6 Case Selection and Research Design in Comparative Constitutional Studies

Abstract

Comparative constitutional law’s methodological matrix is fuzzy and amorphous. A close look at social science methods suggests a toolkit of considerations to be addressed in conducting comparative constitutional inquiry, thus supporting various types of comparative constitutional studies. The meanings, purposes, and modes of comparative inquiry in contemporary comparative constitutional studies are identified; some basic principles of case selection and research design employed in inference-oriented small-N studies are presented; and the emerging world of multivariate, large-N studies is explored. It is argued that no research method enjoys an a priori advantage over another without taking into account the scope and nature of the studied phenomenon or the question the research purports to address. Thus, attempts to outline an “official” comparative method are not only unrealistic but also unwise. Comparative constitutionalists should settle instead on a set of several more sensible guiding principles, common rules of casuality, and a multi-method approach.