Comparative case studies as a remedy to ideological bias As discussed in the introductory chapter, the overarching aim of this thesis is to contribute

with an updated and improved understanding of Hamas’s development from its establishment as the armed wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1987 to a governing party in 2007. To achieve this, Hamas will be analyzed via a selection of meso-level theories drawn from the literature on social movement organizations and political parties. For one, the analytical frameworks provided by these theories offer well-grounded hypotheses and stipulations regarding the emergence and development of political organizations such as Hamas, and the theoretically guided analyses thus promise to contribute improved knowledge of the development and institutionalization of Hamas into a political party. It is further argued that such theoretically grounded analyses will aid in avoiding the essentializing approaches often tainting studies of political phenomena in the Arab world (R. Khalidi 1995; Said 1978), including those dealing with the “question of Palestine” (Halliday 1993; Lentin 2008b; Said and Hitchens 2001).

In addition, a conscious methodological approach and the application of “‘normal,’

comparative social science methods” will further this aim “to de-exoticize [the] Arab political culture” of which Hamas is a part (Carapico 2006, 430). On a general level, it is argued that atheoretical and unconscious applications of case study methods are prone to produce idiographic knowledge (Sartori 1991, 252–53).³⁵ Furthermore, it is advanced that when the topic at hand is controversial, such idiographic knowledge easily turns biased (Sadowski 1993; Volpi 2009).³⁶ This has been true for much of the research dealing with Hamas, as it

“has lacked methodological rigor as well as a thorough foundation in historical and sociopolitical realities” that in turn has led to “moralizing, acrimonious, and prescriptive … academic works that read more like political propaganda than social science” (Strindberg 2002, 264).

While the quality of the scholarly literature on Hamas has improved since Strindberg offered the above critique, methodological rigor is arguably still lacking in many studies of Hamas.

This is itself partly a result of the ideological polarization plaguing much research related to

35 See Gerring (2004, 351–52) for a short discussion on the distinction between ideographic and nomothetic ontologies in relation to case study methods. There he argues that case study methods “occupies a tenuous ontological midway ground between ideographic and nomothetic extremes” (2004, 352).

36 Abaza and Stauth (1988) have an interesting exploration of ideological trends following essentializing approaches to fundamentalist Islam.

the Israel-Palestine conflict (Christison 1988).³⁷ For good reasons, ideologically influenced researchers tend to avoid being explicit about their methodological choices (or lack thereof).

Without an explicit method, researchers are free to pick and choose how and what to emphasize, allowing them to conclude with “findings” that always seem to agree with and corroborate their initial expectations (Nickerson 1998). The application of sound methods, on the other hand, might eventually produce analyses and conclusions that contradict these initial expectations.³⁸ As such, this lack of methodological rigor also works to cement the various ideological positions of researchers, exacerbating the bias problem even further. Thus, much of the knowledge produced on Hamas still suffers from ideological bias and polarization.³⁹ To avoid this ideological diffusion and the tendency to essentialize Palestinian politics (Tamari 1994), the analyses of Hamas will utilize different comparative case study methods.

In the words of Sartori, “[c]omparing is ‘learning’ from the experience of others and, conversely, … he who knows only one [case] knows none” (1991, 245). So, to analyze Hamas without any (explicit or implicit) reference to other (more or less) comparable cases would produce ideographic findings, and the thesis could easily fall victim to the bias problem described above. As such,

[c]omparative analysis … seems to be essential, not only to see what is shared between [cases], but also to pose theoretical questions that the study of the particular may ignore, as well as to be able, with greater justice, to identify what is specific or original (Halliday 1993, 146).

In short, adopting comparative case study methods when analyzing Hamas promises to structure and discipline the thesis in a way that—at least in part—aids it in avoiding the ideological bias trap and the essentialization pitfall.

To achieve the necessary in-depth knowledge and contextual sensitivity, Hamas is defined as the main unit of analysis throughout the thesis, and will be analyzed through different case study methods relying mainly on qualitative data. Specifically, two case-oriented, comparative methods are adopted: the interpretative case study method and within-case, longitudinal 37 Isacoff (2005), Nusseibeh (2005), and Pressman (2005) debate the use of different historical sources in

political science analyses specifically related to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

38 Flyvbjerg (2006, 234–37) discusses confirmation bias and case studies in some detail, arguing that “[t]he case study contains no greater bias toward verification of the researcher’s preconceived notions than other methods of inquiry. On the contrary, experience indicates that the case study contains a greater bias toward falsification of preconceived notions than toward verification” (2006, 237).

39 The quality of the extant literature is evaluated and discussed in some detail in section 2.2.2, pp. 69ff.

comparative method. The following sections will discuss and outline the specificities of the selected methods in some detail.

2.1.1 Theoretical comparisons

Given the theoretically grounded nature of the thesis, the primary method through which Hamas is analyzed resembles the interpretative case study method described by Lijphart.⁴⁰ This method is “selected for analysis because of an interest in the case” itself, and makes

“explicit use of established theoretical propositions” to interpret, understand, and explain the said case (1971, 692). The primary merit of this method is to structure and focus the analyses, as it makes use of the theoretical stipulations and assumptions spelled out in the theories. As such, this method works to guide the analyses and—depending on the relevance and explanatory power of the theories—promises increased validity of any findings. Furthermore, it allows for implicit comparisons, e.g., between Hamas and other well-documented parties sharing important characteristics or between Hamas and anti-colonial movements elsewhere (Lijphart 1971).⁴¹ Similarly, this method also helps the analyses to avoid the previously discussed essentializing tendency and ideological bias.

