Advertisement

Considerations and Recommendations for the Gathering and Analyses of Data

  • Gunnar FermannEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The choice of methods for the collection and analyses of data is guided by the analytical approach of Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA), the state of the literature on the politics of caveats, and influenced by caveats be regarded as sensitive information. Research collaboration with military colleges and military scholars is likely to benefit not only the gathering of data but also the interpretation of the empirical material. For theory developing purposes, inductive use of plausibility probing, deviating and “practice”-tracing single case-designs are likely to give epistemological traction. For theory testing, Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) in combination with structured, focused comparison and single-case process tracing designs are promising routes to knowledge in a nascent field of research such as the politics of caveats.

Keywords

Obstacles to data collection Case study design Comparable-cases design Theory development Theory testing Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) Plausibility probes Process tracing Contingent generalization Causal mechanisms Interaction effects Validity Reliability Scope conditions Case selection Degrees of freedom Multiple conjectural causation Causal recipes Structured, focused comparison 

References

  1. Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics. European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison, G., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of Decision. Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Almond, G., & Verba, S. (1963). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aristotle. (1979 [c.350 BCE]). Politics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  5. Auerswald, D. P., & Saideman, S. M. (2014). NATO in Afghanistan: Fighting Together, Fighting Alone. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2017). Rethinking Case Study Research. A Comparative Approach. Oxford, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Bates, R., Weingast, B., Greif, A., Levi, M., & Rosenthal, J.-L. (1998). Analytic Narratives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bauman, Z. (1978). Hermeneutics and Social Science: Approaches to Understanding. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Bennett, A., & Checkel, J. T. (Eds.). (2015). Process Tracing. From Metaphor to Analytical Tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bennett, A., Lepgold, J., & Unger, D. (1994). Burden-Sharing in the Persian Gulf War. International Organization, 48(1), 39–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blaikie, N. (2009). Designing Social Research. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Brady, H. E., & Collier, D. (Eds.). (2010). Rethinking Social Inquiry. Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  13. Brady, H. E., Collier, D., & Seawright, J. (2010). Refocusing the Discussion of Methodology. In H. E. Brady & D. Collier (Eds.), Rethinking Social Inquiry. Diverse Tools, Shared Standards (pp. 15–32). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  14. Brams, S. J. (1994). Theory of Moves. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Brinton, C. (1965). The Anatomy of Revolution. New York, NY: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  16. Bryman, A. (2001). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Byrne, D., & Ragin, C. C. (Eds.). (2013). The Sage Handbook of Case-Based Methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Checkel, J. T. (2006). Tracing Causal Mechanisms. International Studies Review, 8(2), 362–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Collier, D. (1993). The Comparative Method. In A. W. Finifter (Ed.), Political Science: The State of the Discipline II (pp. 105–120). Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  20. Collier, D. (1999, Winter). Data, Field Work and Extracting New Ideas at Close Range. APSA-CP Newsletter, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  21. Cronqvist, L., & Berg-Schlosser, D. (2009). Multi-value QCA (mvQCA). In B. Rihoux & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), Configurational Comparative Methods. Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Related Techniques (pp. 69–86). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. de Mesquita, B. B. (2000). Principles of International Politics: People’s Power, Preferences, and Perceptions. Washington, DC: QC Press.Google Scholar
  23. Eckstein, H. (1975). Case Study and Theory in Political Science. In F. I. Greenstein & N. W. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of Political Science (Vol. 7, pp. 119–161). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  24. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Elman, C. (2005). Explanatory Typologies in Qualitative Studies of International Politics. International Organization, 59(2), 293–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fearon, J. D. (1998). Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, and Theories of International Relations. Annual Review of Political Science, 1(3), 289–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fermann, G. (1988). UNEF II – 1973–89: Instrument for forhandlet konfliktløsning (NUPI Report No. 120). Oslo: Norwegian Institute for International Affairs.Google Scholar
  28. Fermann, G. (1992). Internasjonal fredsbevaring 1956–1990. En sammenliknende undersøkelse. Forsvarsstudier 5/1992. Oslo: Institutt for forsvarsstudier. https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/99313/4/FS0592.pdf.
  29. Fermann, G. (Ed.). (2013). Utenrikspolitikk og norsk krisehåndtering. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademika. https://www.cappelendamm.no/_utenrikspolitikk-og-norsk-kriseh%C3%A5ndtering-gunnar-fermann-9788202378691.
