Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Untitled

    Uploaded by

    RRMayer
    10 views19 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    10 views19 pages

    Untitled

    Uploaded by

    RRMayer

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 19
    Comparative research methods Hans Kern 2 | aE bi ei \wat PE pc covind oe SRNTG Bete cariice Hee / | Anireeoyionicne ff COA fhagen ' Cate selection 6 | Tabet metre Snare lis 1 Constraints and limitations of the. fia method 76 Conclusion di sh 20 6 EMG LA Reader's guide In this chapter the ‘art of eom, pating’s elaborated by means ofa systematic founds Neen telat theoretically guided research question to a propery founded research answer. Fits, the f0le of variables In comparative research will be mete. Second the specific meaning of ‘cases aswell as thelr selection los Aliscussed in detail, These important | foloned by exlening the coro logics of comparative inquiry, Finally, of comparative methods will be nighil discussed use of the different Some hazards and pitfalls common to the use . ighted and some possible solutions will be “foe che capitile: © pace cher vanes je levee Com pranrel QD o bee eo Spe fentle doy cases {2.1 short, theory and rose AWC crating oF attempting to this volume has suredscd, polities is characterized by both it sul. nsthod. The substance concerns the fy of phenomena that are repredent- al system (often countries, but not The method is the ‘art’ of conipar- »-and how to compare these sy ® of systems. In this chapter the focus fs on methods as used in comparative politics: "a is with the development of rules and ‘ard of how a comparative research design stould be developed (Mair 1996: 310). Obvisusly < research design in comparative politics is er sil step for developing theories, testing theories, a2] the verification of contesting or rival theories Fandman 2003: 4). Hence, as Peters emphasizes, {ibe only thing that should be universal in studying somparative polities... isa conscious attent explanation and reseateh desig o (eters 1998: 26), ly ques ot hi other lion there polities The ere iss what is it dt the ste contparative polities wishes ta expla ferns: what isthe dependent variable lysis? And wl are the most likely "of the phenomenon under investigation? Which independ ut suviables ea for the variation of the ross illeent political systems? “es answer tots question resis heavily on the clevelopment of a “proper” search design (RD), eu can dietore be tse ) asked dependent variable the research question and the rese chiansiver (RA) proposed, This fs shat welabelthe triad’ RQ» Ra Rin Ss WeNce cli Pesquisa —) fees 5 80K 3.1 Thettiag Rd ha» RO YS Int of departure is that all cesearch ‘questions are sie a0 ule (be it decved trom existing theo, oF 1 t0 Cevelop a theory), The \eoretical guidance is expressed in relating research enon (RO) to research answers (RA) in the shape of (eal tationshps betwen ependent yaar Te tbe explained and the independent varabieg the most ikely causes, he factors servingasan emiag Stn. Ths ‘bridge’ between RO and RAis the res reh donna i vay odin $e OO Ney : hates dé (Sqviww ga teat ch 2Oquin Develapinga research design in compgrative polit- ‘esis nolan easy task and requires careful elaboration First ofall, the research design should enable the re searcher to answer the question under examination, Second, the given answer(s) ought to meet the'‘stand- ards’ set in the social sciences: are the results valid, reliable, and generalizable (King et al. 1994; Sartori 1994)? ‘Thied, are the research design and the meth= ods used indeed suitable for the research goals set? In other words, has the ‘art’ of comparing contributed to finding an answer that is theoretically plausible and empirically correct (Landman 2003: 6-7)? This chapter will elaborate these issues and at- tempt to guide the student in comparative politics towards linking research questions to research an- A caveat is required though: a plurality. of Views exists on comparative research methods and there ai ‘many diverse views on the “best” way to yo, However, the same literature also shy ws that there is considerable agreement on what matters most ax Ferd to applying comparative research methods in comparative jsslities, In this chapter | follow and stabwrate these matters that are commonly viewed as being essential tor doing research in comparative Poles (se, for overviews, Dogan and Pelassy 1990, Mair 1996; Peters 1998; Landman 2003; Buenham tal 2004 Pennings et ul, 2006) The chapter is organized as follows, In the next section the focus is on the role of variables in ¢ fescarch design representing theory: what is the fole of and relationship betwcen indepentent and dependent variables (X, and Y). Then, we tun to the ‘carriers’ of empirical information: cases. In ad, Aion to discussing yetiat nbiven ole 1 comparative Feral Sh fssquiag of view is widely acknowledged (see ey. Almond A theury in ity simp ee form is a meaningful rela- apt (a Plc 1998 luram et. 2004), This means _conship between wy eal-wrdd phenomeres Xie | vlad dina ewan question (RQ) in comparative polities independant variable and Vs thecroontoee | ated should always be either guided by theory or aiming _ where it is expected that change in one variable ig V/>u!=4| 349} at testing a theoretical argument, The comparative _ related to change in the other, The conceptual andy jy, ok up method is about observing and comparing carefully explanatory understanding of auch a relationship is, ' Pumation (ross space or :ime or both) _ point of departure lor conducting research by onan we creek of causal relationship between ast of , paring empirical evidence actos sytem (oe cay ap uables The extent to which similarities and dif-' Brady and Collier 2004 308; Burshow sth pone fs cre | ite fetenecs occur tls us about the plausbility of the ) $7; Pennings eal. 106: 34) In terme of ae triad, ou theoretical relationships under review, One could say * the researcher first formulates a rece cr question, | af that the thrust of comparative methods is the ap- ° such as: what factors contribute to the development af Benton of quasiexperiental methods, where the. ofthewelate ated, Lousuti feet ol i | eseacher aitempis to draw conclusions on the basis » This is the dependent variable, ue: what the f° f u of some stimulus being absent or present (Burnham ” s archer Geeks to explain, It_is called dependent ! | | etal, 2004: 60-1), because we expeet that its variation across systems In short, the comparative method allows usto test is depending