Case Studies in Comparative Political Research: Value, Versatility, and Methodological Integration

Orhan Dogan

doi:10.29333/ajqr/17874

Orhan Dogan ¹ ^*

More Detail

AM J QUALITATIVE RES, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp. 317-331

https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/17874

OPEN ACCESS 21 Views 7 Downloads

Download Full Text (PDF)

Abstract

This paper examines the role and significance of case studies in social science research, particularly within comparative politics. It analyzes the methodological debate between nomothetic and idiographic approaches to highlight how different perspectives on the aims and scope of science influence researchers' views on case studies' utility. The paper argues that case studies serve several crucial functions: they enable the exploration of understudied phenomena through rich, detailed examination; facilitate theory development and testing; ensure conceptual validity through contextual sensitivity; and reveal complex causal relationships that might be overlooked by statistical methods. Engaging with contemporary methodological developments including process tracing formalization, multi-method research designs, and the transparency movement, this study demonstrates how recent innovations have strengthened the analytical rigor of case-based research. While acknowledging common criticisms regarding limited generalizability and selection bias, the paper demonstrates that these limitations can be effectively addressed through careful research design and appropriate case selection strategies. Building on foundational works by Lijphart, Skocpol, and Gerring, and integrating recent scholarships from Beach and Pedersen, Seawright, and Goertz and Mahoney, the analysis suggests that the integration of case studies with cross-case analyses presents an optimal approach for researchers seeking to balance context-specific understanding with broader comparative insights. This paper contributes to methodological discussions by providing a comprehensive framework for understanding both the strengths and limitations of case-based research while offering practical strategies for maximizing their utility in political science research.

Keywords: Case studies, comparative politics, theory development, process tracing, multi-method research, qualitative methods, methodological pluralism

