The Small N Methodological Challenges of Analyzing Regional Integration

Abstract

As the number of regional integration organizations increases, the attention to case selection in small‐N qualitative analysis becomes more necessary in order to avoid selection biases that could produce results with doubtful generalizations. This paper addresses the problem of selecting cases and offers solutions to potential pitfalls in research. First we examine various research designs in qualitative methods and discuss the problems of selecting observations on the dependent variable. We next discuss the operational definition of regions. In order to select from a population of observations, it is important to understand what is and what is not included. Finally, a few implications are presented for the EU studies community.

Key Words:

• Qualitative methods
• comparative regionalism
• case selection
• inferential validity
• regional integration
• EU

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Alex Warleigh‐Lack, Luk Van Langenhove and two anonymous referees for comments on a previous version of this article. Only the authors are responsible for its contents.

Notes

1. See, for example, Caporaso et al (1997), Laursen (2003, 2010), Telò (2007), Kühnhardt (2009), De Lombaerde et al. (2010), and Warleigh‐Lack and Van Langenhove (this volume). For a contrasting view, see, for example, Hix (1994, 1999).

2. We do not go into the theoretical underpinnings of this and other illustrative examples due to scope and space limitations.

3. On the new regionalism, see for example, Hettne et al. (2000, 2001), Breslin et al. (2002), De Lombaerde (2003), and Söderbaum and Shaw (2003).

4. See also Warleigh‐Lack and Van Langenhove (this volume) on this point.

5. On the use of mixed methods, see for example, Lieberman (2005) and Rihoux and Grimm (2006).