Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T10:08:23.478Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Geo-Nested Analysis: Mixed-Methods Research with Spatially Dependent Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2017

Imke Harbers  and
Matthew C. Ingram
Imke Harbers*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 15578, 1001NB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Email: i.harbers@uva.nl
Matthew C. Ingram
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University at Albany, SUNY, 135 Western Avenue, Albany, NY 12222, USA. Email: mingram@albany.edu
*
*Email: i.harbers@uva.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mixed-methods designs, especially those where cases selected for small-N analysis (SNA) are nested within a large-N analysis (LNA), have become increasingly popular. Yet, since the LNA in this approach assumes that units are independently distributed, such designs are unable to account for spatial dependence, and dependence becomes a threat to inference, rather than an issue for empirical or theoretical investigation. This is unfortunate, since research in political science has recently drawn attention to diffusion and interconnectedness more broadly. In this paper we develop a framework for mixed-methods research with spatially dependent data—a framework we label “geo-nested analysis”—where insights gleaned at each step of the research process set the agenda for the next phase and where case selection for SNA is based on diagnostics of a spatial-econometric analysis. We illustrate our framework using data from a seminal study of homicides in the United States.

Type
Articles
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , July 2017 , pp. 289 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Authors’ note: Previous versions of this paper were presented at faculty seminars at the University of Amsterdam, at an ECPR Joint Sessions workshop on spatial and network dependence convened by Jos Elkink and Kristian Gleditsch, and at the 2015 meeting of the American Political Science Association. We would like to thank audiences and discussants in these settings, especially Kyle Beardsley, Andrew Bennett, Brian Burgoon, Gustavo Flores-Macias, Lee Seymour, and Steve Wuhs for their suggestions. We gratefully acknowledge helpful feedback from the journal’s anonymous reviewers and editor, as well as from Glenn Deane and Tse-Chuan Yang, who commented on early drafts. We thank the National Consortium on Violence Research (NCOVR) for making available the county-level homicide data and Luc Anselin for making data so accessible (http://spatial.uchicago.edu/sample-data). Replication materials (data and code) are available at Harvard Dataverse, doi:10.7910/DVN/HRLHA4 (Harbers and Ingram 2016). Both authors contributed equally, and all remaining errors are their own.

