SYMPOSIUM

what is the relation between

comparative historical analysis
and ordinary case studies?
ingo rohlfing
Cologne Graduate School in Management, Economics and Social Sciences (CGS),
Faculty of Management, Economics and Social Sciences, University of Cologne,
Germany
E-mail: rohlfing@wiso.uni-koeln.de
doi:10.1057/eps.2012.13; published online 30 March 2012
Abstract
In recent years, Comparative Historical Analysis (CHA) has been developed
as a methodological apparatus that is distinct from quantitative research in
many respects. While this is correct, it is less apparent to what extent CHA
is different from and adds something to the tools and techniques known
from ordinary case study research (i.e., not tied to Historical Institu-
tionalism). As a researcher who is attached to CHA, Peter Hall is invited to
elaborate on this approach.
Keywords comparative historical analysis; case study research;
comparative methods; historical institutionalism; process tracing
T
he questions that I want to raise are
related to Comparative Historical
Methodology, which is tied to Com-
parative Historical Analysis (CHA), and
what I call ordinary case study methods.
Given that Comparative Historical Metho-
dology and Analysis are closely linked
to historical institutionalism, I refer to
ordinary case study methods and case
studies as those that are conducted in
the context of a different theoretical
approach, but which share with CHA the
belief in empirical regularities that can be
couched in general theoretical terms.
CHA, of which process tracing is an
integral part, has a long and remarkable
history in the social sciences (Skocpol,
2003). In addition to having produced
outstanding empirical research, there
has always been a debate about the
methodology that underlies CHA. During
recent years, the profile of CHA has
been further sharpened (Mahoney and
Rueschemeyer, 2003; Pierson, 2004) along
with elaborations of the distinctive features
of Comparative Historical Methodology
(Capoccia and Kelemen, 2007; Mahoney,
2003; Mahoney, 2004; Mahoney and
Villegas, 2007).
1
In short (and at the risk
of oversimplification), the key elements
of Comparative Historical Methodology
are: it aims to provide comprehensive
european political science: 12 2013
(1619) & 2013 European Consortium for Political Research. 1680-4333/13 www.palgrave-journals.com/eps/
16
explanations of outcomes in specific
cases; it has a particular emphasis on
well-crafted concepts and valid measure-
ment; it encompasses tools with which
one can search for necessary and suffi-
cient conditions (of the deterministic
and probabilistic sort); it has a focus on
temporality, which includes, among other
things, sequencing and path dependence.
A couple of very insightful elaborations
of Comparative Historical Methodology
(Mahoney, 2004; Mahoney and Terrie,
2008; Mahoney and Villegas, 2007) con-
trast it with the practice of quantitative
research. While it is valuable to make this
comparison, I find it much more difficult
to distinguish Comparative Historical
Methodology from ordinary case studies.
This leads me to my first question: How is
Comparative Historical Methodology re-
lated to and distinct from ordinary case
study methodology? Personally, I find it
difficult to sort out the differences be-
tween Comparative Historical Methodol-
ogy and ordinary small-n research
because there tends to be a good deal
of overlap. For example, case study
research is generally appraised as being
attentive to sound concept formation and
measurement (Bennett and Elman,
2006). Whether one is hunting for set
relations or a correlational causeeffect
relationship depends on the theory in
question, but nothing indicates that
small-n research leans heavily towards
the covariational template. Finally, pro-
cesses and process tracing are key to all
qualitative case studies. Concepts such
as sequencing and path dependence
certainly are integral to historical institu-
tionalism. Again, however, I would say
that it depends on the theory in question
and that these concepts could play a role
in other theories and ordinary case
studies as well.
To avoid any misunderstandings, I do
not aim to deny the huge developments
that Comparative Historical Analysis and
Methodology have made. On the contrary,
they have contributed substantially to the
sophistication of empirical research and
the advancement of small-n methods in
general. However, the fact that a lot of
innovations from Comparative Historical
Methodology have been incorporated into
ordinary case study method and the
other way round is precisely why I am
interested in hearing what the differences
are. Perhaps there are no differences in
kind, but only in degree? What I mean
by this is that Comparative Historical
Analysts are somewhat more careful
about proper concept specification, they
rely somewhat more on set-relational
causation and so on. However, this would
not really answer my question because
these are matters of how Comparative
Historical Methodology and Analysis are
practiced and not of methodology.
