Advantages of a Comparative Methodology - Essay Example

Running head: SOCIAL What added value and what problems might a comparative element bring to a case study ___________ ________________________ ________________ What added value and what problems might a comparative element bring to a case study Introduction This paper has the primary objective to trace the important elements of a comparative methodology, which is primarily an inductive approach that is deployed by a good number of contemporary social science research efforts on the philosophical standing of the positivist tradition. The chief attraction of a comparative methodology is found in the fact that it allows its user to replicate and approximate the controlled conditions of laboratory experiments that are normally deployed and used in the natural and medical sciences. However comparative methodology has several limitations when deployed in understanding the social science phenomena. This paper as the main task of tracing out the advantages of a comparative methodology that result in value addition in case study analysis ,on the one hand, and, on the other, this paper also explains the various pitfalls that are encountered in social science research when it deploys the comparative methodology. This analysis is achieved by carrying out a literature review in support of arguments in favour of and against the comparative methodology and by citing literature involving case studies that deployed comparative analysis as methodology. Case Studies deploying Comparative Methodology Seligson & Tucker (2003) report an interesting cross country study of two very different nations i.e. Bolivia and Russia. They attempt to arrive at conclusions regarding preference for ex-authoritarian rulers in public elections in each of these two countries which are otherwise very divergent in social, economic and geopolitical characteristics. In order to derive such conclusions the research deployed the comparative methodology. The researchers explain their research setting, conclusions and variables in following words, "In our research we find that a preference for authoritarian regime types is a key predictor of support for ex-authoritarian candidates for president in two vastly different countries: Bolivia and Russia. Despite the different past and contemporary economic and political characteristics of these two countries, voters choose to support ex-authoritarian candidates in free elections in part because they favor authoritarian regime types. Social capital variables, though, seem to have no effect on this vote choice. Pro-authoritarian attitudes, however, are not the only factors driving support for these candidates. In the Bolivian case our evidence suggests that voters may also prefer ex-authoritarian candidates because of concern over unemployment and corruption. In the Russian case, concern over the state of the national economy clearly plays a role. In both countries, older voters are more likely to support ex-authoritarian candidates. In Russia we find similar patterns for poorer and working class voters as well. As we have examined only two cases in which voters have cast their ballots for former authoritarians, there remain many questions for future research. As a first step, it would be illuminating to examine whether we find similar patterns in other post-communist and Latin American countries in an effort to make sure we have not merely stumbled upon an exclusively Bolivian-Russian connection. Moreover, this analysis was deliberately limited to Presidential elections to facilitate more seamless comparison across the two cases. Having established a realistic basis for comparison, future work could consider parliamentary elections, as well as sub-national elections, in hopes of seeking further evidence of the generalizability of our findings". It is clear from the above that the researchers are very wary of the conclusions reached by them after this comparative analysis. They mention the factors that may affect the conclusions either way. This is a very glaring limitation of the comparative analysis that it has to have a very wide ceterus paribus clause constructed within-even though it may be pretty tough to construct given disparities across the nations. It is for this reason that the researchers want to extend their research focus to not only other countries in East Europe and Latin America but also to more category of elections within such countries and the countries taken up b them for examination. Thus generalizing across several factors that may determine conclusions is one major pitfall of using comparative method. On the other hand, a comparative method may allow us to highlight distinct patterns amongst dissimilar national circumstances. Seligson & Tucker (2003) emphasize this very point when they draw from literature support and argue that comparative elements help in maintaining a micro bias while still drawing conclusions and the different circumstances help rile out other unmeasured factors that may have impacted the outcomes. In this respect Seligson & Tucker state as follows, "While acknowledging the stark differences between Russia and Bolivia, these differences have the advantage of allowing us to search for similarities among the cases by employing a least-similar-systems design (Keman 1999, 11-12; Przeworski and Teune 1970). We follow the advice of Peters (1998, 38-40), who writes that a "most different design" is the best strategy when the researcher is looking at individual behavior, as we are here in our examination of voter choice. According to Peters, this design allows us to spot robust relationships that hold in different places, which can give us "greater confidence that there is a true relationship, not one produced by some unmeasured third or fourth or fifth variables that exist in all relatively similar systems" (Peters 1998, 40). The differences between Bolivia and Russia make any similarities that we find in the motivations of their electorates more consequential for attempts at theory building than had the countries we are studying shared traits in the way that countries from a similar region, such as Latin American or Eastern Europe, do with each other. Moreover, as the phenomenon of voting for ex-authoritarian rulers is indeed a truly international one, comparative analysis across traditional regional boundaries is a useful means of advancing the literature. By focusing on two countries, we are able to preserve the advantage of detailed micro-level analysis of specific voting behavior while at the same time introducing a comparative dimension to the analysis". Vatter (2007) seems to point out to another major advantage of a comparative method. He states that choice of appropriate sub national units may help in obviating the need to build an extra ordinarily tough and strong ceterus paribus required normally in cross nations studies. Vatter lauds his chosen comparative methodology based research design in following words, "The advantage of our research design is that by comparing different political systems on a sub-national level, a central problem of international comparative research is avoided. Comparisons of nation states must take account of specific political forms and regulations as well of particular institutional contexts. In contrast, it is potentially less difficult to create ceteris paribus