Most methodological work on case studies understands this topic as a study of a case where the objective is to discover something about a broader population of cases. Yet, many case studies (so-called) do not assume this nomothetic goal; their aim is to investigate a bounded unit in an attempt to elucidate a single outcome occurring within that unit. This is referred to as a single-outcome study to distinguish it from the usual genre of case study. In this article, the author discusses the utility of single-outcome studies and the different types of argumentation and causal logic that they embrace. The author proceeds to discuss the methodological components of the single-outcome study, which is understood according to three analytic angles: nested analysis (large-N cross-case analysis), most-similar analysis (small-N cross-case analysis) and within-case analysis (evidence drawn from the case of special interest). The article concludes with a discussion of a common difficulty encountered by single-outcome analysis, that is, reconciling cross-case and within-case evidence, both of which purport to explain the single outcome of interest.
Acemoglu, D. , Johnson, S.and Robinson, J. A. (2003) ‘An African Success Story: Botswana’, in D. Rodrik (ed.) In Search of Prosperity: Analytic Narratives on Economic Growth, pp. 80–122. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .
2.
Alesina, A. and Glaeser, E. (2004) Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
3.
Amenta, E. (1991) ‘Making the Most of a Case Study: Theories of the Welfare State and the American Experience’, in C. C. Ragin (ed.) Issues and Alternatives in Comparative Social Research, pp. 172–194. Leiden: E. J. Brill .
4.
Bates, R. H. , Greif, A. , Levi, M. , Rosenthal, J. L. and Weingast, B. (1998) Analytic Narratives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .
5.
Bennett, A. (1999) Condemned to Repetition? The Rise, Fall, and Reprise of Soviet- Russian Military Interventionism, 1973–1996. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
6.
Brown, M. E. , Lynn-Jones, S. M. and Miller, S. E. , eds (1996) Debating the Democratic Peace. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
7.
Bunzl, M. (2004) ‘Counterfactual History: A User's Guide’ , American Historical Review109(3): 845–858 .
8.
Burawoy, M. (1998) ‘The Extended Case Method’ , Sociological Theory16(1): 4–33 .
9.
Campbell, D. T. (1988) ‘“Degrees of Freedom” and the Case Study’, in Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science, ed. E. S. Overman , pp. 377–388. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press . (Orig. pub. 1975.)
10.
Cohen, M. R. and Nagel, E. (1934) An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company .
11.
Coppedge, M. J. (2002) ‘Nested Inference: How to Combine the Benefits of Large-Sample Comparisons and Case Studies’ , paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.
12.
Cowley, R. , ed. (2001) What If? 2: Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been. New York: Putnam .
13.
Davidson, D. (1963) ‘Actions, Reasons, and Causes’ , The Journal of Philosophy60(23): 685–700 .
14.
Dufour, S. and Fortin, D. (1992) ‘Annotated Bibliography on Case Study Method’ , Current Sociology40(1): 167–200 .
15.
Eckstein, H. (1975) ‘Case Studies and Theory in Political Science’, in F. I. Green-stein and N. W. Polsby (eds) Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 7. Political Science: Scope and Theory, pp. 94–137. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley .
16.
Eggan, F. (1954) ‘Social Anthropology and the Method of Controlled Comparison’ , American Anthropologist56 (October): 743–763 .
17.
Einhorn, H. J. and Hogarth, R. M. (1986) ‘Judging Probable Cause’ , Psychological Bulletin99(3): 3–19 .
18.
Elster, J. (1978) Logic and Society: Contradictions and Possible Worlds. New York: Wiley .
19.
Epstein, L. D. (1964) ‘A Comparative Study of Canadian Parties’ , American Political Science Review58 (March): 46–59 .
20.
Feagin, J. R. , Orum, A. M. and Sjoberg, G. , eds (1991) A Case for the Case Study. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press .
21.
Fearon, J. (1991) ‘Counter Factuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science’ , World Politics43 (January): 169–195 .
22.
George, A. L. and Bennett, A. (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
23.
Gerring, J. (2001) Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
24.
Gerring, J. (2004) ‘What is a Case Study and What is it Good For?’ , American Political Science Review98(2): 341–354 .
25.
Gerring, J. (2007) Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
26.
Gerring, J. and McDermott, R. (forthcoming) An Experimental Template for Case Study Research. Boston, MA: Boston University, Department of Political Science .
27.
Gerring, J. and Thacker, S. (forthcoming) Good Government: A Centripetal Theory of Democratic Governance. Boston, MA; Boston University, Department of Political Science .
28.
Gerring, J. , Thacker, S. and Moreno, C. (2005) ‘A Centripetal Theory of Democratic Governance: A Global Inquiry’ , American Political Science Review99 (November): 567–581 .
29.
Goertz, G. and Levy, J., eds (forthcoming) ‘Causal Explanations, Necessary Conditions, and Case Studies: World War I and the End of the Cold War’, manuscript.
30.
Goodman, N. (1947) ‘The Problem of Counterfactual Conditionals’ , Journal of Philosophy44(5): 113–128 .
31.
Grier, R. M. (1999) ‘Colonial Legacies and Economic Growth’ , Public Choice98: 317–335 .
32.
Hart, H. L. A. and Honore, A. M. (1959) Causality in the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
33.