on one or move indepeienr roe : cnpitcaly hooihalad Riongs cnongrase | ace ale oa ane outcome). As , thles (Uiphart 1975: 159-60;Landman 2003: 10,even a tentative answer he/she comes up (often after ex- t | Mentions prediction). In contrast to the methodo- — tensive reading of literature on this topic) with a | [pet ofthe ‘exact eciencs#’, however the conclusions " hypothesis. This tentative answer, or hyporhers , ‘2 drawn from comparisons not experiments (this a conjecture about the relationship between the de ' why the comparative method is often labelled as ' pendent variable and the independent variable This i | ‘Suasl€xperimental). The real world of comparative ‘ independent variable (or part of the rezearch ex, rt jf Politics is therefore the workplace for political sci- swer) is ‘Supposed to influence the outcome, ie. the 1] BE | estists to examine how the complex wond ofpolitics development of the welfare state, In a comparative tt = Abd tools coun as Arvo Pt at woleposch lc © Y i ! i 4 depeichode . espcunda We « varie hi Dee unas see scrdoole fee otras igh bee ey i a EL 9 sudo] seat de Me boole Gap te eee fits , flo ex AMA 9 Un sllo Complexe oh poten pe lerawitnewdle er pete ck Heshb TS minoaate Atonry cabo Vatunay ’ 16 Unko SB Meesmeman Cx, tenes CL0SAH 1 4 “HG. Au RD) th lationship is ably in causal terms, in order to for the differences and similarities that decur worl? (see alo Box 3.1) sly.any type of "X.Y" relationship tn gctal tw corid. This is deliberate. in comparative polit science we develop hypotheses that account for tions by isolating those fac count in a systematic way for th This procedure not only allows for es means of comparing evidence whether oF not a ela- tionship indeed exists, but also whether or net this ‘caonsip canbe quai teas oF not (the relationship is thew woth» YD) Causality isa fraught concept in the social se nees and is in strict terms hard to come by. Yet itis by now accepted that ifthe variation in the depe~dent variable (¥)is-evidently and systematically 1 ated to the variation in (one of) the independent “ari= able(s) (X) then we may assume causality —at least for the cases included in the analysis. This type of conclusion refers to the idea of“iternal validity” (see Bok 3.2), Establis aieens 6f comparative methods is considered as one of Iajor advantages. As Ihave already stated, compare ative analysis is often labelled “quasiexperimental’ ‘meaning that we can to a certain extent manipulate reality, enabling the researcher to conduct descript inference (Xing etal. 1994: 34 £:). This implies that the empirically founded relationship between the mawiarn fon wads ov BOX 3.2 Internal and external v Comegen theoretical © is 9 reduction trom the complexitios tt 4 ity in comparative lnternal validity refers to problems of specification of the research design (which variables are included in the ‘mode! and which are omitred), External validity is the question to what extent the "esults ofthe comparative research ae also relevent for ‘ther cases that are not included in the research, Both types of validity are equally important, but it should be noted that there isa trade-off (Pennings eta, 2006: 5-6), The more cases are included in the ana- lysis that can be considered as representative, the more “Cobust! the result will be (external validity). Corwersely, however, the analysis of fewer cases may well be condue ve to a more coherent conclusion forthe set of cases ‘that is included (internal vaiity) Ryo teu Ware quedhivo abe Fane lbawars + lafencnars > Cede take A ae fethutr 6 6L46, Whe Ap rext independent and depe number of observations ence) allows generaliz, under review. In these circumstan claims that his/her results ate Sexternally vali” (see Hos 3.2). Its obvious that this Yeap! trom the em evidence to a general if not causal, explanatio (the ‘theary’) is open to criticism and more often than not rival or contesting theories are developed to disprove or to enhance the theory. Letus illustrate this with the debate on the research question ‘does politics matter?” (For an overview of this debate see Castles 1998; Keman 2002¢; as well as Chapter 22.) The origins of this debate go back to the 1970s, Researchers, working in the field of comparative political economy and public policy analysis, published their research on the emergence and eross-system variation of welfare states in indus- trialized democracies, The conclusion they shared was that the development and level of ‘welfire stat- ism’ (commonly measured as public expenditures as a percentage of GDP) had less to do with ‘politics’ (eg. the role and impact of parties, governments, ideologies) and ‘more with the structural develop- ments of the advanced capitalist countries (in fact all the member-states of the OECD), What mattered most in explaining ‘welfare statism’ (the dependent variable Yx.see Figure 3,1) were independent variables like" the level of industrialization (the more industrialized a country, the higher the need for housing, health care, and ; futa dark & fe methods ¢/ O yon ae, st The use of the term ‘validity’ in comparative politics is to some extent different from its usage in general Social science methodology where it refers to measuring what we intend to measure. In comparative polities We mean to claim that the results are relevant for the 2825 Under examination (Peters 1998: 48). Further ‘more, the concepts of intemal and external validity are of an ideattypical nature: in a perfect world with complete information the standards of validity may Well be met, but in practice this is hard to achieve, Yet, as Mayer (1989: 55) has rightly put forward, ‘one should try to get as close as possible to these standards, ts 70 Howl by & bre Wun Mariel $0926 ies of economic growth (the higher , the more fiscal room for welfar. dé the demographic composition terms of the proportion of younger (Keman 2002), This eluster of in- ables (represented as X, in Figure 3.1) ed as the causal conditions explaining ‘Be yarition in public policy formation for the de- velopment and level of welfare statism across OECD és (eg. Wilensky 1975). Political variables like differences (e.g, left vs. right) and the rela szength of parties in government or the strength ‘of tade unions (X in Figure 3.1) were considered as only indirectly relevant (or merely coincidental) and neither necessary nor sufficient to explain the growth of a welfare state. In other words, the re- search conducted appeared to prove that ‘politics did not matter’ as an explanation for the development of the post-war