Comparison: A Methodological Introduction for the Social Sciences

129 Pages·2018·4.677 MB·English

by  Leonardo Morlino

Leonardo Morlino
Comparison

Leonardo Morlino

Comparison
A Methodological Introduction for the
Social Sciences

Barbara Budrich Publishers
Opladen • Berlin • Toronto 2018
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or
introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means
(electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior
written permission of Barbara Budrich Publishers. Any person who does any
unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution
and civil claims for damages.

You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose
this same condition on any acquirer.

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from
Die Deutsche Bibliothek (The German Library)

© 2018 by Barbara Budrich Publishers, Opladen, Berlin & Toronto
www.barbara-budrich.net

ISBN 978-3-8474-2143-6
eISBN 978-3-8474-1146-8

Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Ver-
wertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustim-
mung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigun-
gen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in
elektronischen Systemen.

Die Deutsche Bibliothek – CIP-Einheitsaufnahme
Ein Titeldatensatz für die Publikation ist bei der Deutschen Bibliothek erhältlich.

Verlag Barbara Budrich Barbara Budrich Publishers
Stauffenbergstr. 7. D-51379 Leverkusen Opladen, Germany

86 Delma Drive. Toronto, ON M8W 4P6 Canada
www.barbara-budrich.net

Jacket illustration by Bettina Lehfeldt, Kleinmachnow – www.lehfeldtgraphic.de
Editing: Alison Romer, Lancaster, England
Typesetting: Anja Borkam, Jena, Germany
Table of Content
Preface ............................................................................................................ 7
1. Introduction: choosing the question? ....................................................... 9
1.1 Starting from the key aspect ....................................................................... 9
1.2 Further examples ...................................................................................... 10
2. Defining comparison ................................................................................ 13
2.1 The key questions ..................................................................................... 13
2.2 Classic thinkers ........................................................................................ 14
2.3 Modern theorists ....................................................................................... 15
3. Why compare? ......................................................................................... 20
3.1 The goals of comparison .......................................................................... 20
3.2 Nomothetic objectives and generalizations .............................................. 21
3.3 Explanation and understanding ................................................................ 25
3.4 What kind of theory should be adopted in political science? ................... 26
4. What to compare: the basic units ........................................................... 35
4.1 Identifying the issue ................................................................................. 35
4.2 Concepts and classes ................................................................................ 36
4.3 Properties and variables ........................................................................... 37
4.4 Operationalization .................................................................................... 40
4.5 The “many variables, small N” dilemma ................................................. 43
5. What to compare: space and time .......................................................... 46
5.1 Dimensions of comparison ....................................................................... 46
5.2 Deciding the space ................................................................................... 50
5.2.1 Case study ....................................................................................... 51
5.2.2 Other strategies ................................................................................ 53
5.3 Defining the time ...................................................................................... 55
5.4 The problem of multicollinearity ............................................................. 59
5
6. How to compare: the key mechanisms ................................................... 61
6.1 The available tools ................................................................................... 61
6.2 Ogden and Richards’ triangle ................................................................... 61
6.3 The rules of conceptualization ................................................................. 65
6.4 The Tree of Porphyry ............................................................................... 67
6.5 Classificatory strategies ............................................................................ 71
6.6 Mill’s canons ............................................................................................ 82
7. How to compare: recent developments .................................................. 86
7.1 In search of new rules for conceptualization ............................................ 86
7.2 Process tracing ......................................................................................... 89
7.3 The Configurational Comparative Method and
Qualitative Comparative Analysis ............................................................ 93
8. Beyond comparison: other research methods ..................................... 100
8.1 Data collection and relations between variables ..................................... 100
8.2 More about explanation, generalization and theory ............................... 102
8.3 Experimental and non-experimental methods ........................................ 104
8.4 Statistical method ................................................................................... 106
8.4.1 The number of cases ...................................................................... 108
8.4.2. Logic ............................................................................................ 108
8.5 Historical method ................................................................................... 109
9. Conclusions. The limits of comparison ................................................. 113
Bibliographical References........................................................................ 117
Index ............................................................................................................ 127

