Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.
Just tap then “Add to Home Screen”
Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.
Just tap then “Add to Home Screen”
Monday 5 – Friday 9 August
14:00–15:30 / 16:00–17:30 (ending slightly earlier on Friday)
This course is designed for students who intend to use longitudinal case study methodology in their research. It will be especially useful for PhD students who are working on their theses, postdoctoral fellows who are transforming their theses into a monograph or series of articles and other researchers seeking to undertake longitudinal case analysis in their published work. The course introduces the method of longitudinal case study analysis (LCA) as a hybrid of
This course shows how to combine different techniques for hypothesis testing by slicing and dicing empirics within a single case study over time and, as a second step, extending these comparisons to one or more similar case studies across space. The course is heavily weighted toward examples, class exercises and workshopping student assignments with extensive instructor feedback. The purpose is to guide students through the process of fitting an appropriately tailored longitudinal case study design to their research question, formulate a plan for testing their hypotheses using within- and cross-case variation in their study variables, develop a plan for approaching, collecting and analysing data in the field, and prepare to write up their results in a convincing narrative style.
ECTS Credits for this course and below, the tasks for the additional credits.
3 credits As above, plus complete any two of the four assignments.
4 credits As above, plus complete all four of the assignments. The fourth assignment can be submitted on the final day or within three weeks after the end of the Summer School.
Erin K. Jenne is a professor at CEU's Department of International Relations, where she teaches MA and PhD courses on qualitative and quantitative methods, nationalism and civil war, foreign policy analysis, international relations theory, ethnic conflict management, and international security.
Erin received her PhD in political science from Stanford University with concentrations in comparative politics, international relations and organisational theory.
She has received numerous grants and fellowships, including a MacArthur fellowship at Stanford University, a Center for Science and International Affairs (BCSIA) fellowship at Harvard University, a Carnegie Corporation scholarship, and a Fernand Braudel fellowship at European University Institute (EUI) in Florence, and a MINERVA Initiative grant on Chinese soft power from the US Department of Defense.
Erin recently published her second book, Nested Security: Lessons in Conflict Management from the League of Nations and the European Union (Cornell University Press, 2015). Her first book, Ethnic Bargaining: The Paradox of Minority Empowerment (Cornell University Press, 2007) won the Mershon Center’s Edgar S. Furniss Book Award in 2007 and was named a Choice Outstanding Academic Title by Choice magazine. Ethnic Bargaining is based on her dissertation, which won the 2001 Seymour Martin Lipset Award for Best Comparativist Dissertation.
She has published numerous book chapters and journal articles in International Studies Quarterly, Security Studies, Regional and Federal Studies, Journal of Peace Research, Civil Wars, Ethnopolitics, International Studies Review, Journal of Democracy, Research and Politics and PS: Political Science and Politics, Research and Politics and Europe-Asia Studies (forthcoming).
She currently sits on the editorial boards of Ethnopolitics, Foreign Policy Analysis, International Studies Review, and has served in several capacities on the Emigration, Ethnicity, Nationalism and Migration Section of the International Studies Association, the Association for the Study of Nationalities and the Comparative Politics Section of the American Political Science Association.
Why did women gain substantive economic or political rights in some Islamic countries but not in others?
What accounts for the variation in democratic consolidation across countries the post-communist world?
Why did some advanced industrialised democracies implement extensive social welfare programmes, but not others?
While traditional comparative analysis promises answers to such questions, a fuller investigation requires integrating primary record and field analysis with longitudinal data displays to build and test analytical narratives that can be generalised to all cases that meet the theory’s scope conditions.
Longitudinal Case Analysis (LCA) combines techniques from historiography and longitudinal data analysis with John Stuart Mill’s comparative method and process-tracing to test social science theories that contain causal processes that are both long and/or slow-moving but also involve micro-level causal mechanisms that play out during periods of rapid transition or change.
Researchers have combined these techniques to explore topics ranging from the emergence of civil wars to collective mobilisation to the emergence of international norms and institutions.
The study of such phenomena does not lend itself easily to quantitative or experimental analysis, but is better examined using joint-longitudinal-comparative analysis of multiple cases over time—cases that may extend over years, decades, or in rare cases, centuries.
The course is divided into three main parts:
Throughout the course, equal time is spent on seminars and workshops—a format intended to help you develop longitudinal case study designs tailored to your specific research agenda.