Presuming that it is feasible to differ-
entiate Comparative Historical Methodol-
ogy from ordinary case study methods,
my second question is: What is the state
of Comparative Historical Methodology
and what are the promising avenues for
its future development? Let me provide
an example clarifying what my question is
hinting at: temporality is presented as a
defining characteristic of CHA. For exam-
ple, CHA has witnessed a sophisticated
debate surrounding various aspects of
temporality during the last 15 years or
so, which has contributed substantially to
conceptual clarity (which is of course
not to say that it has been possible to
settle all issues). A clear understanding
of concepts such as sequencing, which
can be classified under the notion of
temporality, is a prerequisite for sound
empirical research. However, my hunch
is that it is not always clear what the
ramifications of such concepts are. To
frame this point as a subquestion: What
are the methodological and research
design issues that flow from concepts like
sequencing?
Let me give an abstract example that
sets out what I see as an issue in need of
ingo rohlfing european political science: 12 2013 17
consideration. Sequencing means that
condition A produces a given outcome
when it occurs before B, but not when A
occurs after B. If we now observe a case
in which A occurs before B and where
the given outcome is present, how can
we convince the reader that this is an
instance of sequencing? Finding compar-
able cases is likely to be even more
complicated than for ordinary compari-
sons because of the temporal element
that is inherent to sequencing. Compar-
able here means that the cases are
similar, except that one is an instance of
sequencing and the other not (I refrain
here from digging deeper into the endless
debate about comparative case studies).
The problem is that if the second case is
not an instance of sequencing (either A or
B) must occur at a different point in time
than in the first case or perhaps both. The
larger the temporal gap between the
occurrence of A and/or B in both cases
is, the more likely it is that the two
cases differ more than merely in terms
of As and Bs order of occurrence, which
in turn undermines their comparability.
For the same reason, a counterfactual
analysis of sequencing strikes me as
being more protracted than a simple
counterfactual. These arguments cer-
tainly do not imply that concepts like
sequencing are pointless. Instead, my
point is methodological and pertains to
the intricacies of putting the concepts that
are central to CHA into practice and of
avoiding a gap between ontology and
methodology (Hall, 2003).
Note
1 In line with Mahoney (2004: 81), I understand CHA as a field of research characterised by the use of
systematic comparison and the analysis of processes over time to explain large-scale outcomes. CHA
therefore covers the general characteristics of research designs developed to answer research questions
that are derived from historical institutionalism (Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, 2003). Comparative
Historical Methodology is particularly concerned with the tools that are employed in CHA.
References
Bennett, A. and Elman, C. (2006) Qualitative research: recent developments in case study methods,
Annual Review of Political Science 9: 455476.
Capoccia, G.C. and Kelemen, D.R. (2007) The study of critical junctures: theory, narrative, and
counterfactuals in historical institutionalism, World Politics 59(3): 341369.
Hall, P.A. (2003) Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Research, in J. Mahoney and
D. Rueschemeyer (eds.) Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 373404.
Mahoney, J. (2003) Strategies of Causal Assessment in Comparative Historical Analysis, in J. Mahoney
and D. Rueschemeyer (eds.) Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 337372.
Mahoney, J. (2004) Comparative-historical methodology, Annual Review of Sociology 30: 81101.
Mahoney, J. and Rueschemeyer, D. (eds.) (2003) Comparative Historical Analysis: achievement and
agendas, in Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 338.
Mahoney, J. and Terrie, P.L. (2008) Comparative-Historical Analysis in Contemporary Political Science, in
J.M. Box-Steffensmeier, H.E. Brady and D. Collier (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology,
Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 737755.
Mahoney, J. and Villegas, C.M. (2007) Historical Enquiry and Comparative Politics, in C. Boix and
S.C. Stokes (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 7389.
Pierson, P. (2004) Politics in Time, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Skocpol, T. (2003) Doubly Engaged Social Science, in J. Mahoney and D. Rueschemeyer (eds.)
Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 407428.
european political science: 12 2013 what is the relation between comparative historical analysis and ordinary case studies? 18
About the Author
Ingo Rohlfing is Assistant Professor at the Cologne Graduate School in Management,
Economics and Social Sciences at the University of Cologne. He is doing research on party
politics, case study methods, and multi-method research and has published in Comparative
Political Studies and West European Politics.
ingo rohlfing european political science: 12 2013 19