Strategies of causal inference in small-N analysis

Much debate concerning small-N analysis has centered on the question of whe ther this research tradition has powerful tools for assessing causality. Ye t, recent contributions make it clear that scholars are not in consensus wi th regard to the more basic: issue of which procedures and underlying logic are in fact used in small-N causal assessment. Focusing on the field of co mparative-historical analysis, this article attempts to clarify these proce dures and logic. Methods associated with three major strategies of small-N causal inference are examined: nominal comparison, ordinal comparison, and within-case analysis. The article argues that the use of these three strate gies within particular small-N studies has led scholars to reach radically divergent conclusions about the logic of causal analysis in small-N researc h. One implication of this argument is that methodologists must sort our th e interrelationship between strategies of causal inference before arriving at conclusions about the overall strengths and limitations of small-N analy sis.