Between Large-N and Small-N Analyses

Historical Comparison of Thirty Insurgency Case Studies

Christopher Paul, Colin P. Clarke, Beth Grill, Terrance Dean Savitsky

ResearchPosted on rand.org Oct 1, 2013Published In: Historical Methods, v. 46, no. 4, Oct.-Dec. 2013, p. 220-239

The authors study the 30 insurgencies occurring between 1978 and 2008 using four methods crossing the qualitative/quantitative divide. The four approaches are narrative, bivariate comparison, comparative qualitative analysis, and K-medoids clustering. The quantification of qualitative data allows the authors to compare more cases than they could "hold in their heads" under a traditional small-n qualitative approach, improving the quality of the overall narrative and helping to ensure that the quantitative analyses respected the nuance of the detailed case histories. Structured data-mining reduces the dimensionality of possible explanatory factors relative to the available observations to expose patterns in the data in ways more common in large-n studies. The four analytic approaches produced similar and mutually supporting findings, leading to robust conclusions.

Topics

Document Details

  • Availability: Non-RAND
  • Year: 2013
  • Pages: 20
  • Document Number: EP-51628

This publication is part of the RAND external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.