In addition to implicit comparisons and analytical guidance, the application of established theories on a certain case also allows for some theory development. As Eckstein argues, a

“case can impugn established theories if the theories ought to fit it but do not [and thus] the application of theories to cases can have feedback effects on theorizing” (2009, 135). In this way, the theoretically grounded, case-oriented method adopted also has a theory testing component.⁴² Even if theory testing case study methods often are distinguished from empirically oriented and theoretically grounded case studies such as this one,⁴³ the interpretation and analysis of Hamas through established theories can help refine them, providing increased confidence and extending their geographical reach (Gloppen and Rakner 2007; Sartori 1970, 1994; Tilly 2004). On the one hand, then, the interpretative case study method assists in explaining and understanding Hamas, and on the other, the chosen theories are both tested and ultimately refined by being applied to Hamas.

40 According to George and Bennett (2005, 213), Lijphart’s interpretative case study is similar to what Eckstein (2009, 134–37) labels the disciplined configurative case study.

41 For example, the ANC in South Africa shares important characteristics with Hamas. See also Deonandan, Close, and Prevos (2008), and de Zeeuw (2008a).

42 Lijphart dubs this theory-confirming and theory-infirming case studies (1971, 692), whereas Eckstein calls it crucial case studies (2009, 140–52).

43 See discussions in George and Bennett (2005) as well as Eckstein (2009) and Lijphart (Lijphart 1971).

2.1.2 Within-case comparison

Given the primacy granted to the theoretical grounding of the thesis, the interpretative case study remains the main adopted methodological approach. However, further specification is required in terms of its application. Indeed, as argued by Gerring, “when one refers to the case study method, one is in fact referring to three possible methods, each with a different menu of covariational evidence” (2004, 343). These are (1) case studies with spatial variation, (2) case studies with temporal variation (longitudinal), and (3) case studies with both spatial and temporal variations. This specification of different within-case comparisons is similar to the one offered by Lijphart when he argued that “analyzing the same case … diachronically [and/or] select[ing] intra[unit] cases” maximizes the shared similarities between the observations, and thus aids in identifying variables with explanatory power (1975, 159).

While the thesis covers certain spatial aspects of Hamas, it relies mainly on the method of temporal comparison. Both will be briefly discussed below.

The spatial aspects

The analyses will focus on certain spatial aspects of Hamas’s development. From early on in its history, Hamas was organized in a federated manner, with branches operating in the two occupied territories (the West Bank and Gaza), with a leadership body in Amman, Jordan, that later moved to Damascus, Syria, and in recent years with a local presence among Palestinian refugees both in Lebanon and Syria. As these Hamas branches operate under widely different conditions and to some extent emerged under unique circumstances, they have different ideological outlooks and preferences. The spatial dimension will therefore be covered in some length throughout the analyses, in particular with regard to alterations in the internal power balance between them, as these changes had an effect on Hamas’s behavior. However, the various branches will not be compared as such. The geographical aspects will be included only when relevant to explain the changing behavior of Hamas. As such, the thesis does not comply with the requirements of a proper spatial comparison.

Temporal comparison

The focus on Hamas’s development from a social movement organization to a governing party gives the thesis a processual quality. As such, the within-case, longitudinal approach will be the method applied throughout the analyses. In essence, and as alluded to in the introductory chapter, the comparisons are informed by the analytical framework adopted. To recapitulate,

the framework was built by combining theoretical elements from the literature dealing with social movement organizations and political parties. This framework enables the thesis to analyze Hamas from its modest beginnings as a social movement organization to its transmutation and institutionalization toward a stabilized political party. Based on the sequencing of the two theoretical components, this process can be divided into five phases:

first, tracing Hamas from its roots in the Muslim Brotherhood movement to its establishment as a social movement organization; then Hamas’s transmutation from a social movement organization to a political party; and finally the three phases of institutionalization as a political party, namely identification, organization, and stabilization.⁴⁴

While the analyses are informed by and focused on these phases, the longitudinal comparison itself is not neatly divided according to them. For one, there are no clear-cut thresholds between these steps. As a result, Hamas is expected to be at various stages simultaneously, e.g., still qualifying as a social movement organization in terms of ideology and strategy, but with organizational elements similar to that of a political party. Furthermore, changes in the environmental conditions under which Hamas operates—in the Palestinian political system, in relation to the conflict with Israel, and internationally—strongly affected its development.

Taking these two factors into consideration, the within-case comparison of Hamas is organized in historical phases rather than according to the theorized steps.

It should also be noted that relevant, additional theoretical frameworks will supplement the main analytical framework. For example, part of the analysis in chapter 5 is informed by theoretical assumptions related to how Hamas’s legacy of violence shaped its development (Close and Prevost 2008). Or in chapter 6, which partly deals with the institutionalization of the Palestinian political system, the consequences of the introduction of semi-presidentialism in the PA for Hamas’s development and behavior are covered (Cavatorta and Elgie 2010).

It should finally be mentioned that each analytical chapter ends with a section analyzing Hamas’s degree of institutionalization for the period in question. Based on the findings from the preceding analysis and supplemented with data gleaned from the relevant literature, these 44 Such theoretically informed, within-case analyses can easily be confused with the methods of congruence and process-tracing described by George and Bennett (2005, chapters 9 and 10). As its name indicates, the process-tracing method focus on processes, attempting “to identify the intervening causal process—the causal chain and causal mechanism—between an independent variable (or variables) and the outcome of the dependent variable” (2005, 206). The congruence method “begins with a theory and then attempts to assess its ability to explain or predict the outcome in a particular case” (2005, 181). So, while both of these methods are used in case studies such as this one, they give primacy to theory testing and theory development, which are secondary to the empirical focus in this thesis.

measurements allow for a stringent temporal comparison of Hamas’s degree of institutionalization throughout its history.⁴⁵