case study about politics

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

GovernmentandPolitics →

No results found in working knowledge.

• Were any results found in one of the other content buckets on the left?
• Try removing some search filters.
• Use different search filters.

• Active Programs
• Policy Committees
• Regional Progress Forum
• Publications
• Past Projects
• For Students

Case Studies and Cases in Point

The Institute's case studies utilize the rich resources of local archival collections to provide an in-depth historical analysis of key individuals, pivotal events, and important public policies, whereas cases in point offer a snapshot in time of a particular event that had a direct impact on policy in the region. A full listing of the Institute's case studies and cases in point can be found below.

Case Studies

• Talia Hullum and Briana Mihok, Integration of Human Services among Counties in Southwestern Pennsylvania: Five Case Studies (University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, 2013)
• PVAAS and Data Management Case Studies  (University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, 2009)
• Jenny Wolsk Bain, Pink Slip: Southwestern Pennsylvania's Response to Workforce Reductions at US Airways, 2001-05  (University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, 2006)
• Clarke Thomas,  Hurricane Katrina: A Community's Response to a National Disaster   (University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, 2006)
• Pamela Tokar-Ickes, Flight 93: Policy Considerations for Emergency Preparedness in Pennsylvania   (University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, 2005)

The Three Mile Island Nuclear Accident: A series by Louise Comfort and Carrie Miller

• The Three Mile Island Nuclear Accident: Continuing Policy Issues, Dilemmas, and Strategies   (University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, 2003)
• Decision-Making Under Uncertainty: The Three Mile Island Nuclear Accident from Multiple Perspectives  (University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, 2004)
• Safety vs. Technology in High Risk Environments: Trade-offs in Public Policy Decision-Making  (University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, 2004)
• Intergovernmental Communication and Cooperation: Networks vs. Hierarchy in Dynamic Environments  (University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, 2004)
• The Media's Role in High Risk Conditions: Community "Right to Know" vs. Public Information Management   (University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, 2004)

Leading in the public sector inevitably requires the skills to navigate complex political relationships within and among agencies and populations. The teaching cases in this section present real-world examples—from town hall meetings and regulatory dilemmas to disaster cleanup and infrastructure projects—all the while asking students to carefully balance the internal and external considerations necessary for making effective decisions.

A Fork in the Road: Simulating Lyndon Johnson's Choices in Vietnam in Early 1965

Publication Date: April 11, 2024

This historical role-play simulation is set on March 28, 1965. The scenario places students within the context of that time, a point at which, after months of increasing tensions and contentious debate, President Lyndon Johnson appears to be...

Charting a Course for Boston: Organizing for Change

Publication Date: March 5, 2024

Boston Mayor-elect Michelle Wu was elected on the promise of systemic change. Four days after her November 2021 victory—and just eleven days before taking office—she considered how to get started delivering on her sweeping agenda. Wu...

More than a Contract: Black Self-Determination and People’s Assemblies in Jackson, Mississippi Epilogue

Publication Date: March 1, 2024

This epilogue accompanies HKS Case 2276.0. The Jackson People’s Assembly (JPA), a vehicle of “Black self-determination and autonomous political authority of the oppressed peoples and communities in Jackson,” launched the...

More than a Contract: Black Self-Determination and People’s Assemblies in Jackson, Mississippi

The Jackson People’s Assembly (JPA), a vehicle of “Black self-determination and autonomous political authority of the oppressed peoples and communities in Jackson,” launched the political career of Chokwe Lumumba, a veteran...

Leadership in Moral Conflict Simone Veil and Abortion Reform in France

Publication Date: April 1, 2003

This case tells the 1974 story of a French health minister, Simone Veil, and her ultimately successful effort to liberalize France's abortion law. It serves as a vehicle for exploring leadership in a legislative setting, in this instance a...

Fallen Idol? Aung San Suu Kyi & the Rohingya Humanitarian Crisis Epilogue

Publication Date: January 25, 2024

This epilogue accompanies, "Fallen Idol? Aung San Suu Kyi & the Rohingya Humanitarian Crisis," HKS Case Number 2139.0. Soon after Myanmar’s longtime democracy crusader and opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, was...

Valerie Jarrett and the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response

Publication Date: August 9, 2023

 On April 20, 2010, Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, was sitting in her office in the West Wing. The split screens on her muted television in her office...

Leadership and Negotiation: Ending the Western Hemisphere’s Longest Running Border Conflict

Publication Date: October 4, 2022

For centuries, Ecuador and Peru each claimed sovereignty over a historically significant, but sparsely inhabited tract of borderland in the Amazonian highlands. The heavily disputed area had led the two nations to war—or the brink of...

The Making of a Public Health Catastrophe: A Step-by-Step Guide to the Flint Water Crisis

Publication Date: January 12, 2022

The Flint water crisis, which began in 2014, is widely regarded as a textbook example of structural racism and injustice. This teaching case provides a close examination of the building blocks of the catastrophe, some all-too-familiar in...

Cuna Más: Peru’s Home Visiting Program Evolves into a Comprehensive Early Childhood Development Strategy

Publication Date: May 5, 2021

The first case in this series describes the creation and initial expansion of Cuna Más, a national home visiting program in Peru. This second and final case in the series picks up a few years after Cuna Más was launched and charts...

American Broadcasting during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956: Incitement or Observation?

Publication Date: December 14, 2020

In the fall of 1956, under the shadow of the Soviet Union, Hungarian students revolted against the Communist Party in Budapest. But their calls for reform and a moderate government were silenced by Soviet troops. America’s broadcaster to...

Strategic Moves & Tough Choices: The Campaign Behind New Jersey’s ‘Ban the Box’ Law

Publication Date: June 30, 2020

In 2012, the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice—an NGO dedicated, in large part, to criminal justice reform—led a campaign to enact a new state law in New Jersey known colloquially as “Ban the Box,” which barred...

• Harvard Business School →
• Faculty & Research →

Democracy: A Case Study

• Format: Print
• Find it at Harvard

About The Author

David A. Moss

More from the author.

• Faculty Research

The U.S. Secession Crisis as a Breakdown of Democracy

When democracy breaks: studies in democratic erosion and collapse, from ancient athens to the present day.

• The U.S. Secession Crisis as a Breakdown of Democracy  By: Dean Grodzins and David Moss
• When Democracy Breaks: Studies in Democratic Erosion and Collapse, from Ancient Athens to the Present Day  By: Archon Fung, David Moss and Odd Arne Westad
• The U.S. Secession Crisis as a Breakdown of Democracy  By: David Moss and Dean Grodzins

Case Study Method and Policy Analysis

Cite this chapter.

• Leslie A. Pal  

479 Accesses

10 Citations

6 Altmetric

Case studies are a good part of the backbone of policy analysis and research. This chapter illustrates case study methodology with a specific example drawn from the author’s current research on Internet governance.

Real-world problems are embedded in complex systems, in specific institutions, and are viewed differently by different policy actors. The case study method contributes to policy analysis in two ways. First, it provides a vehicle for fully contextualized problem definition. For example, in dealing with rising crime rates in a given city, the case approach allows the analyst to develop a portrait of crime in that city, for that city, and for that city’s decision makers. Second, case studies can illuminate policy-relevant questions (more as research than analysis) and can eventually inform more practical advice down the road. The chapter reviews the relationship between case study research and the aspirations of more nomothetic (law-like generalizations) social science. To study a case is not to study a unique phenomenon, but one that provides insight into a broader range of phenomena.

The author’s example of ICANN illustrates issues pertaining to globalization, global governance, and the internationalization of policy processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Abbot, Andrew. 1992. What Do Cases Do? Some Notes on Activity in Sociological Analysis. In What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry . Charles C. Ragin and Howard S. Becker, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar  

Abramson, P.R. and R. Inglehart. 1995. Value Change in a Global Perspective . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Eckstein, Harry. 1975. Case Study and Theory in Political Science. In Strategies of Inquiry, Handbook of Political Science , vol. 7. Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby, eds. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.

Feagin, Joe R, Anthony M. Oram and Gideon Sjoberg, eds. 1991. A Case for the Case Study . Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.

Geva-May, Iris with Aaron Wildavsky. 1997. An Operational Approach to Policy Analysis: The Craft . Boston, CA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Book   Google Scholar  

Hafner, Katie and Matthew Lyon. 1996. Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins of the Internet . New York: Simon and Schuster.

Hall, Peter A. 1999. Social capital in Britain. British Journal of Political Science 29 (July): 417–61.

Article   Google Scholar  

Hettich, Walter and Stanley L. Winer. 1999. Democratic Choice and Taxation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

ICANN. 2002. President’s report: The case for reform. Online February 24, 2002: < http://www.icann.org /general/lynn-reform-proposal-24feb02.htm>.

ICANN. 2002. Mission statement. Online March 7, 2002: www.icann.org /general/toward-mission-statement-07mar02.htm>.

—. 2002. Working paper on ICANN core mission and values. Online May 6, 2002: < http://www.icann.org /committees/evol-reform/working-paper-mission-06may02.htm>.

Klein, Hans. 2001. The feasibility of global democracy: Understanding ICANN’s at-large elections, info 3 (August): 333–45.

Kleinwächter, Wolfgang. 2001. The silent subversive: ICANN and the new global governance, info 3 (August): 259–78.

Mittelman, James H. 2000. The Globalization Syndrome: Transformation and Resistance . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Mueller, Milton. 2001. Rough justice: A statistical assessment of ICANN’s Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy. The Information Society 17: 151–63.

—. 2002. Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Pal, Leslie A. 1988. State, Class and Bureaucracy: Canadian Unemployment Insurance and Public Policy . Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Pal, Leslie A. and R. Kent Weaver, eds. 2003. The Government Taketh Away: The Politics of Pain in the United States and Canada . Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Pauly, L.W. 1997. Who Elected the Bankers? Surveillance and Control in the World Economy . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Pierson, Paul. 1993. When effect becomes cause: Policy feedback and political change. World Politics 45: 595–628.

Przeworski, Adam and Henry Teune. 1970. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry . New York: WileyTnterscience.

Putnam, R.D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community . New York: Simon and Schuster.

Rheingold, Howard. 1993. The Virtual Community . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ruggie, John Gerard. 1998. Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization . London: Routledge.

Scholte, Jan Art. 2002. Globalization: An Introduction . Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Schön, David and Martin Rein. 1994. Frame Reflection . New York: Basic Books.

Sjoberg, Gideon, Norma Williams, Ted R. Vaughan and Andrée F. Sjoberg. 1991. The Case Approach in Social Research: Basic Methodological Issues. In A Case for the Case Study . Joe R. Feagin, Anthony M. Orum and Gideon Sjoberg, eds. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.

Stake, Robert E. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stone, Deborah. 1997. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision-Making . New York: W.W. Norton.

Tuohy, Carolyn Hughes. 1999. Accidental Logics: The Dynamics of Change in the Health Care Arena in the United States, Britain, and Canada . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Weinberg, J. 2000. ICANN and the problem of legitimacy. Duke Law Journal 50: 187–260.

Weiss, Carol. 1998. Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Yin, Robert K. 1989. Case Study Research: Design and Methods . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada

Iris Geva-May ( Professor of Public Policy ) ( Professor of Public Policy )

Copyright information

© 2005 Iris Geva-May

About this chapter

Pal, L.A. (2005). Case Study Method and Policy Analysis. In: Geva-May, I. (eds) Thinking Like a Policy Analyst. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403980939_12

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403980939_12

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, New York

Print ISBN : 978-1-349-53119-6

Online ISBN : 978-1-4039-8093-9

eBook Packages : Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies Collection Political Science and International Studies (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.3: Case Selection (Or, How to Use Cases in Your Comparative Analysis)

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 135832

• Dino Bozonelos, Julia Wendt, Charlotte Lee, Jessica Scarffe, Masahiro Omae, Josh Franco, Byran Martin, & Stefan Veldhuis
• Victor Valley College, Berkeley City College, Allan Hancock College, San Diego City College, Cuyamaca College, Houston Community College, and Long Beach City College via ASCCC Open Educational Resources Initiative (OERI)

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Discuss the importance of case selection in case studies.
• Consider the implications of poor case selection.

Introduction

Case selection is an important part of any research design. Deciding how many cases, and which cases, to include, will clearly help determine the outcome of our results. If we decide to select a high number of cases, we often say that we are conducting large-N research. Large-N research is when the number of observations or cases is large enough where we would need mathematical, usually statistical, techniques to discover and interpret any correlations or causations. In order for a large-N analysis to yield any relevant findings, a number of conventions need to be observed. First, the sample needs to be representative of the studied population. Thus, if we wanted to understand the long-term effects of COVID, we would need to know the approximate details of those who contracted the virus. Once we know the parameters of the population, we can then determine a sample that represents the larger population. For example, women make up 55% of all long-term COVID survivors. Thus, any sample we generate needs to be at least 55% women.

Second, some kind of randomization technique needs to be involved in large-N research. So not only must your sample be representative, it must also randomly select people within that sample. In other words, we must have a large selection of people that fit within the population criteria, and then randomly select from those pools. Randomization would help to reduce bias in the study. Also, when cases (people with long-term COVID) are randomly chosen they tend to ensure a fairer representation of the studied population. Third, your sample needs to be large enough, hence the large-N designation for any conclusions to have any external validity. Generally speaking, the larger the number of observations/cases in the sample, the more validity we can have in the study. There is no magic number, but if using the above example, our sample of long-term COVID patients should be at least over 750 people, with an aim of around 1,200 to 1,500 people.

When it comes to comparative politics, we rarely ever reach the numbers typically used in large-N research. There are about 200 fully recognized countries, with about a dozen partially recognized countries, and even fewer areas or regions of study, such as Europe or Latin America. Given this, what is the strategy when one case, or a few cases, are being studied? What happens if we are only wanting to know the COVID-19 response in the United States, and not the rest of the world? How do we randomize this to ensure our results are not biased or are representative? These and other questions are legitimate issues that many comparativist scholars face when completing research. Does randomization work with case studies? Gerring suggests that it does not, as “any given sample may be widely representative” (pg. 87). Thus, random sampling is not a reliable approach when it comes to case studies. And even if the randomized sample is representative, there is no guarantee that the gathered evidence would be reliable.

One can make the argument that case selection may not be as important in large-N studies as they are in small-N studies. In large-N research, potential errors and/or biases may be ameliorated, especially if the sample is large enough. This is not always what happens, errors and biases most certainly can exist in large-N research. However, incorrect or biased inferences are less of a worry when we have 1,500 cases versus 15 cases. In small-N research, case selection simply matters much more.

This is why Blatter and Haverland (2012) write that, “case studies are ‘case-centered’, whereas large-N studies are ‘variable-centered’". In large-N studies we are more concerned with the conceptualization and operationalization of variables. Thus, we want to focus on which data to include in the analysis of long-term COVID patients. If we wanted to survey them, we would want to make sure we construct questions in appropriate ways. For almost all survey-based large-N research, the question responses themselves become the coded variables used in the statistical analysis.

Case selection can be driven by a number of factors in comparative politics, with the first two approaches being the more traditional. First, it can derive from the interests of the researcher(s). For example, if the researcher lives in Germany, they may want to research the spread of COVID-19 within the country, possibly using a subnational approach where the researcher may compare infection rates among German states. Second, case selection may be driven by area studies. This is still based on the interests of the researcher as generally speaking scholars pick areas of studies due to their personal interests. For example, the same researcher may research COVID-19 infection rates among European Union member-states. Finally, the selection of cases selected may be driven by the type of case study that is utilized. In this approach, cases are selected as they allow researchers to compare their similarities or their differences. Or, a case might be selected that is typical of most cases, or in contrast, a case or cases that deviate from the norm. We discuss types of case studies and their impact on case selection below.

Types of Case Studies: Descriptive vs. Causal

There are a number of different ways to categorize case studies. One of the most recent ways is through John Gerring. He wrote two editions on case study research (2017) where he posits that the central question posed by the researcher will dictate the aim of the case study. Is the study meant to be descriptive? If so, what is the researcher looking to describe? How many cases (countries, incidents, events) are there? Or is the study meant to be causal, where the researcher is looking for a cause and effect? Given this, Gerring categorizes case studies into two types: descriptive and causal.

Descriptive case studies are “not organized around a central, overarching causal hypothesis or theory” (pg. 56). Most case studies are descriptive in nature, where the researchers simply seek to describe what they observe. They are useful for transmitting information regarding the studied political phenomenon. For a descriptive case study, a scholar might choose a case that is considered typical of the population. An example could involve researching the effects of the pandemic on medium-sized cities in the US. This city would have to exhibit the tendencies of medium-sized cities throughout the entire country. First, we would have to conceptualize what we mean by ‘a medium-size city’. Second, we would then have to establish the characteristics of medium-sized US cities, so that our case selection is appropriate. Alternatively, cases could be chosen for their diversity . In keeping with our example, maybe we want to look at the effects of the pandemic on a range of US cities, from small, rural towns, to medium-sized suburban cities to large-sized urban areas.

