Comparative Politics: Methods of Comparison

Comparative politics encompasses various research strategies like comparing numerous countries, a select few, and even focusing on a single country.

Comparative research methods are universally ranked, with certain methods inherently superior for drawing inferences.

The number of variables exceeding the number of countries under study is not a common challenge in comparative research.

Establishing equivalence across different contexts is critical for ensuring valid comparisons in comparative research.

Selection bias poses a significant threat to the validity of comparative research findings.

Spuriousness—when a relationship between two variables is caused by a third, unobserved variable. is not particularly relevant to comparative research.

Value bias, where the researcher's own values influence the research, is one of the potential problems in comparative research.

The choice of comparative method is solely determined by the researcher's preferred epistemological position.

The Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD) compares similar outcomes across different countries.

In comparative politics, a single-country study is considered comparative if it uses concepts applicable to other countries.

Inferences from single-country studies are generally considered as secure as those derived from comparisons of multiple countries.

According to Eckstein, single-country studies are analogous to randomized controlled trials in medicine, providing definitive proof of treatment effects.

Single-country studies can never contribute to theory development but are primarily useful for descriptive purposes.

Comparative politics can benefit from the examination of countries considered 'deviant' through cross-national comparison.

Tocqueville's Democracy in America is an example of a multi-country study that compares different democratic systems.

Explicit comparison is not essential to consider a study as part of comparative politics as implicit comparison is enough.

Comparing many countries is the least effective method for drawing inferences that have global applicability due to contextual variations.

The method of difference and method of agreement are primarily used when comparing many countries due to the breadth of data available.

Large-n comparative studies always use quantitative methods, with no exceptions for qualitative approaches.

Comparing many countries is advantageous because it can use statistical controls to rule out alternative explanations.

The increasing complexity of datasets in comparative studies has led to a decrease in the number of countries and time periods included.

One disadvantage of comparing many countries is the limited availability of reliable data across different nations and time periods.

A researcher interested in the success of Tony Blair and New Labour in UK General Elections between 1997 and 2005 would likely focus on a broad comparison of countries across the European Union.

Researchers' choices of comparative methods are solely determined by the level of abstraction and the scope of countries being studied.

Comparing many countries is always suitable for analyzing topics involving complex causal mechanisms and historical processes.

In comparative studies, selecting countries without a clear rationale can lead to reliable inferences and robust findings.

A study using highly abstract concepts is generally limited to including a small number of countries to maintain contextual depth.

A comparative study of democratic institutions using a simple dichotomy between 'presidential' and 'parliamentary' systems is most appropriate for a single country case study to capture its nuances.

The study of East Asian 'tiger' economies, which focused on a limited sample of successful economies over a short time, led to accurate inferences about their development strategies.

Studies comparing few countries tend to prioritize breadth of coverage over depth of analysis for each country.

The methods of comparison are distinctly different, where researchers should only focus on one.

The 'comparable cases strategy' achieves control through random selection of countries.

The research strives to make larger inferences about politics through some form of comparison and uses concepts applicable to more than the country under study, then it is comparative.

In 'case-oriented' comparisons, the primary analytical focus is on the relationships between variables rather than the similarities and differences among countries.

In comparative research, 'n' exclusively denotes the number of countries being compared, regardless of the data structure.

Single-country studies can never have comparative merit because they lack cross-national comparison.

Both the Burkhart and Lewis-Beck (1994) study and the Foweraker and Landman (1997) study are considered 'small-n' comparative studies due to their limited scope.

The experimental method found in natural sciences is closely approximated by comparing a small number of countries.

Studies with fewer countries are know as 'large-n' comparisons.

The comparison of many countries originated with the rise of interpretivism, emphasizing the importance of understanding subjective meanings in political phenomena.

A researcher using inductive theory may use the same methods as someone using deductive theory.

Increasing the scope of countries in a comparative study generally allows for the use of more detailed and context-specific concepts.

Studies that compare few countries are referred to as 'variable-oriented' because they focus on analytical relationships between variables.

The main advantage of comparing few countries lies in the ability to generalize findings across a large and diverse set of cases.

Researchers who want to make universal generalizations use the same research methods as those who seek more contextually specific levels of explanation.

Researchers are more comfortable using quantitative methods than qualitative ones.

All three methods are comparative.

Time is not a constraint for researchers.

Comparative Research Strategies

Reasons for Method Choice

Problems in Comparative Research

Rules for Case Selection

Method Choice Factors

Comparative Method Utility

Challenges in Comparison

Factors Influencing Comparative Methods

Core trade-off in comparative methods?

High level of abstraction

Low level of abstraction

Single-country study

Small-N comparison

Large-N comparison

Observations (n)

N (number of countries)

Comparative analysis

Comparative merit

Practical considerations

Deductive theory

Inductive theory

Conceptual abstraction

Comparative context

Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD)

Most Different Systems Design (MDSD)

Single-country study (as comparison)

Benefits of Single-Country Studies

Comparing Many Countries

Comparing Few Countries

Value of Single-Country Studies

Comparative Politics

Comparing many countries

Comparing few countries

Advantages of 'Many Countries' Comparison

Disadvantages of 'Many Countries' Comparison

Abstraction Level in 'Few Countries' Comparison

Comparable Cases Strategy

Focused Comparison

Intensive vs. Extensive

Configurative Political Outcomes

Case-Oriented Comparison

Focus of Case-Oriented Comparison

Quantitative Methods Focus

Unit of Analysis

Causal Complexity

Levels of Abstraction