This article discusses the trend toward triangulation and mixing methods in comparative public policy research and proposes criteria for further such endeavors, especially regarding the sophistication of the respective (qualitative and quantitative) parts, the way the different analyses are combined, and the aspects of the social world as well as the statements about them political researchers are interested in. It draws on both the current methodological debates and a review of relatively recent contributions to the comparative public policy literature employing several methods. The final recommendation is to consider thoroughly whether to engage in triangulation, and if doing so, to use tailor-made triangulation strategies fitted to the research questions and interests.
Amenta, E. ( 2003). What we know about the development of social policy: Comparative and historical research in comparative and historical perspective . In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 91-130). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Author a: see file ‘completetext’
3.
Author b: see file ‘completetext’
4.
Beck, N., & Katz, J.N. ( 1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series-cross-section data in comparative politics. American Political Science Review , 89, 634-647.
5.
Beck, N., & Katz, J.N. ( 1996). Nuisance vs. substance: Specifying and estimating time-series-cross-section models. Political Analysis, 6, 1-36.
6.
Beck, N., & Katz, J.N. ( 2001). Throwing out the baby with the bath water: A comment on Green, Kim, and Yoon. International Organization, 55, 487-495.
7.
Berg-Schlosser, D. ( 2006). Political science in Europe: Diversity, excellence, relevance . European Political Science, 5, 163-170.
8.
Blaikie, N.W.H. ( 1991). A critique of the use of triangulation in social research . Quality & Quantity, 25, 115-136.
9.
Blatter, J., & Blume, T. ( 2007, September). Beyond the co-variational template: Alternative directions in case study methodology. Paper presented at the 4th ECPR General Conference, Pisa , Italy.
10.
Brady, H.E., Collier, D., & Seawright, J. ( 2006). Toward a pluralistic vision of methodology. Political Analysis, 14, 353-368.
11.
Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. ( 2006). Foundations of multimethod research. Synthesizing styles . London: SAGE.
12.
Collier, D., Brady, H.E., & Seawright, J. ( 2004). Critiques, responses and trade-offs: Drawing together the debate. In H. E. Brady & D. Collier (Eds.), Rethinking social inquiry. Diverse tools, shared standards (pp. 195-227). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
13.
Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
14.
Creswell, J.W., Plano Clark, V.L., Gutmann, M.L., & Hanson, W.E. ( 2008). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In V. L. Plano Clark & J. W. Creswell (Eds.), The mixed methods reader (pp. 161-196). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. (Original work published 2003)
15.
Dellinger, A.B., & Leech, N.L. ( 2007). Toward a unified validation framework in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(4), 309-332.
16.
Denscombe, M. ( 2008). Communities of practice. A research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research , 2(3), 270-283.
17.
Dye, T.R. ( 1976). Policy analysis: What governments do, why they do it, and what difference it makes. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.
18.
Ebbinghaus, B. ( 2005). When less is more: Selection problems in large-N and small-N cross-national comparisons. International Sociology , 20, 133-152.
19.
Erzberger, C., & Kelle, U. ( 2003). Making inferences in mixed methods: The rules of integration . In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 457-488). Thousand Oaks : SAGE.
20.
Esping-Andersen, G. ( 2007). Multiple regression in small-N comparisons. In L. Mjøset & T. H. Clausen (Eds.), Comparative social research: Vol. 24.Capitalisms compared (pp. 335-342). Amsterdam: JAI Press.
21.
George, A.L., & Bennett, A. ( 2004). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences . Cambridge: MIT Press .
22.
Gourevitch, P.A., & Shinn, J.J. ( 2005). Political power and corporate control. The new global politics of corporate governance. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.
23.
Green, D.P., Kim, S.Y., & Yoon, D.H. ( 2001). Dirty pool. International Organization , 55, 441-468.
24.
Greene, J.C. ( 2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology ? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7-22.
25.
Hall, P.A. ( 2003). 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.
26.
Hall, P.A. ( 2008). Systematic process analysis: When and how to use it. European Political Science, 7, 304-317.
27.
Hammersley, M. ( 2008). Troubles with triangulation. In M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research: Theories and applications (pp. 22-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
28.
Huber, E., & Stephens, J.D. (2001). Development and crisis of the welfare state. Parties and policies in global markets. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
Iversen, T. ( 2005). Capitalism, democracy and welfare. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Jick, T.D. ( 2008). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods. In V. L. Plano Clark & J. W. Creswell (Eds.), The mixed methods reader (pp. 107-120). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. (Original work published 1979)
31.
Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Turner, L.A. ( 2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research . Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
32.
