Formal Theory and Case-Study Methods in EU Studies

Abstract

EU studies have long been dominated by case studies, although formal theories have made substantial inroads into the field over the past decade. This article examines the advantages and challenges of combining these two methods, with an analysis grounded in both the philosophy of science and research design. Looking at the philosophy of science highlights several practices and principles shared by formal theorists and case-study researchers. The logic of discovery in both methodologies prizes studies of puzzles that can be found in a single case. Both are inclined to retain a research program even in the face of acknowledged anomalies. In the area of research design, many formal hypotheses take functional forms that cannot be reduced to linear, additive models. Most of these hypotheses lend themselves easily to case-study methods. Thus, although research design has provided an avenue for applying the logic of statistical inference to qualitative research, case studies retain independent value.

Rational design in motion: Uncertainty and flexibility in the global climate regime

“…Ultimately, empirical work should proceed on two fronts: large-n analysis to establish correlations with confidence, and qualitative analysis to establish the mechanisms underlying institutional design outcomes. Only with an eclectic approach to research can we explore the full range of implications -varied and sometimes quite subtle -of rational choice arguments on institutions (Pahre, 2005;Shepsle, 1995).…”

The Political Sciences of European Integration: Disciplinary History and EU Studies

“…Take Loukas Tsoukalis's argument when he assumed the helm at the JCMS in 1980: 'integration theory has been run into the ground, probably because we have been slow in realizing that this new and complex phenomenon could not be studied by our conventional tools of analysis' (Tsoukalis, 1980: 215). This stands in remarkably sharp contrast to those arguing the precise contrary: that the problem in the study of the EU has been the failure to properly embrace and apply conventional political/social scientific tools of analysis (see inter alia Dowding, 2000;Hix, 1994Hix, , 1996Hix, , 1998Hix, , 2005McLean, 2003;Moravcsik, 1997Moravcsik, , 1998Moravcsik, , 1999Pahre, 2005;Schneider, Gabel and Hix, 2000). New editors have also been keen to foresee their journals as responsive to conceptual and epistemological trends within the social sciences.…”

“…It might be that these two positions are better thought of as a continuum, with most scholars taking up a position somewhere along a line plotted between these two polar views. In particular it is important not to fall into the trap of assuming that all work on the EU emanating from formal theory and using quantitative methods sits at the extreme 'mainstreaming' end of the continuum (Pahre, 2005). Moreover, from one angle at least, these two broad images of the field are not wholly incommensurable.…”

“…As we move to towards the 'mainstreaming' pole, so the quality of 'critical' work comes to be scrutinised for the extent to which it fits a standard model of theory building (Pahre, 2005). For example, one of the interesting debates within the constructivist tradition (see Checkel, chapter 3) -a debate that has been played out explicitly within EU studies -concerns the extent to which constructivism should seek to share the same epistemological territory as rationalism (Pollack, chapter 2).…”

Rational Choice and EU Politics

“…For good discussions on the role of formal models in EU studies, see e.g. Hug (2003) and Pahre (2005).…”