  30. Frendreis, J. P. (1983). Explanation of Variation and Detection of Covariation. The Purpose of Logic and Logic of Comparative Analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 16(2), 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Frost-Nielsen, P. M. (2016). Betingede forpliktelser. Nasjonale reservasjoner i militære koalisjonsoperasjoner. Ph.D. dissertation in Political Science, Department of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim.Google Scholar
  32. Frost-Nielsen, P. M. (2017). Conditional Commitments: Why States Use Caveats to Reserve Their Efforts in Military Coalition Operations. Contemporary Security Policy, 38(3), 371–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. George, A. L. (1979). Case Studies and Theory Development: The Method of Structured Focused Comparison. In P. G. Lauren (Ed.), Diplomatic History: New Approaches (pp. 43–68). New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  34. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Gerring, J. (2007). Case Study Research. Principles and Practices. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hague, R., Harrop, M., & Breslin, S. (Eds.). (1998). Government and Politics: An Introduction. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  37. Hall, J. R. (2007). Historicity and Socio-historical Research. In W. Outhwaite & S. P. Turner (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Social Science Methodology (pp. 82–101). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Haney, P. J. (2002). Organizing for Foreign Policy Crises: Presidents, Advisers, and the Management of Decision-Making. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  39. Harris, W. A. (1997). On “Scope Conditions” in Sociological Theories. Social and Economic Studies, 46(4), 123–127.Google Scholar
  40. Henriksen, Dag. (2007). NATO’s Gamble. Combining Diplomacy and Airpower in the Kosovo Crisis 1998–1999. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.Google Scholar
  41. Hudson, V. M. (2005). Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of International Relations. Foreign Policy Analysis, 1(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hudson, V. M. (2007). Foreign Policy Analysis: Classical and Contemporary Theory. Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  43. Husby, G. (2015). Fra hull i luften, til hull i Gaddafis bunker. Bruk av politiske reservasjoner på norsk militærmakt i flernasjonale koalisjonsoperasjoner. En komparativ studie av F-16 bidragene i Kosovo, Afghanistan og Libya. Master Thesis in Political Science, Department of Sociology and Political Science. Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim.Google Scholar
  44. Ingesson, T. (2016). The Politics of Combat: The Political and Strategic Impact of Tactical-Level Subcultures, 1939–1995. Lund: Ph.D. Dissertation, Faculty of Social Sciences and Department of Political Science, Lund University. http://portal.research.lu.se/ws/files/7253766/Tony_Ingesson_Politics_of_Combat.pdf.
  45. Ingesson, T. (2017). Trigger-Happy, Autonomous, and Disobedient: Nordbat 2 and Mission Command in Bosnia. The Strategy Bridge, 20 September. https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2017/9/20/trigger-happy-autonomous-and-disobedient-nordbat-2-and-mission-command-in-bosnia.
  46. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kawulich, B. B. (2005). Participant Observation as a Data Collection Method. Qualitative Social Research, 6(2). http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/466/9*96.Google Scholar
  48. Kehr, E. (2012 [1927]). Der Primat der Innenpolitik. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur preußisch-deutschen Sozialgeschichte im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co.Google Scholar
  49. King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing Social Inquiry. Scientific Inference in Quantitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Kögler, H.-H. (2011). Understanding and Interpretation. In W. Outhwaite & S. P. Turner (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Social Science Methodology (pp. 363–383). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  51. Levy, J. S. (2002). Qualitative Methods in International Relations. In M. Brecher & F. P. Harvey (Eds.), Millennial Reflections on International Studies (pp. 432–454). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  52. Levy, J. S. (2007). Theory, Evidence, and Politics in the Evolution of Research Programs. In R. N. Lebow & M. I. Lichbach (Eds.), Theory and Evidence in Comparative Politics and International Relations. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  53. Levy, J. S. (2008). Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lieberson, S. (1992). Small N’s and Big Conclusions: An Examination of the Reasoning in Comparative Studies Based on a Small Number of Cases. In C. C. Ragin & H. S. Becker (Eds.), What Is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry (pp. 105–118). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative Politics and Comparative Method. American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lijphart, A. (1975). The Comparable-Cases Strategy in Comparative Research. Comparative Political Studies, 8(2), 158–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lombardi, B. (2008). All Politics Is Local: Germany, the Bundeswehr, and Afghanistan. International Journal, 63(3), 587–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Machiavelli, N. (1961 [1531]). The Prince. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  59. Mackie, J. L. (1965). Causes and Conditions. American Philosophical Quarterly, 4(2), 245–264.Google Scholar
  60. Mill, J. S. (2002 [1891]). A System of Logic. Honolulu; HI: University Press of the Pacific.Google Scholar
  61. Mitchell, J. Clyde. (1983). Case and Situational Analysis. Sociological Review, 31(2), 187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mjøset, L. (2009). The Contextualist Approach to Social Science Methodology. In D. Byrne & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), Case-Based Methods (pp. 39–68). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  63. Møller, J. (2015). Statsdannelse, regimeforandring og økonomisk udvikling. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