Causal case studies are “organized around a central hypothesis about how X affects Y” (pg. 63). In causal case studies, the context around a specific political phenomenon or phenomena is important as it allows for researchers to identify the aspects that set up the conditions, the mechanisms, for that outcome to occur. Scholars refer to this as the causal mechanism , which is defined by Falleti & Lynch (2009) as “portable concepts that explain how and why a hypothesized cause, in a given context, contributes to a particular outcome”. Remember, causality is when a change in one variable verifiably causes an effect or change in another variable. For causal case studies that employ causal mechanisms, Gerring divides them into exploratory case-selection, estimating case-selection, and diagnostic case-selection. The differences revolve around how the central hypothesis is utilized in the study.

Exploratory case studies are used to identify a potential causal hypothesis. Researchers will single out the independent variables that seem to affect the outcome, or dependent variable, the most. The goal is to build up to what the causal mechanism might be by providing the context. This is also referred to as hypothesis generating as opposed to hypothesis testing. Case selection can vary widely depending on the goal of the researcher. For example, if the scholar is looking to develop an ‘ideal-type’, they might seek out an extreme case. An ideal-type is defined as a “conception or a standard of something in its highest perfection” (New Webster Dictionary). Thus, if we want to understand the ideal-type capitalist system, we want to investigate a country that practices a pure or ‘extreme’ form of the economic system.

Estimating case studies start with a hypothesis already in place. The goal is to test the hypothesis through collected data/evidence. Researchers seek to estimate the ‘causal effect’. This involves determining if the relationship between the independent and dependent variables is positive, negative, or ultimately if no relationship exists at all. Finally, diagnostic case studies are important as they help to “confirm, disconfirm, or refine a hypothesis” (Gerring 2017). Case selection can also vary in diagnostic case studies. For example, scholars can choose an least-likely case, or a case where the hypothesis is confirmed even though the context would suggest otherwise. A good example would be looking at Indian democracy, which has existed for over 70 years. India has a high level of ethnolinguistic diversity, is relatively underdeveloped economically, and a low level of modernization through large swaths of the country. All of these factors strongly suggest that India should not have democratized, or should have failed to stay a democracy in the long-term, or have disintegrated as a country.

Most Similar/Most Different Systems Approach

The discussion in the previous subsection tends to focus on case selection when it comes to a single case. Single case studies are valuable as they provide an opportunity for in-depth research on a topic that requires it. However, in comparative politics, our approach is to compare. Given this, we are required to select more than one case. This presents a different set of challenges. First, how many cases do we pick? This is a tricky question we addressed earlier. Second, how do we apply the previously mentioned case selection techniques, descriptive vs. causal? Do we pick two extreme cases if we used an exploratory approach, or two least-likely cases if choosing a diagnostic case approach?

Thankfully, an English scholar by the name of John Stuart Mill provided some insight on how we should proceed. He developed several approaches to comparison with the explicit goal of isolating a cause within a complex environment. Two of these methods, the 'method of agreement' and the 'method of difference' have influenced comparative politics. In the 'method of agreement' two or more cases are compared for their commonalities. The scholar looks to isolate the characteristic, or variable, they have in common, which is then established as the cause for their similarities. In the 'method of difference' two or more cases are compared for their differences. The scholar looks to isolate the characteristic, or variable, they do not have in common, which is then identified as the cause for their differences. From these two methods, comparativists have developed two approaches.

What Is the Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD)?

This approach is derived from Mill’s ‘method of difference’. In a Most Similar Systems Design Design, the cases selected for comparison are similar to each other, but the outcomes differ in result. In this approach we are interested in keeping as many of the variables the same across the elected cases, which for comparative politics often involves countries. Remember, the independent variable is the factor that doesn’t depend on changes in other variables. It is potentially the ‘cause’ in the cause and effect model. The dependent variable is the variable that is affected by, or dependent on, the presence of the independent variable. It is the ‘effect’. In a most similar systems approach the variables of interest should remain the same.

A good example involves the lack of a national healthcare system in the US. Other countries, such as New Zealand, Australia, Ireland, UK and Canada, all have robust, publicly accessible national health systems. However, the US does not. These countries all have similar systems: English heritage and language use, liberal market economies, strong democratic institutions, and high levels of wealth and education. Yet, despite these similarities, the end results vary. The US does not look like its peer countries. In other words, why do we have similar systems producing different outcomes?

What Is the Most Different Systems Design (MDSD)?

This approach is derived from Mill’s ‘method of agreement’. In a Most Different System Design, the cases selected are different from each other, but result in the same outcome. In this approach, we are interested in selecting cases that are quite different from one another, yet arrive at the same outcome. Thus, the dependent variable is the same. Different independent variables exist between the cases, such as democratic v. authoritarian regime, liberal market economy v. non-liberal market economy. Or it could include other variables such as societal homogeneity (uniformity) vs. societal heterogeneity (diversity), where a country may find itself unified ethnically/religiously/racially, or fragmented along those same lines.

A good example involves the countries that are classified as economically liberal. The Heritage Foundation lists countries such as Singapore, Taiwan, Estonia, Australia, New Zealand, as well as Switzerland, Chile and Malaysia as either free or mostly free. These countries differ greatly from one another. Singapore and Malaysia are considered flawed or illiberal democracies (see chapter 5 for more discussion), whereas Estonia is still classified as a developing country. Australia and New Zealand are wealthy, Malaysia is not. Chile and Taiwan became economically free countries under the authoritarian military regimes, which is not the case for Switzerland. In other words, why do we have different systems producing the same outcome?

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

• Annotated Bibliography
• Analyzing a Scholarly Journal Article
• Group Presentations
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Leading a Class Discussion
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Reflective Paper
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Generative AI and Writing
• Acknowledgments

A case study research paper examines a person, place, event, condition, phenomenon, or other type of subject of analysis in order to extrapolate  key themes and results that help predict future trends, illuminate previously hidden issues that can be applied to practice, and/or provide a means for understanding an important research problem with greater clarity. A case study research paper usually examines a single subject of analysis, but case study papers can also be designed as a comparative investigation that shows relationships between two or more subjects. The methods used to study a case can rest within a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method investigative paradigm.

Case Studies. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010 ; “What is a Case Study?” In Swanborn, Peter G. Case Study Research: What, Why and How? London: SAGE, 2010.

How to Approach Writing a Case Study Research Paper

General information about how to choose a topic to investigate can be found under the " Choosing a Research Problem " tab in the Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper writing guide. Review this page because it may help you identify a subject of analysis that can be investigated using a case study design.

However, identifying a case to investigate involves more than choosing the research problem . A case study encompasses a problem contextualized around the application of in-depth analysis, interpretation, and discussion, often resulting in specific recommendations for action or for improving existing conditions. As Seawright and Gerring note, practical considerations such as time and access to information can influence case selection, but these issues should not be the sole factors used in describing the methodological justification for identifying a particular case to study. Given this, selecting a case includes considering the following:

• The case represents an unusual or atypical example of a research problem that requires more in-depth analysis? Cases often represent a topic that rests on the fringes of prior investigations because the case may provide new ways of understanding the research problem. For example, if the research problem is to identify strategies to improve policies that support girl's access to secondary education in predominantly Muslim nations, you could consider using Azerbaijan as a case study rather than selecting a more obvious nation in the Middle East. Doing so may reveal important new insights into recommending how governments in other predominantly Muslim nations can formulate policies that support improved access to education for girls.
• The case provides important insight or illuminate a previously hidden problem? In-depth analysis of a case can be based on the hypothesis that the case study will reveal trends or issues that have not been exposed in prior research or will reveal new and important implications for practice. For example, anecdotal evidence may suggest drug use among homeless veterans is related to their patterns of travel throughout the day. Assuming prior studies have not looked at individual travel choices as a way to study access to illicit drug use, a case study that observes a homeless veteran could reveal how issues of personal mobility choices facilitate regular access to illicit drugs. Note that it is important to conduct a thorough literature review to ensure that your assumption about the need to reveal new insights or previously hidden problems is valid and evidence-based.
• The case challenges and offers a counter-point to prevailing assumptions? Over time, research on any given topic can fall into a trap of developing assumptions based on outdated studies that are still applied to new or changing conditions or the idea that something should simply be accepted as "common sense," even though the issue has not been thoroughly tested in current practice. A case study analysis may offer an opportunity to gather evidence that challenges prevailing assumptions about a research problem and provide a new set of recommendations applied to practice that have not been tested previously. For example, perhaps there has been a long practice among scholars to apply a particular theory in explaining the relationship between two subjects of analysis. Your case could challenge this assumption by applying an innovative theoretical framework [perhaps borrowed from another discipline] to explore whether this approach offers new ways of understanding the research problem. Taking a contrarian stance is one of the most important ways that new knowledge and understanding develops from existing literature.
• The case provides an opportunity to pursue action leading to the resolution of a problem? Another way to think about choosing a case to study is to consider how the results from investigating a particular case may result in findings that reveal ways in which to resolve an existing or emerging problem. For example, studying the case of an unforeseen incident, such as a fatal accident at a railroad crossing, can reveal hidden issues that could be applied to preventative measures that contribute to reducing the chance of accidents in the future. In this example, a case study investigating the accident could lead to a better understanding of where to strategically locate additional signals at other railroad crossings so as to better warn drivers of an approaching train, particularly when visibility is hindered by heavy rain, fog, or at night.
• The case offers a new direction in future research? A case study can be used as a tool for an exploratory investigation that highlights the need for further research about the problem. A case can be used when there are few studies that help predict an outcome or that establish a clear understanding about how best to proceed in addressing a problem. For example, after conducting a thorough literature review [very important!], you discover that little research exists showing the ways in which women contribute to promoting water conservation in rural communities of east central Africa. A case study of how women contribute to saving water in a rural village of Uganda can lay the foundation for understanding the need for more thorough research that documents how women in their roles as cooks and family caregivers think about water as a valuable resource within their community. This example of a case study could also point to the need for scholars to build new theoretical frameworks around the topic [e.g., applying feminist theories of work and family to the issue of water conservation].

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” Academy of Management Review 14 (October 1989): 532-550; Emmel, Nick. Sampling and Choosing Cases in Qualitative Research: A Realist Approach . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2013; Gerring, John. “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?” American Political Science Review 98 (May 2004): 341-354; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Seawright, Jason and John Gerring. "Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research." Political Research Quarterly 61 (June 2008): 294-308.

Structure and Writing Style

The purpose of a paper in the social sciences designed around a case study is to thoroughly investigate a subject of analysis in order to reveal a new understanding about the research problem and, in so doing, contributing new knowledge to what is already known from previous studies. In applied social sciences disciplines [e.g., education, social work, public administration, etc.], case studies may also be used to reveal best practices, highlight key programs, or investigate interesting aspects of professional work.

In general, the structure of a case study research paper is not all that different from a standard college-level research paper. However, there are subtle differences you should be aware of. Here are the key elements to organizing and writing a case study research paper.

I.  Introduction

As with any research paper, your introduction should serve as a roadmap for your readers to ascertain the scope and purpose of your study . The introduction to a case study research paper, however, should not only describe the research problem and its significance, but you should also succinctly describe why the case is being used and how it relates to addressing the problem. The two elements should be linked. With this in mind, a good introduction answers these four questions:

• What is being studied? Describe the research problem and describe the subject of analysis [the case] you have chosen to address the problem. Explain how they are linked and what elements of the case will help to expand knowledge and understanding about the problem.
• Why is this topic important to investigate? Describe the significance of the research problem and state why a case study design and the subject of analysis that the paper is designed around is appropriate in addressing the problem.
• What did we know about this topic before I did this study? Provide background that helps lead the reader into the more in-depth literature review to follow. If applicable, summarize prior case study research applied to the research problem and why it fails to adequately address the problem. Describe why your case will be useful. If no prior case studies have been used to address the research problem, explain why you have selected this subject of analysis.
• How will this study advance new knowledge or new ways of understanding? Explain why your case study will be suitable in helping to expand knowledge and understanding about the research problem.

Each of these questions should be addressed in no more than a few paragraphs. Exceptions to this can be when you are addressing a complex research problem or subject of analysis that requires more in-depth background information.

II.  Literature Review

The literature review for a case study research paper is generally structured the same as it is for any college-level research paper. The difference, however, is that the literature review is focused on providing background information and  enabling historical interpretation of the subject of analysis in relation to the research problem the case is intended to address . This includes synthesizing studies that help to:

• Place relevant works in the context of their contribution to understanding the case study being investigated . This would involve summarizing studies that have used a similar subject of analysis to investigate the research problem. If there is literature using the same or a very similar case to study, you need to explain why duplicating past research is important [e.g., conditions have changed; prior studies were conducted long ago, etc.].
• Describe the relationship each work has to the others under consideration that informs the reader why this case is applicable . Your literature review should include a description of any works that support using the case to investigate the research problem and the underlying research questions.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research using the case study . If applicable, review any research that has examined the research problem using a different research design. Explain how your use of a case study design may reveal new knowledge or a new perspective or that can redirect research in an important new direction.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies . This refers to synthesizing any literature that points to unresolved issues of concern about the research problem and describing how the subject of analysis that forms the case study can help resolve these existing contradictions.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research . Your review should examine any literature that lays a foundation for understanding why your case study design and the subject of analysis around which you have designed your study may reveal a new way of approaching the research problem or offer a perspective that points to the need for additional research.
• Expose any gaps that exist in the literature that the case study could help to fill . Summarize any literature that not only shows how your subject of analysis contributes to understanding the research problem, but how your case contributes to a new way of understanding the problem that prior research has failed to do.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important!] . Collectively, your literature review should always place your case study within the larger domain of prior research about the problem. The overarching purpose of reviewing pertinent literature in a case study paper is to demonstrate that you have thoroughly identified and synthesized prior studies in relation to explaining the relevance of the case in addressing the research problem.

III.  Method

In this section, you explain why you selected a particular case [i.e., subject of analysis] and the strategy you used to identify and ultimately decide that your case was appropriate in addressing the research problem. The way you describe the methods used varies depending on the type of subject of analysis that constitutes your case study.

If your subject of analysis is an incident or event . In the social and behavioral sciences, the event or incident that represents the case to be studied is usually bounded by time and place, with a clear beginning and end and with an identifiable location or position relative to its surroundings. The subject of analysis can be a rare or critical event or it can focus on a typical or regular event. The purpose of studying a rare event is to illuminate new ways of thinking about the broader research problem or to test a hypothesis. Critical incident case studies must describe the method by which you identified the event and explain the process by which you determined the validity of this case to inform broader perspectives about the research problem or to reveal new findings. However, the event does not have to be a rare or uniquely significant to support new thinking about the research problem or to challenge an existing hypothesis. For example, Walo, Bull, and Breen conducted a case study to identify and evaluate the direct and indirect economic benefits and costs of a local sports event in the City of Lismore, New South Wales, Australia. The purpose of their study was to provide new insights from measuring the impact of a typical local sports event that prior studies could not measure well because they focused on large "mega-events." Whether the event is rare or not, the methods section should include an explanation of the following characteristics of the event: a) when did it take place; b) what were the underlying circumstances leading to the event; and, c) what were the consequences of the event in relation to the research problem.

If your subject of analysis is a person. Explain why you selected this particular individual to be studied and describe what experiences they have had that provide an opportunity to advance new understandings about the research problem. Mention any background about this person which might help the reader understand the significance of their experiences that make them worthy of study. This includes describing the relationships this person has had with other people, institutions, and/or events that support using them as the subject for a case study research paper. It is particularly important to differentiate the person as the subject of analysis from others and to succinctly explain how the person relates to examining the research problem [e.g., why is one politician in a particular local election used to show an increase in voter turnout from any other candidate running in the election]. Note that these issues apply to a specific group of people used as a case study unit of analysis [e.g., a classroom of students].

If your subject of analysis is a place. In general, a case study that investigates a place suggests a subject of analysis that is unique or special in some way and that this uniqueness can be used to build new understanding or knowledge about the research problem. A case study of a place must not only describe its various attributes relevant to the research problem [e.g., physical, social, historical, cultural, economic, political], but you must state the method by which you determined that this place will illuminate new understandings about the research problem. It is also important to articulate why a particular place as the case for study is being used if similar places also exist [i.e., if you are studying patterns of homeless encampments of veterans in open spaces, explain why you are studying Echo Park in Los Angeles rather than Griffith Park?]. If applicable, describe what type of human activity involving this place makes it a good choice to study [e.g., prior research suggests Echo Park has more homeless veterans].

If your subject of analysis is a phenomenon. A phenomenon refers to a fact, occurrence, or circumstance that can be studied or observed but with the cause or explanation to be in question. In this sense, a phenomenon that forms your subject of analysis can encompass anything that can be observed or presumed to exist but is not fully understood. In the social and behavioral sciences, the case usually focuses on human interaction within a complex physical, social, economic, cultural, or political system. For example, the phenomenon could be the observation that many vehicles used by ISIS fighters are small trucks with English language advertisements on them. The research problem could be that ISIS fighters are difficult to combat because they are highly mobile. The research questions could be how and by what means are these vehicles used by ISIS being supplied to the militants and how might supply lines to these vehicles be cut off? How might knowing the suppliers of these trucks reveal larger networks of collaborators and financial support? A case study of a phenomenon most often encompasses an in-depth analysis of a cause and effect that is grounded in an interactive relationship between people and their environment in some way.