Contributing Editor: Jonathan Katz

References

Ahram, Ariel. 2011. The theory and method of comparative area studies. Qualitative Research 11(1):69–90.Google Scholar
Anselin, Luc. 1988. Spatial econometrics: Methods and models . Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Anselin, Luc. 1995. Local indicators of spatial association—LISA. Geographical Analysis 27(2):93–115.Google Scholar
Anselin, Luc. 2005. Exploring spatial data with GeoDa: A workbook. Urbana, IL: Spatial Analysis Laboratory, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Anselin, Luc, and Bera, Anil K.. 1998. Spatial dependence in linear regression models with an introduction to spatial econometrics. In Handbook of applied economic statistics , ed. Ullah, Aman and Giles, David. New York: Marcel Dekker, pp. 237–289.Google Scholar
Anselin, Luc, and Rey, Sergio J.. 2014. Modern spatial econometrics in practice . Chicago: GeoDa Press.Google Scholar
Baller, Robert D., Anselin, Luc, Messner, Steven F., Deane, Glenn, and Hawkins, Darnell F.. 2001. Structural covariates of US county homicide rates: Incorporating spatial effects. Criminology 39(3):561–588.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, Gleditsch, Kristian Skrede, and Beardsley, Kyle. 2006. Space is more than geography: Using spatial econometrics in the study of political economy. International Studies Quarterly 50(1):27–44.Google Scholar
Bell, Andrew, and Jones, Kelvyn. 2015. Explaining fixed effects: Random effects modeling of time-series cross-sectional and panel data. Political Science Research and Methods 3:133–153.Google Scholar
Bennett, Andrew, and Checkel, Jeffrey T.. 2015. Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool . New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berry, William D., Fording, Richard C., and Hanson, Russell L.. 2003. Reassessing the “race to the bottom” in state welfare policy. Journal of Politics 65(2):327–349.Google Scholar
Bivand, Roger, and Piras, Gianfranco. 2015. Comparing implementations of estimation methods for spatial econometrics. Journal of Statistical Software 63(18):1–36. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v63/i18/.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E., and McNulty, John E.. 2011. Turning out to vote: The costs of finding and getting to the polling place. American Political Science Review 105(01):115–134.Google Scholar
Brinks, Daniel, and Coppedge, Michael. 2006. Diffusion is no illusion neighbor emulation in the third wave of democracy. Comparative Political Studies 39(4):463–489.Google Scholar
Brunsdon, Chris A., Fotheringham, Stewart, and Charlton, Martin. 1996. Geographically weighted regression: A method for exploring spatial nonstationarity. Geographical Analysis 28(4):281–298.Google Scholar
Charlton, Martin, and Fotheringham, A. Stewart. 2009. Geographically weighted regression. White Paper, National Centre for Geocomputation, National University of Ireland Maynooth URL: http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/∼gisteac/fspat/gwr/gwr_arcgis/GWR_WhitePaper.pdf.Google Scholar
Cho, Wendy K. Tam, Gimpel, James G., and Dyck, Joshua J.. 2006. Residential concentration, political socialization, and voter turnout. Journal of Politics 68(1):156–167.Google Scholar
Clark, Tom S., and Linzer, Drew A.. 2015. Should I use fixed or random effects? Political Science Research and Methods 3:399–408.Google Scholar
Cliff, Andrew, and Ord, Keith. 1972. Testing for spatial autocorrelation among regression residuals. Geographical Analysis 4(3):267–284.Google Scholar
Collier, David, Brady, Henry E., and Seawright, Jason. 2004. Sources of leverage in causal inference: Toward an alternative view of methodology. In Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards , ed. Brady, Henry E. and Collier, David. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 229–266.Google Scholar
Darmofal, David. 2006. The political geography of macro-level turnout in American political development. Political Geography 25(2):123–150.Google Scholar
Darmofal, David. 2015. Spatial analysis for the social sciences . New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deaton, Angus. 2010. Instruments, randomization, and learning about development. Journal of Economic Literature 48(2):424–455.Google Scholar
Dieleman, Joseph L., and Templin, Tara. 2014. Random-effects, fixed-effects and the within-between specification for clustered data in observational health studies: A simulation study. PLoS ONE 9(10): e110257.Google Scholar
Dube, Arindrajit, Dube, Oeindrila, and García-Ponce, Omar. 2013. Cross-border spillover: US gun laws and violence in Mexico. American Political Science Review 107(03):397–417.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Minnite, Lorraine C.. 2009. Modeling problems in the voter identification-voter turnout debate. Election Law Journal 8(2):85–101.Google Scholar
Falleti, Tulia G., and Lynch, Julia F.. 2009. Context and causal mechanisms in political analysis. Comparative Political Studies 42(9):1143–1166.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D., and Laitin, David D.. 2003. Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. American Political Science Review 91(1):75–90.Google Scholar
Fjelde, Hanne, and von Uexkull, Nina. 2012. Climate triggers: Rainfall anomalies, vulnerability and communal conflict in Sub-Saharan Africa. Political Geography 31(7):444–453.Google Scholar
Florax, Raymond J. G. M., Folmer, Hendrik, and Rey, Sergio J.. 2003. Specification searches in spatial econometrics: The relevance of Hendry’s methodology. Regional Science and Urban Economics 33(5):557–579.Google Scholar
Fotheringham, A. Stewart, Brunsdon, Chris, and Charlton, Martin. 2002. Geographically weighted regression: The analysis of spatially varying relationships . Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 2007. Case study research: Principles and practices . New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Graham, Erin R., Shipan, Charles R., and Volden, Craig. 2013. The diffusion of policy diffusion research in political science. British Journal of Political Science 43(03):673–701.Google Scholar
Harbers, Imke, and Ingram, Matthew C.. 2016. Replication data for: Geo-nested analysis: Mixed-methods research with spatially dependent data. doi:10.7910/DVN/HRLHA4. Harvard Dataverse.Google Scholar
