How can scholars select cases from a large universe for in-depth case study analysis? Random sampling is not typically a viable approach when the total number of cases to be selected is small. Hence attention to purposive modes of sampling is needed. Yet, while the existing qualitative literature on case selection offers a wide range of suggestions for case selection, most techniques discussed require in-depth familiarity of each case. Seven case selection procedures are considered, each of which facilitates a different strategy for within-case analysis. The case selection procedures considered focus on typical, diverse, extreme, deviant, influential, most similar, and most different cases. For each case selection procedure, quantitative approaches are discussed that meet the goals of the approach, while still requiring information that can reasonably be gathered for a large number of cases.
Abbott, Andrew, and Angela Tsay.2000. Sequence analysis and optimal matching methods in sociology. Sociological Methods and Research29:3-33.
2.
Achen, Christopher H., and Duncan Snidal.1989. Rational deterrence theory and comparative case studies. World Politics41 (January): 143-69.
3.
Amenta, Edwin.1991. Making the most of a case study: Theories of the welfare state and the American experience. In Issues and alternatives in comparative social research, ed. Charles C. Ragin, 172-94. Leiden: E. J. Brill .
4.
Boix, Charles, and Susan C. Stokes .2003. Endogenous democratization . World Politics55(4): 517-49.
5.
Brady, Henry, and David Collier , eds. 2004. Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
6.
Cochran, William G.1977. Sampling techniques. New York : John Wiley.
7.
Collier, David, Jody LaPorte, and Jason Seawright .2007. Putting typologies to work: Tools for comparative analysis. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Political Science, University of California at Berkeley.
8.
Collier, David, and James Mahoney.1996. Insights and pitfalls: Selection bias in qualitative research. World Politics49 (October): 56-91.
9.
Dion, Douglas.1998. Evidence and inference in the comparative case study. Comparative Politics30(2): 127-45.
10.
Eckstein, Harry.1975. Case studies and theory in political science. In Handbook of political science. Vol. 7 of Political science: Scope and theory, ed. Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby, 79-138. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
11.
Elman, Colin.2003. Lessons from Lakatos. In Progress in international relations theory: Appraising the field, ed. Colin Elman and Mirium Fendius Elman, 21-68. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
---. 2005. Explanatory typologies in qualitative studies of international politics. International Organization59(2): 293-326.
13.
Emigh, Rebecca.1997. The power of negative thinking: The use of negative case methodology in the development of sociological theory. Theory and Society26:649-84.
14.
Geddes, Barbara.1990. How the cases you choose affect the answers you get: Selection bias in comparative politics. In Political analysis, vol. 2 , ed. James A. Stimson, 131-50. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
15.
George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett.2005. Case studies and theory development . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16.
George, Alexander L., and Richard Smoke.1974. Deterrence in American foreign policy: Theory and practice. New York: Columbia University Press.
17.
Gerring, John.2001. Social science methodology: A criterial framework . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
---. 2004. What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review98(2): 341-54.
19.
---. 2006. Single-outcome studies: A methodological primer . International Sociology21(5): 707-34.
20.
---. 2007. Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .
21.
Gerring, John, Philip Bond, William Barndt, and Carola Moreno.2005. Democracy and growth: A historical perspective . World Politics57(3): 323-64.
22.
Gerring, John, and Rose McDermott.2007. An experimental template for case-study research. American Journal of Political Science51(3): 688-701.
23.
Goertz, Gary.2006. Social science concepts: A user's guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .
24.
Hahn, Jinyong.1998. On the role of the propensity score in efficient semiparametric estimation of average treatment effects. Econometrica66(2): 315-32.
25.
Hersen, Michel, and David H. Barlow .1976. Single-case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change. Oxford , UK: Pergamon Press.
26.
Hirano, Keisuke, Guido Imbens, and Geert Ridder.2003. Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score. Econometrica71(4): 1161-89.
27.
