The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Case Study Methods in the International Relations Subfield
Abstract
This article reviews the key role that case study methods have played in the study of international relations (IR) in the United States. Case studies in the IR subfield are not the unconnected, atheoretical, and idiographic studies that their critics decry. IR case studies follow an increasingly standardized and rigorous set of prescriptions and have, together with statistical and formal work, contributed to cumulatively improving understandings of world politics. The article discusses and reviews examples of case selection criteria (including least likely, least and most similar, and deviant cases); conceptual innovation; typo-logical theories, explanatory typologies, qualitative comparative analysis, and fuzzy-set analysis; process tracing; and the integration of multiple methods.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War
FEARON, J. D., & LAITIN, D. D. (2003) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055403000534 · Cited by 7,366
Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994) · Princeton University Press · doi:10.1515/9781400821211 · Cited by 7,225
McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511805431 · Cited by 5,558
Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes
Lakatos, I. (1970) · Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139171434.009 · Cited by 4,649
Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research
LIEBERMAN, E. S. (2005) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055405051762 · Cited by 1,515
The security dilemma and ethnic conflict
Posen, B. R. (1993) · Survival · doi:10.1080/00396339308442672 · Cited by 1,420
Social Science Concepts: A User's Guide
Goertz, G. (2006) · doi:10.1515/9781400842995 · Cited by 910
A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research
Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. (2006) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpj017 · Cited by 904
Insights and Pitfalls: Selection Bias in Qualitative Research
Collier, D., & Mahoney, J. (1996) · World Politics · doi:10.1353/wp.1996.0023 · Cited by 658
Complex Causal Relations and Case Study Methods: The Example of Path Dependence
Bennett, A., & Elman, C. (2006) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpj020 · Cited by 455
Self-citation
Cited by
Case Study Research: Foundations and Methodological Orientations
Harrison, H., Birks, M., Franklin, R., & Mills, J. (2017) · Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research · doi:10.17169/fqs-18.1.2655 · Cited by 678
Between X and Y: how process tracing contributes to opening the black box of causality
Trampusch, C., & Palier, B. (2016) · New Political Economy · doi:10.1080/13563467.2015.1134465 · Cited by 328
Metadata
- Authors
- Bennett, A., & Elman, C.
- Venue
- Comparative Political Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-02
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 170-195
- ISSN
- 0010-4140 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3829
- OpenAlex
- W2030847427
- Cited by
- 286
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 18.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Case Study Methods in the International Relations Subfield. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0010414006296346
- The paper
- Bennett, A., & Elman, C. (2007). Case Study Methods in the International Relations Subfield. Comparative Political Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414006296346
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
