Cited by 214Qualitative Comparative Analysis ResearchPolitical Science Research and EducationPhilosophy of Biology and Scientific Explanation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Systematic Process Analysis: when and how to use it

Hall, Peter A·2008·European Political Science

Abstract

Challenging the contention that statistical methods applied to large numbers of cases invariably provide better grounds for causal inference, this article explores the value of a method of systematic process analysis that can be applied in a small number of cases. It distinguishes among three modes of explanation – historically specific, multivariate and theory-oriented – and argues that systematic process analysis has special value for developing theory-oriented explanations. It outlines the steps required to perform such analysis well and illustrates them with reference to Owen's investigation of the ‘democratic peace’. Comparing the results available from this kind of method with those from statistical analysis, it examines the conditions under which each method is warranted. Against conceptions of the ‘comparative method’, which imply that small- n case-studies provide weak grounds for causal inference, it argues that the intensive examination of a small number of cases can be an appropriate research design for testing such inferences.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210130

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Archer, M., Bhaskar, R., Collier, A., Lawson, T. and Norrie, A. (eds.) (1998) Critical Realism: Essential Readings, London: Routledge.
  2. Bates, R., Griet, A., Levi, M., Rosenthal, J.-L. and Weingast, B. (1998) Analytical Narratives, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  3. Becker, H. (1992) ‘Cases, Causes, Conjunctures, Stories and Imagery’, in C.C. Ragin and H.S. Becker (eds.) What is a Case?, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 205–216.
  4. Bennett, A. and George, A. (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  5. Campbell, D.T. (1975) ‘Degrees of freedom and the case study’, Comparative Political Studies 8: 178–193. · DOI
  6. Cartwright, N. (1997) ‘What is a Causal Structure?’, in V.R. McKim and S.P. Turner (eds.) Causality in Crisis? Statistical Methods and the Search for Causal Knowledge in the Social Sciences, Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, pp. 342–358.
  7. Collier, D. (1991) ‘The Comparative Method: Two Decades of Change’, in D. Rustow and K. Erickson (eds.) Comparative Political Dynamics, New York: Harper Collins, pp. 7–31.
  8. Collier, R.B. and Collier, D. (1991) Shaping the Political Arena, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  9. Doyle, M. (1983) ‘Kant, liberal legacies and foreign affairs Part I’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 12: 205–235.
  10. Doyle, M. (1986) ‘Liberalism and world politics’, American Political Science Review 80: 1151–1169. · DOI
  11. Eckstein, H. (1975) ‘Case Study and Theory in Macro-politics’, in F. Greenstein and N. Polsby (eds.) Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 1, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, pp. 79–138.
  12. Elster, J. (2000) ‘Review essay: ‘analytical narratives’’, American Political Science Review 94: 685–695. · DOI
  13. Friedman, M. (1968) ‘The Methodology of Positive Economics’, in M. Brodbeck (ed.) Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, New York: Macmillan, pp. 508–529.
  14. Geddes, B. (1990) ‘How the cases you choose affect the answers you get’, Political Analysis 2: 131–149. · DOI
  15. George, A. (1979) ‘Case Studies and Theory: the Method of Structured, Focused Comparison’, in P. Larson (ed.) Diplomacy: New Approaches to History, Theory and Policy, New York: Free Press, pp. 43–68.
  16. George, A. and McKeown, T.J. (1985) ‘Case studies and theories of organizational decision-making’, Advances in Information Processing in Organizations 2: 21–58.
  17. Hall, P.A. (2003) ‘Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Research’, in J. Mahoney and D. Rueschemeyer (eds.) Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 373–406. · DOI
  18. Kuhn, T. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  19. Lijphart, A. (1971) ‘Comparative politics and the comparative method’, American Political Science Review 64: 682–693. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Lipset, S.M. (1959) ‘Some social requisites of democracy: economic development and political legitimacy’, American Political Science Review 53: 69–105. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Mahoney, J. (2000a) ‘Path dependence in historical sociology’, Theory and Society 29: 507–548. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Mahoney, J. (2000b) ‘Strategies of causal inference in small-Nanalysis’, Sociological Methods and Research 28: 387–424. · DOI
  23. Moon, D. (1975) ‘The Logic of Political Inquiry’, in F. Greenstein and N Polsby (eds.) Handbook of Political Science I, pp. 131–195.
  24. Moore Jr, B. (1966) Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, Boston: Beacon Press.
  25. Moravcsik, A. (1998) The Choice for Europe, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  26. O'Donnell, G. and Schmitter, P. (eds.) (1986) Transitions from Authoritarian Rule, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  27. Owen IV, J.M. (1994) ‘How liberalism produces democratic peace’, International Security 19: 87–125. · DOI
  28. Owen IV, J.M. (1997) Liberal Peace, Liberal War: American Politics and International Security., Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  29. Przeworski, A. and Teune, H. (1970) The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry, New York: Wiley.
  30. Ragin, C.C. (1987) The Comparative Method, Berkeley: University of California Press.
  31. Rueschemeyer, D., Stephens, E.H. and Stephens, J.D. (1992) Capitalist Development and Democracy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  32. Stone, L. (1972) The Causes of the English Revolution, New York: Harper and Row.
  33. Taylor, C. (1971) ‘Interpretation and the sciences of man’, Review of Metaphysics 25: 3–51.
  34. Wallerstein, M. (2000) ‘Trying to navigate between Scylla and Charybdis: misspecified and unidentified models in comparative politics’, APSA-CP: Newsletter for the Organized Section in Comparative Politics of the American Political Science Association 11: 1–21.
  35. Waltz, K. (1979) A Theory of International Relations, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  36. Weber, M. (1949) The Methodology of the Social Sciences, New York: Free Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hall, P. A.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Hall, Peter A
Venue
European Political Science
Published
2008-08
Volume
7
Issue
3
Pages
304-317
ISSN
  • 1680-4333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1682-0983
OpenAlex
W2037420462
Cited by
143
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 13
FWCI
18.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
European Political Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Science Research and Education
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy of Biology and Scientific Explanation
Keywords
causal inference, comparative analysis, democratic peace, research design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review