The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Thickening Thin Concepts and Theories: Combining Large N and Small in Comparative Politics
Abstract
In recent controversies about comparative politics, it often seems as though there are only two approaches: the systematic logical deduction of universalistic theory and the more traditional case studies and small-N comparisons leading more inductively to middle range theory.1 The purpose of this article is to situate large-N quantitative analysis in this controversy. Quantitative analysis has its weaknesses, but they could be counterbalanced by some real strengths in small-N analysis. And quantitative analysis has certain methodological advantages that help compensate for some of the weaknesses of small-N analysis. On the one hand, small-N analysis tends to develop (complex or multidimensional) concepts and theories that are well-suited for description and for making inferences about simple causation on a small scale or in a few cases, but thick concepts and theories are unwieldy in generalizing or rigorously testing complex hypotheses. On the other hand, quantitative analysis is justifiably criticized for its (reductionist or simplistic) concepts and theories, but it is the best method available for testing generalizations, especially generalizations about complex causal relationships. Quantitative analysis has hardly begun to exploit its full potential in assimilating complex concepts and testing complex theories, largely due to data limitations. In order to realize its potential, scholars need to answer two key questions that arise at the intersection of small-N and quantitative analysis. Can thick concepts be translated into the thin format of quantitative data? And can the nuanced, conditional, complex, and contextualized hypotheses of small-N analysis be translated into quantitative models? I argue that the answer to both questions is yes in principle, but that in order to make these approaches complementary in practice we must collect different data and more data and do it more systematically and rigorously.
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
Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research
Collier, D., & Levitsky, S. (1997) · World Politics · doi:10.1353/wp.1997.0009 · Cited by 2,132
Cited by
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
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
Beyond Legalism: Towards a Thicker Understanding of Transitional Justice
McEvoy, K. (2007) · Journal of Law and Society · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6478.2007.00399.x · Cited by 601
Empirically Based, Agent-based models
Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2006) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-01861-110237 · Cited by 601
Combining QCA and Process Tracing in Set-Theoretic Multi-Method Research
Schneider, C. Q., & Rohlfing, I. (2013) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124113481341 · Cited by 385
Metadata
- Authors
- Coppedge, M.
- Venue
- Comparative Politics
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1999-07
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 465
- ISSN
- 0010-4159 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2330929612
- Cited by
- 215
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.54
- 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: Thickening Thin Concepts and Theories: Combining Large N and Small in Comparative Politics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/422240
- The paper
- Coppedge, M. (1999). Thickening Thin Concepts and Theories: Combining Large N and Small in Comparative Politics. Comparative Politics. https://doi.org/10.2307/422240
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.