Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-qcsxw Total loading time: 0.32 Render date: 2022-08-09T22:56:38.216Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Mixing Methods: A Bayesian Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2015

MACARTAN HUMPHREYS*
Affiliation:
Columbia University
ALAN M. JACOBS*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
*
Macartan Humphreys is Professor, Department of Political Science, Columbia University, New York (mh2245@columbia.edu).
Alan M. Jacobs is Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada (alan.jacobs@ubc.ca).

Abstract

We develop an approach to multimethod research that generates joint learning from quantitative and qualitative evidence. The framework—Bayesian integration of quantitative and qualitative data (BIQQ)—allows researchers to draw causal inferences from combinations of correlational (cross-case) and process-level (within-case) observations, given prior beliefs about causal effects, assignment propensities, and the informativeness of different kinds of causal-process evidence. In addition to posterior estimates of causal effects, the framework yields updating on the analytical assumptions underlying correlational analysis and process tracing. We illustrate the BIQQ approach with two applications to substantive issues that have received significant quantitative and qualitative treatment in political science: the origins of electoral systems and the causes of civil war. Finally, we demonstrate how the framework can yield guidance on multimethod research design, presenting results on the optimal combinations of qualitative and quantitative data collection under different research conditions.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barton, Allen H., and Lazarsfeld, Paul F.. 1955. Some Functions of Qualitative Analysis in Social Research. Vol. 181. Bobbs Merrill Indianapolis, Indiana.Google Scholar
Beach, Derek, and Pedersen, Rasmus Brun. 2013. Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel. 2010. “Causal Process ‘Observation’: Oxymoron or (Fine) Old Wine.” Political Analysis 18 (4): 499505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Andrew. 2008. “Process Tracing. A Bayesian Perspective.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, eds. Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Brady, Henry E., and Collier, David. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, Andrew. 2010. “Process Tracing and Causal Inference.” In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, eds. Collier, David and Brady, Henry E.. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 207–20.Google Scholar
Bennett, Andrew. 2015. “Appendix.” In Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool, eds. Bennett, Andrew and Checkel, Jeffrey. New York: Cambridge University Press, 276–98.Google Scholar
Boix, Carles. 1999. “Setting the Rules of the Game: The Choice of Electoral Systems in Advanced Democracies.” The American Political Science Review 93 (3): 609–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, H. E., and Collier, D.. 2004. Rethinking Social Inquiriy: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Chickering, David Maxwell, and Pearl, Judea. 1996. “A Clinician’s Tool for Analyzing Non-Compliance.” In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Palo Alto, California: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 1269–76.Google Scholar
Collier, David. 2011. “Understanding Process Tracing.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44 (04): 823–30.Google Scholar
Collier, David, Brady, Henry E., and Seawright, Jason. 2004. “Sources of Leverage in Causal Inference: Toward an Alternative View of Methodology.” In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, edited by Collier, David and Brady, Henry E. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 229–66.Google Scholar
Collier, David, Brady, Henry E., and Seawright, Jason. 2010. “Sources of Leverage in Causal Inference: Toward an Alternative View of Methodology.” In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, eds. Collier, David and Brady, Henry E.. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 161200.Google Scholar
Collier, P., and Sambanis, N.. 2005. Understanding Civil War: Africa. Washington, D.C.: Stand Alone Series World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, Paul, and Hoeffler, Anke. 2004. “Greed and Grievance in Civil War.” Oxford Economic Papers 56 (4): 563–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creswell, J. W., and Garrett, Amanda L.. 2008. “The ‘Movement’ of Mixed Methods Research and the Role of Educators.” South African Journal of Education 28 (08/2008): 321–33.Google Scholar
Ericson, William A. 1969. “Subjective Bayesian Models in Sampling Finite Populations.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 31: 195224.Google Scholar
Fairfield, Tasha. 2013. “Going Where the Money Is: Strategies for Taxing Economic Elites in Unequal Democracies.” World Development 47 (221–236): 4257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, David A. 2010. “On Types of Scientific Inquiry: The Role of Qualitative Reasoning.” In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, eds. Collier, David and Brady, Henry E.. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 251–73.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, Carlin, John B., Stern, Hal S., Dunson, David B., Vehtari, Aki, and Rubin, Donald B.. 2013. Bayesian Data Analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Green, Donald P., and Kaplan, Edward H.. 2004. “The Illusion of Learning from Observational Research.” In Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics, ed. Shapiro, Ian, Smith, Rogers M., and Masoud, Tarek E.. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gerring, J. 2012. Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework. Strategies for Social Inquiry. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gill, Jeff, and Walker, Lee D.. 2005. “Elicited Priors for Bayesian Model Specifications in Political Science Research.” Journal of Politics 67 (3): 841–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, Adam N., Wakefield, Jon, Handcock, Mark S., and Richardson, Thomas S.. 2008. “Alleviating Linear Ecological Bias and Optimal Design with Subsample Data.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 171 (1): 179202.Google Scholar
