Drawing general inferences on the basis of single-case and small-n studies is often seen as problematic. This article suggests a logic of generalization based on thinly rationalistic social mechanisms. Ideal-type mechanisms can be derived from empirical observations in one case and, based on the assumption of thin rationality, used as a generalizing bridge to other contexts with similar actor constellations. Thus, the “portability” builds on expectations about similar mechanisms operating in similar contexts. We present the general logic behind such “rationalistic generalization” and relate it to other ideas about generalization from single-case studies.
AdriaanseC.2011. “The Importance of Norms: Behavioural Game Theory as a Tool to Understand Neighbourhood Events.” Housing, Theory and Society28 (1): 39-60.
2.
AnsellC.GashA.2008. “Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory18 (4): 543-71.
3.
AronovitchH.2012. “Interpreting Weber’s Ideal-Types.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences42 (3): 356-69.
4.
BatesR. H.GreifA.LeviM.RosenthalJ.-L.WeingastB. R.1998. Analytic Narratives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
BengtssonB.2000. “Solving The Tenants’ Dilemma: Collective Action and Norms of Co-operation in Housing.” Housing, Theory and Society17 (4): 175-87.
7.
BengtssonB.RuonavaaraH.2011. “Comparative Process Tracing in Housing Studies.” International Journal of Housing Policy11 (4): 395-414.
8.
BennettA.2010. “Process Tracing and Causal Inference.” In Rethinking Social Inquiry, edited by BradyH. E.CollierD., 207-20. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
9.
BoudonR.1998. “Social Mechanisms without Black Boxes.” In Social Mechanisms. An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, edited by HedströmP.SwedbergR., 172-203. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BradyH. E.2010. “Data-Set Observations Versus Causal-Process Observations: The 2000 U.S. Presidential Election.” In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, 2nd ed., edited by BradyH. E.CollierD., 237-42. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
11.
BradyH. E.CollierD.2010. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, 2nd ed.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
12.
ChandraK.2006. “Mechanisms vs. Outcomes.” Qualitative Methods4 (1): 6-13.
13.
ColemanJ. S.1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
CollierD.2011. “Understanding Process Tracing.” PS: Political Science & Politics44 (4): 823-30.
15.
CollierD.MahonJ. E.Jr1993. “Conceptual ‘Stretching’ Revisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis.” American Political Science Review87 (4): 845-55.
16.
DavidsonD.1984. Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
17.
EcksteinH.1975. “Case Study and Theory in Political Science.” In The Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 7, edited by GreensteinF. I.PolsbyN. W., 79-137. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
18.
ElsterJ.1983. Sour Grapes. Studies in the Subversion of Rationality. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
19.
ElsterJ.1989a. Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
20.
ElsterJ.1989b. The Cement of Society. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
21.
ElsterJ.1998. “A Plea for Mechanisms.” In Social Mechanisms. An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, edited by HedströmP.SwedbergR., 45-73. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
22.
FalletiT. G.LynchJ. F.2009. “Context and Causal Mechanisms in Political Analysis.” Comparative Political Studies42 (9): 1143-66.
23.
FerejohnJ.SatzD.1996. “Unification, Universalism, and Rational Choice Theory.” In The Rational Choice Controversy, edited by FriedmanJ., 71-84. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
24.
FlyvbjergB.1998. Rationality and Power. Democracy in Practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25.
FlyvbjergB.2001. Making Social Science Matter. Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
26.
FlyvbjergB.2006. “Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry12 (2): 219-45.
27.
GeorgeA. L.BennettA.2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.
28.
GerringJ.2004. “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?”American Political Science Review98 (2): 341-54.
29.
GerringJ.2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
30.
GerringJ.2008. “The Mechanismic Worldview. Thinking Inside the Box.” British Journal of Political Science38 (1): 161-79.
31.
GerringJ.2010. “Causal Mechanisms: Yes, But . . ..” Comparative Political Studies43 (11): 1499-526.
32.
GoertzG.MahoneyJ.2010. “A Tale of Two Cultures: Causal Mechanisms and Process Tracing.” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research8 (2): 24-30.
33.
GoertzG.MahoneyJ.2012. A Tale of Two Cultures. Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
GreenD.ShapiroI.1994. Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
35.
