Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:05:28.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multi-Method Research in the Social Sciences: A Review of Recent Frameworks and a Way Forward

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2019

Derek Beach Open the ORCID record for Derek Beach [Opens in a new window]
Derek Beach*
Affiliation:
Derek Beach, Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark
*
*Corresponding author. Email: derek@ps.au.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reviews recent attempts to develop multi-method social scientific frameworks. The article starts by discussing the ontological and epistemological foundations underlying case studies and variance-based approaches, differentiating approaches into bottom-up, case-based and top-down, variance-based approaches. Case-based approaches aim to learn how a causal process works within a case, whereas variance-based approaches assess mean causal effects across a set of cases. However, because of the different fundamental assumptions, it is very difficult for in-depth studies of individual cases to communicate meaningfully with claims about mean causal effects across a large set of cases. The conclusions discuss the broader challenges this distinction has for the study of comparative politics more broadly.

Keywords

multi-method researchcase-basedvariance-basedcausal mechanismscounterfactuals
Type
Review Article
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 163 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2019. Published by Government and Opposition Limited and Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahn, AC, Tewari, M, Poon, C-S and Phillips, RS (2006) The Limits of Reductionism in Medicine: Could Systems Biology Offer an Alternative? PLoS Medicine 3(6), e208, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030208.Google Scholar
Angrist, JA and Pischke, J-S (2009) Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bamanyaki, PA and Holvoet, N (2016) Integrating Theory-Based Evaluation and Process Tracing in the Evaluation of Civil Society Gender Budget Initiatives. Evaluation 22(1), 72–90.Google Scholar
Beach, D and Pedersen, RB (2016) Causal Case Studies: Foundations and Guidelines for Comparing, Matching, and Tracing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Beach, D and Pedersen, RB (2019) Process-Tracing Methods, 2nd edn. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Beach, D and Rohlfing, I (2018) Integrating Cross-Case Analyses and Process Tracing in Set Theoretic Research: Strategies and Parameters of Debate. Sociological Methods and Research 47(1), 3–36.Google Scholar
Bechtel, W and Richardson, RC (2010) Discovering Complexity: Decomposition and Localization as Strategies in Scientific Research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, A and Elman, C (2006) Complex Causal Relations and Case Study Methods: The Example of Path Dependence. Political Analysis 14(2), 250–267.Google Scholar
Berg-Schlosser, D (2012) Mixed Methods in Comparative Politics: Principles and Applications. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bogen, J (2005) Regularities and Causality; Generalizations and Causal Explanations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36, 397–420.Google Scholar
Bunge, M (1997) Mechanism and Explanation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 27(4), 410–465.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N (2007) Hunting Causes and Using Them: Approaches in Philosophy and Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N (2011) Predicting ‘It Will Work for Us’: (Way) Beyond Statistics. In Illari PM, Russo F and Williamson J (eds), Causality in the Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 750–768.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N (2012) Will This Policy Work for You? Predicting Effectiveness Better: How Philosophy Helps. Philosophy of Science 79(5), 973–989.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N and Hardie, J (2012) Evidence-Based Policy: A Practical Guide to Doing it Better. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, B, Gillies, D, Illari, P, Russo, F and Williamson, J (2014) Mechanisms and the Evidence Hierarchy. Topoi 33(2), 339–360.Google Scholar
Collier, D and Mahoney, J (1996) Research Note: Insights and Pitfalls: Selection Bias in Qualitative Research. World Politics 49(1), 56–91.Google Scholar
Dowe, P (2011) The Causal-Process-Model Theory of Mechanisms. In Illari PM, Russo F and Williamson J (eds), Causality in the Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 865–879.Google Scholar
Dunning, T (2012) Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Falleti, TG and Lynch, JF (2009) Context and Causal Mechanisms in Political Analysis. Comparative Political Studies 42, 1143–1166.Google Scholar
Fearon, J (1991) Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science. World Politics 43(2), 169–195.Google Scholar
Gerring, J (2010) Causal Mechanisms: Yes But … Comparative Political Studies 43(11), 1499–1526.Google Scholar
Gerring, J (2011) Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gerring, J (2017 ) Case Study Research, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goertz, G (2017 ) Multimethod Research, Causal Mechanisms, and Case Studies: An Integrated Approach. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goertz, G and Levy, JS (eds) (2007) Explaining War and Peace: Case Studies and Necessary Condition Counterfactuals. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goertz, G and Mahoney, J (2009) Scope in Case-Study Research. In Byrne DS and Ragin CC (eds), The Sage Handbook of Case-Based Methods. London: Sage, pp. 307–317.Google Scholar