welfare stat, AA group of political science comparativists, how- ever, were not convinced with the wider (gener- alizing) implications for political theory. A major objection concerned the finding that the mon-political variables (X; in Figure 3.1) were insufficiently eap- able of explaining why the eross-system differences in the levels of spending on welfare statism differed, although in many instances the X; cluster of non- politcal variables was quite similar. Hence—in statistical terms—the explained variance (i.e. the proportion of non-political factors accounting for the differences in welfare statism, the outcome) was con- sidered “o be below par to allow for the conclusions. ‘The descriptive inffrence was not homogeneous (i.e. the assumption thal a given set of variables produces always the same outcome) in the opinion of these. tities This criticism was supported by empirical ob- servations of the levels of expenditures on welfare state related policy-making over time. It appeared that these levels tended to become more divergeni Whereas the explanatory variables (X1) would pre dict otherwise: a convergent development would be expected to occur, Another criticism concerned the * ‘operationalization of the dependent variable. By ex- amining the various policy components of ‘welfare (like expenditure on sovial security, edui- cation, and health care), it could be demonstrated that the design of the welfare state showed a large’ iation (see, for instance, Janoski aad stat cross-system Chapter 3 Co Hicks 1994). In short: the dep statism’ could not be systen ya linked to demograp ic factors, industrial g economic development alone (the origi tion, or hypothgsied relationship). Summing up, the research answer given was neither convincing nor sufficiently explanatory. ‘These criticisms based on the same type of empirical evidence have been conducive to the development of an altemative theory or ‘rival explanation as regards | the development of the welfare state in the OECD | World (see e4. Schimidt 2002). This theory or re- { search answer is depicted in Figure 31: in addition ! | to the original explanation by means of non-political factors (Xi) another explanatory cluster of vari- ables—representing politics (X2)—was introduced into the equation, __=7 wansaastis polibeers fran ‘Thecomparative analysis conducted demonstrated [U> 5« that political variables appeared to have a consider-) 9. u/zex able (and statistical significant) impactas well (Swank 2002). Hence the ‘new’ research answer became.” yes, it does matter! And this answer was found by ‘means of a comparative research design based on a theory-informed research question and providing an alternative research answer. Note also that the research design not only concerns establishing the X2 + Y relationship, proving that political variables played their role, but also controlling for the impact of ‘politics’ by including the original explanatory re- lationship Xj Y. Hence, the comparative method was applied to test a theory and to develop it further. In conclusion, no comparative research is use- ful without a theoretical argument underlying ity oF without a methodologically adequa eS yase ayy cae e research, » ihe eadlea/ Ree een A dhe tala adlequachy Rene eed Seren gus sy Del Fig(3.t Investigating ‘does politics matter?” Sauce Pong 206.34, afienss Of4 fons Vb ates Pate! estore nk tags Ae % 6 | 2 Z, \ i Aiainallro clo ye A | qua rtrd oe vanity caf inenganteaile [10 foe Hans Keman ste it, This shows the significance ve methods as well as the need to carefully by rigorously and system: sidering the relation between research and research answers in terms of causal between dependent and independent (%— ¥), The message conveyed there research in comparative politics requires ise and detailed elaboration of a research Feb questions to Fese vosvers that are conducive to causal interprets tion by means oF descriptive inferences, In’ the section 1 turn to a vital step in organising pr slesign that connects rex Case selection) CaS Uw the intendietary section F retiree tw the terme ‘asl experimental” sil “manipulation in relation to developing and eaerying out research in comparat, ive polities. This points to salient element of the st emparison (hat, when, aad how a cap eval tha linking theory to evidence entails the prs Poseful reduction of real-warle complex {w analyse the Uogieal)eelationship bntween ¥ variables, Hence, the researchers must make cisions above what to compare, ie. selecting the eaves (the carriers of relevant information), and hove this information ean be adequately employed to reach conclusions as regards the reseuich question. cad he key to the development of a proper comparative research design is which cases tan be *Sussial for comparing and how many are tobe seer, ed.7 and deb nswer to this question has | lod to many views ates (See eg, Prreworski 1987; Ragin 1987, Peters 1998; Brady and Collier 2004), this debate f fe will wot be repeated ull elaborate its practical impli for the concomitant logic of comparison. Below] Shall first shed light on the meaning and features if wwhata‘case'is in comparative methods and how (1+ selection of eases is made, (Cases )- > nmidlade of ods. “wn fo “case" has a general meaning in social free methodology, but in comparative methods ik | TID dle asta Re ee ee tasek I Apo Aud Lite esha betes vatwer, $< Cecaatle pate cee lene hs Varnatnied Kev POINTS SJ, | agloe Eras tre rod and tape ty "Bonn beveenCepencem 0) 8 nderre ent (X) variables, The research answers are (tentative) hypotheses that can be interpreted in causal terms by means of deseriptive ference. U The research design is meant t0 link systemat- ically empirical evidence to theory by means of comparative methods suited for co comparison, parative eesanch sign: seating te eee ' Via lrolaohe { 7 tebtaro le esos VlW le is uscd in a specific manner and is to some extent Sensing (King eeu. 14: 110-17; Burnham etal, 2004 Ie: Pennings etal, 2006; 34 8), In general, aves denote the units of observation at any given uf analysise,g, voters in 4 countey: the countey determines the level of Ie ‘analysis, whereas the voter is the unit of observation). In comparative methods we tse this definition as well (see Bos 3.3), The ean, ion stems from the distinction that is often made between research designs that are labelled ‘compar able case strategy’ (Lijphart 1975) or ‘case study’ (Peters 1998: 137), tn fict here the researcher means the (compar. ative) study of ‘systems" within which observations are made, For reasons of clarity, 