In the first part of the course (days 1 and 2), we explore the advantages and limitations of this hybrid approach and discuss the types of research questions that lend themselves to LCA. We begin by exploring the principles of historical comparative analysis (used to assess theories of long and/or slow structural change), as well as periodised longitudinal analysis (used to assess causal mechanisms that recur through time), and finally process-tracing (used to assess causal mechanisms that involve rapid change). We discuss different ways that these approaches can be combined to conduct longitudinal case studies to test for complex causal processes hypothesised by the researcher (including case periodisation, critical junctures, stable/unstable equilibria, feedback and cascading effects, agency and institutional change).
The key is to exploit the considerable within-case variation over time as well as across cases to adjudicate between competing accounts for the outcome of interest. In so doing, we not only establish the importance of a well-specified causal mechanism, but also review the kinds of indicators that can be used to test for (and demonstrate) the mechanics of change within a single case over time. The first part of the course is therefore devoted to developing a research design that combines a selection of techniques (e.g., at the macro-level, event periodisation and small-N case selection; at the micro-level, interpretative and/or ethnographic analysis) in a way that directly tackles the research question at hand.
The second part of the course (days 3 and 4) is aimed at executing the research design. Here, we cover the different types of data that can be used in such work, including
We discuss how to locate and record these data and how to use them separately or in combination, depending on the phenomenon to be explained as well as the hypothesised causal mechanism(s). The fourth day is devoted to the problem of causal and descriptive inference in longitudinal case study analysis. Threats to causal inference such as measurement validity and reliability are discussed as well as the problem of endogeneity, reverse causation and equifinality. We discuss how to handle these threats, which are endemic to qualitative case analysis, using techniques such as nested analysis and content and construct validation.
The third and final part of the course (day 5) asks what makes a case study convincing to the reader. We examine different techniques for developing an effective and persuasive narrative form in the case ‘write-up.’ First, we discuss how to structure the data in a manageable format. We explore the usefulness of different software programs for ordering the data so that the researcher can ‘see’ the story and develop a narrative with which to ‘write up’ the cases. Valuable insights can be gleaned from the ‘analytical narratives’ approach, which is used to demonstrate the explanatory power of formal theories in cases using a select set of data and empirics. A good analytical narrative is at once a compelling story told with ‘flair’ and a convincing investigative report. The aim is both to persuade and seduce the reader. When done effectively, these case studies can linger in the reader’s mind, giving life to an otherwise dull, abstract and ultimately forgettable theory. While specifically designed to complement formal game theory, the analytical narrative approach is equally well-adapted for testing and illustrating non-formal theory.
This course does not have any special prerequisites, but you should have a basic familiarity with the comparative method and qualitative case research design.
Each course includes pre-course assignments, including readings and pre-recorded videos, as well as daily live lectures totalling at least two hours. The instructor will conduct live Q&A sessions and offer designated office hours for one-to-one consultations.
Please check your course format before registering.
Live classes will be held daily for two hours on a video meeting platform, allowing you to interact with both the instructor and other participants in real-time. To avoid online fatigue, the course employs a pedagogy that includes small-group work, short and focused tasks, as well as troubleshooting exercises that utilise a variety of online applications to facilitate collaboration and engagement with the course content.
In-person courses will consist of daily three-hour classroom sessions, featuring a range of interactive in-class activities including short lectures, peer feedback, group exercises, and presentations.
This course description may be subject to subsequent adaptations (e.g. taking into account new developments in the field, participant demands, group size, etc.). Registered participants will be informed at the time of change.
By registering for this course, you confirm that you possess the knowledge required to follow it. The instructor will not teach these prerequisite items. If in doubt, please contact us before registering.
|1||Introduction to Longitudinal Case Studies and Their Uses Seminar 1 Uses of Longitudinal Case Study Analysis 2 Theories and Causal Mechanisms in Longitudinal Case Study Analysis Workshop Identifying and Specifying Causal Mechanisms Using Examples||
The introductory lecture explores the different methods used in longitudinal case study analysis (LCA). More historically-informed Comparative Historical Analysis (HCA) aims to shed light on the causes and effects of long, slow-moving processes such as state formation and changes in international norms. By contrast, periodised longitudinal analysis is used to compare homogeneous case-periods over time to demonstrate the relationship between independent and dependent variables. Finally, process-tracing is employed on the micro-level to establish the validity of the causal mechanism using tightly-coupled cause-and-effect relationships.
