Advice on case selection in small-N research emphasizes controlling for confounding variables to facilitate inferential tests of a cross-case pattern. Yet many researchers embrace the “mechanismic worldview” and aim to construct explanations. Explanations differ from inferences because one explains an outcome at the individual case level. Hence, explanatory case studies are not simultaneously inferential tests, rendering prevailing case selection guidance ill fitting. This article provides an alternative outlook on case studies and case selection. It conceives of case studies as things that engage an analytical ideal type. Researchers can construct case-specific explanations by coupling the general claims of an ideal type with contextual analysis. In terms of case selection, if a case has contextual features that make it relatable to an ideal type, one can viably study that case in relation to the ideal type, regardless of the case’s other characteristics. This criterion diverges sharply from the conventional wisdom on case selection and can embolden unconventional comparisons.

中文翻译：

---

为什么因果机制和过程追踪应该改变案例选择指南

小 N 研究中案例选择的建议强调控制混杂变量以促进跨案例模式的推论测试。然而，许多研究人员接受“机械世界观”并致力于构建解释。解释与推论不同，因为人们在个案层面解释了结果。因此，解释性案例研究不是同时进行推理测试，导致流行的案例选择指南不合适。本文提供了关于案例研究和案例选择的另一种观点。它将案例研究视为涉及分析理想类型的事物。研究人员可以通过将理想类型的一般主张与上下文分析相结合来构建特定于案例的解释。在案例选择方面，如果案例具有使其与理想类型相关的上下文特征，无论案件的其他特征如何，人们都可以根据理想类型切实可行地研究该案件。这一标准与案例选择的传统智慧大相径庭，可能会鼓励非常规比较。