There is a noticeable trend in the social sciences toward doing multi-method research.
This trend is particularly evident in the more inter-disciplinary fields such as conflict management and resolution (Maoz et al., 2004; Druckman, 2005). The widespread desire among conflict scholars to embrace this approach is due in large part to the complexity of the problems confronting them as well as to the overlap with several other fields, each emphasizing a particular mode of inquiry.
A full understanding of protracted conflicts depends on the insights gained from both comparative and case-specific research. Comparative methods have been developed and fine-tuned by political scientists working with aggregate data sets and by psychologists conducting replicated laboratory experiments. Case research has evolved from largely descriptive to analytical studies as political scientists, sociologists, and anthropologists have recognized the need for more theorybased research on particular cases or regions. Both these research traditions are highlighted in this chapter. An attempt is made to survey the scope of methods used by conflict scholars along with examples of projects that illustrate the application. Agoal of the chapter is to convey the value of using multiple, complementary methods for exploration.Recognizing the value of both the general and the specific, conflict analysts have addressed several issues concerning the foundations for doing research. One issue is the philosophical divide between positivism and constructivism. The former aligns more closely with traditional scientific approaches to knowledge accumulation; the latter are rooted in more subjective phenomenological approaches to understanding.1 Another issue is a preference for either quantitative or qualitative methods of exploration. Although part of this tension resides in comfort with numbers or words, the more fundamental difference is between whether an investigator seeks the generality that comes from using a common yardstick for measurement or the depth of understanding that can emerge from a more nuanced study of a group or culture.
A third distinction is between etic and emic approaches. For “etics,” a particular case of conflict is seen as an instance of a large class of conflict processes. For “emics,” a conflict is a unique event to be understood within its own contexts. Heated debates have turned on these sticking points. However, by considering each of these preferences as a particular aspect of doing research, the dualities break down and the seeds for a multi-method approach are sown.Many of the examples of research projects discussed show how both features of the divide inform the research process. Many conflict investigators collect data from the vantage points of object and subject. Observed behaviors or events are complemented by interviews that reveal perceptions, interpretations, and perspectives. Data collected in an aggregate form for statistical analysis are complemented by interpretations of the way a process plays out in sampled cases. A good deal of my own research travels between case and comparative analysis. For example, the concept of turning points in negotiation was discovered in single-case studies -using quantitative (Druckman, 1986) and qualitative (Druckman et al., 1991) methods of analysis. The concept was verified in a comparative, qualitative analysis of 34 cases (Druckman, 2001). These projects illustrate the mix of small-n (one or few cases) and large-N (many cases) approaches to research as well as combining quantitative with qualitative analyses. They also call attention to strengths and limitations of each of the methods, a theme that will be developed in the sections to follow.
A variety of methodologies used in studies of conflict are discussed in this chapter. Many of these studies rely primarily on a particular methodological approach, which is usually an experiment, survey, or case study. A few more recent studies have combined two or more methods in the investigation. Both the single- and multiple-method approaches are discussed in the sections to follow. I begin with published examples of simulation experiments followed by modeling, surveys, case studies (single, time series, comparative), content analysis, and evaluation research.
Each section includes a brief review of the strengths and weaknesses of the approach. Then, I proceed to give examples of the way that multiple methods are used together in several research projects. In these studies, the particular strengths of the different methods complement one another. This theme is carried forward in a concluding section. The discussion shows how the multi-method strategy has evolved to deal with the challenge of “compensating for weaknesses” in singlemethod studies of conflict.