Kenworthy, L. ( 2007). Toward improved use of regression in macro-comparative analysis. In L. Mjøset & T. H. Clausen (Eds.), Comparative social research:Vol. 24. Capitalisms compared (pp. 343-350). Amsterdam: JAI Press.
33.
Kenworthy, L. ( 2008). Jobs with equality. New York : Oxford University Press.
34.
Kenworthy, L., & Hicks, A. ( 2008). Introduction. In L. Kenworthy & A. Hicks (Eds.), Method and substance in macrocomparative analysis (pp. 1-28). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
35.
King, G., Keohane, R.O., & Verba, S. ( 1994). Designing social enquiry. Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36.
Kittel, B. ( 1999). Sense and sensitivity in pooled analysis of political data. European Journal of Political Research, 35, 225-253.
37.
Kittel, B., & Winner, H. ( 2002). How reliable is pooled analysis in political economy? The globalization-welfare state nexus revisited (MPIfG Discussion Paper 02/3) . (This paper was also published 2005 in European Journal of Political Research, 44(1))
38.
Kritzinger, S., & Michalowitz, I. (2008). Methodologische Triangulation in der europäischen Policy-Forschung (Methodological Triangulation in European Policy-Research). In F. Janning & K. Toens (Eds.), Die Zukunft der Policy-Forschung. Theorien, Methoden, Anwendungen (The Future of Policy-Research: Theories, Methods, Applications) (pp. 191-210). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.
39.
Kühn, D., & Rohlfing, I. ( 2009, September). Causal explanation and multi-method research in the social sciences. Paper presented at the 105th APSA annual meeting, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
40.
Levy, J.S. ( 2007). Qualitative methods and cross-method dialogue in political science. Comparative Political Studies, 40, 196-214.
41.
Lieberman, E.S. ( 2005). Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review, 99, 435-452.
42.
Lieberson, S. ( 1991). Small N’s and big conclusions: An examination of the reasoning in comparative studies based on a small number of cases. Social Forces, 70, 307-320.
43.
Luoma, P. ( 2003, September). New options in crossing the methodological borders: From quantitative to qualitative analysis and vice versa. Paper presented at the 2nd ECPR General Conference, Marburg, Germany.
44.
Mahoney, J. ( 2000). Strategies of causal inference in small-N analysis . Sociological Methods & Research, 28, 387-424.
45.
Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. ( 2006). A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political Analysis, 14, 227-249.
46.
Mahoney, J., & Rueschemeyer, D. (2003). Comparative historical analysis: Achievements and agendas. In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 3-38). Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press.
47.
Mares, I. ( 2006). Taxation, wage bargaining, and unemployment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .
48.
Marsh, D., & Furlong, P. ( 2002). A skin, not a sweater: Ontology and epistemology in political science. In D. Marsh & G. Stoker (Eds.), Theory and methods in political science (pp. 17-41). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
49.
Mastenbroek, E., & Doorenspleet, R. (2007, September). Mind the gap! On the possibilities and pitfalls of mixed methods research. Paper presented at the 4th ECPR General Conference, Pisa, Italy.
50.
Morgan, D.L. ( 2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76.
51.
Morse, J.M. ( 2008). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. In V. L. Plano Clark & J. W. Creswell (Eds.), The mixed methods reader (pp. 151-158). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. (Original work published 1991)
52.
Moses, J., & Knutsen, T.L. ( 2007). Ways of knowing. Competing methodologies in social and political research. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
53.
Moses, J., Rihoux, B., & Kittel, B. ( 2005). Mapping political methodology: Reflections on aEuropean perspective. European Political Science, 4, 55-68.
54.
Munck, G.L., & Snyder, R. ( 2007). Debating the direction of comparative politics: An analysis of leading journals. Comparative Political Studies , 40, 5-31.
55.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Johnson, R.B. ( 2008). The validity issue in mixed research. In V. L. Plano Clark & J. W. Creswell (Eds.), The mixed methods reader (pp. 273-298). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. (Original work published 2006)
56.
Pickel, S. ( 2009). Die triangulation als methode in der politikwissenschaft . In S. Pickel, G. Pickel, H.-J. Lauth, & D. Jahn (Eds.), Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen (pp. 517-542), Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.
57.
Plümper, T., Troeger, V., & Manow, P. ( 2005). Panel data analysis in comparative politics: Linking method to theory. European Journal of Political Research, 44, 327-354.
58.
Pontusson, J. ( 2007). Methods in comparative political economy. In L. Mjøset & T. H. Clausen (Eds.), Comparative social research: Vol. 24. Capitalisms compared (pp. 325-333), Amsterdam: JAI Press.
59.