References

Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2003). An African success story: Botswana. In D. Rodrik (Ed.), In search of prosperity: Analytic narratives on economic growth (pp. 80–119). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691188539-005
Achen, C. H., & Snidal, D. (1989). Rational deterrence theory: I think, therefore I deter. World Politics, 41(2), 143–169. https://doi.org/10.2307/2010405
Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2019). Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines (2nd ed.). University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.10072208
Bennett, A. (1997). Lost in the translation: Big (N) misinterpretations of case study research. MacArthur Program on Case Studies.
Brady, H. E., & Collier, D. (Eds.). (2010). Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Carelli, D. (2024). Shifts of administrative power: Competence trumps aristocracy in Swedish state-building. Comparative Politics, 57(3). Advance online publication.
Chandra, K. (2006). Mechanisms and outcomes. Qualitative Methods Newsletter—American Political Science Association, Spring, 6–9.
Chowdhury, A., & Shil, N. C. (2021). Thinking qualitative through a case study: Homework for a researcher. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 5(2), 190–210. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/11280
Collier, D., Brady, H. E., & Seawright, J. (2004). Sources of leverage in causal inference: Toward an alternative view of methodology. In H. E. Brady & D. Collier (Eds.), Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards (pp. 229–266). Rowman & Littlefield.
Collier, R. B., & Collier, D. (1991). Shaping the political arena: Critical junctures, the labor movement, and regime dynamics in Latin America. Princeton University Press.
Dion, D. (1998). Evidence and inference in the comparative case study. Comparative Politics, 30(2), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.2307/422284
Dunning, T. (2012). Natural experiments in the social sciences: A design-based approach. Cambridge University Press.
Elman, C., & Kapiszewski, D. (2014). Data access and research transparency in the qualitative tradition. PS: Political Science & Politics, 47(1), 43–47. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096513001777
Geddes, B. (1990). How the cases you choose affect the answers you get: Selection bias in comparative politics. Political Analysis, 2, 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/2.1.131
George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press.
Gerring, J. (2004). What is the case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–354. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055404001182
Gerring, J. (2017). Qualitative methods. Annual Review of Political Science, 20, 15–36.
Goertz, G., & Mahoney, J. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. Princeton University Press.
Goodrick, D. (2014). Comparative case studies: Methodological briefs—Impact evaluation No. 9. UNICEF Office of Research.
Goritz, A. (2025). Prompting peasant protest: Cashews, coalitions, and collective action in Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire. Comparative Politics, 57(2).
Grass, K. (2024). The three logics of qualitative research: Epistemology, ontology, and methodology in political science. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 8(1), 42–67. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/14083
Hall, P. A. (2003). Aligning ontology and methodology in comparative research. In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 373– 404). Cambridge University Press.
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400821211
Kohli, A., Evans, P., Katzenstein, P. J., Przeworski, A., Rudolph, S. H., Scott, J. C., & Skocpol, T. (1995). The role of theory in comparative politics: A symposium. World Politics, 48(1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.1995.0002
Köllner, P., Sil, R., & Ahram, A. I. (2018). Comparative area studies: What it is, what it can do. In A. I. Ahram, P. Köllner, & R. Sil (Eds.), Comparative area studies: Methodological rationales and cross-regional applications (pp. 3–26). Oxford University Press.
Laitin, D. D. (1986). Hegemony and culture: Politics and religious change among the Yoruba. University of Chicago Press.
Lieberman, E. S. (2005). Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 435–452. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051762
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/70.2.307
Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682–693. https://doi.org/10.2307/1955513
Mahoney, J. (2000). Strategies for causal inference in small-N analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 28(4), 387–424.
Mahoney, J., & Rueschemeyer, D. (Eds.). (2003). Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge University Press.
Munck, G. L. (2006). The past and present of comparative politics. Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies Working Paper, 330. https://kellogg.nd.edu/sites/default/files/old_files/documents/330_0.pdf
Munck, G. L., & Snyder, R. (2007). Debating the direction of comparative politics: An analysis of leading journals. Comparative Political Studies, 40(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414006294816
Oren, I. (1995). The subjectivity of the "democratic" peace: Changing U.S. perceptions of imperial Germany. International Security, 20(2), 147–184. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539231
Pavone, T. (2014). Constitutional identity: An overview and some conceptual concerns. Princeton University Working Paper.
Pepinsky, T. B. (2019). The return of the single-country study. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 187–203. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051017-113314
Pierson, P. (2003). Big, slow-moving, and… invisible: Macrosocial processes in the study of comparative politics. In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 177–207). Cambridge University Press.
Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. Wiley-Interscience.
Sartori, G. (1970). Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review, 64(4), 1033–1053. https://doi.org/10.2307/1958356
Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Seawright, J. (2016). Multi-method social science: Combining qualitative and quantitative tools. Cambridge University Press.
Shrestha, P., & Bhattarai, P. C. (2022). Application of case study methodology in the exploration of inclusion in education. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 6(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/11461
Skocpol, T. (1979). States and social revolutions: A comparative analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815805
Steinmo, S. (2008). Historical institutionalism. In D. Della Porta & M. Keating (Eds.), Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences: A pluralist perspective (pp. 118–138). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801938.008
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Citation

Dogan, O. (2026). Case Studies in Comparative Political Research: Value, Versatility, and Methodological Integration. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 10(1), 317-331. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/17874

Dogan, O. (2026). Case Studies in Comparative Political Research: Value, Versatility, and Methodological Integration. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 10(1), pp. 317-331. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/17874

Dogan O. Case Studies in Comparative Political Research: Value, Versatility, and Methodological Integration. AM J QUALITATIVE RES. 2026;10(1), 317-331. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/17874

Dogan, Orhan. "Case Studies in Comparative Political Research: Value, Versatility, and Methodological Integration". American Journal of Qualitative Research 2026 10 no. 1 (2026): 317-331. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/17874

Dogan, Orhan "Case Studies in Comparative Political Research: Value, Versatility, and Methodological Integration". American Journal of Qualitative Research, vol. 10, no. 1, 2026, pp. 317-331. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/17874

Dogan O. Case Studies in Comparative Political Research: Value, Versatility, and Methodological Integration. AM J QUALITATIVE RES. 2026;10(1):317-31. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/17874