This first day is divided into two 90-minute sessions, with the first hour and a half devoted to the unique yet complementary forms of longitudinal case study. The second 90-minute block will focus on student projects; I will ask you to apply your own projects to the foregoing discussion, with a special emphasis on the causal mechanism that animates their project.
|2||Preparing for Analysis Seminar 1 Choosing Cases for Analysis 2 Periodising Cases Workshop: Longitudinal Case Studies Research Design—Developing and Measuring Indicators for Key Concepts; Class Exercises||
In the first 90-minute session, we turn to the problem of evaluating hypothesised causal mechanisms using evidence from small (or single) case studies. Here, we talk about trade-offs in case selection as well as how to design an effective 'within-case' temporal analysis of a single case over a short or longer period of time. In particular, we talk about how and when to combine process-tracing (PT) with periodised longitudinal analysis (LA) and historical comparative analysis (HCA).
In the second 90-minute session, we workshop student assignments, with a focus on assessing the viability of your proposed plans for longitudinal case analysis in your own research project.
|3||Data Collection and Field Work for Longitudinal Case Studies Seminar 1 Gathering Ethnographic Data for Longitudinal Cases 2 Gathering Archival Data for Longitudinal Cases Workshop: Planning Primary Field Research Trips and Using Secondary Data; Class Exercises||
The first 90-minute session will be devoted to two main sources and methods for primary data collection in qualitative research:
Rather than serving as an exhaustive survey of field and archival research techniques, this session offers a primer on how to locate, record, and manage the information relevant for testing hypotheses in longitudinal case studies.
In the second session, we will workshop the second assignment, paying close attention to case selection choices and development of indicators used by students to assess the validity of their hypotheses.
|4||Testing Hypotheses using Longitudinal Analysis Seminar 1 Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Data 2 Techniques for Causal Inference Workshop: Assessing Causal Inference in Selected Examples of Longitudinal Case Studies; Class Exercises||
The first session will be spent on mixed methods approaches—focusing in particular on the ways in which quantitative data can be combined with longitudinal case studies for the purpose of creating more robust tests of social science theory. In the next step, we talk about causal inference—that is, how to make conclusions relevant to the research question using the data at hand. In doing so, we review a number of examples of mixed method treatments in the field and discuss what makes them more or less convincing to the reader.
In the second session uses we will workshop your plans for conducting primary research (using ethnographic or interview-based research, archival research or both).
|5||The 'Analytical Narratives' Approach and Case Study Write-up Seminar 1 How to Write up Cases 2 The 'Analytical Narrative' and Other Narrative Forms Workshop Student Presentations and Peer Evaluations of Longitudinal Case Study Designs||
The mechanics and execution of writing up the longitudinal case study.
In the first 90-minute block we pay attention to the ways in which theory and hypothesis-testing can be effectively integrated into a case narrative that illustrates the hypothesised causal mechanism and disconfirms alternative explanations, while maintaining reader’s interest with a compelling narrative flow.
We explore different approaches to the case narrative, focusing in particular on the 'analytical narrative' approach, a stylised method of displaying and interpreting data designed to achieve this set of goals. This final day shines a spotlight on exemplars of this approach by way of illustrating how narrative structures can be built to execute a persuasive case study.
In the second 90-minute session, students present their longitudinal case study designs, the culmination of previous assignments.
Jon Elster, 1998 “A Plea for Mechanisms,” In P. Hedström & R. Swedberg (Eds.), Social mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 45-73.
Peter Hedström and Petri Ylikoski, 2010 “Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences,” Annual Review of Sociology 36(2010): 49-67.
Tulia G. Falleti and Julia F. Lynch, 2009 ”Context and Causal Mechanisms in Political Analysis,” Comparative Political Studies (2009): 1-24
Peter Machamer, Lindley Darden, and Carl F. Craver, 2000 ”Thinking about Mechanisms,” Philosophy of Science 67(1): 1-25.
Robert K. Yin, 2014 Case Study Research: Design and Methods: Design and Methods, (Sage Publications 2014), chap 1 (3-23).
