POLS 373 Foundations of Comparative Politics Week One, Lecture One/ Session Two Introduction to the Comparative Method October 3, 2006

The Basics of Comparing The First Lesson “Thinking without comparison is unthinkable. And, in the absence of comparison, so is all scientific thought and scientific research.”

The Basics of Comparing The First Lesson To say that “thinking without comparison is unthinkable” is to say that: comparing unavoidable in everyday life, and comparing is the foundation of understanding

The Basics of Comparing The First Lesson To say that comparison is avoidable and the foundation of understanding raises two important questions: First, if we all compare, all the time, then why bother study about comparing? Second, if all scientific thought and scientific research is based on comparison, then why is there a need for a field called comparative politics?

The Basics of Comparing The First Lesson If we all compare, all the time, then why bother study about comparing? The answer: just because we all compare, all the time, doesn’t mean our comparisons are “good”; thus, we need to study about comparing in order to do it correctly

The Basics of Comparing The First Lesson If all scientific thought and scientific research is based on comparison, then why is there a need for a field called comparative politics? In principle, there really isn’t a need for a separate field of study called comparative politics In practice, however, comparative politics serves a very useful purpose, since by creating such a field of study in the social sciences, you compel scholars and students to adopt a direct and explicit focus on the comparative method

The Basics of Comparing The First Lesson Much more time will be spend discussing in some depth and detail the comparative method, but first … Let’s discuss some very general points about the comparative method or comparative analysis

The Basics of Comparing General Point The comparative method entails two main predispositions: First, a bias towards qualitative as opposed to quantitative analysis Second, a bias toward interpretation and context Taken together, this means that researchers who use the comparative method tend to take history very seriously

The Basics of Comparing The Importance of History Q: What does it mean to take history seriously? A: Taking history seriously means showing exactly how historical processes and practices, as well as long established institutional arrangements, impact and shape the contemporary environment in which decisions are made, events unfold, and struggles for power occur. It means, in other words, demonstrating a meaningful continuity between the past and the present

The Basics of Comparing Some Important Questions Why Compare? Answer No. 1: We compare to “test” our claims or arguments about social, political or economic phenomena. Another way of saying this is that we compare to control. Comparing to control, however, is not the only purpose of comparing, as some scholars claim.

The Basics of Comparing Some Important Questions Why Compare? Answer No. 2: We also compare to understand and to explain. Comparing to understand implies that the researcher is primarily interested in a single case and uses different cases or general theories as a way to learn more about the case he/she is studying. Researchers who want to explain something through comparison begin with the assumption that the sheer complexity of real-world cases make control a worthwhile, but impossible to achieve goal. At the same time, they believe we can use comparisons to build theories step-by-step or case-by-case.

The Basics of Comparing A summary of the three general purposes of comparing

The Basics of Comparing: More Important Questions What is Comparable? What Can We Compare? It depends. It other words, the question, what is comparable, does not have a fixed answer. The answer always depends on the purposes of the researcher and the research question. To illustrate, consider the saying, “You’re comparing apples to oranges.” The implication, of course, is that apples and oranges are not comparable, but … … is it really the case that you cannot compare apples to oranges?

The Basics of Comparing: Comparing Apples to Oranges Depending on the question you are asking, apples may not be comparable to oranges, but they also very well could be …

The Basics of Comparing: Comparing Apples to Oranges If, for example, you want to know which fruit is healthier for children, comparing apples and oranges makes perfect sense (in fact, research has shown that oranges are generally better for a child’s overall health than apples), but … if we want to compare the suitability of different kinds of apples for apple pie, then comparing apples and oranges makes no sense at all.

The Basics of Comparing Some Important Questions Q: Is a comparison between the US and Haiti appropriate? A: In principle, yes, but we can only really answer this question until we know what the purpose of the researcher is.

The Basics of Comparing Some Important Questions Back to the initial question: What can we compare? The answer is “entities whose attributes are in part shared (similar) and in part non-shared.”

The Basics of Comparing Some Important Questions What does it mean to say that we can compare “entities whose attributes are in part shared (similar) and in part non-shared”? For example, this means that countries are comparable, because they all share some attributes, but also differ in other ways, fruits are comparable for the same reason. On the other hand, countries and fruits are NOT comparable, because there are no shared attributes.

The Basics of Comparing One more point: Comparisons need not be limited to countries: events (like a war or revolution) are comparable; political or social institutions are comparable (e.g. the executive branch, the military, economic agencies); policies are comparable, and so on. We can call all of these “cases.”

The Basics of Comparing Advantages of Comparing The most important advantage is ability to deal with complex causality. Okay … but, what is “complex causality”?

The Basics of Comparing Advantages of Comparing Complex causality. An explanation: … [first] rarely does an outcome of interest to social scientists have a single cause. The conditions conducive for strikes, for example, are many; there is no single condition that is universally capable of causing a strike. Second, causes rarely operate in isolation. Usually, it is the combined effect of various conditions, their intersection in time and space, that produces a certain outcome. Thus, social causation is often both multiple and conjectural, involving different combinations of causal conditions.

The Basics of Comparing Advantages of Comparing Complex causality. An explanation: Third, a specific cause may have opposite affects depending on context. For example, changes in living conditions may increase or decrease the probability of strikes, depending on other social and political conditions …. The fact that some conditions have contradictory effects depending on context further complicates the identification of empirical regularities because it may appear that a condition is irrelevant when in fact it is an essential part of several causal combinations in both its presence and absence state Source: Charles Ragin

The Basics of Comparing Advantages of Comparing Complex causality. An Example: To say that a “culture of fear” is the reason for the high rate of gun homicides in the United States is simplistic. The statement fails to recognize complex causality. However, Moore’s argument can be refined to show a greater appreciation for complex causality, as indicated in the graphic. (The details are unimportant--the key point is that a gun violence in the US is due to a variety of factors, with complex interactions, which interact in contingent ways.)