1 propose to 1 Serve te ferm ‘case’ in comparative methods for any {ype of system included in the analy | refer to the observations as the values (ot scores) OF 8 variable under investigation, For example, if One analyses party behaviour in government then the system level or ‘case is that of governments godt ol countries, Conversely, if the welfare state is the focus of comparison, then this eoncerns the system, to be compared »thereas the public expenditere on Social security provisions is the empirical value For ach system. in Box 3.3 the definition of a ox Staborated and illustrated by means ofa data matrig {isthe organization ofthe empirical observations by case and by variable. It is important to be precise in this matter because the number of observations de, termines whit type-of (statistical) analysis is fensible In addition do di 8% ¢ A Now Ss Sehapter 3 Conmiparative esearch om fesquse & les obted.vas Selection of cases and variables Wepends on {fate hice in relation tothe research aye in consideration of the explanatory goals 1994; Ragin 200, an ASS FF [ONO ables in a comparative ie is reserved for are comparable at a level of vidual voters (unit in diferent i level), parties (unit) in various. Case selection ‘ne information in a data matrix is v \ : sional: variablesin columns and eases ae the building blocks for the thewretical ngstony le ine e cells contin values for each variable underlying the research de se selection afd ' Flee leves of GOP) for each ease (eg, countries). Fort toe] | Sano se the Comparative tbls atthe end of iret the type and form, of compation, This is TE py £ Sisvolume. nthe same vein valables may represent illusrated in Figure 3. om anceptual information overtime. a Figure 3.2 shows that there are different possible asker bea dk hess fe eases » depending on how manycases and 2 9 (PR Sos ¢ dhs Venvwe's oF how many variablesare involved Intensive strategies wv ? Lys this are “hose with many variables and few cases. Extens- oes ee bie iimition actos tha sytem on Ghepiaiegis as tees Ch ir ee many cases under review (Pennings eta, 2006: 11) cases. In addition, the researcher should conser Jn most literature on comparative methods the whether or ner ‘time’ is a relevant factor to be Be Gee Seteere dalansad wat (oaslaniogs pet eee telandthevariableernphoetioanalyscthereireh yee question under review is considered as crucial in don ing'ruly* comparative research. Asstated above his relationship is depicted as a choiee between ‘many senrcher ain fifieateentettitica «cases, few variables’ and "few cases, 1 bles” ¥ cases as feasible are required (King eral, 1994: 24, Assos Urevorsk and Teune 1970; Landman 2003). Yet, parshomvar na 74). In Figure 3.2 five options Ades 1 thee istcodmplitc and doernotalvayseon- ferchceer danni hi sern2 dichotomy, the first objections that the ype } i of data used (whether qualitative or quanttativg) is | 0° 57 \vterauslo bu poet | notby definition conducive to a research design that : iscthera single case study based on qualtaticr are (grease (by means of ‘thick description’) or one maximizing ae ® the number of cases and (thus) using quontitative ; | data only (see also Brady and Collier 2004: 246-7). UNOS ers of The second objection is that different types of data img _( canbe used within one research design regardless the nemoms Mines) faves E mumber of cases. For ‘example, the study of welfare states often combines qualitative elements with stat ‘ Bs itical data (eg. van Kersbergen 1995), or take the | study on ‘social capital” by Putnam (1993) who delib- Catany intervas a By «tely combines survey data with historical analysis aise fot the development of politics and society in Waly. yyy Cee Thirdly itis often suggested that thechoice formany _Ghtimesaisiae crete, ‘zies'and few variables would imply a Most Simi- _G) Closed universe (relevant care la relvant periods); conten Deanna come fev cum ad Sn hema many variables would always imply a Most Different Systems Desiges research design (1 will discuss this Fi 3.2 Types of research design distinction in more detail below), In summary, the This is oflen the casey in particular wher change (or a process, development) isa crucial element of the research question, Finally, if the re analysis, as many a Auion 0 rune, ‘Source; Adapted from Pennings et (2005: 21. 2 1d hye de dads fh dhiee 9 sac toolotonin Marloes 4 de dades vial. 5 ‘dl dallo de | eee ite an aS ON + Com A CA$0S € Baya SYS QUIS A The single case study) cy i. nanviols jniol-be considered as an explicit vomparat esearch design. [Unity be part of a comparative research design, but standing alone it is at best im- citly comparative and its external validity is low or absent (see Peters 1998: 1434; Land: nan 2003: 34-5). However it can be used for post hac valida- tion (to inspect whether or not the general results +02 old up in a more detailed analysis) or t0 study a deviant Gas (kaa coed hal prc PRC xption to the rlel and eleo used ‘aise case study (see eg, Rueschemeyer etal. 1992). An ecvasiage ofa cng cet ugha beat alin for the inclusion of a larger variety of var‘ables than is often feasible in a “many cases’ research design. Lijphart mentions the use of a single ca~: study as a pilot for generating hypotheses, for instance, by means of a theory confirming or infirmic g. (lijphart 1971: 691). ed cll case study. Finally, single cas often use informa tion over tint to generate comparable cases. This similar to option 2 in Figure 3,2 (Hall 2006) where tne ithe del ytnilertasearaad a cases, that i, longitudinal analysis (or ‘time a analysis"). $4 FP! Cy nay btrtee | bo mile ee ES m Time series > {alos svt allen #0 dle ten fto in two ways: one, to compare a specific configuration within one ora few systems in order to inspect not only change per se, but mainly to analyse which factors are (or become) relevant ‘overtime in terms ofeffect-produing capacities. An «example is the analysis of Dutch corporatism for the period 1965-2000 (Woldendorp 2005). Another use is to replicate an earlier study by adding a time series to the existing one (King ct al 1994: 222), rerouhs ox meas ‘Timeseries can bes Closed universe ‘The third option if Figure 3.2 concerns the few’ cases and intervals comparison taking intoaecoimt change by defining periodical intervals based on external events (be it before or afler a discrete event—like war or economic crisis—or comparing periods that ae crucial for the development of poitinl systems; 2 Borg-Schlosser and de Meur 1996). A few (er) case ch design is developed as a ‘focused compar- review (Lijphart 1975; Ragin 1991), pr emule dy colle Caeeg DM Mvagy a i Cross-section The fourth opt it concerns those cases fe more than they differ from each other, depen. research question (Collier 1993) the universe-of discourse (he. the rel view of the theoretical relationship underlying the research design; Castles 1987) can be assumed to constant, which would enhance the validity 0 iical results. For example, if the fieus is the development and organization of party systems, then it follows that we only take into account represent: ative democracies. This option is typically suited to so-called ‘middle range’ theorizing (Lane and Ersson 1994), 7 Wylie NO Se Po das pen elal Cooled mmalysis 4°, 0% wench cone 05 ‘The Tinal option is disputed among comparativists (On the one hand, the number of cases can be mas imized by pooling cases across time and systems, but, on the other hand, there is the pitfall of the impact of time being assumed to be constant across | cases (oy a least, that change is consistent; Kittel 1999; Beck 2001). A possible fallacy is then the over: determination of the results, This option is mainly used in sophisticated quantitative approaches and it requires skils in statistical methods at a more ad- vanced level. Notwithstanding this caveat, this option ccan indeed help to increase the number of observa- tions for the variables included in the research design (see e.g, Janoski and Hicks 1994), Allin ll, the balance between the number of cases and variables in play is not as diverse as is often ut forward. Rather, the message is that the range of choice is larger than is often thought (and practised) first, by combining the options available (options 3 and 5 arein fact combinations); second, by using the options in developing a research design sequential For instance, following up a cross-sectional analysis (option 4) with a critical or a crucial case study as an in-depth claboration of the broad comparative analysis (see eg, Rueschemeyer et al, 1992). It should be noted, however, that the options for choice as depicted in Figure 3 instan Fe not completely free. For if industrialization is seen @ process, it "must be investigated over time in order to answer the research question whether or not this process results in the development towards welfare statism, ee tude + sgraatowdaslo ‘ ). Verious European societies were ane she time point that they slowly developed ‘ less constitutional liberal democracies (850-1970). In effect, in this research design the im. Portant point was not the actual number of cases or Sysienss bur the information avaiable for the whole svi (Le. option 2in Figure 3.2. By comparing the Fates of change with the rate of democratization it ‘yas possible to demonstrate when and under which Y) and, second, on what type of empirical data is aval. jbleand required. The type of eases (systema) directs 2 cle esqu34 wo The logic of comparison ew 14 F4 coy {comparative methods there are two basi research designs that emplay a different type of logic the Most Different Sypkems Design (MDSD) amd the Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD). These d ly to the type of cases under And the selection af cases mide by the researcher Golhspproacheshave been developed tollowing ony Stuart Mill's dictum: maximise experimental vant ance-wininize error variance. variance Peters 1998: 30), review control extraneous Experimental variance This points to the observed differences or changes i the dependent variable (¥) ofthe rescarch question, wich issupposed to bea function ofthe independent Variable (X) included in the research dsign (as hypo. thesized by means ofthe research answer) Figure at 7iC waver deyordexr ) aitods Couperdbivg Olbrin A ds and theory development“) lesigns, ty § Luin dex by wdependen\ Chapter 3. Co the type of variables and their leve! resulting in a data collection suited Fesearch answePo the question asked (see Box 3, Relating the cases and concomitant informats data) is the next step in performing comparative analysis, This stage of the research design concerns the assessment of the relationship between the evid ‘ence (data) collected across the selected cases for the independent and dependent variables in view uf an explanation KEY POINTS U In comparative research a casei the building block Of research. it I Important to keep in mind thet the level of inquiry is related to the type of systern under investigation, The variation across systems iz ernpitically observed by means of indore thin and between systems. «7 biitugo cules unos © 'Q The balance between cases and variables is an imc’ » ipa estion fr organzng eae slecvon, 4 Figure 3.2 shows the options for choice as regards 7 ase selection, The selection of cases depencs on Y relationship) ccnnot be tested sufficiently (King etal. 1994: 141; Landman 2003: 46), Error variance ‘This is the occurrence of random effects of unmeas- ured variables that i alinost impossible to avoid in the social ssi, given gus experimental designs wat imply a reduction of * fe’ circumstances, Yet, it should be minimized as much as feasible (in statistical terms, the error term inthe equation ikcon- stant oF close to zr). One way to minimize, apart roma carefully execute case selection, is inereasing theTumber of cases. However this is, in view of the research question ander scrutiny, not always possible {ex there are mo cise tt Hi selection eer Extraneous variance he final requirement in Mill's dicttim is controlling, for extraneous variance. IF there is to control for other possible influences, the chances are high that the hypothetical relation X + Y is in part produced by another (unknown) cause. ‘This is what wescall a spurious relationship (a third variable affects the re lationship under investigation: Hennings et al, 2006: 135). ‘There is no foolproof remedy to prevents exe traneous variance other than by having formulated a fully specified theory or by means of statistical signiticance tests and contrat ables (Figuée 3.1 is 10 some extent a way to handle spuriousness: by one in controlling For social and economic factor = X could estimate the relative influence of polities terms of a direct relationship; see also Peters 1998: 33-4). The best way to go in comparative polities, assuming that the ease selection is properly 0° ya ined in view of the theoretical relationship proposed, is to apply the principles of the Methods af Are ‘ment and Difference. Using these methods ware in a position to draw causal conclusions by m of logically ordering the differences and similar , (ie. variation