Ho, Daniel E., Kosuke Imai, Gary King, and Elizabeth A. Stuart .2007. Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference . Political Analysis15(3): 199-236.
28.
Imai, Kosuke.2005. Do get-out-the-vote calls reduce turnout? The importance of statistical methods for field experiments. American Political Science Review99:283-300.
29.
Kazancigil, Ali.1994. The deviant case in comparative analysis. In Comparing nations: Concepts, strategies, substance, ed. Mattei Dogan and Ali Kazancigil , 213-38. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.
30.
Kendall, Patricia L., and Katherine M. Wolf .1955. The analysis of deviant cases in communications research. In The language of social research , ed. Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Morris Rosenberg, 167-70. New York: Free Press. First published 1949 by Harper and Brothers.
31.
King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba.1994. Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
Lakatos, Imre.1978. The methodology of scientific research programmes . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Lijphart, Arend.1971. Comparative politics and the comparative method . American Political Science Review65(3): 682-93.
34.
---. 1975. The comparable cases strategy in comparative research . Comparative Political Studies8:158-77.
35.
Lipset, Seymour Martin.1959. Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political development. American Political Science Review53 (March): 69-105.
36.
Mahoney, James, and Gary Goertz.2004. The possibility principle: Choosing negative cases in comparative research. American Political Science Review98(4): 653-69.
37.
Marshall, Monty G., and Keith Jaggers.2005. Polity IV Project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800-1999. Center for International Development and Conflict Management. http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/polity/.
38.
Meckstroth, Theodore.1975. "Most different systems" and "most similar systems": A study in the logic of comparative inquiry. Comparative Political Studies8(2): 133-77.
39.
Mill, John Stuart.1872. System of logic. 8th ed. London: Longmans, Green. First published 1843.
40.
Morgan, Stephen L., and David J. Harding .2005. Matching estimators of causal effects: From stratification and weighting to practical data analysis routines . Unpublished manuscript, Department of Sociology, Cornell University.
41.
Patton, Michael Quinn.2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
Przeworski, Adam, Michael Alvarez, Jose Antonio Cheibub, and Fernando Limongi .2000. Democracy and development: Political institutions and material well-being in the world, 1950-1990. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .
43.
Przeworski, Adam, and Henry Teune.1970. The logic of comparative social inquiry . New York: John Wiley.
44.
Ragin, Charles C.1992. "Casing" and the process of social inquiry. In What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry, ed. Charles C. Ragin and Howard S. Becker, 217-26. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
45.
---. 2000. Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
46.
---. 2004. Turning the tables. In Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards, ed. Henry E. Brady and David Collier, 123-38. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
47.
Rohlfing, Ingo.2008. What you see and what you get: Pitfalls and principles of nested analysis in comparative research. Comparative Political Studies, doi:10.1177/0010414007308019, published online November 27, 2007, http://cps.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/0010414007308019v1 .
48.
Rosenbaum, Paul R.2004. Matching in observational studies. In Applied Bayesian modeling and causal inference from an incomplete-data perspective , ed. A. Gelman and X.-L. Meng, 15-24. New York: John Wiley.
49.
Rosenbaum, Paul R., and Donald B. Rubin .1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika70:40-51.
50.
Rosenbaum, Paul R., and Jeffrey H. Silber .2001. Matching and thick description in an observational study of mortality after surgery. Biostatistics2(2): 217-32.
51.
Sekhon, Jasjeet S.2004. Quality meets quantity: Case studies, conditional probability and counterfactuals. Perspectives in Politics2(2): 281-93.
52.
Skocpol, Theda, and Margaret Somers .1980. The uses of comparative history in macrosocial inquiry. Comparative Studies in Society and History22(2): 147-97.
53.
Stone, Charles J.1996. A course in probability and statistics. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.
54.
Summers, Robert, and Alan Heston.1991. The Penn world table (mark 5): An expanded set of international comparisons, 1950-1988. Quarterly Journal of Economics106(2): 327-68.