GrossN.2009. “A Pragmatist Theory of Social Mechanisms.” American Sociological Review74 (3): 358-79.
36.
HayC.2002. Political Analysis. A Critical Introduction. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
37.
HedströmP.SwedbergR.1996. “Rational Choice, Empirical Research, and the Sociological Tradition.” European Sociological Review12 (2): 127-46.
38.
HedströmP.SwedbergR.1998. “Social Mechanisms: An Introductory Essay.” In Social Mechanisms. An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, edited by HedströmP.SwedbergR., 1-31. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
39.
HedströmP.YlikoskiP.2010. “Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences.” Annual Review of Sociology36: 49-67.
40.
HerttingN.2003. Samverkan på spel. Rationalitet och frustration i nätverksstyrning och svensk stadsförnyelse [Games Local Actors Play: Rationality and Frustration in Network Governance and Swedish Neighbourhood Renewal]. Stockholm, Sweden: Égalité.
41.
HerttingN.2007. “Mechanisms of Governance Network Formation: A Contextual Rational Choice Perspective.” In Theories of Democratic Network Governance, edited by TorfingJ.SorensenE., 43-60. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
42.
HuxhamC.2003. “Theorizing Collaboration Practice.” Public Management Review5 (3): 401-23.
43.
JohnsonJ.1991. “Rational Choice as a Reconstructive Theory.” In The Economic Approach to Politics, edited by MonroeK., 113-42. New York: Harper Collins.
44.
JohnsonJ.2006. “Consequences of Positivism: A Pragmatist Assessment.” Comparative Political Studies39 (2): 224-52.
45.
KingG.KeohaneR. O.VerbaS.1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
46.
LeviM.1997. “A Model, a Method, and a Map: Rational Choice in Comparative and Historical Analysis.” In Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture and Structure, edited by LichbachM. I.ZuckermanA. S., 19-41. New York: Cambridge University Press.
47.
LiebersonS.1992. “Small N’s and Big Conclusions: An Examination of the Reasoning in Comparative Studies Based on a Small Number of Cases.” In What Is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, edited by RaginC. C.BeckerH. S., 105-18. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
48.
MahoneyJ.2001. “Beyond Correlational Analysis: Recent Innovations in Theory and Method.” Sociological Forum16 (3): 575-93.
49.
MahoneyJ.2008. “Toward a Unified Theory of Causality.” Comparative Political Studies41 (4-5): 412-36.
50.
MahoneyJ.2010. “After KKV. The New Methodology of Qualitative Research.” World Politics62 (1): 120-47.
51.
MillJ. S.(1843) 1967. A System of Logic: Ratiocinative and Inductive. Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
52.
OstromE.2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
53.
PayneG.WilliamsM.2005. Generalization in qualitative research.” Sociology39 (2): 295-314.
54.
PopperK.(1967) 1985. “The Rationality Principle.” In Popper Selections, edited by MillerD., 357-65. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
55.
PrzeworskiA.TeuneH.1970. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: Wiley.
56.
RaginC. C.2008. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
57.
SartoriG.1970. “Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics.” American Political Science Review64 (4): 1033-53.
58.
ScharpfF.1997. Games Real Actors Play. Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
59.
SimonH. A. (1955). “A behavioral model of rational choice.” Quarterly Journal of Economics69 (1): 99-118.
60.
SomervilleP.BengtssonB.2002. “Constructionism, Realism and Housing Theory.” Housing, Theory and Society19 (3-4): 121-36.
61.
SørensenE.TorfingJ.2007. “Theoretical Approaches to Governance Network Dynamics.” In Theories on Democratic Network Governance, edited by SørensenE.TorfingJ., 25-42. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
62.
TsebelisG.1990. Nested Games. Berkeley: University of California Press.
63.
TverskyA.KahnemanD.1981. “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Science211 (4481): 453-58.
64.
WaldnerD.2010. “What Are Mechanisms and What Are They Good for?”Qualitative & Multi-Method Research8 (2): 30-34.
65.
WeberM.1903-1917. The Methodology of the Social Sciences, edited by ShilsE. A.FinchH. A.New York: Free Press.
66.
WhiteheadA. N.1929. Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. New York: Macmillan.
67.
YinR. K.(1984) 2009. Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
