Search

This article shows how statistical matching methods can be used to select "most similar" cases for qualitative analysis. I first offer a methodological justification for research designs based on selecting most similar cases. I then discuss the applicability of existing matching methods to the task of selecting most similar cases and propose adaptations to meet the unique requirements of qualitative analysis. Through several applications, I show that matching methods have advantages over traditional selection in "most similar" case designs: They ensure that most similar cases are in fact most similar; they make scope conditions, assumptions, and measurement explicit; and they make case selection transparent and replicable.

Despite significant advances in our understanding of the politics of religious ideology and identity across time and space, scholars disagree on how to conceptualize "religious" conflicts and "religious" actors, and how to infer religious motivations from actors' behavior. This Forum brings together scholars with diverse research agendas to weigh in on conceptual, methodological, and ethical questions surrounding the study of contemporary religious conflicts. We ask: How do we know when individuals and groups are acting on religious, as opposed to other, motivations? To what extent can analysts rely on actors' own claims about their motivations? How does the "secular bias" affect scholarly research on religion and conflict? Is there a bias over which conflicts and actors come to be labeled and coded as "religious" by scholars, policymakers, and the media? The Forum fosters a debate aimed at identifying gaps within and between academic research and policy as well as media analyses on religion and political violence. The contributors examine contradictory conclusions by academics and policy analysts rooted in diverging assumptions and arguments about "religious" actors, "religious" motivations, and "religious" conflicts. The Forum proposes some ways for scholars to overcome these challenges as well as offers implications for policymakers and journalists who shape the public discourse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The overall objectives of this article are to help the reader see and understand through Aristotelian lenses: (1) positive and negative aspects of the Leveraged Buyout (LBO) business model; and, (2) how LBO practices can be reformed so as to retain positives and reduce negatives. Aristotelian lenses considered are: wealth acquisition through wealth expansion, wealth creation, and wealth transfers; distributive and corrective justice; and, a dialectic analytic process of retaining positives, reducing negatives, and reforming. Key net positive wealth expansion aspects of the model are discussed with respect to: profitability for the owners, managers, and investors of LBO firms; potential productivity improvements on the cost and revenue sides; and, potentially greater credit availability. Negative wealth transfer and destruction aspects with respect to: a relatively high rate of bankruptcies in some countries and in economic downturns; LBO firm gains without responsibility for losses; wealth transfers from employees, creditors, ordinary vs "carried interest" taxpayers; and, damaged wealth expansion and creation capabilities of acquired organizations are discussed. Potential reforms that could reduce negatives, retain positives, and reform the model are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]