Endogeneity and qualitative political analysis: Debates about method or debates about ontology?

Abstract

Qualitative political analysis has made substantial methodological progress in the last 25 years. This article examines the contributions to this progress made by the work of three American social scientists (King, Keohane, and Verba, 2021 [1994], hereafter KKV) and the responses that their work provoked. The article identifies a recurring ambiguity in this methodological literature. In the quantitative tradition to which KKV want to hold qualitative methods endogeneity is a methodological problem that induces a search for methodological workarounds. Yet in qualitative work, endogeneity is often more a basic feature of the social and political world that needs to be modeled directly. While there can be substantial theoretical differences in how these features are modeled, the presumption is that endogeneity is more an ontological claim than a methodological problem. The article identifies how this ambiguity first arises in the work of KKV and then traces out the implications through a discussion of a range of methodological options, from process tracing to instrumental variables.