Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences - Alexander L. George [193]
172
For an example, see Lijphart’s study summarized in the Appendix, “Studies That Illustrate Research Design”; Douglas Dion, “Evidence and Inference in Comparative Case Study,” Comparative Politics, Vol. 3, No. 2 (January 1998); and Collier, “Translating Quantitative Methods,” p. 464.
173
Donald T. Campbell and Julian C. Stanley, Experimental and Quasi-Experimental cases that scholars or participants have argued might account for their differences. Designs for Research (Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing, 1963); for a good example, see James Lee Ray, Democracies and International Conflict: An Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Proposition (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1995), pp. 158-200.
174
For a detailed discussion of Mill’s methods, see Chapter 8.
175
Charles C. Ragin, The Comparative Method (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987); Daniel Little, Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1991); and Daniel Little, Microfoundations, Method, and Causation: On the Philosophy of the Social Sciences (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1998).
176
King, Keohane, and Verba, Designing Social Inquiry, pp. 17-18.
177
David Collier and James Mahoney, “Insights and Pitfalls: Selection Bias in Qualitative Research,” World Politics, Vol. 49, No. 1 (October 1996), pp. 56-91.
178
See also the discussion of this point in Chapter 9 on “The Congruence Method.”
179
George and Smoke, Deterrence in American Foreign Policy.
180
See the Appendix, “Studies That Illustrate Research Design,” for a fuller discussion of their study.
181
Alexander L. George, David K. Hall, and William E. Simons, The Limits of Coercive Diplomacy (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971); an extended second edition under the same title that examines additional cases was published in 1994, edited by Alexander L. George and William E. Simons (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press).
182
See Alexander L. George, “The ‘Operational Code’: A Neglected Approach to the Study of Political Leaders and Decision-Making,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 2 (June 1969), pp. 190-222. The problem of judging the causal role of such beliefs in a policymaker’s choice of action was discussed in Alexander L. George, “The Causal Nexus Between Cognitive Beliefs and Decision-Making Behavior: The ‘Operational Code’ Belief System,” in Lawrence S. Falkowski, ed., Psychological Models In International Relations (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1979), pp. 95-124. Since then, numerous studies have been made of the “operational codes” of a variety of leaders using this standardized approach or a slight modification of it. This has facilitated comparison and cumulation of results. See, for example, the publications of Ole R. Holsti and Stephen G. Walker.
183
For additional discussion of the critical importance of research design, see the “Pedagogical Note to Parts Two and Three.”
184
This chapter draws on earlier publications by Alexander L. George, “Case Studies and Theory Development: The Method of Structured, Focused Comparison,” in Paul Gordon Lauren, ed., Diplomacy: New Approaches in Theory, History, and Policy (New York: Free Press, 1979), pp. 3-68; Alexander L. George, “The Causal Nexus Between Cognitive Beliefs and Decision-Making Behavior,” in Lawrence S. Falkowski, ed., Psychological Models in International Politics (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1979), pp. 95-124; and Alexander L. George and Timothy J. McKeown, “Case Studies and Theories of Organizational Decision Making,” in Robert F. Coulam and Richard A. Smith, eds., Advances in Information Processing in Organizations, Vol. 2 (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1985), pp. 21-58.
185
An interesting example of “soaking and poking” and a description of how it mixes inductive and deductive reasoning is found in Richard F. Fenno’s Homestyle (Boston: Little, Brown, 1978). As noted in the review