Advertisement

Fallorientierte Forschungsdesigns

Living reference work entry
  • 448 Downloads
Part of the Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften book series (SRS)

Zusammenfassung

Fallorientierte Forschungsdesigns haben eine lange Tradition in der Politikwissenschaft. Die verstärkte Beschäftigung mit diesen Ansätzen, die in den vergangenen Dekaden zu beobachten ist, hat dabei zu einer Verfeinerung aber auch Ausdifferenzierung des methodischen Instrumentariums geführt. Der vorliegende Beitrag bietet einen grundlegenden Überblick über die Bandbreite und Vielfalt fallorientierter Forschungsdesigns. Hierzu werden zentrale Merkmale und Charakteristika herausgearbeitet und aufgezeigt, wie sich diese auf unterschiedliche Arten in den verschiedenen Varianten der Fallstudientradition wiederfinden lassen. Illustriert werden die Forschungslogiken anhand von Beispielen aus diversen politikwissenschaftlichen Anwendungsfeldern.

Schlüsselwörter

Fallstudiendesigns Einzelfallstudien Vergleichende Fallstudien Process Tracing Qualitative Comparative Analysis Mills Methods Comparative Historical Analysis 

Literatur

  1. Beach, Derek. 2019. Multi-method research in the social sciences: A review of recent frameworks and a way forward. Government and Opposition 55(1): 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beach, Derek, und Rasmus B. Pedersen. 2016. Causal case study methods. Foundations and guidelines for comparing, Matching and tracing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beach, Derek, und Rasmus B. Pedersen. 2019. Process-tracing methods. Foundations and guidelines, 2. Aufl. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, Nathaniel. 2006. Is causal-process observation an oxymoron? Political Analysis 14(3): 347–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck, Nathaniel. 2010. Causal process ‚observation‘: Oxymoron or (fine) old wine. Political Analysis 18(4): 499–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett, Andrew, und Jeffrey T. Checkel, Hrsg. 2015a. Process tracing. From metaphor to analytical tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bennett, Andrew, und Jeffrey T. Checkel. 2015b. Process tracing: From philosophical roots to best practices. In Process tracing. From metaphor to analytical tool, Hrsg. Andrew Bennett und Jeffrey T. Checkel, 3–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bennett, Andrew, und Colin Elman. 2006. Qualitative research: Recent developments in case study methods. Annual Review of Political Science 9(1): 455–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berg-Schlosser, Dirk, und Gisèle DeMeur. 2009. Comparative research design: Case and variable selection. In Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis, Hrsg. Benoît Rihoux und Charles C. Ragin, 19–32. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blatter, Joachim, und Markus Haverland. 2012. Designing case studies. Explanatory approaches in small-N research. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Blatter, Joachim, Phil C. Langer, und Claudius Wagemann. 2018. Qualitative Methoden in der Politikwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Böller, Florian, und Marcus Müller. 2018. Unleashing the watchdogs: Explaining congressional assertiveness in the politics of US military interventions. European Political Science Review 10(4): 637–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brady, Henry E., und David Collier, Hrsg. 2004. Rethinking social inquiry. Diverse tools, shared standards. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  14. Brady, Henry E., und David Collier. 2010. Rethinking social inquiry. Diverse tools, shared standards, 2. Aufl. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  15. Brady, Henry E., David Collier, und Jason Seawright. 2006. Toward a pluralistic vision of methodology. Political Analysis 14(3): 353–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Büthe, Tim. 2002. Taking temporality seriously: Modeling history and the use of narratives as evidence. American Political Science Review 96(3): 481–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Caramani, Daniele. 2009. Introduction to the comparative method with Boolean algebra. Los Angeles: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Collier, David. 2011. Understanding process tracing. Political Science & Politics 44(4): 823–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Collier, David, Henry E. Brady, und Jason Seawright. 2010a. Sources of leverage in causal inference: Toward an alternative view of methodology. In Rethinking social inquiry. Diverse tools, shared standards, Hrsg. Henry E. Brady und David Collier, 2. Aufl., 161–200. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  20. Collier, David, Henry E. Brady, und Jason Seawright. 2010b. Outdated views of qualitative methods: Time to move on. Political Analysis 18(4): 506–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Collier, David, Jason Seawright, und Gerardo L. Munck. 2010c. The quest for standards: King, Keohane, and Verba’s designing social inquiry. In Rethinking social inquiry. Diverse tools, shared standards, Hrsg. Henry E. Brady und David Collier, 2. Aufl., 33–64. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  22. Duverger, Maurice. 1972. Party politics and pressure groups. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
  23. Eckstein, Harry. 1975. Case study and theory in political science. In Handbook of political science, Hrsg. Fred I. Greenstein und Nelson W. Polsby, 79–137. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  24. Fairfield, Tasha, und Andrew Charman. 2018. Explicit Bayesian analysis for process tracing: Guidelines, opportunities, and caveats. Political Analysis 25(3): 363–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Falleti, Tulia G., und Julia F. Lynch. 2009. Context and causal mechanisms in political analysis. Comparative Political Studies 42(9): 1143–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Falleti, Tulia, und James Mahoney. 2015. The comparative sequential method. In Advances in comparative-historical analysis, Hrsg. James Mahoney und Kathleen Thelen, 211–239. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ganghof, Steffen. 2019. Forschungsdesign in der Politikwissenschaft. Eine theorieorientierte Perspektive mit Anwendungsbeispielen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Geddes, Barbara. 1990. How the cases you choose affect the answers you get: Selection bias in comparative politics. Political Analysis 2(1): 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. George, Alexander, und Andrew Bennett. 2005. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gerring, John. 2007. Case study research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gerring, John. 2017. Case study research. Principles and practices, 2. Aufl. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Goertz, Gary. 2017. Multimethod research, causal mechanisms, and case studies. An integrated approach. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Goertz, Gary, und James Mahoney. 2009. Scope in case-study research. In The Sage handbook of case-based methods, Hrsg. David Byrne und Charles C. Ragin, 307–317. SAGE: Thousand Oaks.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Goertz, Gary, und James Mahoney. 2012. A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grzymala-Busse, Anna. 2011. Time will tell? Temporality and the analysis of causal mechanisms and processes. Comparative Political Studies 44(9): 1267–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jack S. Levy (2015) Counterfactuals, causal inference, and historical analysis. Security Studies 24(3): 378–402.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2015.1070602.