Robert K. Yin 2014, Case Study Research: Design and Methods: Design and Methods (Sage Publications 2014), chap 2 (27-67).
Tim Büthe 2002 , “Taking Temporality Seriously: Modeling History and the Use of Narratives as Evidence,” American Political Science Review 96(3) (2002): 481-493.
Frank Schimmelfennig 2014, ”Efficient Process-tracing: Analyzing the Causal Mechanisms of European Integration,” in Andrew Bennett and Jeffrey T. Checkel (eds) Process-Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 98-125.
John Gerring and Rose McDermott, “An Experimental Template for Case Study Research,” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 51, No. 3 (2007), pp. 688-701.
Erin K. Jenne 2007, Ethnic Bargaining: The Paradox of Minority Empowerment (Cornell University Press, 2007), pp. 54-90.
Robert K. Yin 2014, Case Study Research: Design and Methods: Design and Methods (Sage Publications, 2014), chap 4 (103-127).
Cameron Thies 2002, “A Pragmatic Guide to Qualitative Historical Analysis in the Study of International Relations,” International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 3, No. 4 (November 2002), pp. 351-372.
Ian S. Lustick 1996, “History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 90, No. 3 (September 1996), pp. 605-618;
Susan Helper 2000, “Economists and Field Research: ‘You Can Observe a Lot Just by Watching.’” American Economic Review 90:2(2000), 228-32.
Pauline Marie Rosenau 1992, “Abandoning the Author, Transforming the Text, and Re-orienting the Reader,” Post-Modernism and the Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions (Princeton University Press, 1992), pp. 25-41.
Robert K. Yin 2014, Case Study Research: Design and Methods: Design and Methods (Sage Publications, 2014), chap 5 (133-170).
Tamarinde L. Haven & Leonie Van Grootel. 2019. ”Preregistering Qualitative Research,” Accountability in Research, 1-16.
Andrew Bennett 2010, “Process Tracing and Causal Inference.” In Henry E. Brady and David Collier (eds.): Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010), pp. 207-219.
Arthur Stinchcombe 2005, “Testing Theories by Testing Hypotheses with Data,” The Logic of Social Research (University of Chicago Press, 2005), chap 7.
James Mahoney 2003, “Strategies of Causal Assessment in Comparative Historical Analysis,” in James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (eds) Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (Cambridge University Press, 2003), chap. 10 (pp. 337-372).
Andrew Bennett 2014, “Disciplining our Conjectures Systematizing Process-Tracing with Bayesian Analysis,” in Andrew Bennett and Jeffrey T. Checkel (eds) Process-Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool (Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 276-298.
Robert K. Yin 2014, Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Sage Publications, 2014), chap. 6 (177-202).
Peter Abell 2004, “Narrative Explanation: An Alternative to Variable-Centered Explanation?” Annual Review of Sociology 30 (2004): 287-310.
Barbara Czarniawska 2004, "Writing Social Science", Narratives in Social Science Research (Sage Publications, 2004): ch. 9 117-130.
Robert H. Bates et al., (eds) 1998, Analytic Narratives (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998 [excerpts]).
Jane F. Gilgun. 2005. “Grab and Good Science: Writing Up the Results of Qualitative Research,” Qualitative Health Research 15(2): 256-262.
There are no software programme requirements for the course, although there will be demonstrations of how various field (interview/archival/bibliographic) data management systems (all freeware or with free trial periods) can be used in the context of longitudinal case study analysis and write-up.
I will let you know in advnce which programmes will be demonstrated in the class, in case you want to download them in advance.
Lindsay Prior, “Repositioning Documents in Social Research,” Sociology, Vol. 42, No. 5 (2008), pp. 821-836.
Victor Jupp, “Documents and Critical Research,” in Roger Sapsford and Victor Jupp (eds.) Data Collection and Analysis (Sage Publications, 1996), pp. 298-316.
Louise H. Kidder, et al., Research Methods in Social Relations (New York: Holt Reinhart and Winston, 1986), chapter 12, pp. 299-311.
James M. Goldgeier, “Training Graduate Students in Conducting archival Research,” NewsNet (October 2004) [Describes GWU Cold War summer school program teaching students how to use Russian and U.S. archives in the study of foreign policy and IR]
Marc Trachtenberg, The Craft of International History: A Guide to Method (Princeton University Press, 2006).