Harbers, Imke, and Ingram, Matthew. n.d. Politics in space: Methodological considerations for taking space seriously in subnational comparative research. In Inside countries: Subnational research in comparative politics, ed. Richard Snyder, Agustina Giraudy and Eduardo Moncada (unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
Hilbink, Lisa. 2012. The origins of positive judicial independence. World Politics 64(04):587–621.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, and Sprague, John. 1992. Political parties and electoral mobilization: Political structure, social structure, and the party canvass. American Political Science Review 86(01):70–86.Google Scholar
Humphreys, Macartan, and Jacobs, Alan M.. Mixing methods: A Bayesian approach. American Political Science Review 109(4):653–673.Google Scholar
Ingram, Matthew C. 2016a. Crafting courts in new democracies: The politics of subnational judicial reform in Brazil and Mexico . New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ingram, Matthew C. 2016b. Mandates, geography, and networks: Explaining subnational diffusion of criminal procedure reform in Mexico. Latin American Politics and Society 58(1):121–145.Google Scholar
Ingram, Matthew C. 2016c. Networked justice: Judges, the diffusion of ideas, and legal reform movements in Mexico. Journal of Latin American Studies 48(4):739–768.Google Scholar
Kasara, Kimuli, and Suryanarayan, Pavithra. 2015. When do the rich vote less than the poor and why? Explaining turnout inequality across the world. American Journal of Political Science 59(3):613–627.Google Scholar
Kelejian, Harry H., and Prucha, Ingmar R.. 2010. Specification and estimation of spatial autoregressive models with autoregressive and heteroskedastic disturbances. Journal of Econometrics 157(1):53–67. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2009.10.025.Google Scholar
King, Gary. 1996. Why context should not count. Political Geography 15(2):159–164.Google Scholar
King, Gary. 1997. A solution to the ecological inference problem . Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Koesel, Karrie J., and Bunce, Valerie J.. 2013. Diffusion-proofing: Russian and Chinese responses to waves of popular mobilizations against authoritarian rulers. Perspectives on Politics 11(03):753–768.Google Scholar
Land, Kenneth C., McCall, Patricia L., and Cohen, Lawrence E.. 1990. Structural covariates of homicide rates: Are there any invariances across time and social space? American Journal of Sociology 95(4):922–963.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Evan S. 2005. Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review 99(3):435–452.Google Scholar
Messner, Steven F., Anselin, Luc, Baller, Robert D., Hawkins, Darnell F., Deane, Glenn, and Tolnay, Stewart E.. 1999. The spatial patterning of county homicide rates: An application of exploratory spatial data analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 15(4):423–450.Google Scholar
Moran, Patrick A. P. 1950. Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika 37:17–23.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Richard A. 2016. Case selection via matching. Sociological Methods and Research 45(3):569–597.Google Scholar
Nisbett, Richard E. 1993. Violence and US regional culture. American Psychologist 48:441–449.Google Scholar
Østby, Gudrun, Nordås, Ragnhild, and Ketil Rød, Jan. 2009. Regional inequalities and civil conflict in Sub-Saharan Africa. International Studies Quarterly 53(2):301–324.Google Scholar
Páez, Antonio, Uchida, Takashi, and Miyamoto, Kazuaki. 2002. A general framework for estimation and inference of geographically weighted regression models: 2. Spatial association and model specification tests. Environment and Planning A 34:883–904.Google Scholar
Pierskalla, Jan H., and Hollenbach, Florian M.. 2013. Technology and collective action: The effect of cell phone coverage on political violence in Africa. American Political Science Review 107(02):207–224.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham. 1986. American voter turnout in comparative perspective. American Political Science Review 80(01):17–43.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, and Teune, Henry. 1970. The logic of comparative social inquiry . New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Rohlfing, Ingo. 2008. What you see and what you get: Pitfalls and principles of nested analysis in comparative research. Comparative Political Studies 41(11):1492–1514.Google Scholar
Rohlfing, Ingo, and Starke, Peter. 2013. Building on solid ground: Robust case selection in multi-method research. Swiss Political Science Review 19(4):492–512.Google Scholar
Seawright, Jason. 2016. Multi-method social science: Combining qualitative and quantitative tools . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seawright, Jason, and Gerring, John. 2008. Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly 61(2):294–308.Google Scholar
Shipan, Charles R., and Volden, Craig. 2008. The mechanisms of policy diffusion. American Journal of Political Science 52(4):840–857.Google Scholar
Shoff, Carla, Yi-Ju Chen, Vivian, and Yang, Tse-Chuan. 2014. When homogeneity meets heterogeneity: The geographically weighted regression with spatial lag approach to prenatal care utilization. Geospatial Health 8(2):557–568.Google Scholar
Simmons, Beth A., Dobbin, Frank, and Garrett, Geoffrey. 2008. The global diffusion of markets and democracy . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Soifer, Hillel. n.d. Units of analysis in subnational research. In Inside countries: Subnational research in comparative politics, ed. Richard Snyder, Agustina Giraudy and Eduardo Moncada (unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
Tiefelsdorf, Michael. 2002. The saddlepoint approximation of Moran’s I and local Moran’s Ii reference distributions and their numerical evaluation. Geographical Analysis 34:187–206.Google Scholar
Tolnay, Stewart E., Deane, Glenn, and Beck, Ellwood M.. 1996. Vicarious violence: Spatial effects on southern lynchings, 1890–1919. American Journal of Sociology 102(3):788–815.Google Scholar
Trelles, Alejandro, and Carreras, Miguel. 2012. Bullets and votes: Violence and electoral participation in Mexico. Journal of Politics in Latin America 4(2):89–123.Google Scholar
Weyland, Kurt. 2012. The Arab spring: Why the surprising similarities with the revolutionary wave of 1848? Perspectives on Politics 10(4):917–934.Google Scholar
Yom, Sean. 2015. From methodology to practice inductive iteration in comparative research. Comparative Political Studies 48(5):616–644.Google Scholar