  37. King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, und Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing social inquiry. Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Koivu, Kendra L., und Erin Kimball Damman. 2015. Qualitative variations: The sources of divergent qualitative methodological approaches. Quality & Quantity 49(6): 2617–2632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kuehn, David, und Ingo Rohlfing. 2016. Are there really two cultures? A pilot study on the application of qualitative and quantitative methods in political science. European Journal of Political Research 55(4): 885–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Landman, Todd, und Edzia Carvalho. 2017. Issues and methods in comparative politics. An introduction. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Levine, Timothy R., René Weber, Craig Hullett, Hee Sun Park, und Lisa L. Massi Lindsey. 2008. A critical assessment of null hypothesis significance testing in quantitative communication research. Human Communication Research 34:171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lieberman, Evan S. 2005. Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review 99(3): 435–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lieberson, Stanley. 1992. Small N’s and big conclusions: An examination of the reasoning in comparative studies based on a small number of cases. In What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry, Hrsg. Charles C. Ragin und Howard Becker, 105–118. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Lijphart, Arend. 1971. Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review 65(3): 682–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mahoney, James. 2000. Strategies of causal inference in small-N analysis. Sociological Methods & Research 28(4): 387–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mahoney, James. 2010. After KKV: The new methodology of qualitative research. World Politics 62(1): 120–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mahoney, James, und Gary Goertz. 2004. The possibility principle: Choosing negative cases in comparative research. American Political Science Review 98(4): 653–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mahoney, James, und Gary Goertz. 2006. A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political Analysis 14:227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mahoney, James, und Kathleen A. Thelen. 2015. Advances in comparative-historical analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mahoney, James, und Rachel Sweet Vanderpoel. 2015. Set diagrams and qualitative research. Comparative Political Studies 48(1): 65–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mahoney, James, Erin Kimball, und Kendra L. Koivu. 2009. The logic of historical explanation in the social sciences. Comparative Political Studies 42(1): 114–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Michels, Robert. 1999[1911]. Political parties. A sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  53. Morlino, Leonardo. 2018. Comparison. A methodological introduction for the social sciences. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Przeworski, Adam, und Henry Teune. 1970. Logic of comparative social inquiry. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  55. Ragin, Charles C. 1987. The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  56. Ragin, Charles C. 1994. Constructing social research. The unity and diversity of method. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  57. Ragin, Charles C. 2000. Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  58. Ragin, Charles C. 2004. Turning the tables: How case-oriented research challenges variable-oriented research. In Rethinking social inquiry. Diverse tools, shared standards, Hrsg. Henry E. Brady und David Collier, 123–138. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  59. Ragin, Charles C. 2008. Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ragin, Charles C., und Howard S. Becker, Hrsg. 1992. What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Rohlfing, Ingo. 2012. Case studies and causal inference: An integrative framework. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ross, Marc H., und Elizabeth Homer. 1976. Galton’s problem in cross-national research. World Politics 29(1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rueschemeyer, Dietrich. 2003. Can one or a few cases yield theoretical gains? In Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences, Hrsg. Dietrich Rueschemeyer und James Mahoney, 305–336. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, und James Mahoney, Hrsg. 2003. Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Schneider, Carsten Q., und Ingo Rohlfing. 2016. Case studies nested in Fuzzy-set QCA on sufficiency. Sociological Methods & Research 45(3): 526–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schneider, Carsten Q., und Claudius Wagemann. 2012. Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Seawright, Jason. 2016. Multi-method social science. Combining qualitative and quantitative tools. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Siewert, Markus B. 2017a. Qualitative comparative analysis. In Neue Trends in den Sozialwissenschaften. Innovative Techniken für qualitative und quantitative Forschung, Hrsg. Sebastian Jäckle, 273–306. Wiesbaden: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Siewert, Markus B. 2017b. Process tracing. In Neue Trends in den Sozialwissenschaften. Innovative Techniken für qualitative und quantitative Forschung, Hrsg. Sebastian Jäckle, 239–272. Wiesbaden: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Skocpol, Theda, und Margaret Somers. 1980. The uses of comparative history in macrosocial inquiry. Comparative Studies in Society and History 22(2): 174–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Smeets, Sandrino, und Derek Beach. 2020. Political and instrumental leadership in major EU reforms. The role and influence of the EU institutions in setting-up the fiscal compact. Journal of European Public Policy 27(1): 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tetlock, Philip E., und Aaron Belkin, Hrsg. 1996. Counterfactual thought experiments in world politics. Logical, methodological, and psychological perspectives. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Thelen, Kathleen. 2019. Transitions to the knowledge economy in Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Comparative Politics 51(2): 295–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Van Evera, Stephen. 1997. Guide to methods for students of political science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Wagemann, Claudius. 2011. Breakdown and change of private interest governments. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hochschule für Politik, TU MünchenMünchenDeutschland
  2. 2.Institut für PolitikwissenschaftGoethe Universität FrankfurtFrankfurt am MainDeutschland

Personalised recommendations