scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Book ChapterDOI

Case Selection and Selection Bias in Small-n Research

01 Jan 2007-pp 145-160
TL;DR: While large-n studies generally seek representativeness by random sampling, case selection in small-n research usually follows an intentional logic, and in the end, the types of cases you select determine which inferences you can draw.
Abstract: Designing social research is often a blood, toil, sweat and tears experience, with the road to publication usually long and winding. Constantly, the researcher has to weigh different options, and case selection is often considered a particularly delicate and demanding step. For King and colleagues (1994, p. 115), ‘poor case selection can vitiate even the most ingenious attempts, at a later stage, to make valid causal inferences.’ In small-n as well as in large-n approaches ‘the cases you choose affect the answers you get’ (Geddes, 1990). However, case selection usually differs between those two approaches — and for good reasons. Whilst large-n studies generally seek representativeness, for example by random sampling, case selection in small-n research usually follows an intentional logic. Intentional does not, however, mean arbitrary. In the end, the types of cases you select determine which inferences you can draw.
Citations
More filters
Dissertation
01 Jul 2011
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examine the applicability of grief theory to large-scale national collectives which have undergone significant shared loss, such as the Palestinian people in the aftermath of the loss of their land to the creation of Israel in the nakba of 1948; and Israel itself, as a manifestation of the European Jewish response to the holocaust and the centuries of loss and suffering which led up to it.
Abstract: This dissertation is concerned with the question of whether nations grieve, whether the behaviour they exhibit in the wake of loss can be said to constitute grief. Initially exploring the concepts of both grief and nation in order to establish the feasibility of national grief as a notion, it goes on to examine the applicability of grief theory, traditionally developed in the context of the individual suffering bereavement, to large-scale national collectives which have undergone significant shared loss. The investigation is conducted with reference to two case studies: the Palestinian people in the aftermath of the loss of their land to the creation of Israel in the nakba of 1948; and Israel itself, as a manifestation of the European Jewish response to the holocaust and the centuries of loss and suffering which led up to it. In both cases, the relevant periods of history are scanned to see to what extent, if any, historical accounts reflect the contours and parameters of the grieving experience as the latter is described and defined in the grief theory literature. In addition, and serving to triangulate the evidence thus gleaned from national history, the contemporary visual arts of both nations, with their observation of and comment on the dominant features and issues of current national identity, are employed as data sources and explored with a view to ascertaining whether they reflect any themes expressive of or pertinent to collective historical loss and grief. The findings from this research into national history and identity within a grief experience framework may serve to open up a new direction for the further development of grief theory. They may also, in revealing the insights afforded by a grief theory perspective on long-term interactions within the global community, offer some contribution to the study of international relations.

76 citations

01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine state fragility as a condition, but not a direct cause, of the rise of Salafi-Jihadi groups and examine the empirical findings through the lens of international relations, international security, and development theories.
Abstract: Since the end of the Cold War, extremist Islamism has become a focal point of international security debate in academic and policy research. Much of the existing literature on Salafi-Jihadi Groups (SJGs), conventionally known as terrorist groups, examines the root causes of the emergence of these groups through the lens of three levels: individual, group, and international levels. Thus, individual extremists' desire for jihad, Islamism as a group ideology, and the sole great power's post-Cold War policies in the Middle East are considered as the three dominant root causes of the emergence of SJGs in the literature. If these three causal determinants are to hold, it begs the question of why SJGs do not emerge in every Muslim majority country where these elements persist. Why, for instance, did individual jihadis' personal desire for transnational jihad, Islamist ideology, and the US post-Cold War policies produce SJGs in Afghanistan and the post-Saddam Hussein Iraq but not in Saudi Arabia and Qatar? What factor, then, is responsible for this contradictory outcome in countries which in terms of the presence of the root cause of SJGs are similar? Taking these questions into account, I consider the degree of state fragility countries to be responsible for this contradictory outcome. This dissertation examines state fragility as a condition, but not a direct cause, of the rise of SJGs. It engages with a three-decade-long debate on the relationship between state fragility and terrorism and examines the empirical findings through the lens of international relations, international security, and development theories.

29 citations

Dissertation
01 Sep 2015
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explored the influence of interest groups in EU foreign policy and found that interest groups engage in multi-level lobbying even in those policy areas that are ruled by the intergovernmental method.
Abstract: This thesis explores the advocacy strategies and influence of interest groups in EU foreign policy. It examines in particular the impact of institutional factors on the strategies and lobbying outcomes. Conceptually, it contributes to the literature on interest groups and lobbying in the EU and to the study of non-state actor participation in international organisations. Conceptualising EU foreign policy as multi-level and multi-pillar, the study inquires into the relationship between policy regime (ranging from the Community method to the intergovernmental method, as these predominate in different areas of EU external relations) and the degree and type of interest group influence. To this end the thesis compares three examples of EU foreign policy: visa liberalisation towards the Eastern neighbours; sanctions towards Belarus; and CSDP missions in Georgia and Palestine. The research reveals that interest groups engage in multi-level lobbying even in those policy areas that are ruled by the intergovernmental method. Intergovernmentalism limits formal access to policymakers, but groups and policymakers build channels for informal access. To some extent contrary to the predications of established theories, this allows interest groups to exert some degree of influence even on policy dossiers in which intergovernmental arrangements prevail. In such policy domains, groups opposing change do not always succeed, despite the veto opportunities that intergovernmentalism provides. While this is a significant finding, the thesis also notes how interest group influence is most commonly exerted upon relatively technical issues and at later stages of the policy cycle. Moreover, the study emphasises that institutional structures are not the only relevant factor in explaining group influence. Group-level characteristics, including material resources, condition groups’ ability to adapt to complex decision-making in EU foreign policy. The thesis concludes that a combination of factors is required to capture the influence of interest groups over EU foreign policy.

22 citations


Additional excerpts

  • ...I apply Mill’s (1875) “method of difference” (Leuffen 2007: 149) by looking for “comparable cases” in Lijphart’s (1975) terminology (Blatter & Haverland 2012: 42)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors show that the level of support for the political system plays an important role in explaining whether citizens prefer politicians, citizens or experts to make political decisions, and that citizens perceptions of the moral and technical capacities of the traditional actors in democracy (political elite and citizens) help to provide a better picture of the nature of citizens' preferences.
Abstract: What factors explain whether citizens prefers politicians, citizens or experts to make political decisions? In this article, we show that level of support for the political system plays an important role. In addition, citizens’ perceptions of the moral and technical capacities of the traditional actors in democracy (political elite and citizens) help to provide a better picture of the nature of citizens’ preferences. Through analysis of survey data, we show that the aforesaid factors are relevant to understand the vectors of citizens’ preferences in who should make the political decisions in democracy. Moreover, our results support some of Hibbing and Theiss-Morse’s arguments, while others should be revised.

18 citations

Dissertation
01 Jan 2014
TL;DR: In this article, the authors propose a method to solve the problem of "uniformity" and "uncertainty" in the context of education.iii.iiiiii.
Abstract: iii

16 citations

Trending Questions (3)
How can case study methodology be used to address the challenges of small-n research?

Case study methodology can be used in small-n research to intentionally select cases that allow for valid causal inferences.

How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get: Selection Bias in Comparative Politics?

Case selection in comparative politics can lead to selection bias, as the cases chosen can affect the answers obtained in research.

How the cases you choose affect the answers you get: selection bias on comparative politics?

The cases you choose in comparative politics research can affect the answers you get due to selection bias.