Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 215

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

Coppedge, Michael·1999·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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/422240

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 215

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.