QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGY AND COMPARATIVE POLITICS
James Mahoney
Northwestern University
Beginning in the 1990s, the field of comparative politics saw an unprecedented
wave of publications concerning qualitative and small-N methods (Munck 1998). These
publications built on earlier work on comparative methodology dating to the 1970s (e.g.,
Lipjhart 1971, 1975; Przeworksi and Tuene 1970; Smelser 1973, 1976). However,
whereas the earlier work often viewed qualitative methodology as advancing a set of
“last-resort” techniques that should be employed only when other methods (e.g.,
statistical methods) are not appropriate, the current work emphasizes the distinctive
advantages of qualitative research. This new emphasis corresponds to research practices
in the field. Students of comparative politics frequently turn to qualitative methods
instead of or in combination with alternative techniques because they believe that
qualitative methods are essential for addressing many substantive questions of interest.
Today, scholars using qualitative methods explore all of the major substantive
topics in comparative politics. For evidence, one can point to influential work across the
any of the key areas of the field: democracy and authoritarianism (e.g., Collier 1999;
Linz and Stepan 1996; Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens 1992); economic
development (e.g., Amsden 2003; Evans 1995; Kohli 2004); state formation (e.g.,
Downing 1992; Ertman 1997; Tilly 1990; Waldner 1999); nationalism and ethnicity (e.g.,
Lustick 1993; Marx 1998; Varshney 2002); violence and state collapse (e.g., Reno 1998;
Boone 2003), social revolutionary change (e.g., Colburn 1994; Goodwin 2001; Parsa
2000); social movements (e.g., Goldstone 2003; McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly 2001;
2
Convention