NOTE:   The choice of the case or set of cases to study cannot appear random. Evidence that supports the method by which you identified and chose your subject of analysis should clearly support investigation of the research problem and linked to key findings from your literature review. Be sure to cite any studies that helped you determine that the case you chose was appropriate for examining the problem.

IV.  Discussion

The main elements of your discussion section are generally the same as any research paper, but centered around interpreting and drawing conclusions about the key findings from your analysis of the case study. Note that a general social sciences research paper may contain a separate section to report findings. However, in a paper designed around a case study, it is common to combine a description of the results with the discussion about their implications. The objectives of your discussion section should include the following:

Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings Briefly reiterate the research problem you are investigating and explain why the subject of analysis around which you designed the case study were used. You should then describe the findings revealed from your study of the case using direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results. Highlight any findings that were unexpected or especially profound.

Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important Systematically explain the meaning of your case study findings and why you believe they are important. Begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most important or surprising finding first, then systematically review each finding. Be sure to thoroughly extrapolate what your analysis of the case can tell the reader about situations or conditions beyond the actual case that was studied while, at the same time, being careful not to misconstrue or conflate a finding that undermines the external validity of your conclusions.

Relate the Findings to Similar Studies No study in the social sciences is so novel or possesses such a restricted focus that it has absolutely no relation to previously published research. The discussion section should relate your case study results to those found in other studies, particularly if questions raised from prior studies served as the motivation for choosing your subject of analysis. This is important because comparing and contrasting the findings of other studies helps support the overall importance of your results and it highlights how and in what ways your case study design and the subject of analysis differs from prior research about the topic.

Consider Alternative Explanations of the Findings Remember that the purpose of social science research is to discover and not to prove. When writing the discussion section, you should carefully consider all possible explanations revealed by the case study results, rather than just those that fit your hypothesis or prior assumptions and biases. Be alert to what the in-depth analysis of the case may reveal about the research problem, including offering a contrarian perspective to what scholars have stated in prior research if that is how the findings can be interpreted from your case.

Acknowledge the Study's Limitations You can state the study's limitations in the conclusion section of your paper but describing the limitations of your subject of analysis in the discussion section provides an opportunity to identify the limitations and explain why they are not significant. This part of the discussion section should also note any unanswered questions or issues your case study could not address. More detailed information about how to document any limitations to your research can be found here .

Suggest Areas for Further Research Although your case study may offer important insights about the research problem, there are likely additional questions related to the problem that remain unanswered or findings that unexpectedly revealed themselves as a result of your in-depth analysis of the case. Be sure that the recommendations for further research are linked to the research problem and that you explain why your recommendations are valid in other contexts and based on the original assumptions of your study.

V.  Conclusion

As with any research paper, you should summarize your conclusion in clear, simple language; emphasize how the findings from your case study differs from or supports prior research and why. Do not simply reiterate the discussion section. Provide a synthesis of key findings presented in the paper to show how these converge to address the research problem. If you haven't already done so in the discussion section, be sure to document the limitations of your case study and any need for further research.

The function of your paper's conclusion is to: 1) reiterate the main argument supported by the findings from your case study; 2) state clearly the context, background, and necessity of pursuing the research problem using a case study design in relation to an issue, controversy, or a gap found from reviewing the literature; and, 3) provide a place to persuasively and succinctly restate the significance of your research problem, given that the reader has now been presented with in-depth information about the topic.

Consider the following points to help ensure your conclusion is appropriate:

• If the argument or purpose of your paper is complex, you may need to summarize these points for your reader.
• If prior to your conclusion, you have not yet explained the significance of your findings or if you are proceeding inductively, use the conclusion of your paper to describe your main points and explain their significance.
• Move from a detailed to a general level of consideration of the case study's findings that returns the topic to the context provided by the introduction or within a new context that emerges from your case study findings.

Note that, depending on the discipline you are writing in or the preferences of your professor, the concluding paragraph may contain your final reflections on the evidence presented as it applies to practice or on the essay's central research problem. However, the nature of being introspective about the subject of analysis you have investigated will depend on whether you are explicitly asked to express your observations in this way.

Problems to Avoid

Overgeneralization One of the goals of a case study is to lay a foundation for understanding broader trends and issues applied to similar circumstances. However, be careful when drawing conclusions from your case study. They must be evidence-based and grounded in the results of the study; otherwise, it is merely speculation. Looking at a prior example, it would be incorrect to state that a factor in improving girls access to education in Azerbaijan and the policy implications this may have for improving access in other Muslim nations is due to girls access to social media if there is no documentary evidence from your case study to indicate this. There may be anecdotal evidence that retention rates were better for girls who were engaged with social media, but this observation would only point to the need for further research and would not be a definitive finding if this was not a part of your original research agenda.

Failure to Document Limitations No case is going to reveal all that needs to be understood about a research problem. Therefore, just as you have to clearly state the limitations of a general research study , you must describe the specific limitations inherent in the subject of analysis. For example, the case of studying how women conceptualize the need for water conservation in a village in Uganda could have limited application in other cultural contexts or in areas where fresh water from rivers or lakes is plentiful and, therefore, conservation is understood more in terms of managing access rather than preserving access to a scarce resource.

Failure to Extrapolate All Possible Implications Just as you don't want to over-generalize from your case study findings, you also have to be thorough in the consideration of all possible outcomes or recommendations derived from your findings. If you do not, your reader may question the validity of your analysis, particularly if you failed to document an obvious outcome from your case study research. For example, in the case of studying the accident at the railroad crossing to evaluate where and what types of warning signals should be located, you failed to take into consideration speed limit signage as well as warning signals. When designing your case study, be sure you have thoroughly addressed all aspects of the problem and do not leave gaps in your analysis that leave the reader questioning the results.

Case Studies. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Gerring, John. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices . New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007; Merriam, Sharan B. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education . Rev. ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1998; Miller, Lisa L. “The Use of Case Studies in Law and Social Science Research.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14 (2018): TBD; Mills, Albert J., Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Putney, LeAnn Grogan. "Case Study." In Encyclopedia of Research Design , Neil J. Salkind, editor. (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010), pp. 116-120; Simons, Helen. Case Study Research in Practice . London: SAGE Publications, 2009;  Kratochwill,  Thomas R. and Joel R. Levin, editors. Single-Case Research Design and Analysis: New Development for Psychology and Education .  Hilldsale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992; Swanborn, Peter G. Case Study Research: What, Why and How? London : SAGE, 2010; Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods . 6th edition. Los Angeles, CA, SAGE Publications, 2014; Walo, Maree, Adrian Bull, and Helen Breen. “Achieving Economic Benefits at Local Events: A Case Study of a Local Sports Event.” Festival Management and Event Tourism 4 (1996): 95-106.

Writing Tip

At Least Five Misconceptions about Case Study Research

Social science case studies are often perceived as limited in their ability to create new knowledge because they are not randomly selected and findings cannot be generalized to larger populations. Flyvbjerg examines five misunderstandings about case study research and systematically "corrects" each one. To quote, these are:

Misunderstanding 1 :  General, theoretical [context-independent] knowledge is more valuable than concrete, practical [context-dependent] knowledge. Misunderstanding 2 :  One cannot generalize on the basis of an individual case; therefore, the case study cannot contribute to scientific development. Misunderstanding 3 :  The case study is most useful for generating hypotheses; that is, in the first stage of a total research process, whereas other methods are more suitable for hypotheses testing and theory building. Misunderstanding 4 :  The case study contains a bias toward verification, that is, a tendency to confirm the researcher’s preconceived notions. Misunderstanding 5 :  It is often difficult to summarize and develop general propositions and theories on the basis of specific case studies [p. 221].

While writing your paper, think introspectively about how you addressed these misconceptions because to do so can help you strengthen the validity and reliability of your research by clarifying issues of case selection, the testing and challenging of existing assumptions, the interpretation of key findings, and the summation of case outcomes. Think of a case study research paper as a complete, in-depth narrative about the specific properties and key characteristics of your subject of analysis applied to the research problem.

Flyvbjerg, Bent. “Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 12 (April 2006): 219-245.

• << Previous: Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Next: Writing a Field Report >>
• Last Updated: May 7, 2024 9:45 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

Our political debates may not be as antagonistic as we think, study shows

Spend any time scrolling through social media or news sites and it feels like America is a nation in constant argument. Off-hand remarks often spark fierce screaming matches. Partisanship is up, Gallup tells us , while trust in institutions is down .

However, a new study co-authored by Berkeley Haas Assistant Professor Erica R. Bailey suggests this perception may not accurately reflect the nature and frequency of political debates among everyday Americans. In three studies involving nearly 3,000 participants, researchers found most debates occur not with strangers on social media but rather among family and friends. Moreover, participants often felt positive after such discussions

“We have these misperceptions because of algorithmic amplification of negative media and negative interactions on social media coupled with the fact that we tend to really remember negative information,” says Bailey. “It creates this perception that we’re all just out there fighting with strangers.”

In fact, one study with a representative sample of nearly 2,000 Americans showed that people overestimate how frequently others engage in debates—and this misperception is especially pronounced for debates with strangers online. This false perception has psychological costs, the researchers say, fueling increased feelings of hopelessness about the future of America.

“Our findings suggest that Americans may experience a false reality about the landscape of debate which can unnecessarily undermine their hope about the future,” the researchers wrote in the study, published in the journal Scientific Reports and co-authored by Michael W. White , Sheena S. Iyengar , and Modupe Akinola of Columbia Business School.

Difficult and nuanced conversations

Bailey says the genesis of the project was reflecting on her own experience. “When I think about who I talk about hot-button issues with, it’s my colleagues and friends,” she says. “Engaging online feels like a waste of time. Why would I have a difficult and nuanced conversation with someone I don’t know or trust?”

Bailey, who studies authenticity, says online debates often feel artificial, with people less willing to openly share their personal experiences and more often just trying to make a point. But while we have a daily ringside seat to the most heated online debates, we lack line-of-sight into people’s private kitchen-table conversations—and these are harder for researchers to observe, recreate, and measure.

Perceptions of ‘typical’ debates

In their first study, the researchers asked 282 participants to freely recall a recent debate they had witnessed or participated in. About half of the participants described debates they observed online, and recounted that these interactions skewed more negative than positive. Interestingly, the respondents believed these instances were representative of typical debates, highlighting a perception that debates—particularly online—are generally seen as negative.

Personal experiences with debate

The second phase included two studies delving into personal debate experiences. The first involved 215 people in a behavioral science research lab, while the second included 526 individuals recruited online. Participants in both groups were asked about the topics they debated over the past year, who they debated with, and how they felt afterward. They were also asked to choose from a list of twenty common topics—including climate change, gun control, gender identity issues, and reparations for slavery—which ones they had debated.

The results revealed that reproductive rights and vaccines were the most common topics, while other contentious issues, such as policing and immigration, were debated less frequently. Most of the topics were debated by less than half of participants. Contrary to the popular belief of hostile online interactions, participants said the majority of their debates occurred with family, friends, and other close contacts.

In terms of emotional impact, online participants reported that their average post-debate feeling was positive, suggesting that discussions, even on divisive topics, often ended on a constructive note. The lab participants’ feelings were neutral, neither overwhelmingly positive nor negative.

“That was surprising to me, since I was not expecting for people to report feeling positive after a debate,” Bailey says. “That suggests that at least on some topics, people are better at finding a compromise or at least ending on a positive note.”

Measuring misperceptions and their impact

The third study was an investigation into how Americans perceive debates compared to their actual experiences. About 2,000 Americans in a nationally representative sample were randomly assigned to either self-report their own debate experiences or to predict how often others engage in debates.

The results were striking. Across almost all categories, people significantly overestimated the frequency of debates, especially online debates involving strangers (the exception was in-person debates with family members). In addition, this overestimation was strongly linked to a sense of hopelessness about the future of America.

Implications

The research highlights a critical gap between perception and reality. “Taken together, these findings suggest that the ‘typical’ debate seems substantively different than two strangers typing at one another from behind their computer screens,” the researchers write. This misperception could be due to the visibility and virality of negative content on social media platforms, where extreme views often get amplified over moderate or conciliatory tones.

Second, the findings suggest that these misperceptions could be contributing to broader societal despair regarding the political climate and the future of democracy in America. By assuming that debates are overwhelmingly negative and frequent, people may feel a sense of futility about political engagement and discourse. (The researchers cautioned that this connection was largely correlational.)

Lastly, the research points to the need for interventions that not only make debates more productive but also adjust public perceptions about political debate. Educating the public about the actual dynamics of debates could help mitigate feelings of hopelessness and encourage more constructive and hopeful engagement with political processes.

Read the paper:

Americans misperceive the frequency and format of political debate By Erica Bailey, Michael W. White, Sheena S. Iyengar, and Modupe Akinola Scientific Reports , March 2024

• Sustainability
• Economic Analysis & Policy
• Business & Public Policy
• Social Impact
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Innovation & Technology
• Real Estate
• Entrepreneurship
• Energy & Environment
• Faculty News
• Student News
• School News
• Perspectives
• News Releases
• Alumni News

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

AP®︎/College US Government and Politics

Unit 1: foundations of american democracy, unit 2: interactions among branches of government, unit 3: civil liberties and civil rights, unit 4: american political ideologies and beliefs, unit 5: political participation, unit 6: about this ap us government and politics course, unit 7: resources and exam preparation.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

You Can’t Sit Out Office Politics

• Niven Postma

Office politics aren’t something you can sit out. Most people look down upon them, but the truth is, they are a part of every organization.

• Office politics are about relationship currency and influence capital — and the power these two things give you or don’t give you. The myth that “office politics” are always unethical or evil need to be debunked.
• Start by reframing what office politics mean. Do you see informal conversations as “lobbying” (with all the negative connotations this generally carries) or do you see them as “doing important homework”?
• Focus your time and energy on understanding what kind of political environment your organization has, the degree to which it suits your personal political style, and how you are going to be most effective in it.
• Realize that focusing only on your performance is very unlikely to get you the success you’re aiming for — be it a bonus, promotion, or recognition from senior executives. However, investing time in your networks and building the connections that can speak for you and your work will.

But you can use them to your advantage.

Where your work meets your life. See more from Ascend here .

For more than two decades, I worked as an executive across the corporate, nonprofit, and public sectors. Throughout these years, I wore my refusal to engage in office politics as a badge of honor. To anyone who would listen (and perhaps even a few who wouldn’t), I said: “I really don’t have the stomach for all of that stuff. Politics are dreadful, dangerous, and unnecessary, and I’m simply too straightforward for all of the subterfuge they require. I don’t come to work to play games — I come to work to get things done.”

• Niven Postma is the Managing Director of Niven Postma Inc and works as a leadership, culture and strategy facilitator. She’s had a wide and varied career across multiple organisations and sectors, in South Africa and internationally, including CEO of the Businesswomen’s Association, CEO of NOAH (Nurturing Orphans of AIDS for Humanity), Head of External Strategy and then Head of the SARB Academy at the South African Reserve Bank and Head of Leadership and Culture for the Standard Bank Group. She also lectures at Henley Business School and on various global leadership development programmes and is the author of the book “If You Don’t Do Politics, Politics Will Do You.”  

Partner Center

Cornell Chronicle

• Architecture & Design
• Arts & Humanities
• Business, Economics & Entrepreneurship
• Computing & Information Sciences
• Energy, Environment & Sustainability
• Food & Agriculture
• Global Reach
• Health, Nutrition & Medicine
• Law, Government & Public Policy
• Life Sciences & Veterinary Medicine
• Physical Sciences & Engineering
• Social & Behavioral Sciences
• Coronavirus
• News & Events
• Public Engagement
• New York City
• Photos of the Week
• Big Red Sports
• Freedom of Expression
• Student Life
• University Statements
• Around Cornell
• All Stories
• In the News
• Expert Quotes
• Cornellians

Personal crises reduce voter turnout, but may prompt other political action

By james dean, cornell chronicle.

Experiencing multiple life disruptions such as unemployment, eviction or a loss of health insurance makes people less likely to vote – but may motivate them to engage politically in other ways, a Cornell political scientist and co-authors report in new research.

Analyzing several large surveys of verified American voters before and during the pandemic, the researchers found that outside of highly politicized crises like COVID-19, which can increase turnout, people with unstable lives are systematically underrepresented at the ballot box.

The data showed that people experiencing the most personal crises are nearly 20 percentage points less likely to vote compared to those who experience none – a turnout gap nearly as significant as that between white and Hispanic voters. But the same challenges could prompt political participation seen as more immediately helpful, such as contacting elected officials or attending community meetings or protests.

“When people connect their problems to direct forms of political action that might address their problems, crises can actually boost political participation,” said Jamila Michener , associate professor of government and policy in the College of Arts and Sciences and senior associate dean of public engagement in the Cornell Jeb. E. Brooks School of Public Policy. “Crises are not an inevitable path towards deeper political alienation for people who are marginalized.”

Michener is a co-author of “ The Politics of Personal Crisis: How Life Disruptions Shape Political Participation ,” published recently in Political Behavior, with Jake Haselswerdt , associate professor of government and public affairs at the University of Missouri; and Christopher Ojeda , assistant professor of political science at the University of California, Merced.