across cases andior time) between the Commaalive selegzo oe caso cle peoielo dependent and in ‘empirical evidence th Methods of Agreement EA and Difference Lap Fite louie Goatparetive ing to the issues of thetype of variables developed (system system components) level, within systems, or intr and the number of eases (many, few, one) selec ted for comparison. ‘The level of inquiry indicates to what extent cases—countries, nations, years, or other units—are part of the universe of discourse (ice. the number of cases). And, as we have already seen, case selection has implications for the differen- tial use of the logies of comparison. In the literature ‘on comparative method two logics are distinguished: * [Indirect] Method of Difference + [Indirect] Method of Agreement These ‘logics’ refer to mode of descriptive infer- enge to examine a theoretical relationship(X — by mew of comparing cases and the related in formation (data) as systematized in yLriables (see also Janoaki and Hicks 1994; Ragin 2000; Pennings etal, 2006). The Methods of Difference and Agree ment were developed by Joba Stuart Mill in his A Sistew of Logie (1843), "The basie idea is that come Paring cases can be used to detect commonalities between cases and variables. The Method of Differ- ence focuses in particular on the variation of certain tures amongst others that do mor differ (dramat- ically) aeross comparable e Hence, co-variation between the dependent and independent variables is considered crucial under the assumption of holding the context constant (the ceteris paribus clause: all other things afe equal but for the hypothetical rel tionship). ‘This is the Mest Similar Systems De (MSSD); locating variables that-ditfer among. sin ilar systems, which account for observed political outcomes (the dependent variable). Alternatively, she Method of Agreement consists of comparing cases (or systems) in order to detect those relationships between X — Y that are similar not- withstanding the differences on other features of cases compared. Hence, ll other things being differ- ‘ni but for certain relationships that are considered to be causal (or effeet-produetive). This is the called Most Different Systems Design (MS cla kerk Ms ap lecoe 23 aeareopres Av uvbdile | de seanslhroria ov olifenrunen ¥ CArat\ Subba Systems 74 a ek y (Ndi 1. Gee UM) Osten Scasel Lat ost similar’ and ‘mast differ- Preeworski and Teune (1970) doing research in comparative = term indirect! methods points to more sophe “sions of the original method. The Indirect # Agreement aims at eliminating those vari- sases have in common, instead of all similarity per se. This elabor= 's useful since it helps to avoid biased results ‘cluding more cases that are seemingly different ‘Janoski and Hicks 1994: 14), Alternatively the Indir- ect Method of Difference can be seen as an extension he cases under review: some crucial variables are Positive (sharing some values) and others are nege ative. This extension helps to refine the analytical ‘esults and is frequently used in quantitative research | designs (see also the ideas on the so-called ‘Fuzzy. set tf logie’ of comparison helowy Cow: Mosh maths thus de 2, CCA on net * either to MSSD > Metbo af Pieroni chs 6F MSDS» Methyl af NS sc ‘This Yogic of comparisowon ih our parlance ‘clationship between research question an resenich sign, runs in practice as follows: in a MSSD, where wwe assume that the cases have mere circumstances in common {similar) than not, we interpret the re- search outcomes by concentrating on the variation across the cases, focusing explicitly on both the X and ¥ variables. Often this is called the ‘cross-system penatlon’ 3s the bass for expianation. A MDSD ap. Proach involves a comparison made on the basis of i dissimilarity in as many respects as possible by con- j entrating on commonalities across the easee the | txpectation is that this procedure is conducive tg : eliminate all ther circumstances as posible explans : ations and one explanation emerges in which ony if not all agree. Skoepol and Somers (1980) hare labelled this approach asthe ‘parallel demonstrating of theory’, Jn sum, the more circumstances the sclected cases have ia comshon, the more feasible itis to locate the vatlables that do differ and which can be coi ss part ofthe explanation. Conversely, itdisi ilacty in many respects is high across the cases, then these ‘ariables can be discounted as possible explanations, and there will be few (ideally only one) variables thar ew uve 9 Quy ba USM © Y Vg INGE § ae aby a (0 economy andl polities than they ate ullerent, A san 3uAs qhferaneny EE ee Chapter 3 Comparative r account for the comparative ent variable (Pennings etal. 2006: summarize both logics of comparative in iMustrate each logiesand system design by $n example based! on published research In Table 3.1 both logics of comparison are presen ted in conjunction with spectively the MDSD and MSSD. The last wo columns atthe right-hand side concern the way conclusions are drawn by means of the ‘method! and the descriptive inferences allowing for assessing the hypothetical relationship reflecting RQ— RA. The analysis of ‘does politics matter thet vas highlighted a5 an example was not only intended fo settle a debate, but was originally developed as Part of the study of the development of the we Sate, These studies focused mainly on the OFCD area (Armingeon and Beyeler 2004; sce also Chapter 22 velow). These countries are considered to have more 20 cominon in terms of their features with rapeet ‘major commonality is that they all share an identical Daltical-cconomie system: democratic systems af representative gover sent, om the ane lad, ei 1| acter by a macket economy. onthe he Over time, Particularly after the Second World War | the well fate emerged a iho 1974; Bsping-Andersen 1990 hapter 21 elon) ‘ened how tocxplain the divesityinweten any cross these most. similar countries, One of the hypo- thetical research ‘answers concerned party differences (left versus right) especially as regards their pres- i were selected in a MSSD format and the eine ‘were constructed to measure the relative ‘Strength and ideological preferences of parties in government. ‘The hypothesis under review became: the party dif | ferences between left and right will havean impacton end therefore aftect the level and direction of welfare State related expenditures. By assuming that all other circumstances Temained (more or less) the same or cPnstant, the resarchers wore able to tat shee Pothesis by examining the association between party