Methodological Options available

Before touching upon the classical divide between qualitative and quantitative mainstreams, the entire study, perhaps, would best benefit if we shortly outline the particular aspect of the methodological pluralism, commonly known as the complementaristic approach. By that we imply efforts directed towards integrating varying (behavioral) explanations, that ultimately help very much understand the relative priority and the particular benefit of a certain methodological (qualitative/quantitative) approach. The methodological individualism strengthens the need of the individualistic approach to the analysis within social science. The extensive use of the microfoundation - analysis, i.e. the individualistic prism to explain the social phenomenon of a larger scale (group, class, and organization) is one of the valuable avenues for our research. On a number of fairly well developed examples Daniel Little draws the general conclusion that the macro level behavior and interests cannot be explained without detailed account of mechanisms working behind. Respectively, it leads to the need of analyzing individual interests and choices that constitute the larger group.¹ Pretty in line with rationalist school argumentation, the claim of necessity to provide micro - foundations for macro - explanations of social patterns seems very plausible. For instance, the mere reference to the role of a state to serve the interests of a certain interest group or a class (a functionalist explanation) cannot be regarded as sufficient. The collective interest here is referred to a rational choice of the individual actor, which contributes to the aggregated consequence of individual decisions.

Alternatively, the critique is being exercised by rejecting the narrow focus of the individual rationality (egoism) as impossible basis for social cooperation. Furthermore, each individual action is regarded as a kind of compromise between the individual interests and collective commitments, ideological believes and moral values. Emil Durkheim continues the mentioned course of argumentation and brilliantly stipulates the very essence of social facts (the way of acting, thinking and feeling) that are brought from outside and do not have the individual source.² The clear distinction of social from individual is the focal point of his argument and thus, a great help in attempt to avoid the confusion between what is called social fact and its

―reincarnation‖ in individual. According to him, collective (group) aspects are determinants of

1 Daniel Little, ―Microfoundations of Marxism,‖ in Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, Michael Martin and Lee McIntyre (MIT Press, 1994), 479–96.

2 Emile Durkheim, ―Social Facts,‖ in Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, in Martin, Michael and Lee McIntyre (eds) (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1994), 434.

55 individual behavior daily manifested in infinite ways.¹ Social phenomena are too complex to be explained solely on the basics of individual behavior. The army, for instance, is not a military organization due to number of soldiers, but the other way around - the institution of army makes from an individual a soldier.² Understanding existing problems in interpreting the nature of social phenomena is critical both from the conceptual and methodological perspective. It is, in fact, instrumental, in generating clarity about the facts and processes we are about to observe, as well as about the tools available to measure the mentioned facts and processes. This, in turn, enables us to decide whether qualitative or quantitative framework of the analysis would apply best to render valid results.

It is a perennial question, whether qualitative studies match the degree of the reliability of data produced in the field of quantitative research. Jack Levy, for instance, argues that the most parsimonious theory he could identify, which is the Neo - realism, is strongly anchored within the qualitative domain and is able to produce universally generalizable conclusions.³ He advocates the combined application of quantitative tools with case - study methods, where a great deal must be devoted to the justification of the case - selection and control - variables in ―meaningful subsets‖ in order to describe, explain or predict.⁴ Two factors play important role in this regard: the call for the improvement of measurement strategies and the validity of scores achieved that are balanced by the findings of within – case (s) analysis. In this context Evan Liebermann argues that the Nested Analysis – an intensive combination of statistical tools with Small N - studies, is best to produce most reliable results.⁵ However, central to this model is that specific conditions must be provided, such as the different levels of analysis within the case, and the variety of the dependent or explanatory variables.⁶ The need for case - or cross - case analysis already indicates that the qualitative approach will play a crucial role while performing our research. Often the amount of information processed within the qualitative design is comparably equal to the massive flow of statistical data. Some authors even go further to assert that the methodological differences quali vs. quanti are in fact of

1 Ibid., 438.

2 Steven Lukes, ―Methodological Individualism Reconsidered,‖ in Readings in Philosophy of Social Science, Martin, Michael and Lee McIntyre (eds) (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1994), 453.

3 J. S. Levy, ―Qualitative Methods and Cross-Method Dialogue in Political Science,‖ Comparative Political Studies 40, no. 2 (February 1, 2007): 203–205, doi:10.1177/0010414006296348.

4 Ibid., 206.

5 Evan S. Lieberman, ―Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research,‖ The American Political Science Review 99, no. 3 (August 2005): 435–52.

6 Ibid., 431, 444.

56 minor importance, and expose no contradiction in the fundamental process of inference.¹ This aspect, formulated as ―supplementary mode of causal inference‖ is also highlighted by James Mahoney, who takes the case - study approach under serious scrutiny and identifies its great utility to grasp the context and the complexity of the reality.² Nevertheless, while acknowledging the priority of the qualitative approach to our research, we must be aware of the limitations and pitfalls of such approach.

We agree to the claim, that the cases we select pretty much affect the results we expect from analysis. It may be attributed, among others, to the violation of the rules of the ―general convention‖ or to the inherent deficits of the ―convention‖.³ Further concerns may arise about the validity of observations and measurements. Attempts to operationalize certain concepts and link them to observations and measurement - indicators, usually, presuppose their validity.⁴ Yet the process of connecting facts (observations) meaningfully with ideas that makes up the concept often generates the problem of validation and interpretation of generated scores. The contextual uniqueness (political, social, cultural etc.) is the key limiting factor while making comparisons between the regions or different time - periods. The same applies while conducting a within - case analysis of different sub - units. James Mahoney suggests to limit the number of cases to those that share similarity in ―causal and conceptual homogeneity.‖⁵ He is also supported by John Gerring, who convincingly puts forth the need for typical - representative cases that are relative to some causal relationship.⁶ Ultimately the problem of the extreme multiplicity of variables, where everything is regarded as variables, should not be underestimated. It devaluates the proper meaning of variables and significantly limits one‘s ability to measure and collect data, resulting in the low generalizability of findings.

1 Gary King, Robert O Keohane, and Sidney Verba, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994), 4.

2 James Mahoney, ―Qualitative Methodology and Comparative Politics,‖ Comparative Political Studies 40, no. 2 (February 1, 2007): 123, 127, doi:10.1177/0010414006296345.

3 Geddes, ―How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get: Selection Bias and Related Issues,‖ 89.

4 Adcock, ―Measurement Validity,‖ 529.

5 Mahoney, ―Qualitative Methodology and Comparative Politics,‖ 129.

6 John Gerring, ―What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good For?,‖ American Political Science Review 98, no. 02 (2004): 341–54.

57

3.3 Justification of the selected methodological Approach – the