Transcript Slide 1
Professor: Lee KyuYoung Presenters: Thongmala SAYAVONG , Jin –Se Lee Dec 2nd 2013 Lijphart, Arend. “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method.” American Political Science Review. 65:3 (August 1971), pp. 682-693 Collier, David. “The Comparative Method: Two Decades of Change.” Rustow, Dankwart A./Erickson, Kenneth P. (eds.). Comparative Political Dynamics: Global Perspectives. New York: Harper Collins, 1991, pp. 7-31 Little, Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science. Boulder: Westview Press, 1991, Chapt. 2. pp. 13-38 Experimental Method Statistical Method Comparative Method Case Study Method Innovention Relevant to Comparative Method Casual Analysis The article covers: Contribution to “conscious thinking” in comparative politics by Focusing on comparison as a method of political inquiry Analyzing weakness & great strengths of comparative method be awared of and guided by the logic and methods of empirical science in quantitative research technique. 1 : experimental method 3 : nonexperimential method: Statistical, Comparative, Case Study Method. Experimental Method Merit: Eliminates rival explanations through experimental control Problem: Experimental control is impossible for many most topics of relevance to field of comparative politics. Statistical Method Merit: Assesses rival explanations through statistical control Problem: Difficult to collect adequate info in a sufficient num of cases, coz of limit time & resources It is a method rather than simply a convenient term t o symbolize one’s research interests. ② It is defined as one of the basic scientific methods, not the scientific method. ③ It is regarded as a method of discovering empirical r elationships among variables, not as a method of m easurement – ④ a clear distinction should also be made between me thod and technique. ① “the comparative method is a “broad-gauge, general m ethod, not a narrow, specialised technique.” Lijphart. The analysis of small number of cases when there is an intermediate number of cases then a com bination of the statistical and comparative methods is appro priate. Merit Problem Give time, financial resources, intensive analysis of a few cases may be more compromising then the superficial statistic analysis of many cases weak capacity to sort out rival explanations specifically, problem from “many variables, few cases” Weakness: Problem from arising "many variables, small N.“ It is difficult for researchers to find sufficient similar cases to control f or other possible factors. Comparative studies lead to less generalizable conclusions When possible cases are limited, data selection may pre-determine the hypothesis How to minimize the problem? ① ② ③ ④ Increase the number of cases as much as possible Reduce the “property-space” of the analysis Focus the comparative analysis on “comparable” cases Focus the comparative analysis on the “key” variables Case studies can make an important contribu tion to the establishment of general proposi tions and thus to theory building in political science Merit: allows intensive examination of cases even with limited resources. Problem: Contributes less to building theory than studies with more cases. ① Atheoretical case studies; ② Interpretative case studies; ③ Hypothesis-generating case studies; ④ Theory-confirming case studies; ⑤ Theory-infirming case studies; ⑥ Deviant case studies; Altheoretical Interpretativ CS e CS Selected bcoz Interested in case or in theoretical building. Traditional singlecountry or single-case analysis Do not aim to contribute to empirical generalizatio n. Not mainly formulate hypothesis, BUT It indirectly contribute to theoretical building. (Some data) Aim to apply generalizatio n to the case, not develop the generalizatio n. Hypothesisgenerating CS Theoryconfirming CS Theoryinfirming CS Deviant CS Selected for purpose of theoretical building It aims to develop theoretical generalizatio n in area where no theory exists yet *Serve to generalize new hypothesis •Analysis of single case within framework of establishing generalization (Limit signal variable or those not related) •Test of the proposition Strength merely proposition in weaken the question generalizatio s marginally Analyze single case that is known to differ from establishing generalizatio n. *Refine and sharpens existing hypothesis *Implicitly comparative Analyses Why do many comparativists to stick only few cases ? bcoz several development: The risk of interpretive social science, The success of comparative historical analysis, The systematization of case study procedures, Intellectual & institutional strength of area studies, Skepticism about quantitative & statistical analysis among small – N specialists & statisticians. New Techniques: new statistical test suitable to “small – N ” analysis ▪ If these new techniques are used by scholars with good quantitative analysis, area studies skills and sensitivity to context a stepping stone on the path toward statistical analysis. Broadened Understanding of Types of Comparative Studies 1. Emphasize on interpretive understanding 2. Idea of a “research cycle” among the type (Skocpol & Somers) Further Justifications for Focus on a Small-N Debates on Solutions to Problem of Many Variables, Small-N 1. To pursue “disciplined 1. Value of increasing configurative approach” number of cases (Verba, Reinforced by 2. Comparable cases VS Almond & Genco) contrasting cases 2. To avoid problem of 3. Reducing number of “conceptual stretching” variables in (Sartori) conjunction with using 3. To facilitate “thick stronger theory description” and other forms of interpretive understanding (Greertz & many others) 4. To achieve analytic depth of case-oriented approach Mechanism and Casual Laws A Casual mechanism is a series of events governed by law like regularities that lead from the explanans to the explanandum. Social phenomena are constituted by individuals whose behavior is the result of their rational decision making and non-rational psychological processes that some times are at work What sorts of things have casual properties that affect social phenomena? 1. The fact that agents are prudent and calculating about their interests produces a set of regularities encapsulated by rational choice theory. 2. The fact that human beings conform to loose set of psychological laws permits us to draw cause-effect relations between a given social environment and a pattern of individual behavior The Inductive Regularity Criterion The general idea is the Human notion that casual relations consist only in patterns of regular association between variables, classes of events, and the like. How does the statistical relevance test contribute to an explanation of probabilistic phenomena? The IR criterion should be understood as a source of casual hypotheses and a method to evaluate them empirically. Necessary and Sufficient Condition Casual explanations usually depend on the assumption. We may also distinguish between standing conditions and instigating conditions within a casual field The most important defect of the analysis of casual relations in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions is tied to the fact. Forms of Casual reasoning 1. The case-study method - The most common way to support such a casual analysis is by providing an account of the particular casual mechanisms linking various parts of the story. - To credibly identity casual mechanisms we must employ one of two forms of inference 1. We may use a deductive approach, establishing casual connections between social factors based on a theory of the underlying processes. 2. We may use a broadly inductive approach, justifying the claim that A caused B on the ground that events of type A are commonly associated with events of type B. The construction of a casual story based on a particular case, then, requires two things. - Fairly detailed knowledge about the sequence of events within the large historical process and credible theoretical. - Inductive hypotheses about various kinds of social causation. 2. The comparative method - In the comparative approach the investigator identifies a small number of cases in which the phenomenon of interest occurs in varying degrees and then attempts to isolate the casual processes. - The comparative study often uses a form of Mill’s methods. - Theda Skocpol ,who is a prominent exponent , describes her method in these terms. “The overriding intent is to develop, test, and refine casual, explanatory, hypotheses about events or structures integral to macro-units.” - She suggests social unrest cannot be the immediate cause of revolution otherwise all agrarian societies would undergo revolution. 3. Mills methods - The comparative method depends heavily on an analysis of casual reasoning provided by John Stuart Mill in his System of Logic - The methods can define the methods of agreement and difference. - These are methods aimed at identifying the cause of an event by observing variations in antecedent conditions for repeated occurrences of the event. What Mill’s methods cannot handle are complex causation and probabilistic causation. In spite of these limitations, however, Mills methods underline much reasoning about causation in the social sciences. 1. Lijphart recommends “to greater use of comparative method to complement statistical method in literature”. Do you think so? In your opinion what is the strength of comparative method? 2. Among experimental method (1 )and nonexperiemental methods (3), which method do you think is the most efficiently and appropriately imply to construct in social science research?