The title references a rallying cry that emerged during women’s movements in the 1960s and 70s: “The personal is political.” The authors argue that personal life can be profoundly political, and that many crises are the products of a changing economy and growing inequality that have heightened risks for those with fewer resources.

Studies have examined how some individual disruptions affect political participation – foreclosure, say, or being arrested. But after successive crises in the U.S. housing, labor and health care markets, the scholars said, their study provides a more comprehensive view.

“If we only think about the political implications of one crisis at a time, we’re going to understate the relationship between our larger economic environment and democracy – the political choices that people make or don’t make,” Michener said. “Only by considering these things together can we understand the full picture of what many people are experiencing, which is multiple crises over a period of time.”

The authors analyzed publicly available data from the Cooperative Election Study (CES) in 2018 and 2020, which included common sections with more than 60,000 respondents, plus additional questions the researchers posed to nationally representative samples of 1,000. They also examined relevant data from the Democracy Fund’s Views of the Electorate Research (VOTER) Survey.

The surveys validated turnout in those years with public records and included self-reports about other activity, such as attending a political meeting; putting up a political sign; working for a candidate or campaign; attending a protest; contacting a public official; and donating money. Collectively, the surveys asked if any of several dozen crises had occurred in the previous year, ranging from divorce and trouble paying medical bills to lost jobs, homes or health insurance.

As expected, after controlling for income, race and other demographic factors, the analysis showed that more crises reduced the likelihood of someone voting. A suspended or revoked driver’s license was the disruption most strongly associated with lower turnout, followed by having possessions repossessed, being evicted or losing a home.

“These findings are consistent with the idea that the totality of disruptions to everyday life can be disruptive to turnout,” the authors wrote.

That wasn’t true for COVID-related crises, where cumulative problems were associated with increased turnout. People respond differently to highly politicized issues, the researchers suggest, about which they are saturated with news and messages drawing clear political lines.

While crises could prompt activism in place of voting, the surveys found that type of participation much less common. For example, non-voting activity reported in the 2020 CES ranged from 3% of respondents working for a candidate or campaign to 23% donating money, while voter turnout was 62%.

Overall, Michener said, the study highlights the importance of considering life disruptions in the study of political behavior, and gives elected officials and advocacy groups a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding about when people will engage politically, and what kinds of political action they’re more likely to pursue.

“Choices about how to provide resources to constituents or not affect whether they engage the political process,” said Michener, who also directs the Cornell Center for Racial Justice and Equitable Futures. “It clarifies the stakes of larger decisions about how to structure the economy and meet people’s needs in challenging times. That very much matters for the nature and the content of our democracy.”

Media Contact

Damien sharp.

Get Cornell news delivered right to your inbox.

You might also like

Gallery Heading

The Advantages and Limitations of Single Case Study Analysis

As Andrew Bennett and Colin Elman have recently noted, qualitative research methods presently enjoy “an almost unprecedented popularity and vitality… in the international relations sub-field”, such that they are now “indisputably prominent, if not pre-eminent” (2010: 499). This is, they suggest, due in no small part to the considerable advantages that case study methods in particular have to offer in studying the “complex and relatively unstructured and infrequent phenomena that lie at the heart of the subfield” (Bennett and Elman, 2007: 171). Using selected examples from within the International Relations literature[1], this paper aims to provide a brief overview of the main principles and distinctive advantages and limitations of single case study analysis. Divided into three inter-related sections, the paper therefore begins by first identifying the underlying principles that serve to constitute the case study as a particular research strategy, noting the somewhat contested nature of the approach in ontological, epistemological, and methodological terms. The second part then looks to the principal single case study types and their associated advantages, including those from within the recent ‘third generation’ of qualitative International Relations (IR) research. The final section of the paper then discusses the most commonly articulated limitations of single case studies; while accepting their susceptibility to criticism, it is however suggested that such weaknesses are somewhat exaggerated. The paper concludes that single case study analysis has a great deal to offer as a means of both understanding and explaining contemporary international relations.

The term ‘case study’, John Gerring has suggested, is “a definitional morass… Evidently, researchers have many different things in mind when they talk about case study research” (2006a: 17). It is possible, however, to distil some of the more commonly-agreed principles. One of the most prominent advocates of case study research, Robert Yin (2009: 14) defines it as “an empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident”. What this definition usefully captures is that case studies are intended – unlike more superficial and generalising methods – to provide a level of detail and understanding, similar to the ethnographer Clifford Geertz’s (1973) notion of ‘thick description’, that allows for the thorough analysis of the complex and particularistic nature of distinct phenomena. Another frequently cited proponent of the approach, Robert Stake, notes that as a form of research the case study “is defined by interest in an individual case, not by the methods of inquiry used”, and that “the object of study is a specific, unique, bounded system” (2008: 443, 445). As such, three key points can be derived from this – respectively concerning issues of ontology, epistemology, and methodology – that are central to the principles of single case study research.

First, the vital notion of ‘boundedness’ when it comes to the particular unit of analysis means that defining principles should incorporate both the synchronic (spatial) and diachronic (temporal) elements of any so-called ‘case’. As Gerring puts it, a case study should be “an intensive study of a single unit… a spatially bounded phenomenon – e.g. a nation-state, revolution, political party, election, or person – observed at a single point in time or over some delimited period of time” (2004: 342). It is important to note, however, that – whereas Gerring refers to a single unit of analysis – it may be that attention also necessarily be given to particular sub-units. This points to the important difference between what Yin refers to as an ‘holistic’ case design, with a single unit of analysis, and an ’embedded’ case design with multiple units of analysis (Yin, 2009: 50-52). The former, for example, would examine only the overall nature of an international organization, whereas the latter would also look to specific departments, programmes, or policies etc.

Secondly, as Tim May notes of the case study approach, “even the most fervent advocates acknowledge that the term has entered into understandings with little specification or discussion of purpose and process” (2011: 220). One of the principal reasons for this, he argues, is the relationship between the use of case studies in social research and the differing epistemological traditions – positivist, interpretivist, and others – within which it has been utilised. Philosophy of science concerns are obviously a complex issue, and beyond the scope of much of this paper. That said, the issue of how it is that we know what we know – of whether or not a single independent reality exists of which we as researchers can seek to provide explanation – does lead us to an important distinction to be made between so-called idiographic and nomothetic case studies (Gerring, 2006b). The former refers to those which purport to explain only a single case, are concerned with particularisation, and hence are typically (although not exclusively) associated with more interpretivist approaches. The latter are those focused studies that reflect upon a larger population and are more concerned with generalisation, as is often so with more positivist approaches[2]. The importance of this distinction, and its relation to the advantages and limitations of single case study analysis, is returned to below.

Thirdly, in methodological terms, given that the case study has often been seen as more of an interpretivist and idiographic tool, it has also been associated with a distinctly qualitative approach (Bryman, 2009: 67-68). However, as Yin notes, case studies can – like all forms of social science research – be exploratory, descriptive, and/or explanatory in nature. It is “a common misconception”, he notes, “that the various research methods should be arrayed hierarchically… many social scientists still deeply believe that case studies are only appropriate for the exploratory phase of an investigation” (Yin, 2009: 6). If case studies can reliably perform any or all three of these roles – and given that their in-depth approach may also require multiple sources of data and the within-case triangulation of methods – then it becomes readily apparent that they should not be limited to only one research paradigm. Exploratory and descriptive studies usually tend toward the qualitative and inductive, whereas explanatory studies are more often quantitative and deductive (David and Sutton, 2011: 165-166). As such, the association of case study analysis with a qualitative approach is a “methodological affinity, not a definitional requirement” (Gerring, 2006a: 36). It is perhaps better to think of case studies as transparadigmatic; it is mistaken to assume single case study analysis to adhere exclusively to a qualitative methodology (or an interpretivist epistemology) even if it – or rather, practitioners of it – may be so inclined. By extension, this also implies that single case study analysis therefore remains an option for a multitude of IR theories and issue areas; it is how this can be put to researchers’ advantage that is the subject of the next section.

Having elucidated the defining principles of the single case study approach, the paper now turns to an overview of its main benefits. As noted above, a lack of consensus still exists within the wider social science literature on the principles and purposes – and by extension the advantages and limitations – of case study research. Given that this paper is directed towards the particular sub-field of International Relations, it suggests Bennett and Elman’s (2010) more discipline-specific understanding of contemporary case study methods as an analytical framework. It begins however, by discussing Harry Eckstein’s seminal (1975) contribution to the potential advantages of the case study approach within the wider social sciences.

Eckstein proposed a taxonomy which usefully identified what he considered to be the five most relevant types of case study. Firstly were so-called configurative-idiographic studies, distinctly interpretivist in orientation and predicated on the assumption that “one cannot attain prediction and control in the natural science sense, but only understanding ( verstehen )… subjective values and modes of cognition are crucial” (1975: 132). Eckstein’s own sceptical view was that any interpreter ‘simply’ considers a body of observations that are not self-explanatory and “without hard rules of interpretation, may discern in them any number of patterns that are more or less equally plausible” (1975: 134). Those of a more post-modernist bent, of course – sharing an “incredulity towards meta-narratives”, in Lyotard’s (1994: xxiv) evocative phrase – would instead suggest that this more free-form approach actually be advantageous in delving into the subtleties and particularities of individual cases.

Eckstein’s four other types of case study, meanwhile, promote a more nomothetic (and positivist) usage. As described, disciplined-configurative studies were essentially about the use of pre-existing general theories, with a case acting “passively, in the main, as a receptacle for putting theories to work” (Eckstein, 1975: 136). As opposed to the opportunity this presented primarily for theory application, Eckstein identified heuristic case studies as explicit theoretical stimulants – thus having instead the intended advantage of theory-building. So-called p lausibility probes entailed preliminary attempts to determine whether initial hypotheses should be considered sound enough to warrant more rigorous and extensive testing. Finally, and perhaps most notably, Eckstein then outlined the idea of crucial case studies , within which he also included the idea of ‘most-likely’ and ‘least-likely’ cases; the essential characteristic of crucial cases being their specific theory-testing function.

Whilst Eckstein’s was an early contribution to refining the case study approach, Yin’s (2009: 47-52) more recent delineation of possible single case designs similarly assigns them roles in the applying, testing, or building of theory, as well as in the study of unique cases[3]. As a subset of the latter, however, Jack Levy (2008) notes that the advantages of idiographic cases are actually twofold. Firstly, as inductive/descriptive cases – akin to Eckstein’s configurative-idiographic cases – whereby they are highly descriptive, lacking in an explicit theoretical framework and therefore taking the form of “total history”. Secondly, they can operate as theory-guided case studies, but ones that seek only to explain or interpret a single historical episode rather than generalise beyond the case. Not only does this therefore incorporate ‘single-outcome’ studies concerned with establishing causal inference (Gerring, 2006b), it also provides room for the more postmodern approaches within IR theory, such as discourse analysis, that may have developed a distinct methodology but do not seek traditional social scientific forms of explanation.

Applying specifically to the state of the field in contemporary IR, Bennett and Elman identify a ‘third generation’ of mainstream qualitative scholars – rooted in a pragmatic scientific realist epistemology and advocating a pluralistic approach to methodology – that have, over the last fifteen years, “revised or added to essentially every aspect of traditional case study research methods” (2010: 502). They identify ‘process tracing’ as having emerged from this as a central method of within-case analysis. As Bennett and Checkel observe, this carries the advantage of offering a methodologically rigorous “analysis of evidence on processes, sequences, and conjunctures of events within a case, for the purposes of either developing or testing hypotheses about causal mechanisms that might causally explain the case” (2012: 10).

Harnessing various methods, process tracing may entail the inductive use of evidence from within a case to develop explanatory hypotheses, and deductive examination of the observable implications of hypothesised causal mechanisms to test their explanatory capability[4]. It involves providing not only a coherent explanation of the key sequential steps in a hypothesised process, but also sensitivity to alternative explanations as well as potential biases in the available evidence (Bennett and Elman 2010: 503-504). John Owen (1994), for example, demonstrates the advantages of process tracing in analysing whether the causal factors underpinning democratic peace theory are – as liberalism suggests – not epiphenomenal, but variously normative, institutional, or some given combination of the two or other unexplained mechanism inherent to liberal states. Within-case process tracing has also been identified as advantageous in addressing the complexity of path-dependent explanations and critical junctures – as for example with the development of political regime types – and their constituent elements of causal possibility, contingency, closure, and constraint (Bennett and Elman, 2006b).

Bennett and Elman (2010: 505-506) also identify the advantages of single case studies that are implicitly comparative: deviant, most-likely, least-likely, and crucial cases. Of these, so-called deviant cases are those whose outcome does not fit with prior theoretical expectations or wider empirical patterns – again, the use of inductive process tracing has the advantage of potentially generating new hypotheses from these, either particular to that individual case or potentially generalisable to a broader population. A classic example here is that of post-independence India as an outlier to the standard modernisation theory of democratisation, which holds that higher levels of socio-economic development are typically required for the transition to, and consolidation of, democratic rule (Lipset, 1959; Diamond, 1992). Absent these factors, MacMillan’s single case study analysis (2008) suggests the particularistic importance of the British colonial heritage, the ideology and leadership of the Indian National Congress, and the size and heterogeneity of the federal state.

Most-likely cases, as per Eckstein above, are those in which a theory is to be considered likely to provide a good explanation if it is to have any application at all, whereas least-likely cases are ‘tough test’ ones in which the posited theory is unlikely to provide good explanation (Bennett and Elman, 2010: 505). Levy (2008) neatly refers to the inferential logic of the least-likely case as the ‘Sinatra inference’ – if a theory can make it here, it can make it anywhere. Conversely, if a theory cannot pass a most-likely case, it is seriously impugned. Single case analysis can therefore be valuable for the testing of theoretical propositions, provided that predictions are relatively precise and measurement error is low (Levy, 2008: 12-13). As Gerring rightly observes of this potential for falsification:

“a positivist orientation toward the work of social science militates toward a greater appreciation of the case study format, not a denigration of that format, as is usually supposed” (Gerring, 2007: 247, emphasis added).

In summary, the various forms of single case study analysis can – through the application of multiple qualitative and/or quantitative research methods – provide a nuanced, empirically-rich, holistic account of specific phenomena. This may be particularly appropriate for those phenomena that are simply less amenable to more superficial measures and tests (or indeed any substantive form of quantification) as well as those for which our reasons for understanding and/or explaining them are irreducibly subjective – as, for example, with many of the normative and ethical issues associated with the practice of international relations. From various epistemological and analytical standpoints, single case study analysis can incorporate both idiographic sui generis cases and, where the potential for generalisation may exist, nomothetic case studies suitable for the testing and building of causal hypotheses. Finally, it should not be ignored that a signal advantage of the case study – with particular relevance to international relations – also exists at a more practical rather than theoretical level. This is, as Eckstein noted, “that it is economical for all resources: money, manpower, time, effort… especially important, of course, if studies are inherently costly, as they are if units are complex collective individuals ” (1975: 149-150, emphasis added).

Limitations

Single case study analysis has, however, been subject to a number of criticisms, the most common of which concern the inter-related issues of methodological rigour, researcher subjectivity, and external validity. With regard to the first point, the prototypical view here is that of Zeev Maoz (2002: 164-165), who suggests that “the use of the case study absolves the author from any kind of methodological considerations. Case studies have become in many cases a synonym for freeform research where anything goes”. The absence of systematic procedures for case study research is something that Yin (2009: 14-15) sees as traditionally the greatest concern due to a relative absence of methodological guidelines. As the previous section suggests, this critique seems somewhat unfair; many contemporary case study practitioners – and representing various strands of IR theory – have increasingly sought to clarify and develop their methodological techniques and epistemological grounding (Bennett and Elman, 2010: 499-500).

A second issue, again also incorporating issues of construct validity, concerns that of the reliability and replicability of various forms of single case study analysis. This is usually tied to a broader critique of qualitative research methods as a whole. However, whereas the latter obviously tend toward an explicitly-acknowledged interpretive basis for meanings, reasons, and understandings:

“quantitative measures appear objective, but only so long as we don’t ask questions about where and how the data were produced… pure objectivity is not a meaningful concept if the goal is to measure intangibles [as] these concepts only exist because we can interpret them” (Berg and Lune, 2010: 340).

The question of researcher subjectivity is a valid one, and it may be intended only as a methodological critique of what are obviously less formalised and researcher-independent methods (Verschuren, 2003). Owen (1994) and Layne’s (1994) contradictory process tracing results of interdemocratic war-avoidance during the Anglo-American crisis of 1861 to 1863 – from liberal and realist standpoints respectively – are a useful example. However, it does also rest on certain assumptions that can raise deeper and potentially irreconcilable ontological and epistemological issues. There are, regardless, plenty such as Bent Flyvbjerg (2006: 237) who suggest that the case study contains no greater bias toward verification than other methods of inquiry, and that “on the contrary, experience indicates that the case study contains a greater bias toward falsification of preconceived notions than toward verification”.