  64. Moore, B. (1966). Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  65. Moses, J. W., & Knutsen, T. L. (2012). Ways of Knowing. Competing Methodologies in Social and Political Science. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  66. Olson, M. (1971). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Olson, M., & Zeckhauser, R. (1966). An Economic Theory of Alliances. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 48(3), 266–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Outhwaite, W., & Turner, S. P. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage Handbook of Social Science Methodology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  69. Platt, J. (2007). Case Study. In W. Outhwaite & S. P. Turner (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Social Science Methodology (pp. 102–127). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pouliot, V. (2015). Practice Tracing. In A. Bennett & J. T. Checkel (Eds.), Process Tracing. From Metaphor to Analytical Tool (pp. 102–127). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  72. Ragin, C. C. (undated). What Is Qualitative Comparative Analysis? Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/250/1/What_is_QCA.pdf.
  73. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  74. Ragin, C. C. (1994). Constructing Social Research. The Unity and Diversity of Method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  75. Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  76. Ragin, C. C. (2007). Comparative Methods. In W. Outhwaite & S. P. Turner (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Social Science Methodology (pp. 67–81). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  78. Ragin, C. C. (2009). Qualitative Comparative Analysis Using Fuzzy Sets (fsQCA). In B. Rihoux & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), Configurational Comparative Methods. Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Related Techniques (pp. 87–122). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ragin, C. C., & Becker, H. S. (Eds.). (1992). What Is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Rihoux, B. (2013). QCA 25 Years After “The Comparative Method”: Mapping, Challenges, and Innovations—Mini-Symposium. Political Research Quarterly, 66(2), 167–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Rihoux, B., & De Meur, G. (2009). Crisp-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis. In B. Rihoux & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), Configurational Comparative Methods. Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Related Techniques (pp. 33–68). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. C. (Eds.). (2009). Configurational Comparative Methods. Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Related Techniques. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  83. Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy. World Politics, 51(1), 144–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rosenau, J. N. (Ed.). (1974). Comparing Foreign Policies: Theories, Findings, and Methods. New York, CA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  85. Rynning, S., & Guzzini, S. (2002). Realism and Foreign Policy Analysis. In F. Charillon (Ed.), Politique etrangere: Nouveaux regards. Paris: Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  86. Sambanis, N. (2004). What Is Civil War? Conceptual and Empirical Complexities of an Operational Definition. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48(6), 814–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Schneider, S. L. (2007). Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs in Behavioral Research: On Context, Crud, and Convergence. In W. Outhwaite & S. P. Turner (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Social Science Methodology (pp. 172–189). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  88. Simons, H. (2009). Case Study Research in Practice. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Skocpol, T. (1979). States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Smelser, N. J. (1973). The Methodology in the Social Sciences. In D. P. Warwick & S. D. Osherson (Eds.), Comparative Research Methods (pp. 42–86). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  91. Smith, S., Hadfield, A., & Dunne, T. (Eds.). (2008). Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Snyder, G. H. (1984). The Security Dilemma in Alliance Politics. World Politics, 36(4), 461–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  94. Tarrow, S. (1995). The Europeanisation of Conflict: Reflections from a Social Movement Perspective. West European Politics, 18(2), 223–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Thies, C. G., & Breuning, M. (2012). Integrating Foreign Policy Analysis and International Relations Through Role Theory. Foreign Policy Analysis, 8(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Thomas, G. (2011). A Typology of the Case Study in Social Science Following a Review of Definition, Discourse, and Structure. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(6), 511–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Van Evera, S. (1997). Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Itacha, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  98. Vennesson, P. (2008). Case Study and Process Tracing: Theories and Practices. In D. Della Porta & M. Keating (Eds.), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences. A Pluralist Perspective (pp. 223–239). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wicks, D. (2012). Deviant Case Analysis. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Case Study Research (pp. 290–291). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  100. Wieviorka, M. (1992). Case Studies: History or Sociology? In C. C. Ragin & H. S. Becker (Eds.), What Is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry (pp. 159–172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  101. Wolf, E. R. (1968). Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations