Despite the bias against such studies in our discipline, we argue that research designs focusing on a single state are sometimes preferable to those employing data from all 50 states. Single state studies are appropriate when the researcher wishes to generalize to a unit of analysis other than the states themselves, when conditions in a given state provide a unique opportunity for the most rigorous test of a hypothesis, and when the measurement advantages of a single-state study outweigh the costs of limited generalization. We draw on a range of literature to reinforce our primary contention, that it is soundness of theory and rigor of analysis, rather than the number of states, that makes research valid and important.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsGreg D.1996. “Legislative Effects of Single-Member vs. Multi-Member Districts.” American Journal of Political Science40: 129–44.
2.
AndersonJames E.2000. Public Policy Making. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
3.
BachrachPeterBaratzMorton. 1962. “Two Faces of Power.” American Political Science Review56: 947–52.
4.
BerelsonBernardLazarsfeldPaul F.McPheeWilliam N.. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
BlumsteinAlfredBeckAllen J.. 1999. “Population Growth in U.S. Prisons.” In Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, eds.TonryMichaelPetersiliaJoan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
BowlerShaunDonovanToddNeimanMaxPeelJohnny. 2001. “Institutional Threat and Partisan Outcomes: Legislative Candidates' Attitudes toward Direct Democracy.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly1: 364–79.
7.
Bureau of Justice Statistics.1996. State Court Sentencing of Convicted Felons. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
8.
ButtonJames W.1989. Blacks and Social Change: Impact of the Civil Rights Movement in Southern Communities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9.
ChubbJohn E.MoeTerry M.. 1990. Politics, Markets, and America's Schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
10.
DahlRobert A.1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
11.
DyeThomas. 1966. Politics, Markets, and the Public: Policy Outcomes in the American States. Chicago: Rand McNally.
12.
FennoRichard. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
13.
Haider-MarkelDonald P.2000. “Lesbian and Gay Politics in the States: Interest Groups, Electoral Politics, and Policy.” In The Politics of Gay Rights, eds.RimmermanCraig A.WaldKenneth D.WilcoxClyde. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14.
Haider-MarkelDonald P.MeierKenneth J.. 1996. “The Politics of Gay and Lesbian Rights: Expanding the Scope of the Conflict.” Journal of Politics58: 332–49.
15.
HallMelinda Gann. 1987. “Constituent Influence in State Supreme Courts: Conceptual Notes and a Case Study.” Journal of Politics49: 1117–24.
16.
HeroRodney. 1998. Faces of Inequality: Social Diversity in American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
17.
HofferbertRichard I.1975. Study of Public Policy. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
18.
HunterFloyd. 1953. Community Power Structure: A Study of Decision Makers. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
19.
KeyV. O.Jr.1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: Vintage Books.
20.
KingGaryKeohaneRobert O.VerbaSidney. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
KingJames. 2002. “Single-Member Districts and the Representation of Women in American State Legislatures: The Effect of Electoral System Change.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly2: 161–75.
22.
KuklinskiJames H.StangaJohn E.. 1979. “Political Participation and Government Responsiveness: The Behavior of California Superior Courts.” American Political Science Review73: 1090–9.
23.
LazarsfeldPaul F.BerelsonBernardGaudetHazel. 1948. The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.
24.
LyonsW.E.LoweryDavidDeHoogRuth H.. 1992. The Politics of Dissatisfaction: Citizens, Services, and Urban Institutions. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
25.
LupiaArthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review88: 63–76.
26.
MeierKenneth J.PolinardJ.L.WrinkleRobert D.. 2000. “Bureaucracy and Organizational Performance: Causality Arguments about Public Schools.” American Journal of Political Science44: 590–602.
27.
MeierKenneth J.StewartJoseph. 1992. “The Impact of Representative Bureaucracies: Educational Systems and Public Policies.” American Review of Public Administration22: 157–71.
28.
MeierKennethO'TooleLaurence J.. 2001. “Managerial Strategies and Behavior in Networks: A Model with Evidence from U.S. Public Education.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory11: 271–94.
29.
MeyersMarcia K.DillonNara. 1999. “Institutional Paradoxes: Why Welfare Workers Cannot Reform Welfare.” In Public Management Reform and Innovation, eds.George FredericksonH.JohnstonJocelyn M.. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
30.
NiceDavid C.1982. “Party Ideology and the Policy Outcomes in the American States.” Social Science Quarterly63: 556–65.
31.
NiceDavid C.1983. “Amtrak in the States.” Policy Studies Journal11: 587–98.
32.
NiceDavid C.1986. “State Opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment.” Social Science Quarterly67: 315–28.
33.
ReingoldBeth. 1996. “Conflict and Cooperation: Legislative Strategies and Concepts of Power among Female and Male State Legislators.” Journal of Politics58: 464–85.
34.
SmithDaniel A.2001. “Homeward Bound?: Micro-Level Legislative Responses to Ballot Initiatives.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly1: 50–61.
35.
SmithKevin. 1994. “Policy, Markets, and Bureaucracy: Reexamining School Choice.” Journal of Politics56: 475–91.
36.
SelznickPhilip. 1949. TVA and the Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of a Formal Organization. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
37.
StewartJosephSheffieldJames F.. 1987. “Does Interest Group Litigation Matter? The Case of Black Political Mobilization in Mississippi.” Journal of Politics49: 780–98.
38.
TolbertCaroline J.HeroRodney E.. 1996. “Race/Ethnicity and Direct Democracy: An Analysis of California's Illegal Immigration Initiative.” Journal of Politics58: 806–18.
39.
Van MaanenJohn. 1983. Qualitative Methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
40.
WirtFrederick M.1971. Politics of Southern Equality: Law and Social Change in a Mississippi County. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.
41.
YinRobert K.1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