The third and arguably most prominent critique of single case study analysis is the issue of external validity or generalisability. How is it that one case can reliably offer anything beyond the particular? “We always do better (or, in the extreme, no worse) with more observation as the basis of our generalization”, as King et al write; “in all social science research and all prediction, it is important that we be as explicit as possible about the degree of uncertainty that accompanies out prediction” (1994: 212). This is an unavoidably valid criticism. It may be that theories which pass a single crucial case study test, for example, require rare antecedent conditions and therefore actually have little explanatory range. These conditions may emerge more clearly, as Van Evera (1997: 51-54) notes, from large-N studies in which cases that lack them present themselves as outliers exhibiting a theory’s cause but without its predicted outcome. As with the case of Indian democratisation above, it would logically be preferable to conduct large-N analysis beforehand to identify that state’s non-representative nature in relation to the broader population.

There are, however, three important qualifiers to the argument about generalisation that deserve particular mention here. The first is that with regard to an idiographic single-outcome case study, as Eckstein notes, the criticism is “mitigated by the fact that its capability to do so [is] never claimed by its exponents; in fact it is often explicitly repudiated” (1975: 134). Criticism of generalisability is of little relevance when the intention is one of particularisation. A second qualifier relates to the difference between statistical and analytical generalisation; single case studies are clearly less appropriate for the former but arguably retain significant utility for the latter – the difference also between explanatory and exploratory, or theory-testing and theory-building, as discussed above. As Gerring puts it, “theory confirmation/disconfirmation is not the case study’s strong suit” (2004: 350). A third qualification relates to the issue of case selection. As Seawright and Gerring (2008) note, the generalisability of case studies can be increased by the strategic selection of cases. Representative or random samples may not be the most appropriate, given that they may not provide the richest insight (or indeed, that a random and unknown deviant case may appear). Instead, and properly used , atypical or extreme cases “often reveal more information because they activate more actors… and more basic mechanisms in the situation studied” (Flyvbjerg, 2006). Of course, this also points to the very serious limitation, as hinted at with the case of India above, that poor case selection may alternatively lead to overgeneralisation and/or grievous misunderstandings of the relationship between variables or processes (Bennett and Elman, 2006a: 460-463).

As Tim May (2011: 226) notes, “the goal for many proponents of case studies […] is to overcome dichotomies between generalizing and particularizing, quantitative and qualitative, deductive and inductive techniques”. Research aims should drive methodological choices, rather than narrow and dogmatic preconceived approaches. As demonstrated above, there are various advantages to both idiographic and nomothetic single case study analyses – notably the empirically-rich, context-specific, holistic accounts that they have to offer, and their contribution to theory-building and, to a lesser extent, that of theory-testing. Furthermore, while they do possess clear limitations, any research method involves necessary trade-offs; the inherent weaknesses of any one method, however, can potentially be offset by situating them within a broader, pluralistic mixed-method research strategy. Whether or not single case studies are used in this fashion, they clearly have a great deal to offer.

References 

Bennett, A. and Checkel, J. T. (2012) ‘Process Tracing: From Philosophical Roots to Best Practice’, Simons Papers in Security and Development, No. 21/2012, School for International Studies, Simon Fraser University: Vancouver.

Bennett, A. and Elman, C. (2006a) ‘Qualitative Research: Recent Developments in Case Study Methods’, Annual Review of Political Science , 9, 455-476.

Bennett, A. and Elman, C. (2006b) ‘Complex Causal Relations and Case Study Methods: The Example of Path Dependence’, Political Analysis , 14, 3, 250-267.

Bennett, A. and Elman, C. (2007) ‘Case Study Methods in the International Relations Subfield’, Comparative Political Studies , 40, 2, 170-195.

Bennett, A. and Elman, C. (2010) Case Study Methods. In C. Reus-Smit and D. Snidal (eds) The Oxford Handbook of International Relations . Oxford University Press: Oxford. Ch. 29.

Berg, B. and Lune, H. (2012) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences . Pearson: London.

Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods . Oxford University Press: Oxford.

David, M. and Sutton, C. D. (2011) Social Research: An Introduction . SAGE Publications Ltd: London.

Diamond, J. (1992) ‘Economic development and democracy reconsidered’, American Behavioral Scientist , 35, 4/5, 450-499.

Eckstein, H. (1975) Case Study and Theory in Political Science. In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley, and P. Foster (eds) Case Study Method . SAGE Publications Ltd: London.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006) ‘Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research’, Qualitative Inquiry , 12, 2, 219-245.

Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays by Clifford Geertz . Basic Books Inc: New York.

Gerring, J. (2004) ‘What is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?’, American Political Science Review , 98, 2, 341-354.

Gerring, J. (2006a) Case Study Research: Principles and Practices . Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Gerring, J. (2006b) ‘Single-Outcome Studies: A Methodological Primer’, International Sociology , 21, 5, 707-734.

Gerring, J. (2007) ‘Is There a (Viable) Crucial-Case Method?’, Comparative Political Studies , 40, 3, 231-253.

King, G., Keohane, R. O. and Verba, S. (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research . Princeton University Press: Chichester.

Layne, C. (1994) ‘Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace’, International Security , 19, 2, 5-49.

Levy, J. S. (2008) ‘Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference’, Conflict Management and Peace Science , 25, 1-18.

Lipset, S. M. (1959) ‘Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy’, The American Political Science Review , 53, 1, 69-105.

Lyotard, J-F. (1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge . University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis.

MacMillan, A. (2008) ‘Deviant Democratization in India’, Democratization , 15, 4, 733-749.

Maoz, Z. (2002) Case study methodology in international studies: from storytelling to hypothesis testing. In F. P. Harvey and M. Brecher (eds) Evaluating Methodology in International Studies . University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.

May, T. (2011) Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process . Open University Press: Maidenhead.

Owen, J. M. (1994) ‘How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace’, International Security , 19, 2, 87-125.

Seawright, J. and Gerring, J. (2008) ‘Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options’, Political Research Quarterly , 61, 2, 294-308.

Stake, R. E. (2008) Qualitative Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry . Sage Publications: Los Angeles. Ch. 17.

Van Evera, S. (1997) Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science . Cornell University Press: Ithaca.

Verschuren, P. J. M. (2003) ‘Case study as a research strategy: some ambiguities and opportunities’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 6, 2, 121-139.

Yin, R. K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods . SAGE Publications Ltd: London.

[1] The paper follows convention by differentiating between ‘International Relations’ as the academic discipline and ‘international relations’ as the subject of study.

[2] There is some similarity here with Stake’s (2008: 445-447) notion of intrinsic cases, those undertaken for a better understanding of the particular case, and instrumental ones that provide insight for the purposes of a wider external interest.

[3] These may be unique in the idiographic sense, or in nomothetic terms as an exception to the generalising suppositions of either probabilistic or deterministic theories (as per deviant cases, below).

[4] Although there are “philosophical hurdles to mount”, according to Bennett and Checkel, there exists no a priori reason as to why process tracing (as typically grounded in scientific realism) is fundamentally incompatible with various strands of positivism or interpretivism (2012: 18-19). By extension, it can therefore be incorporated by a range of contemporary mainstream IR theories.

— Written by: Ben Willis Written at: University of Plymouth Written for: David Brockington Date written: January 2013

Further Reading on E-International Relations

• Identity in International Conflicts: A Case Study of the Cuban Missile Crisis
• Imperialism’s Legacy in the Study of Contemporary Politics: The Case of Hegemonic Stability Theory
• Recreating a Nation’s Identity Through Symbolism: A Chinese Case Study
• Ontological Insecurity: A Case Study on Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in Jerusalem
• Terrorists or Freedom Fighters: A Case Study of ETA
• A Critical Assessment of Eco-Marxism: A Ghanaian Case Study

Please Consider Donating

Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.

E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!

Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.

Case Studies in Political Science Research Paper

View sample Case Studies in Political Science Research Paper. Browse other research paper examples and check the list of political science  research paper topics for more inspiration. If you need a research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Also, chech our custom research proposal writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

I. Introduction

Academic writing, editing, proofreading, and problem solving services, get 10% off with 24start discount code, ii. the debate within the discipline, iii. examples of the case study approach, a. u.s. politics, b. comparative politics, c. international relations, iv. conclusion.

The case study method has always been an integral tool in the investigation of social science phenomena, being of particular value when the number of observations, or cases studied, is limited in number, restricting the utility of statistical approaches. However, for some time the individual case study approach had been supplanted by large-N, data-intensive quantitative methods as the preferred technique for empirical studies. More recently, the case study has seen a revival of interest by social scientists as part of a multimethod, holistic approach that includes formal, qualitative, and quantitative methods. Indeed, each major methodological approach plays an important role in the research cycle, with the qualitative application of the case study enlightening the inductive aspect of theory development through the identification of alternate causal explanations, new variables, or complex interactions of variables. Fundamentally, case studies allow one to go beyond often simplistic quantitative analysis and develop contextually rich and in-depth pictures of the phenomena being observed.

By itself, a case study is the history of an event, be it of short or long duration—a civil protest movement, for example, or the evolutionary process from colonial rule toward stable democracy. As such, a case study identifies the expected, predictable aspects of an event, while ideally it also captures additional but less quantifiable detail, such as the cultural context, that potentially asserts a causal role as well. Individual or comparative case studies of specific, individual events, actors, or systems allow the researcher to obtain a depth of knowledge and understanding about the object being studied that large-N quantitative studies fail to provide.

A carefully crafted case study serves several purposes within the research cycle. First, while quantitative studies identify outlying or deviant cases, those well beyond the expected normal distribution, quantitative methods are generally not able to explain the specific reasons for a particular case’s extreme variation from its population mean. The case study, however, not only provides the opportunity to identify likely reasons for these individual deviations but may illuminate previously unidentified causal variables and possible alternate explanations as well. This information potentially leads to the extension of existing theory, if not its revision, and may suggest new theoretical explanations altogether.

Additionally, the case study may be the best, or only, way to study certain phenomena because of the relatively small number of identified cases and a resulting scarcity of data, which restricts the use of quantitative methods. And while much of the earliest criticism of case studies (by social scientists) centered on their application as a mainly historical narrative, the substantive purpose of case study is to understand that history but to do so in a way that allows for the identification of critical actions, structures, or other aspects that contribute to the end result. Being able to examine with scientific rigor phenomena that either do not lend themselves well to quantitative study, or for which only a limited set of objective measures is available, makes such an approach valuable. The role case studies can play in identifying and understanding previously unknown variables and in establishing causal paths and the interdependency of variables, as well as being critical tests of existing theory, makes them not just a complement to quantitative methods but potentially of equal value (Geddes, 1990; Gerring, 2004).

Case studies are by definition qualitative, meaning that the focus of the study is not primarily the systematic manipulation of aggregated points of data, an objective exercise, but rather a study that focuses on the quality of the potential data observed, a much more subjective work. This is not to say that case studies are not objective as well: In reality, for a case study to have any influence, it must identify and measure variables to allow for reliable comparison and to build theory that is testable, replicable, and generalizable. Case study is ultimately a method that falls into two forms: the individual, within case study and the comparative across case study, usually limited to a small number of cases. Both types work to identify causal relationships and enlighten theoretical explanations. Good case study work can be either accumulating (building on previous knowledge) or original (establishing entirely new avenues of research).

Political scientists have had an ongoing discussion about the role of the case study approach in their field. This discussion has focused on the relative value of case study compared with other methods for evaluating and advancing theoretical understanding. Of central concern is the perceived methodological limitation of single and small-N case work within a discipline that favors quantitative methodologies. A tension results between the benefits accrued from this method and its limitations. What value can a unique examination contribute? Are hypotheses and theory valid only if they are testable and generalizable? Within these debates over the fundamental usefulness of deliberative case study work are questions that address both the inherent strengths and weaknesses of such an approach. Scholars have generally fallen into two camps, those who argue for its usefulness and those who contend it has limited utility in a discipline with a strong quantitative emphasis and reliance on scientific method.

Addressing this fundamental question over the potentially ambiguous nature of a case study finding, which alone can neither directly inform nor disprove a generalizable finding, Arend Lijphart (1971) states that because of its singular nature, the case study in and of itself does not directly satisfy the standards of scientific research. He does, however, credit the case study with multiple indirect benefits, making it a valuable component in establishing political science theory. He identifies six types of case studies that fall into roughly two categories: those chosen because the case itself is of interest and that are purely descriptive and those chosen to inform and build theory. The first category encompasses single case studies, which are generally detailed histories of a specific event or result and which, he argues, have value for this history alone. The thorough knowledge of a country gained by such an intensive, rich study provides critical information that others can also benefit from. Additionally, these in-depth analyses not only are a source of data for larger comparative studies but may also identify new variables of interest or suggest potentially new theoretical explanations. Lijphart’s other typologies include those case studies that are chosen specifically for theory-building purposes. They include hypothesis-generating cases in areas in which no established theory exists; theory-confirming and -informing cases, both of which test existing theories; and deviant case analysis, for cases known to have varied from the expectations predicted by theory. This third type of case often reveals additional variables previously unidentified. It may suggest a temporal ordering of variables (path dependency) or identify the sometimes critical interactions of variables. The study of deviant cases may merely suggest refinements to the way variables are operationalized within the study, still an important theoretical contribution. These last three case typologies constitute the core of comparative case study, with their usefulness coming from their deliberate selection as a test to existing theory. While Lijphart identifies certain benefits of the case study approach, his praise is still conditional, and he favors the value of large-N quantitative studies whenever possible.

Harry Eckstein (1975) addresses the utility of case studies by first noting the predominant status held by historiographic work in earlier political science research. His main contention is that this early case study work, at both the micro and the macro level, although insightful in its own right, was perceived to be severely limited in its usefulness for producing generalizable theory, because of its singular focus and the statistical consequence of an N of 1. The prevailing assumption was that what theory-building utility case study work had was inductively drawn from the events studied, and those inferences might or might not represent replicable conclusions. Eckstein questions this assumption and lays out a detailed argument supporting the utility of case study work in all stages of the theory development process, not just the nascent ones. He additionally contends that case studies may actually be most valuable at the theory testing stage. Particularly in the field of comparative politics and when studying complex, potentially unique systems, Eckstein suggests that well-designed case study methods may be the best way of testing hypotheses and cumulating generalizable theories. Indeed, he emphasizes the role of case study in its comparative application and perspective.

Before he makes his argument for the value of case study to theory building, Eckstein (1975) provides valuable definitions of case study by emphasizing the concentrated, yet flexible, aspect of an investigation into a single event or individual. This focused yet not narrowly defined approach allows the investigator to be open to unexpected observations and new conclusions. Eckstein additionally makes the important distinction that the study of one event does not necessarily mean only one measure of the results. Rather, he contends that how an event or thing is studied will dictate its number of observations. Thus, one event can be broken down into numerous observations. For example, “Astudy of six general elections in Britain may be, but need not be, an N = 1 study. It might also be an N = 6 study. It can also be an N = 120,000,000 study” (p. 85). This example illustrates his definition of a case as the single measurement of a pertinent variable observed, so that comparative study is then defined as “simply numerous cases along the same lines, with a view to reporting and interpreting numerous measures on the same variables of different ‘individuals’” (p. 85).

After he provides a useful review of the steps toward the development of theory, first the question or puzzle, followed by the formulation of a hypothesis and then a test, with the cycle likely repeating itself as refinements are made, Eckstein proceeds to describe five distinct varieties of the case study and identifies the particular uses each has. The first of these, the configurative idiographic study, is meant to be a comprehensive study of its target but one that allows for intuitive interpretation of the facts. By definition, idiographic is individualizing rather than nomographic or generalizing. Indeed, Eckstein acknowledges that this type of case study was the predominant type he first alluded to in this work. But he makes the point that the strengths of these types of case studies are their very weakness. Their rich description and often persuasive intuitive interpretations may be individually factual, but they aren’t systematic, which makes generalizable conclusions problematic and substantive theories unlikely.

The disciplined configurative study, a term Eckstein (1975) credits to Sidney Verba, turns this relationship around somewhat; rather than building theories on interpretations, interpretations should be driven by theory. This implies that the details of a case should either confirm or disprove a theory that ought to apply to it. The problem with this approach is, as Eckstein points out, its “discipline.” The strict and usually narrow application to a case of a hypothesized theory should either confirm or deny it. In essence, Eckstein suggests that this approach may be too restrictive. It may also lack the flexibility to accommodate more intricate relationships not already identified or suggested by existing theory. He also worries that interpretation of cases on an existing theory presumes that the theory itself is correct and suggests that existing theory, however valid, may “compel particular case interpretations” (p. 104, italics added) with its emphasis on generalizability at the expense of more individualized findings.

Eckstein’s (1975) third type is heuristic case studies, which are deliberate searches for discovery, often a result of trial and error. These are meant to be creative, stimulating the imagination of the researcher toward new ways of looking at a problem, focusing on broader, more generalizable relationships. This discovery is incremental and is often developed in sequential studies as the new theory is further refined. The reason for heuristic case study is given rather succinctly by Eckstein: Theories do not arise from data alone but rather from the imagination of the researcher, after discerning puzzles and then patterns. Case studies, with their intensive analysis, increase the likelihood that these critical relationships will be found, particularly when they are carefully chosen to advance theory building. One caveat Eckstein offers on heuristic case studies is that they often produce too much—multiple explanations, too many variables, and a resulting complexity of interactions that are not only unwieldy but make generalization impossible.

