Journal Articles

What You See and What You Get: Pitfalls and Principles of Nested Analysis in Comparative Research

---

In a recent contribution to this journal, Munck and Snyder found that many studies suffer from a deficient application of qualitative and quantitative methods. They argue that the combination of small-n and large-n analysis represents a viable method for promoting the production of knowledge. Recently, Evan Lieberman proposed nested analysis as a rigorous approach for comparative research that builds on the complementary strengths of quantitative and qualitative analysis. In this paper, the author examines the methodological potential of nested inference to advance comparative political analysis, arguing that the specific methodological problems of nested designs have not been fully appreciated. It is shown that, under certain circumstances, nothing is gained from a nested analysis. On the contrary, one might lose more than one gains compared to single-method designs. The author suggests specific methodological principles that take these problems into account to make nested analysis fruitful for comparative studies

---

Availability

No copy data

Detail Information

Series Title

Comparative Political Studies

Call Number

-

Publisher

California : Sage Publications., 2008

Collation

-

Language

English

ISBN/ISSN

00104140

Classification

-

Content Type

-

Media Type

-

Carrier Type

-

Edition

Vol. 41, No. 11, November 2008. Page 1492-1514

Subject(s)

ontology
Mixed-method Designs
Nested Analysis
Case Study Research
Regression Analysis
What You See and What You Get

Specific Detail Info

-

Statement of Responsibility

-

Other version/related

File Attachment

Comments

---

You must be logged in to post a comment