Edward Ingram, “The Wonderland of the Political Scientist,” International Security, Vol. 22 (1997), pp. 53-63.
Michael R. Hill, Archival Strategies and Techniques (Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1993), pp. 1-50.
Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Design
Albert D. Cover and Bruce S. Brumberg, “Baby Books and Ballots: The Impact of Congressional Mail n Constituent Opinion,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 76 (June 1982), pp. 347-359.
Rose McDermott, “Experimental Methods in Political Science,” Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 5 (2002), pp. 31-61.
Macartan Humphreys and Jeremy Weinstein, “Field Experiments and the Political Economy of Development,” Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 12 (2009), pp. 367-378.
Thad Dunning, “Improving Causal Inference: Strengths and Limitations of Natural Experiments,” Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 61 (2008), pp. 282-293.
Timothy N Cason and Vai-Lam Mui, “Testing Political Economy Models of Reform in the Laboratory,” American Economic Association, Papers and Proceedings, Vol. 93, No. 2 (May 2003), pp. 208-212.
Rose McDermott, Political Psychology in International Relations (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004).
Most-likely, Least-likely, and Deviant Cases
E. L. Morse, Foreign Policy and Interdependence in Gaullist France (Princeton University Press, 1973), chapter 5 on monetary policy. [least-likely case]
Jack S. Levy, “Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science, Vol. 25, No. 1 (2008), pp. 1-18.
Harry Eckstein, “Case Studies and Theory in Political Science,” in Fred Greenstein and Nelson Polsby (eds.) Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 7 (Addison-Wesley, 1975), pp. 79-138.
William M. LeoGrande, “Cuban Dependency: A Comparison of Pre-Revolutionary and Post-Revolutionary International Economic Relations,” Cuban Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2 (July 1979), pp. 1-28. [most-likely case]
J. Berejekian, “The Gains Debate: Framing State Choice,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 91 (1997), pp. 789-805. [disciplined-configurative case study]
Alexander L. and Juliette L. George, Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House: A Personality Study (New York: John Day, 1956). [disciplined-configurative case study]
Richard Price, “A Genealogy of the Chemical Weapons Taboo,” International Organization, Vol. 49 (1995), pp. 73-103. [constructivist interpretation]
Arend Lijphart, The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands (University of California Press, 1968). [deviant case study]
Bruce Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace (Princeton University Press, 1993), chapter 3. [deviant case study]
Comparative Historical Analysis
Peter A. Hall, “Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Politics. In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (pp. 373-404). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
James Mahoney, “Strategies of Causal Assessment in Comparative Historical Analysis,” in James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (eds) Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (Cambridge University Press, 2003), chapter 10 (pp. 337-372).
Sven Steinmo, “Political Institutions and Tax Policy in the United States, Sweden, and Britain,” World Politics, Vol. 41, No. 4 (July 1989), pp. 500-535.
Theda Skocpol, “Doubly Engaged Social Science.” In Mahoney, James and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (eds): Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 407-428.
Theda Skocpol and Margaret Somers, “The Uses of Comparative History in Macrosocial Inquiry,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 22, No. 2 (April 1980), pp. 174-197.
Theda Skocpol, States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979).
Barrington Moore, Jr., Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (Boston: Beacon Press, 1966).
Ruth Berins Collier and David Collier, Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America (Princeton University Press, 1991).
James Mahoney, “Long-Run Development and the Legacy of Colonialism in Spanish America,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 109, No. 1 (2003), pp. 51-106.
Alexander Hicks, Joya Misra, and Tang Nah Ng, “The Programmatic Emergence of the Social Security State,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 60, No. 3 (June 1995), pp. 329-349.
Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen, “China and India,” in Dreze and Sen (eds.) Hunger and Public Action (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), chap. 11.
Daniel Ziblatt, “Rethinking the Origins of Federalism: Puzzle, Theory and Evidence from Nineteenth Century Europe,” World Politics (October 2004), pp. 70-98.
Gregory M. Luebbert, Liberalism, Fascism, or Social Democracy: Social Classes and the Political Origins of Regimes in Interwar Europe (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991).
Giovanni Capoccia & Daniel Keleman, “The Study of Critical Junctures: Theory, Narrative and Counterfactuals in Historical Institutionalism,” World Politics 59 (2007), 341-69.