composition and degree and type of weline eke Th short, the MSSD approach was used to apply the Method of Difference and by examining the co- ‘iriation beeen Xand Ytheconclusionyas meee | countries (Hlora tes 1998; as well as 00) BPO (202) PRPS de ofsme5 somes jownoup sou wr wuaxaysp 318 owoad sits [2 hor Brie afleve ate cena eee meee Pie 7 Aer uc asa peered “souRpEp r suowdops9p saddesip 01 spua1 woReRHOD » mmupuadxo 218 22639 Jo A] 21 29889 UONepaLTOD aamIsog « “anew sontd ssop :uoxs Su ~sonb ypsveses fo dui ayy pny pee munus2 08 ‘ ; Biron 67 949 CYP? nies oo) (na @ ev? made a difference if compared hat this relationship weakened ime (see also Janoski and Hicks concerns the conditions of ‘stable democracy’ art 1994; Stepan and Skach 1994), variable used concerned a formal of democracy by Dahl (1971): polyarchy, hat all the cases included could (and to large extent on other societal feature « dissimilar. The hypothesis entertained was: sence of and positive adherence to civil and Fights (freedom of speech, association, in- tion, the right to vote and to public protest were 4aid down in law but also safeguarded in ality; Dahl 1971) would be conducive to establish snocracy as ‘the only game in town’ and con- vently be enduring and stable. This relationship Detween political rights and democratic performance was tested by means of a MDSD for as many di ferent cases as feasible (in terms of available data) proeers: 22y-se1; analysis combined with ideal type analysis fe5 a new and innovative approach to examine quak tative and quantitative changes within cases, across Aceos Uber Cry 94 a Galton’s problem, (2) individual bb tansan ewe os Chaptey’. Comparative research / 7 nie Chess toamaay Fg. 36 Gas be etpe > See ee estas icin (oF isin sting is ving Pom A CailinFigite32)ivolveralonolintenson ea ously one way to counter this problem is to enlarge S&tVations reflet the original features of the concept, close 4 1). [ntension will obviously reduce the applicability of pLin-comparativ research aeross more cases, but it enhany ternal validity of the ea shave the oppos the in- will the questfon_e-then es compared. Exterisi whether or novi «. ina higher number of cases to rs the claim for ex- lytical results. In Figure 3.3, the choiee is viswalized: th ternal validity of the more the meaning of a concept moves due to the process of operationaliz- ation from position A to B, the less equivalent the information collected for each case may well he. ‘The choice to be made and the matter of dispute among comparativists is how broadly or extensively (ic. from A to B) can we define and measure variables without a serious loss of meanin ‘Thereare different nions on the degree of flexibility is allowed as regards to ‘stretching’ of concepts to make variables “travel” across (more) eases. On the ane hand, there is the constructivist view which tends to be eritical of the possiblity of comparing (and thus opt al- ‘most always for case studies). On the other hand, shere is the generalist view claiming that in essence all empirical knowlege is based on ‘methodological ‘ndividualism’ (see Chapter 2). In a way, both positions are exaggerated in the sense that—following the metaphor of Sartori’s “ladder of generality’—for the ‘gener lists’ A and cod as almost interchangeable and for wists) A aul Ware hardly’ ev Soeur’ idea ip that there isa delicate b cen the two positions: overstzetehing is dange' 4! not all concepts can travel all over the world tall Hime (Sartori 1994), In other words ere is no wisy way out of this problem and \e ‘her has to make up his own mind, Howe a few attempts have been made to develop met ods to cope with the problem of overstretching and Lravelling. Family resemblance Some comparativists have suggested the method of categorizing by means of “family resemblance’ (Cole lier and Mahon 1993: 846~8). In its simplest fashion, this method extends the initial concept by adding features which shere some of the attributes of the ‘original concept. How far this type of extension can ko depends on how specific the re For example if we are investigating the behaviour of political parties and define these as actors that ére ing (=A), office-sveking (= 8), and policy- secking (Ci, then the concepl ofa party ean be used ina wider senses depenuting on the research question, Ins ng that all three chasacteristies are resent simultaneously, we allow slso the inclusion ‘ol parties as sep, es that have only to out of three in common. However, if we are examining all three dimensions of party behaviour simultaneously then we cannot stretch the concept. arch question is, eal of requi Radial categories ‘The second option of going up the ‘ladder of general- ity’izthe use of radial categories. Here the underlying ‘dea is that each step of extension, and thus including ‘new comparable cases, is defined by ahierarchy of at tributes belonging tothe initial concept. In Figure 3.4 this is made visible by defining A as the essential at- tribute whereas B or C is considered as secondary. , An example is the study of corporatism: the orig- inal concept and its meaning was quite specific, but ‘gradually the operationalization widened to include more eases, but keeping the voluntary arrangem between employers’ orygnizations and trade u as an essential feature of the concept (Keman and Pennings 1995), All in-all, Figure 3.4 demonstrates these two strategies for extension through which the an ig | enon (AC) | Se ao Fig. 3.4 Racial categorization and family resemblance Source Penwings eal 2006 50, number of cases are to be increased, Family resemb- lance requires a degree of commonality and this produces three eases in comparison with one un- der the initial categorization, by sharing two out of the three defining. Features (AC, AB, BC). The radial method! reyuires thot the primary attribute (A) be always included. In Figure 3.4, this means two case instead of the original one ease (A + Band A+ C)* Equivalence A related problem of transforming concepts into empirically based indicators concerns the question of whether or not the meaning of a concept stays constant across time and space. Landman (2003 43-6) argues that this problem is less a matter of whether or not a concept is measured identically (which is a matter of reliability regarding the meas urement across cases), but more to what extent itcan be considered equivalent. As with the issue of conceptual travelling, there are various views on accepting equivalence (assum- ing stability of the measured concept), The so-called universalist point of view departs frome idea that 1 functions ofa political system are fulfilled every- where (Dogan andl Pelassy 1990: 42), Conversely the relativist position: 1s that the metning of a concept ‘more often than not different across systems due to cultural and anthropological reasons. T ence of opinion appears difficult to reconcile. Again, there is no easy or straightforward solution, Several options are mentioned in the literature which sug- gest controlling for cultural differences (Van Deth | is ditfer Hans Keman Conclusion s ago Gabriel town, a distinguished American comparativist laniented the lack of pro- es in political science at large (Almond 1990), His main complaint concerned the lack of constru collaboration among the practitioners. However, he mnasle an exception ax regards the fie ofcomparative polities CE ssainpiveat. comparative stunts, sottier than being, in {Vers ave thly and vary prouctves... 