For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
41
views
10
references
 Top references
cited by
204
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      1,690
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research

      Author(s):
      Publication date (Print):
      Journal: American Political Science Review
      Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Related collections

          Most cited references10

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research

          Robert S. Adcock (2001)
          Article 0 comments Cited 217 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Insights and Pitfalls: Selection Bias in Qualitative Research

            David Collier, James Mahoney (1996)
            Article 0 comments Cited 101 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get: Selection Bias in Comparative Politics

              Barbara Geddes (1990)
              This article demonstrates how the selection of cases for study on the basis of outcomes on the dependent variable biases conclusions. It first lays out the logic of explanation and shows how it is violated when only cases that have achieved the outcome of interest are studied. It then examines three well-known and highly regarded studies in the field of comparative politics, comparing the conclusions reached in the original work with a test of the arguments on cases selected without regard for their position on the dependent variable. In each instance, conclusions based on the uncorrelated sample differ from the original conclusions.
              Article 0 comments Cited 97 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (publisher-id): applab
                Title: American Political Science Review
                Abbreviated Title: APSR
                Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
                ISSN (Print): 0003-0554
                ISSN (Electronic): 1537-5943
                Publication date Created: August 2005
                Publication date (Print): September 2005
                Volume: 99
                Issue: 03
                Pages: 435-452
                Article
                DOI: 10.1017/S0003055405051762
                SO-VID: c22b4894-6de5-46c2-9ab8-b970fec5045e
                Copyright © © 2005
                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content1,690

                See all similar

                Cited by201

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors60

                See all reference authors