied exclusively on process-tracing.
Finally, the project leaders selected a mix of historians, political scientists, and former policymakers to do the case studies in the expectation that this would contribute to the intellectual vitality of the project.671
DANIEL W. DREZNER, THE SANCTIONS PARADOX: ECONOMIC STATECRAFT AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. CAMBRIDGE: CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1999.
This book effectively employs the research strategy of “triangulation.” Drezner employs game theory to develop a “conflict expectations model.” He then tests the model against alternative explanations employing a variety of quantitative and qualitative methodologies.
A “robust model,” he writes, “should find empirical support using different methodologies. Statistics, comparative analysis, and case studies,” he maintains, “all have their advantages in hypothesis testing.” Statistics can demonstrate “significant correlations across a large number of events. Usually, however, the data are too coarse to permit any serious examination of the causal mechanisms.”672 Drezner uses Charles Ragin’s comparative method that employs the logic of Boolean algebra to test for combinations of causes and assess causal complexity. Drezner also notes its limitations.
The author endorses the utility of the method of structured, focused comparison, noting that it has “the singular advantage of identifying causal mechanisms with a smaller chance of producing spurious results.” But the small number of cases employed in this method “inherently limits the generalizability of the results.”673
Awareness that each of these methodologies has limitations leads the author also to use “triangulation.” That is, used in concert these methodologies “can offer compelling support to bolster or reject a hypothesis… . Large-N and small-n approaches can complement each other in the testing of international relations theory.”674
Drezner first outlines the testable implications of his “conflict expectations” model. Then he tests them by using a combination of statistical, comparative, and process-tracing methods. The statistical tests support the model, but he undertakes comparative case studies and process-tracing of instances of Russia’s use of economic coercion