Congruence Analysis
Congruence analysis is a small-N, theory-centered case-study method that adjudicates between competing theories by comparing each theory's concrete predictions with the empirical observations in one or a few cases. The researcher derives specific, observable expectations from each rival theory and then assesses which theory's predictions are most congruent with what is actually observed. Described as the congruence method by George and Bennett and developed into a full explanatory approach by Blatter and Haverland, it makes theories — rather than cases or variables — the central objects of inference.
Read the full method
Sign in with a free account to read this section.
Method map
The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.
Sources
- Blatter, J., & Haverland, M. (2012). Designing Case Studies: Explanatory Approaches in Small-N Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN: 9780230249707
- George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN: 9780262572224
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 22). Congruence Analysis (Theory-Testing via Predicted-Observed Congruence). ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/political-science/congruence-analysis
Which method?
Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.
- Most Similar Systems DesignPolitical Science↔ compare
- Process TracingPsychometrics↔ compare
- Qualitative Comparative AnalysisPolitical Science↔ compare