1 the Tot Riek alte Workl Wa the ee rigor fs eel significantly increased in quantitative, anal at hhistorica-sociological work. (Aimond 1980; 253) 99 Nor least the credit should go to those involved in the further development of the methodology of comparative polities. On the one hand, debates on dificult issues in the comparative method have been discv2sed for a long time now. On the other hand, new developments do take place and are widely wel- ‘This chapter has attempted to demonstrate this Theoughout 1 have maintained that cony politics isa (sub)discipline in political science where theory development is linked to empirical evidence by means of a rigorous application of the compara- tive method, Amongst other things this means that that the shared methodology is at the same time te means of communication between comparative political scientist Hence, developing a research design, formulating research question, and the pursuit of finding a valid research answer by means of a conscious selection of cases that can be made productive with the help of the logic of comparison, whilst being conscious of pitfalls and hazards, will enhance the progress ‘of comparative politics. ‘Therefore this chapter has approached the comparative method as the way 10 ‘obtain as many ofthe advantages as possible, but has also acknowledged some common problems. Even ‘comed, Rather than becoming involved in endléss inet all the problems—and they do exist—can be tnd bitter debates or forming competing ‘school’, solved at this stage, 1 hold the view that the com it seems that discussions are intended to meke parative method is the best way to go for political progress scientists, hy isthe ‘art of comparing not only useful bit also a necessary part of the toolkit of any political scientist? Give an example. Can you explain why the comparative method is often called ‘quasi-experimental’ method? Can you give an example? Try t0 elaborate whether oF nut the rues of internal or external validity ae violated in the folowing statements: + Political parties and social movements are‘ uvalents’and can be compared throughout the whole world + The development of welfare states must always be researched crossnationaly and over time. | | | Barty government in whatever potical system is proper for analysing the process of government formation. Ifyou re-examine the debate on ‘does politics matter’ can you describe the research design used? And, are | | you able ro develop a diferent one—in terns of variables and cases—to test the main issue ofthis debate alterna |, There are different options ss regards the type and number of eases newed fo develop a research design. Can you think of a research question that would justify the choice ofa single-case study where ‘time’ is not relevant and ‘inter-system references are unnecessary? ch methods 81 i Chapter 3 Comparative r i of examples that fit the proposed remedies to the problem of ‘conceptual st foctized in Figure 3.4? cis oe 2.istinction between ‘many cases and few variables’ and ‘few cases and many varia in comparative politic, List the pros and cons of the choice involved. rat's ‘Galton’s problem’ and why is it problem? Can you think of an example (eg, by naming a process of .5"fusion across comparable systems)? Describe the base difference is between the Methods of Agreement and Difference? Give an example. inte concluding section ofthis chapter ts stated tht the comparative method is the ‘best’ way to go for a | tical scientist. Can you give reasons why this Is indeed the case, o alternatively, can you argue that such @ statement Is too bold and coes not fit ‘al’ politcal science? = | . uae Further reading SS Se Sai "General literature on methads in potitical science | sey, HD and Collet, . (2008) Rethinking Socal Enguiy: Diese Took, Shared Standard Lanham, Md ‘Ronman 8 Litfiea)-This 23¢e> ume discuss a wide variety of methodologies concerns that are nie an Vert | | metnogsin general ard direcies eens the book by King, Ke || sumo Pca Kran. wd apanen 00) Aeeach eosin Pots xine PaliraveWacmnilan, Tis textbook dscuses a variety of subjects within social scence methods, Theses tne chapte: on comparative metocs, but other c ptr areas etl King G, Keohane, RB, and Verba, 5, (1996) Deslgning Soil Iau Princeton Princeton Univesity Pres) “Thsisa conterporaty casi in soil slence metnods and ween by thee politcal scientists. is abasic inreducion and wses much material taken fom e2mperaive pols, Pennings, P, Keman, H, and Kleinenhus J. 2008 Doing Reseerch i Poltial Science: An noduction to || Comparative Wethods and Statistes (London Sage, 2nd ec). This s course Dok intense for students | | mainly atthe Wand PhD evel is an nodtion to the use of ais in camparative esearch ana Contains a separate part nhere examples of publehed research are elaborates with numerous examples Specie terature on comparative methods Dogan, M., and Pease, D. (1980) How to Compare Notions: Strategies in Comparative Politics (Chatham, Ni: ‘Chatham House, 2nd edn) This useful inttoductic. was originaly published inthe 1980s and takes the student te several ofthe prblers mentioned in this chapter, making good se of existing research in comparative politics Petes, Guy (1896) aninarie ORs eary ond feos (Dasngrnke: Mes Man) Te s! s bock st relate explicit the varios types of Wecries Tm altial science to the comparative method. It esa gd overs of what sof research east using comparative methods Landman, T. (2007) Isqes and Methods in Comparative Politics: An introduction (London: Routledge, 2nd edn). This inroductoUy feat starts form the basis of comparative esearch and is problems and then discusses

    You might also like