Constant Comparative

Method and
Contrasting Cases and
Ideal Type Analysis

Presented by :

Dan Lhery S. Gregorious

Constant
Comparative
Method
The constant comparative method is used by the researcher
to develop concepts from the data by coding and analyzing
at the same time (Taylor &
Bogdan, 1998).

The constant comparative method combines systematic

data collection, coding, and analysis with theoretical
sampling in order to generate theory that is integrated,
close to the data, and expressed in a form clear enough for
further testing” (Conrad, Neumann, Haworth, & Scott, 1993,
p. 280).
 Constant comparative methodology
incorporates four stages:

01 comparing incidents applicable to

each category,

02 integrating categories and their

properties,

03 delimiting the theory

04 writing the theory

Throughout the four stages of the constant
comparative method, the researcher continually
sorts through the data collection, analyzes and
codes the information, and reinforces theory
generation through the process of theoretical
sampling. The benefit of using this method is
that the research begins with raw data; through
constant comparisons a substantive theory will
emerge (Glaser & Strauss). Grounded theory is
a labor-intensive task that requires the
researcher to invest time in the processes of
analysis and data collection.
Comparative methods

• Comparative methods and case study method

• Case study is a common form of analysis in comparative studies
• Intense study of one or two cases (e.g. countries)
• Can provide context and better cultural or institutional framework for
statistical results
Comparative methods

• Lijphart identifies 6 ‘ideal’ types of case study methods

• Atheoretical case studies – descriptive analysis
• Interpretative case studies – selected for analysis due to an interest in that
particular case (apply generalisation and evaluate specific instance)
• Hypothesis generating case studies – intent is to inductively investigate case
in order to produce theoretical framework to test variables quantitatively
Comparative methods

• Theory-confirming case studies

• Theory-infirming case studies
• Both are involve the application of a generalised theory to specific instances
• Theory confirming are case studies which affirm the propositions of the theory
• Theory infirming weaken the generalisations of the theory
• Deviant case studies – Instances where a case goes against generalisations,
investigated to evaluate why it is ‘deviant’ from theoretical expectations
Comparative methods

• Kaarbo and Beasley (1999) examine comparative case studies on the

individual level (as opposed to the aggregate level where one nation is
viewed as one case)

• Kaarbo and Beasley (1999) define

• ‘comparative case study’ is the systematic comparison of two or more data points
(“cases”) obtained through use of the case study method,’ (p. 372)
Comparative methods

• They go on:
• ‘The case study, in other words, often uses a number of techniques for
gathering information—from interviews to surveys to content analysis—but it
is not necessary to use multiple sources or types of evidence in order to
perform a case study…. we feel that case studies can be very qualitative and
narrative in form, and they can be very quantitative and analytic in form,’ (p.
373)
Comparative methods

• Kaarbo and Beasley (1999) on how to do case studies

• Recommend “method of structured, focused comparison” (George, 1979)
• ‘Structured’ because research is guided by general questions
• ‘Focused’ because it deals with a specific issues or aspects of the historical
case
Comparative methods

• As the authors note, these steps should sound familiar as good

general principles of research design: logical thinking, common sense
and rigor in design strategy
Comparative methods

• Kaarbo and Beasley (1999)

• Step 1: Identify Specific Research Question for Focused Comparison
• “How” and “why” questions focused on underlying process(es)
• Identify the class of phenomena: “What is this a case of?”
• Step 2: Identify Variables From Existing Theory
• “What factors (variables) or conditions have hypothesized to explain this?”
• Make explicit the factors predicted/thought to be most important for explaining the
phenomenon of interest
Comparative methods

• Step 3: Case Selection

• Can be drawn randomly from a population to eliminate the danger of selection bias
• How to ‘control’ for other effects? Control for the comparative case study method is
achieved through case selection:
1. Comparable cases,
2. Cases that vary on the dependent variable, and
3. Cases across subgroups of the population to address alternative explanations
Comparative methods

• Comparable cases
• Cases which are as similar as possible: minimizes the number of explanatory
variables
• Comparability depends on the theoretical basis of the study: what are
relevant vs. irrelevant differences
• Cases should be selected in an attempt to control for known or suspected
alternative causes of the relationship you are investigating!
Comparative methods

• Cases that vary on the dependent variable

• Case selection should allow for the possibility of variation in the values of the
dependent variable
• Without variation in the dependent variable we cannot make causal
inferences if the same explanatory variables are present in cases in which the
phenomenon is absent
• Cases based on variation in explanatory variables
• Cases based on variation in the values of the dependent variable
Comparative methods

1) Cases based on variation in explanatory variables (ones posited to

cause the change)
• ‘Relationship between stress and the quality of decision-making’
• Select cases where stress was present (or high)
• Select cases where stress was absent (or low)
• Investigate how these independent variables related to the quality of
decision-making
Comparative methods

2) Cases based on variation in the values of the dependent variable:

• Previous example: ‘If…stress turns out to be unrelated to decision-making
quality (the dependent variable), then this is all the research can conclude.
• If…cases of good and poor decision-making (the dependent variable) are
chosen…if stress turns out to be unrelated, the researcher can investigate
other variables in the cases that might be related to decision-making quality,’
(p. 382)
Comparative methods

3) Cases across subgroups of the population

• Choose cases with an alternative explanation in mind
• may include variation across some dimension associated with an alternative
explanation
• attempts to demonstrate the relationship holds across different subgroups of
a population
• Provides rational to resist assertion of an alternative explanation for same
phenomena
Comparative methods

• Step 4: Operationalize Variables and Construct a Case Codebook

• Record and report the way the data were collected
• Specify in advance what is necessary for the evidence to be coded in a
particular way
• In qualitative research this may be an iterative process as well – but
document your process
• Pilot studies may be necessary to refine concepts
Comparative methods

• Step 5: Code-Write Cases

• Narrative case study (narrative tells a story based on the variables) is the most
used and preferred form (Yin, 1994).
• Allows the researcher to show the variables in their context.
• Demonstrates the realism and temporal progression
• Any uncertainty on the part of the analyst should also be presented (King et
al., 1994)
Comparative methods

• Step 6: Comparison and Implications for Theory

• Look for patterns within and across cases
• Congruence procedure: analyst determines whether any independent variables
differentiate across the different outcomes of the dependent variable (George &
McKeown, 1985)
• Pattern matching:
• a single predicted pattern is compared to the pattern observed in the cases, or
• mutually exclusive rival patterns can be compared for their consistency with the pattern
observed in your cases (Yin, 1994, p. 108).
Constant Comparative
Method and
Contrasting Cases and
Ideal Type Analysis

Presented by :

Dan Lhery S. Gregorious