The Basics of Comparing Advantages of Comparing Second advantage of comparing: The comparative method is not only better at dealing with complex causality, it’s better at dealing with causality period. The comparative method allows us to open the “Black Box” of explanation in a way that other methods--at least other methods available to social scientists--do not.

The Basics of Comparing Advantages of Comparing Statistical or quantitative analysis does a very good job of showing a correlation between X and Y, but typically does not explain why this correlation exists in the first place. Getting inside the black box of explanation may be possible with statistical analysis, but qualitative analysis is usually much better suited for this task.

Learning to Compare, Comparing to Learn Comparing and Critical Thinking “Broadly speaking, critical thinking is concerned with reason, intellectual honesty, and open-mindedness, as opposed too emotionalism, intellectual laziness, and closed-mindedness.”

Learning to Compare, Comparing to Learn Comparing and Critical Thinking This, in turn, involve a number of concrete practices, including, most importantly, “following evidence where it leads; considering all possibilities; relying on reason rather than emotion; being precise; considering a variety of possible viewpoints and explanations; weighing the effects of motives and biases …not rejecting unpopular views out of hand; being aware of [and self-reflective about] one's own prejudices and biases, and not allowing them to sway one's judgment.”

Logic of Comparative Analysis To do comparative analysis properly, one absolutely, positively must have a grasp of the logic of comparing. One of the simplest way to develop this grasp is to become familiar with two basic strategies, called the MSS and MDS designs [end of slides for 10/3/06 lecture]

Logic of Comparative Analysis The Most Similar Systems Design The MSS Design. As the name implies, this design is based on comparing two or more very similar social systems. More importantly, though, it’s based on matching up and them comparing two more systems that share a whole range of similarities, but also differ in at least a couple of important respects.

Logic of Comparative Analysis The Most Similar Systems Design The task when comparing two very similar systems is to find the key differences in a sea of similarities. Each “plain” rubber ducky represents a similarity between two systems, A and B.

Logic of Comparative Analysis The Most Similar Systems Design The researcher can then “eliminate” each of the similarities (represented by the “x”) and focus on finding the differences between the two systems.

Logic of Comparative Analysis The Most Similar Systems Design To Repeat: Differences are key to the logic of the MSS Design! But what needs to differ? Short Answer: Between at least two cases, the independent variable and the dependent variable must be different.

Logic of Comparative Analysis Dependent and Independent Variables Independent variables can be defined simply as those which act on or affect something, while dependent variables are those that are being affected or acted on. Put more simply: independent variables are the cause of a certain outcome, while the dependent variable is the outcome itself.

Logic of Comparative Analysis Dependent and Independent Variables An Example. Democracy can only emerge and thrive in a society when the society is unified. What is the dependent variable? “Democracy” What is the independent variable? “Societal unity”

Logic of Comparative Analysis Dependent and Independent Variables Other Important Points First, all social science arguments require an independent and dependent variable. That is, regardless of the theoretical or methodological approach you use in an analysis, you have to be able to identify and DV and IV(s). Second, in a social science argument, both variables need to be defined as precisely as possible. Third, you need to be able to specify, in as much depth and detail as possible, the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. This generally includes identifying other important or contributing variables as well

Logic of Comparative Analysis Most Similar Systems Design: Example In this MSS design, the researcher compares Canada and the U.S.A., which are considered “most similar systems.” This means, in part, that the researcher expects to find a range of similarities between the two cases. At the same time, the logic of the MSS design dictates that there be at least two key differences or dissimilarities. Specifically, the dependent variable should be different between the two cases (it is), and there should be at least one significant difference with regard to the presumed independent variable. Identifying this key difference is often the major objective of the researcher.

Logic of Comparative Analysis Most Similar Systems Design: A Bad Example The argument is that both cases have a “developmental state” (independent variable, x), and both cases experienced a “very high rate of economic growth” (dependent variable, y). Therefore, x is the cause of y But, how do we know that x is the key independent variable, or even a significant independent variable? What about: Culture-----> y or Skilled workforce -----> y? Based on MSS design with no variance on the dependent variable (y), we cannot say that other variables are insignificant. Therefore, we cannot determine the validity of the main argument

Logic of Comparative Analysis Most Different Systems Design MSS: In a vast sea of similarities, find the key differences between two very similar system. MDS: In a vast sea of differences, find key similarities between very dissimilar systems.

Logic of Comparative Analysis Most Different Systems Design It’s important to recognize the implications of this reverse logic, one of which is this: unlike the MSS design, you don’t need, nor do you want variance on the dependent variable. In other words, the dependent variable should be the same for all the units in an MDS design. By the same token, so should the independent variable.

Logic of Comparative Analysis Most Different Systems Design Confused? Maybe an example will help …

Logic of Comparative Analysis Most Different Systems Design Using an MDS design, the researcher finds three widely divergent cases (in general, the more divergent the cases, the better). Unlike an MSS design, however, the task is to find key similarities among the cases in a “vast sea of differences.” One of these similarities should be the independent variable (or variables) and the other the dependent variable. It is also useful to note that, of the three cases, two are countries and one is a relatively small Indian tribe, which resides on the Arizona-New Mexico border, along the Zuni River. This sort of comparison is perfectly reasonable given the research

Logic of Comparative Analysis Most Different Systems Design In Theda Skocpol’s research, she used three “most different systems” (Russia, France, and China) to find the cause of social revolution. The logic is based on finding key similarities among all three units. Differences can be eliminated as independent variables.