Glynn, Adam N., and Quinn, Kevin M.. 2011. “Why Process Matters for Causal Inference.” Political Analysis 19: 273–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, Adam N., and Ichino, Nahomi. 2014. “Using Qualitative Information to Improve Causal Inference.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (4): 1055–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goertz, G., and Mahoney, J.. 2012. Tale of Two Cultures - Contrasting Qualitative and Quantitative. Princeton: University Press Group Limited.Google Scholar
Gordon, Sanford C., and Smith, Alastair. 2004. “Quantitative Leverage Through Qualitative Knowledge: Augmenting the Statistical Analysis of Complex Causes.” Political Analysis 12 (3): 233–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Peter A. 2003. “Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Research.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, ed. Mahoney, James and Rueschemeyer, Dietrich. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Herron, Michael, and Quinn, Kevin. 2009. “A Careful Look at Modern Case Selection Methods.” Paper Presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Imbens, Guido W., and Rubin, Donald B.. 1997. “Bayesian Inference for Causal Effects in Randomized Experiments with Noncompliance.” The Annals of Statistics 25 (1): 305–27.Google Scholar
King, G., Keohane, R. O., and Verba, S.. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kreuzer, Marcus. 2010. “Historical Knowledge and Quantitative Analysis: The Case of the Origins of Proportional Representation.” American Political Science Review 104 (5): 369–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lengfelder, Christina. 2012. “Triangular Development Cooperation: How Emerging Powers Change the Landscape of Development Cooperation.” Ph.D. dissertation, Universidad Catolica de Chile.Google Scholar
Lieberman, E. S. 2003. Race and Regionalism in the Politics of Taxation in Brazil and South Africa. Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, Evan S. 2005. “Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research.” American Political Science Review 99 (7): 435–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James. 2012. “The Logic of Process Tracing Tests in the Social Sciences.” Sociological Methods and Research 41 (4): 570–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paluck, Elizabeth Levy. 2010. “The Promising Integration of Qualitative Methods and Field Experiments.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 628 (1): 5971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearl, Judea. 2000. Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference. Vol. 29. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rohlfing, Ingo. 2012. Case Studies and Causal Inference: An Integrative Framework. Research Methods Series. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, Michael L. 2004. “How do Natural Resources Influence Civil War? Evidence from Thirteen Cases.” International Organization 58 (01): 3567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Donald B. 1974. “Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies.” Journal of Educational Psychology 66: 688701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlag, Karl H., Tremewan, James, and Van der Weele, Joel J.. 2013. “A Penny for Your Thoughts: A Survey of Methods for Eliciting Beliefs.” Experimental Economics: 1–34.Google Scholar
Seawright, Jason. ND. Multi-method Social Science: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Tools. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seawright, Jason, and Gerring, John. 2008. “Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options.” Political Research Quarterly 61 (2): 294308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stan Development Team. 2014. “RStan: the R interface to Stan, Version 2.5.0.” http://mc-stan.org/rstan.html.Google Scholar
Stokes, S.C. 2001. Mandates and Democracy: Neoliberalism by Surprise in Latin America. Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swank, D. 2002. Global Capital, Political Institutions, and Policy Change in Developed Welfare States. Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Evera, Stephen. 1997. Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Western, Bruce, and Jackman, Simon. 1994. “Bayesian Inference for Comparative Research.” American Political Science Review 88 (6): 412–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Howard, and Philips, Daniel. 2012. “Addressing Attribution of Cause and Effect in Small N Impact Evaluations: Towards an Integrated Framework.” Technical Report 15 International Initiative for Impact Evaluation Working Papers. http://www.3ieimpact.org/media/filer/2012/06/29/working_paper_15.pdf.Google Scholar
Williamson, Jon. 2004. “Bayesian Nets and Causality: Philosophical and Computational Foundations.” Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Forrest W. 1981. “Quantitative Analysis of Qualitative Data.” Psychometrika 46 (4): 357–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaks, Sherry. 2013. “Relationships Among Rivals: Contending Hypotheses and the Logic of Process Tracing.” Paper prepared for the Short Course 1 on Multi-Method Research, 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Humphreys and Jacobs supplementary material

Humphreys and Jacobs supplementary material 1

Download Humphreys and Jacobs supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 13 MB
64
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Mixing Methods: A Bayesian Approach
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Mixing Methods: A Bayesian Approach
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Mixing Methods: A Bayesian Approach
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *