CONCLUSION
The multi-method approach taken in this chapter was inspired by the innovative approach to research developed half a century ago by Campbell. The Campbell and Fiske (1959) idea of a multi-method multi-trait matrix was a major departure from the way that psychologists did research.
The idea that methods can contribute to findings and their interpretation was novel. It challenged the prevailing positivist assumptions about the way that empirical research was to be performed. Continuing along these lines, Campbell trumpeted the value of quasiexperimentation. First, with his colleague Stanley (Campbell and Stanley, 1963), hepro- vided a foundation for field experimentation by showing that valid findings can be obtained even when the hallowed assumption of random assignment is not satisfied. Then, with Cook (Cook and Campbell, 1979), he further developed the statistical tools for inferring causality from field data. Cook (1985) took the gauntlet from Campbell and proposed a philosophical departure for social science referred to as “post-positivist critical multiplism.” The strategy that was being advanced by these pioneers was that of “triangulation.” According to Stern and Druckman, this refers to “multiple data sources and multiple modes of analysis to correct the characteristic sources of error and bias in each and to help analysis converge on results that can be accepted with reasonable confidence” (2000: 60). This approach to research is also gaining momentum in international relations (Sprinz and Wolinsky- Nahmias, 2004) and conflict analysis (Maoz et al., 2004; Druckman, 2005).The variety of examples discussed in this chapter illustrate pluralism in research on problems of conflict and conflict resolution. Although pluralism is more evident between studies, there is a discernable trend in the direction of using several methods within studies.
Increasingly, conflict researchers are becoming aware of the advantages of compensating for the weaknesses in a particular method by adding another approach to data collection and analysis.4 The multi-method lens may be best understood in terms of the tradeoffs between methods.The age-old challenge of bridging internal with external validity has become the joint plight of the experimental and field researcher. For the experimentalist, a turn toward simulation with its emphasis on scenario design has provided a way of addressing issues of context (external validity) without forfeiting the analytical advantages of laboratory controls. For the field researcher, a turn toward focused comparisons has provided a way of introducing “controls” (internal validity) into case study designs without forfeiting the advantages of the context provided by field or archival research. Teaming up by conducting simulations and doing focused comparisons, the experimentalist and field researcher can accomplish their joint goal of developing and testing theory-inspired ideas in relevant settings. Going still further, the team can address the problem of counterfactuals by creating hypothetical laboratory scenarios of unrealized pasts or futures. They can also probe more deeply - in the form of an enhanced case study - into particular conflict processes by selecting a case from the focused comparison for more detailed examination of conflict cycles and third-party interventions.
Although this dual-method strategy would bridge internal and external validity challenges, weaknesses remain. Neither approach includes a random sampling design. Without random - or representative - sampling, results are subject to the possibility of selection bias. This means that experimental and case findings may be limited to the particular subjects and cases chosen. The challenge is to define a universe from which subjects are chosen and cases are selected. Nor do the approaches explicitly analyze data collected over time. This entails more data points in a repeated-measures experimental design or a time series of events that are documented for a defined period. The “data points” can also be stages in a processtracing design or sequential interviews of stakeholders in a formative evaluation design. The importance of these data, whether coded numerically or categorically, is that they capture change, which is an essential feature of conflict. Change is also important in the applied world of conflict practitioners. Placing the experiments and case studies in an evaluation or action research context would create another bridge, between the research and applied communities. Proceeding in sequence from one method to another satisfies the checklist of weaknesses to be addressed by a research project. It also pushes the investigative envelop in the direction of more holistic research programs.