Hart, H. L. A. and Honore, A. M. (1966) ‘Causal Judgment in History and in the Law’, in W. H. Dray (ed.) Philosophical Analysis and History, pp. 213–237. New York: Harper and Row .
34.
Hawthorn, G. (1991) Plausible Worlds: Possibility and Understanding in History and the Human Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
35.
Holland, P. W. (1986) ‘Statistics and Causal Inference’ , Journal of the American Statistical Association81: 945–960 .
36.
Houser, D. and Freeman, J. (2001) ‘Economic Consequences of Political Approval Management in Comparative Perspective’ , Journal of Comparative Economics29: 692–721 .
37.
Huber, E. and Stephens, J. D. (2001) Development and Crisis of the Welfare State: Parties and Policies in Global Markets. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
38.
Huber, E. , Ragin, C. and Stephens, J. D. (1993) ‘Social Democracy, Christian Democracy, Constitutional Structure and the Welfare State’ , American Journal of Sociology99(3): 711–749 .
39.
La Porta, R. , Lopez-de-Silanes, F. , Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. W. (1998) ‘Law and Finance’ , Journal of Political Economy106(6): 1113–1155 .
40.
Lebow, R. N. (2000–1) ‘Contingency, Catalysts, and International System Change’ , Political Science Quarterly115(4): 591–616 .
41.
Lebow, R. N. and Stein, J. G. (2004) ‘The End of the Cold War as a Non-Linear Confluence’, in R. K. Herrmann and R. N. Lebow (eds) Ending the Cold War, pp. 189–218. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan .
42.
Lieberman, E. S. (2005) ‘Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research’ , American Political Science Review99(3): 435–452 .
43.
Lijphart, A. (1971) ‘Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method’ , American Political Science Review65(3): 682–693 .
44.
Lijphart, A. (1975) ‘The Comparable Cases Strategy in Comparative Research’ , Comparative Political Studies8 (July): 158–177 .
45.
Lipset, S. M. (1990) Continental Divide: The Values and Institutions of the United States and Canada. New York: Routledge .
46.
McAdam, D. (1988) Freedom Summer. New York: Oxford University Press .
47.
McAdam, D. , Tarrow, S. and Tilly, C. (2001) Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
48.
Mackie, J. L. (1993) ‘Causes and Conditions’, in E. Sosa and M. Tooley (eds) Causation, pp. 33–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press . (Orig. pub. 1965.)
49.
Marini, M. and Singer, B. (1988) ‘Causality in the Social Sciences’ , Sociological Methodology18: 347–409 .
50.
Marks, G. and Lipset, S. M. (2000)It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States. New York: W. W. Norton .
51.
Mayhew, D. R. (1991) Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946–1990. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press .
52.
Meckstroth, T. (1975) ‘“Most Different Systems” and “Most Similar Systems”: A Study in the Logic of Comparative Inquiry’ ,Comparative Political Studies8(2): 133–177 .
53.
Mill, J. S. (1872) The System of Logic, 8th edn.London: Longmans, Green . (Orig. pub. 1843.)
54.
Moravcsik, A. (1998) The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press .
55.
North, D. C. and Thomas, R. P. (1973) The Rise of the Western World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
56.
North, D. C. , Anderson, T. L. and Hill, P. J. (1983) Growth and Welfare in the American Past: A New American History, 3rd edn.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall .
57.
Orloff, A. S. (1988) ‘The Political Origins of America's Belated Welfare State’, in M. M. Weir , A. S. Orloff and T. Skocpol (eds) The Politics of Social Policy in the United States, pp. 37–80. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .
58.
Platt, J. (1992) ‘“Case Study” in American Methodological Thought’ , Current Sociology40(1): 17–48 .
59.
Przeworski, A. and Teune, H. (1970) The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: John Wiley .
60.
Ragin, C. C. and Becker, H. S. , eds (1992) What Is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
61.
Seawright, J. and Gerring, J. (forthcoming) ‘Case Selection: Quantitative Techniques Reviewed’.
62.
Skocpol, T. (1996) Social Policy in the United States: Future Possibilities in Historical Perspective. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .
63.
Skocpol, T. and Somers, M. (1980) ‘The Uses of Comparative History in Macro-social Inquiry’ , Comparative Studies in Society and History22(2): 147–197 .
64.
Sundquist, J. L. (1992) Constitutional Reform and Effective Government. Washington, DC: Brookings .
65.
Swank, D. H. (2002) Global Capital, Political Institutions, and Policy Change in Developed Welfare States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
66.
Taylor, C. (1970) ‘The Explanation of Purposive Behavior’, in R. Borger and F. Cioffi (eds) Explanation in the Behavioral Sciences, pp. 49–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
67.
Tetlock, P. E. and Belkin, A. , eds (1996) Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .
68.
The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States(2003) New York: W. W. Norton .
69.
Turner, F. J. (1972) The Turner Thesis Concerning the Role of the Frontier in AmericanHistory. Lexington, MA: Heath. (Orig. pub. 1893.)
70.
van Evera, S. (1997) Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press .
71.
Voss, K. (1993) The Making of American Exceptionalism: The Knights of Labor and Class Formation in the Nineteenth Century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press .
72.
Weber, M. (1949) The Methodology of the Social Sciences. New York: Free Press . (Orig. pub. 1905.)
73.
Yin, R. K. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
74.
Young, P. (1939) Scientific Social Surveys and Research. New York: Prentice-Hall .