Read, M., & Marsh, D. ( 2002). Combining quantitative and qualitative methods . In D. Marsh & G. Stoker (Eds.), Theory and methods in political science (pp. 231-248). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
60.
Rihoux, B. ( 2006). Two methodological worlds apart? Praises and critiques from aEuropean comparatist. Political Analysis, 14, 332-335.
61.
Rohlfing, I. ( 2008). What you see and what you get. Pitfalls and principles of nested analysis in comparative research. Comparative Political Studies, 41, 1492-1514.
62.
Rueda, D. ( 2007). Social democracy inside out. Partisanship and labor market policy in industrialized democracies. Oxford , UK: Oxford University Press.
63.
Rueschemeyer, D. ( 2003). Can one or a few cases yield theoretical gains? In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 305-336). Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press.
64.
Sartori, G. ( 2004). Where is political science going? Political Science & Politics, 27, 785-787.
65.
Sayrs, L.W. ( 1989). Pooled time series analysis. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
66.
Scruggs, L. ( 2007). What’s multiple regression got to do with it? In L. Mjøset & T. H. Clausen (Eds.), Comparative social research: Vol. 24.Capitalisms compared (pp. 309-323). Amsterdam: JAI Press.
67.
Shalev, M. ( 2007a). Limits and alternatives to multiple regression in comparative research. In L. Mjøset & T. H. Clausen (Eds.), Comparative social research: Vol. 24. Capitalisms compared (pp. 261-308). Amsterdam: JAI Press.
68.
Shalev, M. ( 2007b). Rejoinder: Affirming limits and defending alternatives to multiple regression. In L. Mjøset & T. H. Clausen (Eds.), Comparative social research: Vol. 24. Capitalisms compared (pp. 391-409). Amsterdam: JAI Press.
69.
Shapiro, I. ( 2005). The flight from reality in the human sciences . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
70.
Siegel, N.A. ( 2007). When (only) money matters: The pros and cons of expenditure analysis. In J. Clasen & N. A. Siegel (Eds.), Investigating welfare state change. The ‘‘dependent variable problem’’ in comparative analysis (pp. 43-71). Cheltenham, UK: Elgar.
71.
Somers, M.R. ( 1998). ‘‘We’re no angels’’: Realism, rational choice, and relationality in social science. American Journal of Sociology, 104, 722-784.
72.
Stimson, J.A. ( 1985). Regression in space and time: A statistical essay . American Journal of Political Science, 29, 914-947.
73.
Stinchcombe, A.L. ( 1993). The conditions of fruitfulness of theorizing about mechanisms in social science. In A. B. Sørensen & S. Spilerman (Eds.), Social theory and social policy. Essays in honor of James S. Coleman (pp. 23-41). Westport, CT: Praeger.
74.
Swank, D. ( 2002). Global capital, political institutions, and policy change in developed welfare states. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
75.
Swank, D. ( 2007). What comparativists really do. In L. Mjøset & T. H. Clausen (Eds.), Comparative social research: Vol. 24. Capitalisms compared (pp. 361-372). Amsterdam: JAI Press.
76.
Taagepera, R. ( 2007). Predictive versus postdictive models. European Political Science, 6, 114-123.
77.
Tarrow, S. ( 1995). Bridging the quantitative-qualitative divide in political science. American Political Science Review, 89, 471-474.
78.
Tarrow, S. ( 2004). Bridging the quantitative-qualitative divide. In H. E. Brady & D. Collier (Eds.), Rethinking social inquiry. Diverse tools, shared standards (pp. 171-179). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
79.
Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J.W. (2007). Editorial: Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 207-211.
80.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. ( 2008). Introduction to mixed method and mixed model studies in the social and behavioral sciences. In V. L. Plano Clark & J. W. Creswell (Eds.), The mixed methods reader (pp. 7-26). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. (Original work published 1998)
81.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
82.
Topper, K. ( 2005). The disorder of political inquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
83.
Wilson, S.E., & Butler, D.M. ( 2007). A lot more to do: The sensitivity of time-series cross-section analyses to simple alternative specifications. Political Analysis , 15, 101-123.
84.
Wolf, F. ( 2006). Die Bildungsausgaben der Bundesländer im Vergleich. Welche Faktoren erklären ihre beträchtliche Variation?Münster: LIT Verlag. (The German Länders? Educational Expenditure: Which Factors Explain their Substantial Variation?)
85.
Wolf, F. ( 2007). Die Bildungsausgaben der Bundesländer:Bestimmungsfaktoren und sozialpolitische Relevanz. Zeitschrift für Sozialreform , 53(1), 31-56. (The German Länders? Educational Expenditure: Determinants and Relevance in Terms of Social Policy Translation of Journal Name: Journal of Social Policy Reserach)
