Moving from large-N statistical analysis to small-n case studies and comparisons grants me the opportunity to discover other questions regarding environmental degradation and deforestation. My goal remains to explain the variation of deforested land. I can do this by examining laws, multilateral agreements (such as Reducing Emissions for Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+)), and other international policies. To mold my research question into the small-n analysis, I would like to examine countries that have had recent forest loss and gain. Though globally, according to the Global Forest Watch[1], there has been an overall loss of forests, there are some instances of forest gain. Whether or not this is through natural processes or reforestation projects is yet unclear and calls for further research. The Global Forest watch allows for a visual comparison of tree forest gain and tree forest lost[2]. By using this source, I can better understand if my cases have had forest gain or loss with a simple “yes” or “no” answer. For the two cases I have already selected, Madagascar and Malaysia, I was able to find that the countries have similar temperature, and both have had forestry loss. Where there is a valuable difference, is when I found that Malaysia has also gained some area in forest whereas Madagascar has not[3]. In this case, the case selection and dependent variable hand in hand because it is important to examine both forestry gain and loss. I feel confident that this dependent variable may be able to have connections with my proposed independent variables.
“Global Forestry Watch,” World Resources Institute, last modified 2017, Accessed November 8, 2017, http://www.globalforestwatch.org/
[1] World Resources Institute. “Global Forest Watch.” last modified 2017. Accessed November 8, 2017. http://www.globalforestwatch.org/
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
Zainab — you are off to a good start here in rethinking what your project would look like in a small-n case study or case comparative framework. I would emphasize, though, that the *goal* of your research also needs to shift with the change in methodology: no longer are we interested in explaining variation; instead, we are interested in explaining specific (and known) case outcomes. With that shift, you should think about different ways to conceptualize your DV (and perhaps even shift the DV some) to capture what you truly want to understand in the case(s) that you find puzzling. Remember that this methodology is much more amenable to explaining patterns of success/failure, or the processes that led to particular outcomes (and it is *not* as good at explaining variation across cases). Malaysia and Madagasgar sound like promising cases for the reasons you note, but can you deepen your DV (the outcome you want to explain) beyond a “yes/no” idea (which is basically a number in word form)? You can certainly start with yes/no or gain/loss, but what other dimensions might exist for the DV?