Goertz, G and Mahoney, J (2012) A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Groff, R (2011) Getting Past Hume in the Philosophy of Social Science. In Illari PM, Russo F and Williamson J (eds), Causality in the Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 296–316.Google Scholar
Haggard, S and Kaufman, RR (2016) Dictators and Democrats: Masses, Elites, and Regime Change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Holland, PW (1986) Statistics and Causal Inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association 81(396), 945–960.Google Scholar
Humphreys, M and Jacobs, A (2015) Mixing Methods: A Bayesian Approach. American Political Science Review 109(4), 653–673.Google Scholar
Illari, PM (2011) Mechanistic Evidence: Disambiguating the Russo–Williamson Thesis. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 25(2), 139–157.Google Scholar
Illari, PM and Williamson, J (2011) Mechanisms Are Real and Local. In Illari PM, Russo F and Williamson J (eds), Causality in the Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 818–844.Google Scholar
King, G, Keohane, RO and Verba, S (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Leamer, EE (2010) Tantalus on the Road to Asymptopia. Journal of Economic Perspectives 24(2), 31–46.Google Scholar
Lebow, RN (2000) Contingency, Catalysts and International System Change. Political Science Quarterly 115, 591–616.Google Scholar
Levi-Montalcini, R and Calissano, P (2006) The Scientific Challenge of the 21st Century: From a Reductionist to a Holistic Approach via Systems Biology. BMC Neuroscience 7(Suppl. 1), https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-7-S1-S1.Google Scholar
Levy, J (2015) Counterfactuals, Causal Inference, and Historical Analysis. Security Studies 24(3), 378–402.Google Scholar
Lewis, D (1986) Causation: Postcripts to ‘Causation’. Philosophical Papers, Vol. II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lieberman, ES (2005) Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research. American Political Science Review 99(3), 435–451.Google Scholar
Lieberson, S (1991) Small N’s and Big Conclusions: An Examination of the Reasoning in Comparative Studies Based on a Small Number of Cases. Social Forces 70(2), 307–320.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A (1971) Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method. American Political Science Review 65(3), 682–693.Google Scholar
Machamer, P (2004) Activities and Causation: The Metaphysics and Epistemology of Mechanisms. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 18(1), 27–39.Google Scholar
Machamer, P, Darden, L and Craver, CF (2000) Thinking about Mechanisms. Philosophy of Science 67(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Mahoney, J (2008) Toward a Unified Theory of Causality. Comparative Political Studies 41(4–5), 412–436.Google Scholar
Morgan, SL and Winship, C (2007) Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, CC (1987) The Comparative Method Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, CC (2000) Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, WS (1950) Ecological Correlations and the Behavior of Individuals. American Sociological Review 15(3), 351–357.Google Scholar
Rubin, D (1980) Discussion of ‘Randomization Analysis of Experimental Data in the Fisher Randomization Test’. Journal of the American Statistical Association 75(371), 591–593.Google Scholar
Rubin, D (2005) Causal Inference Using Potential Outcomes: Design, Modeling, Decisions. Journal of the American Statistical Association 100(469), 322–331.Google Scholar
Runhardt, RW (2015) Evidence for Causal Mechanisms in Social Science: Recommendations from Woodward’s Manipulability Theory of Causation. Philosophy of Science 82(5), 1296–1307.Google Scholar
Russo, F and Williamson, J (2007) Interpreting Causality in the Health Science. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21(2), 157–170.Google Scholar
Russo, F and Williamson, J (2011) Generic versus Single-Case Causality: The Case of Autopsy. European Journal of the Philosophy of Science 1(1), 47–69.Google Scholar
Schmitt, J and Beach, D (2015) The Contribution of Process Tracing to Theory-Based Evaluations of Complex Aid Instruments. Evaluation 21(4), 429–447.Google Scholar
Schneider, CQ and Rohlfing, I (2013) Combining QCA and Process Tracing in Set-Theoretical Multi-Method Research. Sociological Methods and Research 42(4), 559–597.Google Scholar
Schneider, CQ and Rohlfing, I (2016) Case Studies Nested in Fuzzy-Set QCA on Sufficiency: Formalizing Case Selection and Causal Inference. Sociological Methods and Research 45(3), 526–568.Google Scholar
Seawright, J (2016) Multi-Method Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Steel, D (2008) Across the Boundaries: Extrapolation in Biology and Social Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tetlock, PE and Belkin, A (eds) (1996) Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics: Logical, Methodological, and Psychological Perspectives. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Waskan, J (2011) Mechanistic Explanation at the Limit. Synthèse 183(3), 389–408.Google Scholar
Wauters, B and Beach, D (2018) Process Tracing and Congruence Analysis to Support Theory-Based Impact Evaluation. Evaluation 24(3), 284–305.Google Scholar
Williams, M and Dyer, W (2009) Single Case Probabilities. In Byrne DS and Ragin CC (eds), The Sage Handbook of Case-Based Methods. London: Sage, pp. 84–100.Google Scholar
Woodward, J (2003) Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yanow, D and Schwartz-Shea, P (2012) Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and Processes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar