Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
International Sociology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ebbinghaus, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

When Less is More

Selection Problems in Large- N and Small- N Cross-National Comparisons

Bernhard Ebbinghaus

University of Mannheim, bebbinghaus{at}sowi.uni-mannheim.de

The problem of case selection is a crucial but often overlooked issue in comparative cross-national research. The article discusses methodological shortcomings and potential solutions in selecting cases. All comparative research of social entities, whether quantitative or qualitative, faces the problem of contingency, the fact that the potential pool of cases has been pre-selected by historical and political processes. In large-N cross-national studies the use of inference statistics is problematic since random selection is rarely given and the cases represent a highly stratified set. In small-N case studies, however, the selection of cases is a deliberate choice based on the theory-driven comparative method. The epistemological and methodological problems of both comparative approaches are discussed and evaluated.

Key Words: comparative methods • cross-national comparison • qualitative case studies • quantitative analysis • selection bias • welfare state research

International Sociology, Vol. 20, No. 2, 133-152 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0268580905052366
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur Sociol RevHome page
A. Hadjar and F. Schlapbach
Educational Expansion and Interest in Politics in Temporal and Cross-cultural Perspective: A Comparison of West Germany and Switzerland
Eur. Sociol. Rev., June 1, 2009; 25(3): 271 - 286.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 International Journal of Comparative SociologyHome page
R. M. Kunovich and S. Kunovich
Gender Dependence and Attitudes toward the Distribution of Household Labor: A Comparative and Multilevel Analysis
International Journal of Comparative Sociology, December 1, 2008; 49(6): 395 - 427.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 International SociologyHome page
M. Mills, G. G. van de Bunt, and J. de Bruijn
Comparative Research: Persistent Problems and Promising Solutions
International Sociology, September 1, 2006; 21(5): 619 - 631.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 International SociologyHome page
B. Kittel
A Crazy Methodology?: On the Limits of Macro-Quantitative Social Science Research
International Sociology, September 1, 2006; 21(5): 647 - 677.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 International SociologyHome page
B. Rihoux
Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Systematic Comparative Methods: Recent Advances and Remaining Challenges for Social Science Research
International Sociology, September 1, 2006; 21(5): 679 - 706.
[Abstract] [PDF]