Case studies are also used to probe the likelihood of proposed theories, a form that Eckstein (1975) calls plausibility probes. These are an intervening step before testing, to determine whether the expense of testing is warranted. Although the usefulness of such a study is limited to this end, and alone it cannot confirm a theory, it can, however, improve the prospects of testing, and for this reason it has value.

A more critical example of case study in theory building is the crucial case study. Eckstein (1975) confronts the dilemma of a single observation and the inability to correctly determine a statistical relationship on the basis of such limited information as a source of potential error for any theory based on it. The inductive fallacy is the error made when one derives a theory from only the observed (gathered) data, without further testing. The critical caveat is that one cannot test a theory with the same data used to originate the theory, and therefore another such example must be found. The crucial case is just such a test of a proposed theory. If all those variables deemed critical to a theory exist, then the results should be as predicted by the theory. Conversely, one can study a case similar in most respects, yet lacking in the hypothesized critical components, as a way of demonstrating that similar results did not result because the causal variable was missing. Although these most likely and least likely case study designs cannot absolutely confirm or deny theory, they are important tests of the likelihood of the theory and the correctness of the causal relationships being proposed.

Eckstein’s (1975) thorough typology and analysis of the case study method methodically crafts an argument for the benefits of case study work. These include the insight made possible by the rigorous, thorough inspection in a carefully crafted case study and its across-discipline utility in identifying new variables and new causal mechanisms leading to the generation of new theory. To accomplish this goal, Eckstein emphasizes that case study selection must be driven by theory, and not by interest or convenience.

Charles Ragin (1987), in The Comparative Method, devotes a chapter to the discussion of case-oriented comparative methods and addresses the likelihood that even the most meticulously performed case study is unlikely to produce definitive explanations. However, identifying critical contextual facts may help determine the causal relationships underlying the observed phenomena. It is important to note that Ragin emphasizes the value that an intensive case study accrues to its researcher. Deep understanding of an event or case in its entirety, rather than merely knowing pieces of information, allows for more contextually rich comparison to other events. This richness can only enhance the reliability of the causal inferences drawn. Such depth of knowledge is likely limited to a small number of cases, and indeed this complexity is a constraint on the case study researcher. Case study is, as Ragin shows, a successful strategy for analyzing complex, multicausal events and at the same time still cohesively connecting them theoretically. He concludes with a nice summation of the strengths of the case study method: Case studies make possible the discovery of patterns of relationships and difference, with all deviations requiring an explanation, necessitating a thorough knowledge of the data. Since case study work does not rely on statistical probabilities such as frequency or distribution, a single case can be critical and can potentially prove or disprove a hypothesis. Case study work is holistic and requires a thorough understanding of the entire event, not just targeted aspects of it, and finally, case study encourages creative new ways of examining behavior and events. Particularly in the identification of complex interactions and the importance of context in understanding their role, Ragin makes the point that case studies provide a methodologically distinct approach.

In Designing Social Inquiry, Gary King, Robert O. Koehane, and Verba (1994) argue that the same level of testable, scientific rigor can be applied to qualitative work that quantitative scholars are able to use in their statistically based work; qualitative work includes, of course, case studies. King et al. focus on research design with an emphasis on the logic of inference, to use the facts that are known to learn about facts as yet unknown. This is then used to identify causal relationships and construct theories that can then be tested. King et al.’s emphasis on the latter stages of research design, producing theory that is testable and thus falsifiable, challenges case study researchers to think rigorously about their work, to recognize the similarities of quantitative and qualitative work with respect to empirical rigor, and to approach their work as such. King et al. argue that the primary way to do this is to see qualitative data more quantitatively, and to accomplish this from a practical standpoint, they advise maximizing the number of observations (from which measures are taken) whenever possible. At the same time, when adding an observation is not possible, they recommend summarizing on the outcome of interest instead, in order to avoid issues of micronumerosity (having more variables than observations). Echoing Eckstein (1975), King et al. remind us that the size of a case study, its N, is often determined by the level of analysis chosen: Is it one single event, several incidents within that event, or many more individual acts? In addition to constructing a design that allows for multiple observations, the authors emphasize the requirement of designing theories that can be falsified (i.e., the null hypothesis can be tested). King et al. also address the importance of reducing the potential bias introduced through case selection. They emphasize the care with which cases must be chosen, as there must be “the possibility of at least some variation on the dependent variable” (p. 129). Other potential sources of selection bias they cite are investigator induced: choosing cases because data are available or because one has a particular interest in or understands the language, or the larger bias that often occurs when case selection is correlated with the dependent variable. In this instance, the process being studied has already been selected for over time, leaving as evidence only its most recent iteration and losing any obvious trace of what may have been critically important in the intervening stages.

Not all scholars implicitly agreed with the arguments made by King et al. (1994), and a lively review symposium in response to it appeared in the journal American Political Science Review. In it, Ronald Rogowski (1995) challenges King et al.’s concern with the testability of single-observation studies and relates three examples of just such single-case studies that do succeed under this limitation. He offers additional examples in response to their admonitions against dependent variable selection bias and comments that without deliberate selection based on a case’s anomaly (its status as a statistical outlier), one of the core benefits of case study work would be lost. Rogowski sums up by emphasizing the importance of not losing the benefits of good qualitative work at the expense of increased quantifiability. In the same symposium, David Collier (1995) also takes issue with how King et al. address selection bias. However, although Collier generally concurs with their position, he argues for a bit more nuance when one is faced with some of the realities of the comparative method. Additionally he identifies the importance of valuing the context of research findings as more important perhaps than their generalizability, and he gently suggests that King et al. could be less rigid in their appraisal of qualitative methods.

Since case study is just that, an intensive examination of at least one item, how cases are selected is a fundamental issue. In comparative case studies, this issue is particularly relevant because small-N studies suggest that there exists more than one unique example of what is being examined and therefore a larger population to choose from. As a result, concerns over potential selection bias contribute prominently in discussions of the case study method. In “How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get: Selection Bias in Comparative Politics,” Barbara Geddes (1990) addresses this issue by reexamining three prominent comparative studies. She neatly demonstrates how the potential error of case selection on the dependent variable can particularly impact results in small-N studies. Essentially a primer on selection bias, this article outlines the importance not only of identifying the most likely causal reasons some event occurred, but also of examining the counterfactual as well. Geddes makes the point that by not providing a larger sample, selected randomly (rather than on the dependent variable) for testing the proposed relationship between cause and effect, one is really comparing only “the differences among the selected cases” (p. 132). She then shows how such an error can also occur in a path-dependent argument. In both examples, misleading findings resulted from researchers’ not expanding the population from which the targeted cases were drawn. Had they done so, they would have had a larger and likely more random sample to test. Geddes’s final example involves time-series studies and the determination of the appropriate end point of a case study. In this instance, she shows how changing the dates of a study would affect its results drastically, and she also makes the point that historical case studies are especially vulnerable to selection bias based on the time frames chosen for analysis.

The more recent discussion of case study work has focused increasingly on understanding the role of this method as part of a comprehensive research strategy. John Gerring (2004) emphasizes how, by failing to accommodate the bounded aspect of case work, most commonly used definitions for case study are inadequate. He offers the definition of case study as “an intensive study of a single unit for the purpose of understanding a larger class of (similar) units,” with units being “spatially bounded phenomena” (p. 342). This implies the study of a unique event or thing, at one point in time, with the goal of generalizability, which, he argues, provides a more theoretically useful interpretation. Gerring then provides a comprehensive discussion of the methodological ambiguities that occur in case studies and identifies six areas in which case studies are vulnerable. With these as a guide, he outlines the strengths and weaknesses of case (within-unit) study versus across-unit study. He notes that the case study method is more suited to descriptive inferences than to causal ones. It is a method that has a special affinity with intensive, focused studies rather than those that are extensive and broad. Case study is more likely to have high internal validity and weak external validity. It facilitates the defining of causal mechanisms, and not the testing of causal effects, performing better when causal mechanisms are deterministic instead of probabilistic. Finally, case studies are well suited to exploratory research but are limited in their uses for confirming hypotheses, yet they are preferred when across-case studies cannot provide adequate variance for the relationship being studied. With this enhanced clarity, and by situating case studies not apart from but as a complement to noncase methods, Gerring suggests that case study methods should be accepted as an equally worthy methodological approach by the entire discipline and that rather than favoring one method over another (often exclusively), scholars should use the method most suited to their question, their data, and their theory.

With Alexander George and Andrew Bennett’s (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, the debate within the discipline over case studies is brought up to date. Both authors have been longtime advocates of case study methods, and this latest work is a very thorough argument for the value of case study methods as part of a research strategy that includes both quantitative and qualitative methods as well as formal theory (Bennett, 2004, offers a chapter-length article distilled from this material, as well). George and Bennett disagree with King et al.’s (1994) contention that there can be only one “logic of Inference” (p. 11). George and Bennett discuss the relationship between case studies and the systematic building of theory. They compare the strengths and weaknesses of case studies and first identify four strengths, all areas in which statistical methods tend to be weak. These include concept validity, the potential for discovering new causal variables and deriving new hypotheses, a better understanding of the relationship between causal variables and possible path dependency, and the ability to identify or model the complex interactions of these variables. Weaknesses of case studies include the potential for introducing selection bias from the cases chosen and the inability to accurately measure the relative strength of an effect. Also, because of their single or very small number, case studies are relatively unique and not necessarily representative; cases chosen from a small pool may not necessarily be independent of one another, and they do not have a rich number of observations from which to judge the strength of associations between variables. George and Bennett advocate the use of the structured, focused comparison, which allows for the collection of data that can be systematically compared with other cases as well as accumulated. In this way, scientific rigor is added, and the utility of case methods is likely increased. The authors then outline the method of case study, from designing the research to executing the study and to drawing conclusions from the findings. In all steps, the role of theory is predominant: It drives the design and motivates the findings. In addition to being the definitive authority on case methods, George and Bennett present a compelling argument for using multiple methodological approaches in a research program. Not only do they show how qualitative and quantitative methods complement each other; they integrate formal modeling as well. This approach is gaining momentum in political science today, making a qualitative skill set not merely useful but necessary.

In the field of U.S. politics, the classic example of a grounded, participant observer case study must be Alexis de Tocqueville’s (1835/2004) Democracy in America. Although most modern scholars of U.S. politics solve their N of 1 problem by focusing on the subunits of U.S. government, using states or administrations, court terms or congressional voting records as their unit of analysis, Tocqueville analyzed the United States as a single entity. He drew his conclusion, that it is citizens’ affinity for joining in and participating at all levels of civic life that strengthens democracy and enables it to flourish, from his personal observations as he extensively toured the country in the early 1800s. A more modern work in U.S. politics that is rooted in qualitative case study work is Richard Fenno’s (1978) examination of congressional members, Home Style: House Members in Their Districts, in which he used extensive interviews and considerable time observing congressmen, both in Washington, D.C., and, critically, in their districts. This self-styled “soaking and poking” enabled a comprehensive, in-depth observation that allowed Fenno to identify the paradox of individual representatives’ being very well-liked by their constituents at the same time as the institution of Congress is collectively viewed much more critically, and he explains much of the paradox by the personal relationships developed through district service. David Mayhew’s (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection also looks at the relationship between members of Congress and their constituents and is another example of a work based on inductive reasoning rooted in extensive in-depth participant observation. Mayhew finds that it is the incentive for reelection that motivates the individual behavior of both congressmen and the Congress. Through committee assignments, leadership positions, and vote trading (among other means), congressmen ensure their reelection chances. Mayhew suggests that with Congress motivated as a whole by mutual self-interest, it is no surprise that the structural arrangements of Congress, its organization of the leadership and committee system, have evolved to facilitate this behavior.

The case study method is used most extensively in the subfield of comparative politics. Using primarily small-N research designs, many significant works have been produced. Included among these is Barrington Moore’s (1966) Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Moore examines five societies to compare their experiences with modernization and the economic revolution that ensues. He concludes that there are three likely outcomes, dependent on the country’s social structure, and these in turn predict the likelihood of a successful transition to democracy or descent into dictatorship. The most well-known example of an intensive single-country case study must be Robert Putnam’s (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, also an excellent example of historiographic work. The subject of lively debate within the discipline, social capital, that is, the extent to which citizens are participatory and invested in their communities as a result of their civic relationships, was found by Putnam to be a necessary component of a successful democratic society. Putnam argues that the associational experience of northern and central Italy developed interpersonal trust and fostered more democratic local governments, but the lack of similar groups in the south left them with less. Another such single-case work is Robert Bates’s (1989) Beyond the Miracle of the Market: The Political Economy of Agrarian Development in Kenya. This work, which focuses on the intersection between land use, government institutions, and public policies, relies on a critical understanding of the economic, political, and cultural forces at work in Kenyan society. The complex interplay of economics and politics that Bates studies is only fully appreciated when the cultural context is included; the influence of tribal affiliations and Kenya’s British colonial legacy are just two examples. These kinds of rich, multilayered observations and intimate knowledge of a society can be accomplished only with case study methods, with which Bates combines quantitative rigor as well.

International relations scholars have also extensively used the case study method to selectively examine the actions of elite actors and organizations during critical events. Case study work is used to evaluate existing theory as well as propose alternate explanations to better understand the often complex motivations of and among nation-states. In Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Graham T. Allison (1971) examines the Cuban missile crisis and, primarily through interviews, reconstructs the often conflicted decision-making process of all the major participants. To do this, he approaches the same event from the perspective of three different decisional- behavior models. These competing approaches are collectively used to illustrate the author’s thesis: that despite internal pressures to the contrary, it was the actions and the decisions of the two leaders that successfully resolved the issue. Alexander George and Richard Smoke’s (1974) Deterrence in American Foreign Policy is an example of a focused-comparison case study that examines 11 instances of the failure of U.S. deterrence policy. George and Smoke use process tracing to establish the causal explanation, which would not be possible without the depth of knowledge acquired in these case histories. In doing so, they critique existing theory and are able to offer a new, more dynamic, explanation. In another example of a focused-comparison study, Stephen M. Walt (1987), in The Origins of Alliances, looks at alliance formation and contrasts two distinct types: those made for mutual support to defend against a threat and those that are more opportunistic (or perhaps pragmatic), in which one aligns with the threat itself. Walt then explores the likely causes of these choices, looking specifically at shared ideology and the influences of foreign aid. His concentrated case study of states in the Middle East during a single period allows him to develop the depth of knowledge necessary for such a study, in which data alone would be inadequate.

As the previous examples illustrate, case study work is applicable to a broad range of theoretical questions. Indeed, for many situations, a case study examination is the only way to rigorously examine an event. Case study can be used in either half of the research cycle: to deductively test the hypothesized research question or to inductively explore the results of empirical observations. It is also a valuable method for developing original theoretical insight, which can often form the basis of a research design using more statistically robust methods. Case study in and of itself serves a vital informative purpose as well, allowing in-depth appreciation of often nuanced yet critical conditions of the larger phenomenon being observed. Finally, the case study is increasingly being appreciated as a necessary component of comprehensive political science research today: Together with traditional quantitative methods that provide reliable statistical probabilities for a tightly focused view, and formal theory methods that produce more soft-focused or abstract explanations, case study work provides a necessary contribution by filling in the gaps, compensating for the inevitable shortcomings when formal and quantitative methods are applied to real-life questions and problems. Most critically, a well-crafted case study gives the researcher a level of knowledge and understanding of the matter being examined that no other method allows. This benefit alone justifies the application of case study methods to social science research today and in the future.

Bibliography:

• Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston: Little, Brown.
• Bates, R. (1989). Beyond the miracle of the market: The political economy of agrarian development in Kenya. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Bennett, A. (2004). Case study methods: Design, use and comparative advantages. In D. F. Sprinz & Y. Wolinsky Nahmias (Eds.), Models, numbers and cases: Methods for studying international relations (pp. 19-55). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Collier, D. (1995). Review: Translating quantitative methods for qualitative researchers: The case of selection bias. American Political Science Review, 89, 461-466.
• Collier, D., & Mahoney, J. (1996). Insights and pitfalls: Selection bias in qualitative research. World Politics, 49, 56-91.
• Eckstein, H. (1975). Case study and theory in political science. In F. Greenstein & N. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of political science: Vol. 7. Strategies of inquiry (pp. 79-137). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
• Fenno, R. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. Boston: Little, Brown.
• Geddes, B. (1990). How the cases you choose affect the answers you get: Selection bias in comparative politics. Political Analysis, 2, 131-150.
• George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• George, A. L., & Smoke, R. (1974). Deterrence in American foreign policy: Theory and practice. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review, 98, 341-354.
• King, G., Koehane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682-693.
• Mayhew, D. R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Moore, B., Jr. (1966). Social origins of dictatorship and democracy: Lord and peasant in the making of the modern world. Boston: Beacon Press.
• Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Rogowski, R. (1995). Review: The role of theory and anomaly in social scientific inference. American Political Science Review, 89, 467-470.
• Tocqueville, A. de. (2004). Democracy in America. New York: Library of America. (Original work published 1835)
• Walt, S. M. (1987). The origins of alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

What to watch for in Trump trial’s closing arguments, from a law school professor who teaches and studies them

A fter more than four weeks of often sordid testimony , accusations of lying and even a warning from Judge Juan M. Merchan to a witness to stop giving him the side-eye , lawyers in the hush-money case involving former President Donald Trump are expected to make their closing arguments on May 28, 2024.

