The Many Threats from Mechanistic Heterogeneity That Can Spoil Multimethod Research

Research output: Contribution to book/anthology/report/proceedingBook chapterResearchpeer-review

Abstract

The combination of cross-case and within-case analysis in Multi-Method Research (MMR) designs has gained considerable traction in the social sciences over the last decade. One reason for the popularity of MMR is grounded in the idea that different methods can complement each other, in the sense that the strengths of one method can compensate for the blind spots and weaknesses of another and vice versa. In this chapter, we critically address this core premise of MMR with an emphasis on the external validity of applying some cross-case method, like standard regression or Qualitative Comparative Analysis, in combination with case study analysis. After a brief overview of the rationale of MMR, we discuss in detail the problem of deriving generalizable claims about mechanisms in research contexts that likely exhibit mechanistic heterogeneity. In doing so, we clarify what we mean by mechanistic heterogeneity and where researchers should look for potential sources of mechanistic heterogeneity. Finally, we propose a strategy for progressively updating our confidence in the external validity of claims about causal mechanisms through the strategic selection of cases for within-case analysis based on the diversity of the population.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationCausality in Policy Studies : A Pluralist Toolbox
Place of publicationCham
PublisherSpringer
Publication date2023
Pages235–258
ISBN (Print)978-3-031-12981-0
ISBN (Electronic)978-3-031-12982-7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2023
SeriesTexts in Quantitative Political Analysis

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The Many Threats from Mechanistic Heterogeneity That Can Spoil Multimethod Research'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this