Page 32 - DPOL202_COMPARATIVE_POLITICS_AND_GOVERNMENT_ENGLISH

Unit 2: Comparative Method and Politics

to theory-building. It can even be claimed that “the cumulative effect of such studies will lead to Notes
fruitful generalization,” but only if it is recognized that this depends on a theoretically oriented
secondary analysis of the data collected in atheoretical case studies.
As indicated earlier, the atheoretical case study and the other types of case studies are ideal types.
An actual instance of an atheoretical case study probably does not exist, because almost any
analysis of a single case is guided by at least some vague theoretical notions and some anecdotal
knowledge of other cases, and usually results in some vague hypotheses or conclusions that have
a wider applicability. Such actual case studies fit the first type to a large extent, but they also fit
one or more of the other types (particularly the third, fourth, and fifth types) at least to some
extent.
Interpretative case studies resemble atheoretical case studies in one respect: they, too, are selected
for analysis because of an interest in the case rather than an interest in the formulation of general
theory. They differ, however, in that they make explicit use of established theoretical propositions.
In these studies, a generalization is applied to a specific case with the aim of throwing light on the
case rather than of improving the generalization in any way. Hence they are studies in “applied
science.” Since they do not aim to contribute to empirical generalizations, their value in terms of
theory-building is nil. On the other hand, it is precisely the purpose of empirical theory to make
such interpretative case studies possible. Because of the still very limited degree of theoretical
development in political science, such case studies are rare. One interesting example is Michael C.
Hudson’s imaginative and insightful case study of Lebanon in the light of existing development
theories, in which he discovers a serious discrepancy between the country’s socio-economic and
political development.
The remaining four types of case studies are all selected for the purpose of theory-building.
Hypothesis-generating case studies start out with a more or less vague notion of possible hypotheses,
and attempt to formulate definite hypotheses to be tested subsequently among a larger number of
cases. Their objective is to develop theoretical generalizations in areas where no theory exists yet.
Such case studies are of great theoretical value. They may be particularly valuable if the case
selected for analysis provides what Naroll calls a sort of “crucial experiment” in which certain
variables of interest happen to be present in a special way.
Theory-confirming and theory-infirming case studies are analyses of single cases within the framework
of established generalizations. Prior knowledge of the case is limited to a single variable or to none
of the variables that the proposition relates. The case study is a test of the proposition, which may
turn out to be confirmed or infirmed by it. If the case study is of the theory-confirming type, it
strengthens the proposition in question. But, assuming that the proposition is solidly based on a
large number of cases, the demonstration that one more case fits does not strengthen it a great
deal. Like-wise, theory-infirming case studies merely weaken the generalizations marginally. The
theoretical value of both types of case studies is enhanced, however, if the cases are, or turn out to
be, extreme on one of the variables: such studies can also be labeled “crucial experiments” or
crucial tests of the propositions.
Deviant case analyses are studies of single cases that are known to deviate from established
generalizations. They are selected in order to reveal why the cases are deviant—that is, to uncover
relevant additional variables that were not considered previously, or to refine the (operational)
definitions of some or all of the variables. In this way, deviant case studies can have great theoretical
value. They weaken the original proposition, but suggest a modified proposition that may be
stronger. The validity of the proposition in its modified form must be established by further
comparative analysis.
Of the six types of case studies, the hypothesis-generating and the deviant case studies have the
greatest value in terms of their contribution to theory. Each of these two types, however, has quite
different functions in respect to theory-building: The hypothesis-generating case study serves to
generate new hypotheses, while the deviant case study refines and sharpens existing hypotheses.
The deviant case study—as well as the theory-confirming and theory-in-firming case studies—are
implicitly comparative analyses. They focus on a particular case which is singled out for analysis

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 27