In a jury trial, opening statements are meant to provide jurors a narrative framework to organize all the bits and pieces of evidence and testimony.

Closing arguments are not meant to simply regurgitate the testimonies of all 22 witnesses or review the roughly 200 exhibits. For both prosecutors and defense attorneys, the closing arguments serve to tell the jury why the evidence is believable or not, why and how the facts are linked or not and, most importantly, why their decision to either acquit or convict is moral and just.

Keep it simple

As a I teach law school students and practitioners , that moral message in closing arguments should link back to themes already woven into the trial.

In this criminal case, one of four filed against Trump , Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged the former president with 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide a $130,000 payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels as part of an effort to influence voters’ knowledge about him before the 2016 presidential election.

Trump entered a plea of not guilty and did not testify .

For the prosecution, that moral message, as prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said earlier in the trial, is this: “It was election fraud, pure and simple.”

For the defense, its closing argument should include an equally direct statement, much like what Trump defense attorney Todd Blanche has said: “President Trump is innocent. President Trump did not commit any crimes. The Manhattan district attorney’s office should never have brought this case.”

There is at least one more purpose in closing arguments. It is to arm jurors with the arguments they need – either to shut down naysayers or gently persuade those in doubt – for when the real battle occurs, inside the jury room during deliberations. One way to do that is to find language from the instructions the judge will give to the jury, restate them in plain English and, in effect, make it look as if they are aligned with the judge and the law.

Less is more

A major goal of both prosecutors and defense attorneys is to untangle all of the evidence and testimony. They must cut through the distracting details and tell jurors, in effect, “Now you know why this witness was important” or “the document doesn’t lie – it shows you …”

Prosecutors in this case must focus on why Trump was involved in the alleged conspiracy and what he knew about the alleged payments.

In my experience over 45 years, the wise path is to start the closing argument with the big picture of “What did we have to prove?” and then answering in a series of bullet points that explain how they proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

To this end, a limited and focused use of exhibits is best – not each and every bit of evidence. Less is more also regarding salacious details, the adultery and Trump’s own vulgar words . The jury just needs the reminder – they’ll recall the details.

With star witness Michael Cohen , an attorney and Trump’s former fixer, it may be different. The prosecution can’t hide from his lies and flaws, which Trump’s defense attorneys hammered home to the jury, so it’s up to the prosecution to embrace Cohen’s failures .

Put simply, prosecutors must show that it doesn’t matter how big a liar Cohen has been in his past if, in this case, he has the receipts to back up his testimony.

A reasonable doubt?

For defense attorneys, their goal is to reassert Trump’s innocence and argue that there is plenty of reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case.

That means pounding away at Cohen’s lack of credibility and denying that any crime was committed. If anything, they may argue, these alleged crimes were no more than bookkeeping errors that Trump didn’t know about.

But if the defense portrays everything as lies, as Trump has claimed, they may paint themselves into a corner. If the jury believes, for example, that Stormy Daniels was telling the truth when she said she had sex with Trump, then Trump’s denials may work against his lawyer’s defense strategy.

The defense has one more daunting task: to strike the balance between attacking Cohen and explaining why the lawyer Trump hired is not corroborated by the reams of evidence – and Trump’s own words.

And the defense must decide what its goal is. Is it an outright acquittal, or a hung jury in which a unanimous decision was unable to be reached?

If it is the latter, expect to have a major push on Cohen’s failings and a lack of corroboration in the hope that at least one juror will stand firm and say, “That’s just not enough.”

But the last word in these final arguments goes to the prosecutors. Because they must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, they will give their closing argument last and know what they have to respond to.

• Forget Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen — it’s accountants who could seal Trump’s fate
• Opening statements are the most important part of a trial – as lawyers in Trump’s hush money case know well

Jules Epstein does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Browse content in A - General Economics and Teaching
• Browse content in A1 - General Economics
• A11 - Role of Economics; Role of Economists; Market for Economists
• A13 - Relation of Economics to Social Values
• A14 - Sociology of Economics
• Browse content in C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods
• Browse content in C0 - General
• C02 - Mathematical Methods
• Browse content in C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General
• C10 - General
• C11 - Bayesian Analysis: General
• C12 - Hypothesis Testing: General
• C13 - Estimation: General
• C14 - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods: General
• C15 - Statistical Simulation Methods: General
• C18 - Methodological Issues: General
• Browse content in C2 - Single Equation Models; Single Variables
• C21 - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models; Quantile Regressions
• C22 - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes
• C23 - Panel Data Models; Spatio-temporal Models
• Browse content in C3 - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables
• C32 - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes; State Space Models
• C38 - Classification Methods; Cluster Analysis; Principal Components; Factor Models
• Browse content in C4 - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics
• C45 - Neural Networks and Related Topics
• Browse content in C5 - Econometric Modeling
• C50 - General
• C51 - Model Construction and Estimation
• C52 - Model Evaluation, Validation, and Selection
• C53 - Forecasting and Prediction Methods; Simulation Methods
• C55 - Large Data Sets: Modeling and Analysis
• C58 - Financial Econometrics
• Browse content in C6 - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling
• C61 - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis
• C62 - Existence and Stability Conditions of Equilibrium
• C65 - Miscellaneous Mathematical Tools
• Browse content in C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
• C70 - General
• C72 - Noncooperative Games
• C73 - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary Games; Repeated Games
• C78 - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
• Browse content in C8 - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs
• C81 - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
• Browse content in C9 - Design of Experiments
• C91 - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
• C92 - Laboratory, Group Behavior
• C93 - Field Experiments
• Browse content in D - Microeconomics
• Browse content in D0 - General
• D03 - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
• Browse content in D1 - Household Behavior and Family Economics
• D10 - General
• D11 - Consumer Economics: Theory
• D12 - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
• D14 - Household Saving; Personal Finance
• D15 - Intertemporal Household Choice: Life Cycle Models and Saving
• D18 - Consumer Protection
• Browse content in D2 - Production and Organizations
• D20 - General
• D21 - Firm Behavior: Theory
• D22 - Firm Behavior: Empirical Analysis
• D23 - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
• D24 - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
• D25 - Intertemporal Firm Choice: Investment, Capacity, and Financing
• Browse content in D3 - Distribution
• D30 - General
• D31 - Personal Income, Wealth, and Their Distributions
• Browse content in D4 - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design
• D40 - General
• D43 - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
• D44 - Auctions
• D47 - Market Design
• D49 - Other
• Browse content in D5 - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium
• D50 - General
• D51 - Exchange and Production Economies
• D52 - Incomplete Markets
• D53 - Financial Markets
• Browse content in D6 - Welfare Economics
• D60 - General
• D61 - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
• D62 - Externalities
• Browse content in D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making
• D70 - General
• D71 - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
• D72 - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
• D73 - Bureaucracy; Administrative Processes in Public Organizations; Corruption
• D74 - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances; Revolutions
• D78 - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation
• Browse content in D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
• D80 - General
• D81 - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
• D82 - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
• D83 - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
• D84 - Expectations; Speculations
• D85 - Network Formation and Analysis: Theory
• D86 - Economics of Contract: Theory
• D87 - Neuroeconomics
• Browse content in D9 - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics
• D90 - General
• D91 - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
• D92 - Intertemporal Firm Choice, Investment, Capacity, and Financing
• Browse content in E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Browse content in E0 - General
• E00 - General
• E03 - Behavioral Macroeconomics
• Browse content in E1 - General Aggregative Models
• E17 - Forecasting and Simulation: Models and Applications
• Browse content in E2 - Consumption, Saving, Production, Investment, Labor Markets, and Informal Economy
• E20 - General
• E21 - Consumption; Saving; Wealth
• E22 - Investment; Capital; Intangible Capital; Capacity
• E23 - Production
• E24 - Employment; Unemployment; Wages; Intergenerational Income Distribution; Aggregate Human Capital; Aggregate Labor Productivity
• Browse content in E3 - Prices, Business Fluctuations, and Cycles
• E30 - General
• E31 - Price Level; Inflation; Deflation
• E32 - Business Fluctuations; Cycles
• E37 - Forecasting and Simulation: Models and Applications
• Browse content in E4 - Money and Interest Rates
• E40 - General
• E41 - Demand for Money
• E42 - Monetary Systems; Standards; Regimes; Government and the Monetary System; Payment Systems
• E43 - Interest Rates: Determination, Term Structure, and Effects
• E44 - Financial Markets and the Macroeconomy
• E47 - Forecasting and Simulation: Models and Applications
• Browse content in E5 - Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit
• E50 - General
• E51 - Money Supply; Credit; Money Multipliers
• E52 - Monetary Policy
• E58 - Central Banks and Their Policies
• Browse content in E6 - Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook
• E60 - General
• E61 - Policy Objectives; Policy Designs and Consistency; Policy Coordination
• E62 - Fiscal Policy
• E63 - Comparative or Joint Analysis of Fiscal and Monetary Policy; Stabilization; Treasury Policy
• E64 - Incomes Policy; Price Policy
• E65 - Studies of Particular Policy Episodes
• E66 - General Outlook and Conditions
• Browse content in E7 - Macro-Based Behavioral Economics
• E71 - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on the Macro Economy
• Browse content in F - International Economics
• Browse content in F0 - General
• F02 - International Economic Order and Integration
• Browse content in F1 - Trade
• F14 - Empirical Studies of Trade
• Browse content in F2 - International Factor Movements and International Business
• F21 - International Investment; Long-Term Capital Movements
• F22 - International Migration
• F23 - Multinational Firms; International Business
• Browse content in F3 - International Finance
• F30 - General
• F31 - Foreign Exchange
• F32 - Current Account Adjustment; Short-Term Capital Movements
• F33 - International Monetary Arrangements and Institutions
• F34 - International Lending and Debt Problems
• F36 - Financial Aspects of Economic Integration
• F37 - International Finance Forecasting and Simulation: Models and Applications
• F38 - International Financial Policy: Financial Transactions Tax; Capital Controls
• Browse content in F4 - Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Finance
• F40 - General
• F41 - Open Economy Macroeconomics
• F42 - International Policy Coordination and Transmission
• F43 - Economic Growth of Open Economies
• F44 - International Business Cycles
• F47 - Forecasting and Simulation: Models and Applications
• Browse content in F5 - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy
• F51 - International Conflicts; Negotiations; Sanctions
• Browse content in F6 - Economic Impacts of Globalization
• F63 - Economic Development
• F65 - Finance
• Browse content in G - Financial Economics
• Browse content in G0 - General
• G00 - General
• G01 - Financial Crises
• G02 - Behavioral Finance: Underlying Principles
• Browse content in G1 - General Financial Markets
• G10 - General
• G11 - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
• G12 - Asset Pricing; Trading volume; Bond Interest Rates
• G13 - Contingent Pricing; Futures Pricing
• G14 - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading
• G15 - International Financial Markets
• G17 - Financial Forecasting and Simulation
• G18 - Government Policy and Regulation
• G19 - Other
• Browse content in G2 - Financial Institutions and Services
• G20 - General
• G21 - Banks; Depository Institutions; Micro Finance Institutions; Mortgages
• G22 - Insurance; Insurance Companies; Actuarial Studies
• G23 - Non-bank Financial Institutions; Financial Instruments; Institutional Investors
• G24 - Investment Banking; Venture Capital; Brokerage; Ratings and Ratings Agencies
• G28 - Government Policy and Regulation
• G29 - Other
• Browse content in G3 - Corporate Finance and Governance
• G30 - General
• G31 - Capital Budgeting; Fixed Investment and Inventory Studies; Capacity
• G32 - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill
• G33 - Bankruptcy; Liquidation
• G34 - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance
• G35 - Payout Policy
• G38 - Government Policy and Regulation
• G39 - Other
• Browse content in G4 - Behavioral Finance
• G40 - General
• G41 - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making in Financial Markets
• Browse content in G5 - Household Finance
• G50 - General
• G51 - Household Saving, Borrowing, Debt, and Wealth
• G52 - Insurance
• G53 - Financial Literacy
• Browse content in H - Public Economics
• H0 - General
• Browse content in H1 - Structure and Scope of Government
• H11 - Structure, Scope, and Performance of Government
• H19 - Other
• Browse content in H2 - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue
• H22 - Incidence
• H24 - Personal Income and Other Nonbusiness Taxes and Subsidies; includes inheritance and gift taxes
• H25 - Business Taxes and Subsidies
• H26 - Tax Evasion and Avoidance
• Browse content in H3 - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents
• H31 - Household
• Browse content in H4 - Publicly Provided Goods
• H40 - General
• H41 - Public Goods
• Browse content in H5 - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies
• H50 - General
• H52 - Government Expenditures and Education
• H53 - Government Expenditures and Welfare Programs
• H54 - Infrastructures; Other Public Investment and Capital Stock
• H55 - Social Security and Public Pensions
• H56 - National Security and War
• H57 - Procurement
• Browse content in H6 - National Budget, Deficit, and Debt
• H63 - Debt; Debt Management; Sovereign Debt
• Browse content in H7 - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations
• H70 - General
• H72 - State and Local Budget and Expenditures
• H74 - State and Local Borrowing
• H75 - State and Local Government: Health; Education; Welfare; Public Pensions
• Browse content in H8 - Miscellaneous Issues
• H81 - Governmental Loans; Loan Guarantees; Credits; Grants; Bailouts
• Browse content in I - Health, Education, and Welfare
• Browse content in I1 - Health
• I11 - Analysis of Health Care Markets
• I12 - Health Behavior
• I13 - Health Insurance, Public and Private
• I14 - Health and Inequality
• I18 - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
• Browse content in I2 - Education and Research Institutions
• I22 - Educational Finance; Financial Aid
• I23 - Higher Education; Research Institutions
• I28 - Government Policy
• Browse content in I3 - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty
• I30 - General
• I38 - Government Policy; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs
• Browse content in J - Labor and Demographic Economics
• Browse content in J0 - General
• J00 - General
• Browse content in J1 - Demographic Economics
• J11 - Demographic Trends, Macroeconomic Effects, and Forecasts
• J12 - Marriage; Marital Dissolution; Family Structure; Domestic Abuse
• J13 - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth
• J15 - Economics of Minorities, Races, Indigenous Peoples, and Immigrants; Non-labor Discrimination
• J16 - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
• J18 - Public Policy
• Browse content in J2 - Demand and Supply of Labor
• J20 - General
• J21 - Labor Force and Employment, Size, and Structure
• J22 - Time Allocation and Labor Supply
• J23 - Labor Demand
• J24 - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity
• J26 - Retirement; Retirement Policies
• J28 - Safety; Job Satisfaction; Related Public Policy
• Browse content in J3 - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs
• J30 - General
• J31 - Wage Level and Structure; Wage Differentials
• J32 - Nonwage Labor Costs and Benefits; Retirement Plans; Private Pensions
• J33 - Compensation Packages; Payment Methods
• J38 - Public Policy
• Browse content in J4 - Particular Labor Markets
• J41 - Labor Contracts
• J44 - Professional Labor Markets; Occupational Licensing
• J45 - Public Sector Labor Markets
• J46 - Informal Labor Markets
• J49 - Other
• Browse content in J5 - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining
• J51 - Trade Unions: Objectives, Structure, and Effects
• J52 - Dispute Resolution: Strikes, Arbitration, and Mediation; Collective Bargaining
• Browse content in J6 - Mobility, Unemployment, Vacancies, and Immigrant Workers
• J61 - Geographic Labor Mobility; Immigrant Workers
• J62 - Job, Occupational, and Intergenerational Mobility
• J63 - Turnover; Vacancies; Layoffs
• J64 - Unemployment: Models, Duration, Incidence, and Job Search
• J65 - Unemployment Insurance; Severance Pay; Plant Closings
• J68 - Public Policy
• Browse content in J7 - Labor Discrimination
• J71 - Discrimination
• Browse content in J8 - Labor Standards: National and International
• J88 - Public Policy
• Browse content in K - Law and Economics
• Browse content in K1 - Basic Areas of Law
• K12 - Contract Law
• Browse content in K2 - Regulation and Business Law
• K22 - Business and Securities Law
• K23 - Regulated Industries and Administrative Law
• Browse content in K3 - Other Substantive Areas of Law
• K31 - Labor Law
• K32 - Environmental, Health, and Safety Law
• K34 - Tax Law
• K35 - Personal Bankruptcy Law
• Browse content in K4 - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior
• K42 - Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law
• Browse content in L - Industrial Organization
• Browse content in L1 - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance
• L10 - General
• L11 - Production, Pricing, and Market Structure; Size Distribution of Firms
• L13 - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
• L14 - Transactional Relationships; Contracts and Reputation; Networks
• L15 - Information and Product Quality; Standardization and Compatibility
• Browse content in L2 - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior
• L21 - Business Objectives of the Firm
• L22 - Firm Organization and Market Structure
• L23 - Organization of Production
• L24 - Contracting Out; Joint Ventures; Technology Licensing
• L25 - Firm Performance: Size, Diversification, and Scope
• L26 - Entrepreneurship
• L29 - Other
• Browse content in L3 - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise
• L33 - Comparison of Public and Private Enterprises and Nonprofit Institutions; Privatization; Contracting Out
• Browse content in L4 - Antitrust Issues and Policies
• L43 - Legal Monopolies and Regulation or Deregulation
• L44 - Antitrust Policy and Public Enterprises, Nonprofit Institutions, and Professional Organizations
• Browse content in L5 - Regulation and Industrial Policy
• L51 - Economics of Regulation
• Browse content in L6 - Industry Studies: Manufacturing
• L66 - Food; Beverages; Cosmetics; Tobacco; Wine and Spirits
• Browse content in L8 - Industry Studies: Services
• L81 - Retail and Wholesale Trade; e-Commerce
• L85 - Real Estate Services
• L86 - Information and Internet Services; Computer Software
• Browse content in L9 - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities
• L92 - Railroads and Other Surface Transportation
• L94 - Electric Utilities
• Browse content in M - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics
• Browse content in M0 - General
• M00 - General
• Browse content in M1 - Business Administration
• M12 - Personnel Management; Executives; Executive Compensation
• M13 - New Firms; Startups
• M14 - Corporate Culture; Social Responsibility
• M16 - International Business Administration
• Browse content in M2 - Business Economics
• M20 - General
• M21 - Business Economics
• Browse content in M3 - Marketing and Advertising
• M30 - General
• M31 - Marketing
• M37 - Advertising
• Browse content in M4 - Accounting and Auditing
• M40 - General
• M41 - Accounting
• M42 - Auditing
• M48 - Government Policy and Regulation
• Browse content in M5 - Personnel Economics
• M51 - Firm Employment Decisions; Promotions
• M52 - Compensation and Compensation Methods and Their Effects
• M54 - Labor Management
• Browse content in N - Economic History
• Browse content in N1 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics; Industrial Structure; Growth; Fluctuations
• N10 - General, International, or Comparative
• N12 - U.S.; Canada: 1913-
• Browse content in N2 - Financial Markets and Institutions
• N20 - General, International, or Comparative
• N21 - U.S.; Canada: Pre-1913
• N22 - U.S.; Canada: 1913-
• N23 - Europe: Pre-1913
• N24 - Europe: 1913-
• N25 - Asia including Middle East
• N27 - Africa; Oceania
• Browse content in N3 - Labor and Consumers, Demography, Education, Health, Welfare, Income, Wealth, Religion, and Philanthropy
• N32 - U.S.; Canada: 1913-
• Browse content in N4 - Government, War, Law, International Relations, and Regulation
• N43 - Europe: Pre-1913
• Browse content in N7 - Transport, Trade, Energy, Technology, and Other Services
• N71 - U.S.; Canada: Pre-1913
• Browse content in N8 - Micro-Business History
• N80 - General, International, or Comparative
• N82 - U.S.; Canada: 1913-
• Browse content in O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth
• Browse content in O1 - Economic Development
• O11 - Macroeconomic Analyses of Economic Development
• O12 - Microeconomic Analyses of Economic Development
• O13 - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Energy; Environment; Other Primary Products
• O16 - Financial Markets; Saving and Capital Investment; Corporate Finance and Governance
• O17 - Formal and Informal Sectors; Shadow Economy; Institutional Arrangements
• Browse content in O2 - Development Planning and Policy
• O23 - Fiscal and Monetary Policy in Development
• Browse content in O3 - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
• O30 - General
• O31 - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
• O32 - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
• O33 - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
• O34 - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
• O35 - Social Innovation
• O38 - Government Policy
• Browse content in O4 - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity
• O40 - General
• O43 - Institutions and Growth
• Browse content in O5 - Economywide Country Studies
• O53 - Asia including Middle East
• Browse content in P - Economic Systems
• Browse content in P1 - Capitalist Systems
• P16 - Political Economy
• P18 - Energy: Environment
• Browse content in P2 - Socialist Systems and Transitional Economies
• P26 - Political Economy; Property Rights
• Browse content in P3 - Socialist Institutions and Their Transitions
• P31 - Socialist Enterprises and Their Transitions
• P34 - Financial Economics
• P39 - Other
• Browse content in P4 - Other Economic Systems
• P43 - Public Economics; Financial Economics
• P48 - Political Economy; Legal Institutions; Property Rights; Natural Resources; Energy; Environment; Regional Studies
• Browse content in Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics
• Browse content in Q0 - General
• Q02 - Commodity Markets
• Browse content in Q3 - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation
• Q31 - Demand and Supply; Prices
• Q32 - Exhaustible Resources and Economic Development
• Browse content in Q4 - Energy
• Q40 - General
• Q41 - Demand and Supply; Prices
• Q42 - Alternative Energy Sources
• Q43 - Energy and the Macroeconomy
• Browse content in Q5 - Environmental Economics
• Q50 - General
• Q51 - Valuation of Environmental Effects
• Q53 - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
• Q54 - Climate; Natural Disasters; Global Warming
• Q56 - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
• Browse content in R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics
• Browse content in R0 - General
• R00 - General
• Browse content in R1 - General Regional Economics
• R10 - General
• R11 - Regional Economic Activity: Growth, Development, Environmental Issues, and Changes
• R12 - Size and Spatial Distributions of Regional Economic Activity
• Browse content in R2 - Household Analysis
• R20 - General
• R21 - Housing Demand
• R23 - Regional Migration; Regional Labor Markets; Population; Neighborhood Characteristics
• Browse content in R3 - Real Estate Markets, Spatial Production Analysis, and Firm Location
• R30 - General
• R31 - Housing Supply and Markets
• R32 - Other Spatial Production and Pricing Analysis
• R33 - Nonagricultural and Nonresidential Real Estate Markets
• R38 - Government Policy
• Browse content in R4 - Transportation Economics
• R41 - Transportation: Demand, Supply, and Congestion; Travel Time; Safety and Accidents; Transportation Noise
• Browse content in R5 - Regional Government Analysis
• R51 - Finance in Urban and Rural Economies
• Browse content in Z - Other Special Topics
• Browse content in Z1 - Cultural Economics; Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology
• Z11 - Economics of the Arts and Literature
• Z13 - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Social and Economic Stratification
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About The Review of Financial Studies
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