6
Preface
This short book aims at offering a simple introduction to students interested in
gaining an understanding of what the comparative method is and how it can be
applied. Consequently, it is meant to be very simple and easy to be read and
understood, but at the same time it intends to grasp and communicate the key
meaning and usefulness of a method of empirical analysis, the comparison,
which can be used at different levels and with different purposes.
The work is a follow up of a previous book I published in 2005 and that
later on was translated in Spanish (2010) and French (2013). Thus, there is a
long history behind it. I had the first idea of writing a book like this in 1990,
my aim being to deepen a reflection on comparison that I had begun together
with Giovanni Sartori and a group of Italian colleagues, which brought to the
publication of a jointly edited volume (Sartori and Morlino, 1991). However,
the initial idea would have remained nothing more than an intention if I had
not accepted an offer to teach a course on the “methodology of comparison” at
the Institut d’Etudes Politiques in Paris for two years (1992 and 1993). For this
I am still very grateful to Stefano Bartolini, who encouraged me to accept that
offer even though I had too many academic commitments at the time. Of those
two years there have remained my systematic lecture notes, a small booklet of
handouts and, above all, wonderful memories of engaged, hardworking stu-
dents.
Although various Italian and foreign colleagues, who knew about these
notes and handouts, asked me from time to time if they could see them and
circulate them among their students, there were no further developments. But
during the 1990s, a number of concrete experiences of comparative empirical
research on the field made me more aware of the methodological problems that
had to be addressed, and of the need to clarify them above all to myself in a
simple manner. The completion of this intellectual task would not have yielded
anything more than a “pious wish” if Francesco Raniolo had not offered to sort
out the notes and materials himself in order to make a proper book of them. I
am very grateful to him, because if I had not started from the new draft version
he prepared I would never have managed to produce the work I submitted to
the attention of students and colleagues. Stefano Bartolini, Francesco Raniolo,
Cecilia Sottilotta and Claudius Wagemann kindly agreed to provide with
additional suggestions on how to improve the book, and I would like to thank
them for their patience and their very useful comments. I also would like to
thank Giovanni Orsina and Daniela Di Cagno for their help in fine-tuning the
differences with the historical method and experimentation.
To the usual disclaimers about my responsibility about the mistakes in the
book still have one additional remark should be added. If despite the help of
colleagues and students I was so lucky to receive during all these years the
7
book still presents deficiencies and mistakes then I would be better to change
job…although I should admit that it is too late.
Rome, May 1st, 2017
Leonardo Morlino

8
1. Introduction: choosing the question?
1.1 Starting from the key aspect
A preliminary part of any research purporting to be “scientific”, even in a broad
sense, is a conscious analysis of the methodology. This is also the case when
comparative interests are concerned. With the help of existing knowledge, that
is, the literature we are aware of, we start by identifying and bringing into focus
our interest in and curiosity about a certain topic. Then we pose a question, or
research issue, about it. After that, we formulate one or more working hypoth-
eses choose which countries to study and move on to survey and collect the
essential data required to provide an answer to the issue by empirically testing
the hypothesis or hypotheses.
It is essential that explicit and clearly defined criteria are used when choos-
ing the countries or areas on which to conduct research. In reality, the interest
in a certain country is often preeminent and exists beforehand, and this on its
own determines the topic of research. If so, the sequence outlined above (in-
terest – research issue – working hypotheses – choice of countries – data to
collect – empirical test of hypotheses) will be different, with the choice of
country coming earlier. Furthermore, any component of a research project can
actually come before another one. For example, if the principal goal is to test
a hypothesis, this feature will influence every other aspect and choice. The
sequence proposed above is therefore often an ex post rationalization. In a dif-
ferent perspective, one aspect influences another: a given research issue sug-
gests which countries to choose; the availability of certain data suggests both
the research topic and the countries to choose; and as just said above, an inter-
est in certain countries might influence all the other aspects. If there were any
need, this further confirms that the abstract sequence is actually shaped by a
number of different aspects.
At any rate, to begin with the first point, following a correct procedure en-
tails immediate clarification, right at the start of the research, of exactly what
question is being asked. But if the analysis is to be significant, it is very im-
portant that the question is of political relevance. An honest and self-critical
appraisal of what has been done in political science since the Second World
War requires an acknowledgement that in some cases undue prominence has
been given to minor and relatively unimportant themes. This has happened
everywhere, due both to a certain hyper-specialization and to the difficulty of
tackling the real and most significant problems. In seeking to describe the ir-
relevance of some research, one author has called it the “tragedy” of political
science (Ricci 1987).
9