The most obvious form of selection bias, according to King, Keohane, and Verba (1994), is selecting cases we know support our conclusion. This is certainly suspected in my selection of cases. However, random selection in cases studies is not always feasible or desirable (125). Certainly in the selection of Somalia, I anticipate my results based on a preliminary review of the literature concerning child soldiers. However, Somalia is such
130
an important case that it would be more problematic if left out. Somalia provides a natural experiment where a number of rebellions are ongoing in the same country. More than this, the cultural, historical, and societal similarities allow an opportunity to explore why some rebellions behave differently than others. Also, King, Keohane and Verba (1994) emphasize the importance of variation on the dependent variable. Selecting Somalia accomplishes this. Finally, they point out that a case can, but does not always mean a single observation. Here, I will explore at least three observations within the case, thereby allowing for variation in both my explanatory and dependent variables.
I explore the role of rebellion type in the case of Somalia. I selected this case using a most-similar systems comparative design.29 Rebellions ongoing in Somalia share a number of characteristics. First, they are opposed to the same actor: the internationally recognized Transitional Federal Government of Somalia. They also had the same
exposure to recent historical events, such as the calamitous Ogaden War 1977-78. They have similarities in terms of language and religion, and share various population-related demographics, such as the number of refugees and internally displaced persons.
However, there is variation in outcome and in goals of the rebellion. I will primarily explore the Somali National Movement, which became the self-declared Republic of Somaliland. I then use the most-similar systems design to rule out alternative
explanations for Somaliland's high levels of child protection by comparing the group with the semi-autonomous region of Puntland. I will also explore the Islamic Courts Union and its militant wing, the Al-Shabaab insurgency. Together, along with various militia groups in the country, I explore the goals of rebellion and how it influences the
29 That the unit of analysis is sub-regional this case study is essentially an area study with all of the benefits
recruitment of child soldiers. Thus, while the cases were selected having some idea of the value of the variables of interest, they reflect the full variation in the dependent variable. Therefore, the selection criteria should not be correlated with the error term (Collier and Mahoney 1996).
Further justification for the case selection is that Somalia is a least-likely case. That is, any superficial reading of the history of the conflict leads to the conclusion that “all parties to the hostilities” use child soldiers (Coalition 2008: 306). Therefore, to uncover variation in the use of child soldiers by one group would be informative. Also, Somalia is of paramount importance in world affairs as one of the highest profile civil conflicts ongoing. Uncovering rich information about parties involved in the conflict would be very valuable. According to Miles and Huberman (1994), producing unbiased information is one of the criteria that should guide case selection. Reliable sources need to be consulted. Information for Somalia is relatively easily accessible because of the amount of NGO attention the conflict has received. Likewise, a history of vocal political actors with well-documented statements and beliefs is likely to allow for research into thoughts and motivations of decision-makers within the movements. While the latter source of information will not be unbiased, having the actors’ own words to serve as a guide for their motivation will perhaps be more valuable than a third party interpretation of their motives.
What I Expect to See
In this case, a cursory reading of the evidence reveals that Somaliland, unlike every other group in Somalia's long civil war, refrains from using child soldiers. If my
132
theory is correct, I also expect to see a clear payoff to the government for restraint. In addition, there should be a record of statements by officials that indicate strong appreciation for international standards. Finally, if the empirical record reveals
knowledge by senior officials of the political power of human rights in general and child protection specifically, this would support my theory. Absence of these crucial elements would cast doubt over the theory's accuracy.
How I Will Know if I Am Wrong
Conceptual stretching is inevitable with large-n research. I have only explored a brief report about child soldier use by some of these rebellions. I do not have information about the nuances of their use. If child recruitment turns out to be minimal and somehow only extreme cases were reported, my hypotheses will lose support. Furthermore, I only assume that secessionists and non-secessionists differ in their concern with international opinion. It could be the case that other groups are equally concerned. If that turns out to be the case, then my theory of norm-constrained behavior will lose support, and I will need to reevaluate my argument. Finally, if alternative explanations are discovered to be highly influential, then I will need to reformulate my hypotheses, or consider additional control variables in my quantitative models. By exploring the case of Somalia, I may uncover a number of competing explanations that may challenge my theory of legitimacy-constraints.