conditions for a systematic comparison of cantonal systems. Since the Swiss cantons are units within the same national political framework, they have many characteristics in common that can be treated as constants. Nevertheless, the range of variation of the political institutional variables is often as great or even greater than what occurs in comparative studies at the national level. Thus, the systematic comparison of Swiss cantons has the advantage of meeting the requirements of the most similar systems research designs (Przeworski and Teune 1970)". Literature Review Literature also supports and lists out the various facets of the comparative methodology in the form of advantages and disadvantages and gives out the various arguments that are used in taking care of such pros and cons so as to arrive at more realistic and acceptable conclusions. Dogan and Pelassy (1990) furnish a rather comprehensive and elaborate description of the advantages of comparison, and the pivotal role of inductive logic based comparison method in theory-building. Rose (1991) traverses the same set of arguments and lists out the advantages of using comparative methodology and his conclusions resemble those of Dogan and Pelassy and Peters. However, Rose lays more stress on the function of concepts as building blocks within any comparative methodology based research design. This also illustrates that comparative method can help build such concepts which in turn can lead to more research conclusions and possibly development of more research concepts. Rose also gives out another major advantage of the comparative method in that such a methodology can be used in "lesson-drawing" or learning and cites that as a strong enough reason for deploying a comparative methodology. Lidstrom (1999) suggests that inter governmental comparisons are best taken up through inductive logic based comparative methodology and points out that there are very few inter governmental studies that have succeeded by deploying a deductive research design. Similarly Gregg (1974) recommends the use of comparative methodology in studies that involve researching intergovernmental contexts. This establishes that comparative method does have a value addition role in all case studies involving intergovernmental contexts. Mahoney (1999) also explains very clearly the important role of the comparative methodology in the construction of causal explanations with the help of concrete illustartiosn.This is quite akin to the above argument that concepts could be built which help the theoretical research further. The established causality is an important input in building concepts. In fact entire economic theory can be shown to be resting on a few such established causalities. Similarly Teune (1990) has advanced a good collection of most updated overview of the various pros and cons involved in the deployment of the comparative approach, reviewing the history of the field's research questions and theory. Quantitative comparative methodology suffers from the problem of small sample size. In this respect Lijphart's (1971) article on the "small n" problem and his emphasis on necessity to increase observations, as well as Eckstein's (1975) argument recommending for use of crucial case studies for bettering the quality of the quantitative and qualitative comparative research methods deserve a special mention. There prescriptions would tend to add value to most case studies taken up in social science research through deployment of comparative method. Snyder (2000) makes observations in respect of problems faced in cross nations comparative studies which echo the arguments presented in the Vatter (2007) Snyder recommends using sub-nation case study as above in order to improve the variety of the comparative method. Conclusions From the above discussions it is clear that comparative method has got specific pros and cons and the group that outweighs the other depends upon the circumstances of the study. In the end we must agree with Kittel (2004) who states that, "On such a higher level of abstraction, cooperative situations at different levels of group formation can be analyzed and compared. The more a macro phenomenon is analytically divided into smaller modules consisting of a single mechanism referring to a short link which is theoretically well-based on a micro regularity, the less difficult it is to replace the representative agent by a transformation mechanism based on an interactive relationship. From that perspective, the explanation of a complex macro phenomenon rests on the combination of a set of theoretical modules, each of which, in turn, is based on an empirical regularity at the micro level. Hence, this approach also ends up on the problem of the micro foundation without being able to recur to the simple solution of the representative agent. But the theory modules are more easily captured than the initial research question and the representative agent is less cumbersomely replaced by a partial model of aggregation resting on an interactive relationship". References Seligson Amber L. & Tucker Joshua A.(2003). Feeding the Hand that Bit You: Voting for Ex-Authoritarian Rulers in Bolivia and Russia. .Keman, Hans. 1999. "Comparative Methodology." In Doing Research in Political Science: An Introduction to Comparative Methods and Statistics, eds. Jan Kleinnijenhuis, Hans Keman, and Paul Pennings. London: Sage Publications. Przeworski, Adam and Henry Teune. 1970. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: Wiley-Interscience. Peters, B. Guy. 1998. Comparative Politics: Theory and Method. New York: New York University Press. Vatter Adrian.(2007). Lijphart Goes Regional: Different Patterns of Consensus in Swiss Democracies. West European Politics,Vol. 30, No. 1, 148 - 171, January 2007. Dogan, Mattei and Dominique Pelassy. 1990. Chapter 2. Comparing to Find Sociological Rules, in How to Compare Nations: Strategies in Comparative Politics. 2nd ed. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House. pp. 15-23. Rose, Richard. 1991. Comparing Forms of Comparative Analysis. Political Studies 39 (3): 446-62. P.M. Gregg (1974), Units and levels in analysis: A Problem of Policy Analysis in Federal Systems; Publius 1974 (4), 59-86. Lidstrom, Anders. 1999. The Comparative Study of Local Government Systems - A Research Agenda. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 1: 97-115. Mahoney, James. 1999. Nominal, Ordinal, and Narrative Appraisal in Macrocausal Analysis. American Journal of Sociology. 104 (4): 1154-96. (Suggested pp. 1154-69, and conclusion 1188- 1193). Teune, Henry. 1990. "Comparing Countries: Lessons Learned," in Comparative Methodology: Theory and Practice in International Social Research, Else Oyen, ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lijphart, Arend. 1971. Co mparative Politics and the Comparative Method. American Political Science Review 65 (3): 682-693. Snyder, Richard. 2001. Scaling Down: The Subnational Comparative Method. Studies in Comparative International Development 36 (1): 93-110. Eckstein, H. (1975) Case Study and Political Theory. In: F.I. Greenstein and N. Polsby (ed.) Handbook of Political Science, Addison-Wesley, pp. 79-137. Kittel Bernhard .(2004). A Crazy Methodology On the Limits of Macroquantitative Social Science Research. Inaugural lecture at the University of Amsterdam, held on 13 May 2004. Read More