Mixed Methods and Nested Analysis
Evan S. Lieberman, “Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 99 (August 2005), pp. 435-452.
Todd D. Jick, “Mixing Quantitative and Qualitative Methods: Triangulation in Action,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 4 (December 1979), pp. 602-611.
Jack Levy, “Qualitative Methods and Cross-Method Dialogue in Political Science,” Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 40, No. 2 (February 2007), pp. 196-214.
Ingo Rohlfing, “What You See is What You Get: Pitfalls and Principles of Nested Analysis in Comparative Research,” Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 41, No. 11 (2008), pp. 1492-1514.
Michael Coppedge, “Thickening Thin Concepts and Theories: Combining Large N and Small in Comparative Politics,” Comparative Politics, Vol. 31, No. 4 (July 1999), pp. 465-476.
John Brewer and Albert Hunter, Foundations of Multimethod Research: Synthesizing Styles (Sage Publications, 2006).
Writing the Dissertation
Stephen Van Evera, Guide to Methodology for Students of Political Science (Cornell University Press, 1997), pp. 89-121.
Howard W. Becker, Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start and Finish your Thesis, Book or Article (University of Chicago Press, 1986).
“On Writing a Dissertation: Advice from Five Award Winners,” PS: Political Science and Politics (1986), pp. 61-70.
Patrick Dunleavy, Authoring a PhD Thesis: How to Plan, Draft, Write and Finish a Doctoral Dissertation (Palgrave Macmillan, 2003).
Monique Leijenaar and Emiliano Grossman, “Doing a PhD in Political Science in Europe: Information, Facts, Debate,” Paris: Thematic Network Political Science, 2009.
Michael Goldsmith (ed.), “Doctoral Studies in Political Science—A European Comparison,” Budapest: espNet, 2005.
Kate L. Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations: Chicago Style for Students and Researchers (University of Chicago Press, 2007).
John M. Swales and Christine B. Feak, Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills (University of Michigan Press, 2004).
Jonathan P. Kastellec and Eduardo L. Leoni, “Using Graphs Instead of Tables in Political Science,” Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 5, No. 4 (2007), pp. 755-771.
Helen Sword, Stylish Academic Writing (Harvard University Press, 2012).
Academic Writing and Publishing
William Strunk, Jr. and E. B. White, The Elements of Style, 2nd edition, (New York: Macmillan, 1972).
Rudolf Flesch, The Art of Readable Writing (New York: Collier, 1949).
Mary-Claire van Leunen, A Handbook for Scholars (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).
William Germano, From Dissertation to Book (University of Chicago Press, 2005).
Teresa Pelton Johnson, “Writing for International Security—A Contributor’s Guide,” International Security, Vol. 16, No. 2 (September 1991), pp. 171-180.
Benjamin Frankel, “A Guide to Authors, for Contributors to Security Studies,” Working Paper (November 2001).
Anne Lamont, “Shitty First Drafts,” in Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life (Anchor, 1995), pp. 21-27.
William Germano, Getting It Published: A Guide for Scholars and Anyone Else Serious about Serious Books (University of Chicago Press, 2001).
Kwan Choi, How to Publish in Top Journals, Manuscript posted at the website of Review of International Economics.
Gerald Schneider, Bernard Steunenberg, Katharina Holzinger, and Nils Petter Gleditsch, “Symposium: Why European Political Science is so Unproductive and What Should be Done About It,” European Political Science, Vol. 6, No. 2 (2007), pp. 156-191.
Paul J. Silvia, How to Write a Lot: A Practical Guide to Productive Academic Writing (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2007).
Additional Readings on Process Tracing and Causal Mechanisms
John Gerring, ”Causal Mechanisms: Yes, But...” Comparative Political Studies 43 (2010) 1499-1526.
Jason Lyall, ”Process Tracing, Causal Inference, and Civil War,” in Andrew Bennett and Jeffrey T. Checkel (eds) Process-Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 186-208.
Derek Beach and Rasmus Brun Pedersen, Process-tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines (University of Michigan, 2013)
Derek Beach, Analyzing Foreign Policy (Palgrave, 2012).
Comparative Research Designs
Research Design Fundamentals
Introduction to NVivo for Qualitative Data Analysis
Introduction to Qualitative Data Analysis with Atlas.ti
Causal Inference for Political and Social Sciences