The Bright Side of Political Uncertainty: The Case of R&D

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Julian Atanassov, Brandon Julio, Tiecheng Leng, The Bright Side of Political Uncertainty: The Case of R&D, The Review of Financial Studies , 2024;, hhae023, https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhae023

• Permissions Icon Permissions

We use close gubernatorial elections as a quasi-natural experiment to document a positive effect of political uncertainty on firm-level R&D. This finding is in contrast to the existing literature documenting a negative impact of political uncertainty on capital investment. We examine potential mechanisms and find that our results are consistent with the growth option view of R&D investment. The effect is stronger for politically sensitive and high-tech industries.The results are robust to different proxies for political uncertainty shocks. As predicted by models of investment under uncertainty, the real effects of political uncertainty critically depend on the type of the investment. ( JEL G18, G38, O31, O32)

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1465-7368
• Print ISSN 0893-9454
• Copyright © 2024 Society for Financial Studies
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

The Politics Shed- A Free Text Book for all students of Politics.

Cases studies of Pressure Groups

Case study Revolving door UK Greensill and David Cameron   2021

Can’t pay, won’t pay Soaring costs have given rise to a civil disobedience movement 2022

The BMA is a sectional group whose main purpose is to protect the interests of doctors. It can also function as a cause group, on issues that affect public health. Its professional status and ability to provide scientific evidence give it credibility with government. The BMA had already contributed to the introduction of a ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces from 2007. It saw the prohibition of smoking in private vehicles as the next stage in its campaign for a smoke-free UK.

When the BMA first made its case in November 2011, on the grounds that passive smoking is particularly harmful in a confined space, the government had no plans for legislation. Instead it preferred to discourage drivers from smoking by publicising the health risks. The BMA did not secure all of its objectives. Originally it argued for an outright ban on smoking in cars, regardless of whether passengers were being carried. There was insufficient support for this, so the BMA concentrated on campaigning for prohibition when children were being carried. This attracted the support of other pressure groups such as Asthma UK. The BMA used online technology to lobby for support, providing its members with a web-based form to personalise and send to their MPs. It also made its case to members of the House of Lords. A Labour peer introduced an amendment to the 2014 Children and Families Bill, which was passed by the Lords and later accepted by the Commons. The ban came into force in October 2015.

This is a good illustration of successful pressure-group politics. The BMA showed a willingness to focus on an attainable goal. It proved patient and resourceful in mobilising support and using the parliamentary process. It was also fortunate in that public opinion and the government were willing to protect children as a vulnerable group, while they would have seen a total ban on smoking in cars as an unnecessary intrusion into people's private lives.

In April 2019 Extinction Rebellion - a climate change protest group use very similar tactics to Occupy.

Extinction Rebellion

In October 2011 a group of protestors occupied the square in front of St Paul's Cathedral in London, where they erected tents until they were evicted by order of the High Court 4 months later. They were protesting about corporate greed in the City of London, which they held responsible for social inequality. Their actions were echoed by demonstrations in other cities, including in Wall Street, New York. Superficially they had some success in drawing attention to their cause, at a time when the coalition government's spending cuts were widely condemned on the left of British politics for making life harder for the poor, while wealthy people in

the financial sector seemed unscathed. A senior clergyman at St Paul's resigned his post in solidarity with the protestors and there was some sympathy for them when the police were sent in to clear the camp. However, Occupy London failed to achieve long-lasting results. In part this was due to the strong stand taken by the authorities. Although initially they tolerated the camp, when they decided to take action they were determined not to allow the protestors to settle elsewhere in London. Fundamentally, the movement's objectives were too broad and incoherent to give them any chance of success. They represented a generalised hostility to global capitalism and did not have practical, achievable goals. Even if the government had been prepared to negotiate with the campaigners, it is hard to see what it could have done to satisfy them.

The Automobile Association (AA) and the Royal Automobile Club (RAC) were both highly critical of the Johnson government’s plans to introduce smart motorways. These are motorways on which the hard shoulder is removed to increase capacity. It is replaced with refugee areas (no more than 1.6 miles apart), which drivers should head for. According to both organisations, smart motorways significantly increased the risk to drivers 

Why were they successful?

The tactics they deployed made the most of their professional expertise and insider status to directly influence policy making. In 2021, the RAC’s report on motoring survey showed that 54% of drivers believed that smart motorways made them less safe. According to the AA, smart motorways could leave stranded cars like ‘sitting ducks’. In 2021, the AA and the RAC, together with West Midlands police and Highways England, provided specialist evidence to the Transport Select Committee. On the recommendation of the committee, the government decided to delay building new smart highways for 5 years while their safety implications were assessed

Free School meals in lock down

When schools closed during the 2020 lockdown, children on free school meals were deprived of this provision. This naturally put an added financial burden on the poorest families. Manchester United footballer Marcus Rashford, whose mother had struggled to provide for him as a child, empathised with their pligh

 why were they successful ?

Rashford determined to use his celebrity status to take action on behalf of these families. He worked closely with the charity FareShare to provide free meals and used his Twitter account to advertise businesses that were offering free meals. This generated considerable favourable publicity, which Rashford followed with an e-petition, ‘End child food poverty – no child should be going hungry’, signed by 1.1 million people. Pictures of Rashford with his mother sorting food parcels generated further positive coverage. As Rashford’s campaign gathered momentum, a growing number of Conservative MPs were also becoming highly critical of the prime minister. Consequently, in a series of climb-downs, the government announced that it would provide a £120 million ‘Covid summer food fund’ and a £170 million ‘Covid winter grant scheme’ for vulnerable families

6 ways to encourage political discussion on college campuses

Associate professor of education, University of Virginia

Disclosure statement

Rachel Wahl has received funding from the Spencer Foundation and the National Academy of Education

University of Virginia provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

View all partners

With deep divisions on college campuses – most recently over the conflict in the Gaza Strip and Israel – many observers fear that universities are not places where students can discuss divisive issues with people who disagree with them. In my research and teaching, I have seen that students in fact want to have difficult conversations across divides, but they need support from faculty and other facilitators in order for these discussions to go well.

Since early 2017, I have been observing events on college campuses in which students are brought together with peers with whom they disagree to talk about politics. In these sessions, facilitators provide students with guiding questions that help them to understand their peers’ political views.

I conducted follow-up interviews with students a few weeks afterward and, when possible, three years later.

My aim is to understand what happens in these conversations. I want to know: Who learns what from whom? Who feels satisfied or frustrated, and why? And what does this all portend for America’s democracy?

The conversations I observed have taught me that six practices help to support a better experience for all students.

1. Set norms and expectations

When people talk about setting norms for conversation, they usually assume it is an effort to mandate speech rules. But norm-setting accomplishes something better than rule-following: It allows students to become sensitive to their own and others’ hopes and fears for the conversation.

In my experience, opening the session with questions such as “What do you most hope will happen in this conversation?” “What worries you most about the conversation?” “What are you willing to give to it?” and “What do you hope to get from it?” can show students that they already share more than they anticipate.

Moreover, this discussion leads naturally into the question of “How can we interact in a way that is most likely to realize our aims?” Students typically volunteer their own guidelines, such as assuming good faith, objecting to a person’s idea rather than attacking the person, honestly conveying when and why they feel hurt, and listening generously.

2. Allow students to tell their personal stories

Beginning with students’ personal stories lowers the barriers to entry, so that students who are not experts on politics can contribute. It allows students to feel heard about their direct experience. And it allows for what I have found to be the most profound outcome of dialogue: the shifts in how students feel about each other.

For example, consider the “ Can We Talk ” campus dialogue series, which brings together ideologically diverse students for two-hour sessions in which facilitators provide a series of questions for students to ask each other. The sessions began with questions such as, “How were politics discussed in the home in which you were raised?” and “What is your earliest political memory?” before moving on to questions about students’ substantive views on relevant issues.

The focus of these sessions, which I observed in the 2017-2018 academic year at colleges throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey, is on cultivating students’ understanding of each other’s views and how they came to be.

If the dialogue is intended to focus on a specific issue, such as gun control , abortion or the war in Israel and Gaza , questions can be geared accordingly, such as “When did you first learn about this issue?” “How did it affect you at the time?” or “What about this issue draws you to this conversation?”

3. Encourage curiosity

Students are often afraid that they will end up validating views they oppose unless they try to discredit those views. But in follow-up interviews I conducted three years after their participation in a dialogue session, I found that those students who did eventually change their political views were prompted to do so through sincere and nonthreatening questions. “I remember one girl asked me, ‘If you say you believe this, then why did you vote like that?’ I’ve been asking myself that question ever since,” admitted one student, whose politics changed considerably in the years between our first and second interviews. It mattered most that she felt questioned, not attacked.

Questions can be encouraged throughout a conversation by reserving specific time for them in each round, as well as through directions such as “Think of one question you have always wanted to ask someone who thinks differently than you about this issue. Ask it now.”

4. Dig into disagreement

One risk of emphasizing personal experience at the start is that students hesitate to dig into their disagreements. They want to be supportive, and it’s hard to argue with personal experience. In my research, though, I found that students ended up with the deepest respect for each other when they gained understanding of the nature of their disagreements.

Clarifying what is at stake in their differences allowed students to see that their opposition was not caused by ignorance, malice or madness on the other side, but legitimate contrasts in views of what is good and possible.

After students have shared their views on issues and asked each other curiosity-oriented questions, they can be directed to ask each other questions such as “What is at the root of our disagreement?” and “What really matters to me, and to you, and is it the same thing? To the extent that it is not, why not?”

5. Collaborate on next steps

Students tend to feel most satisfied when they can work toward a more concrete aim. Most ambitiously, this can involve real cooperative projects.

For example, the Sorenson Institute , a political leadership institute at the University of Virginia, convenes dialogues that conclude with students putting together a proposal for the Virginia state Legislature on a specific topic such as gun control.

Even one-off conversations can conclude with what students might do differently on social media, on their campuses and in their families. When I followed up with them, I learned that many students had enacted these changes and found that people changed their own behavior in response. One student found that her uncle started reading and thinking about the articles she would send him. Another student discovered that peers in her political science class who had been dismissive of her in the past became respectful when she expressed her views and seemed to attend to them more sincerely.

Some students will flourish in these conversations, while others will struggle. In my research, I found that students whose rights are threatened by policy proposals of the other side understandably experience the most difficulty. However, these same students’ experiences can be improved by debriefing with a trusted mentor afterward.

For example, one student who identifies as queer felt shaken after a discussion with peers who opposed her marriage rights. But meeting with a professor afterward helped her to feel empowered by the conversation, equipped with new knowledge to help her fight for a more just society.

Listening to protest

Dialogue can deepen divides when it is presented as the only appropriate form of political communication, thereby silencing people who do not participate in these conversations. Students should be encouraged to also listen to messages conveyed through other means. For example, they can study protest movements – including ongoing, contemporary movements – and read the texts posted by activists who organize them.

It is important to convey to students that dialogue alone cannot solve all of what ails contemporary democracy. Protest, boycott and other forms of collective action matter, too.

• US higher education
• College students
• Political divide
• Higher ed attainment
• Political dialogue

Research Fellow

Senior Research Fellow - Women's Health Services

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health