COMPARATIVE METHOD: THE MIDDLE GROUND APPROACHPresentation by Vee Chansa-Ngavej

CASE STUDY APPROACH Case Study: Method for early studies of areas

Lack of information led to various case studies Orientalism scholarship as “cases” Latin America (Merle King article), Africa, Asia Study of individual countries, no comparisons

No systematic method! Cases were isolated Data was qualitative, (descriptive, subjective, humanistic)

POSITIVISM: THE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH Positivism: Scientific methodology to find patterns

in human and state behaviour Popular rise since post-WWII Process of gathering statistical data, identifying

patterns/generalizations and testing against hypotheses to formulate theory

Contributed to models of Rational Choice Theory, Game theories

Application of natural sciences to social sciences, including Area Studies

But can the social world really be quantified?

DIFFERENCES IN APPROACH Quantitative or Qualitative approach?

Quantitative (Positivism) Qualitative (Case Studies)

Statistical/Numerical/Measurable Narrative/Historical/Interpretive

Many Cases (>20) Case Study / Comparative

Deductive Inference (Theory Testing)

Top-down

Rational/Scientific/Empirical

Inductive (Theory Generation)

Bottom-up

Normative/Humanistic/Subjective

“Who, What, When, Where”? “Why, How”?

PROS AND CONS Quantitative approach:

Pros: Can use statistical analysis to identify patterns and establish generalizations to test hypotheses

Cons: Lacks explanatory depth…does not tell the “story” behind the numbers

Qualitative approach: Pros: Can provide important details and insights into

different phenomena Cons: Not suitable for testing hypotheses,

establishing patterns/generalizations and theory-building

EXAMPLE OF QUANTITATIVE METHOD

EXAMPLE

EXAMPLE OF QUALITATIVE METHOD

ENTER THE COMPARATIVE METHOD (SMALL N) Quantitative / Qualitative trade off between

hypothesis testing (predictive power) and explanatory powers

Comparative Method as the “Middle Ground” approach

Provides insightful analysis into a few cases, ability to compare and contrast, singling out causal variables

May start out as deductive hypothesis testing, but could also lead to inductive discovery of new hypotheses

Can provide foundation for theory-building More comparisons could eventually lead to statistical

model! Enjoyed rise in the 60s and 70s Ideal approach when confronted with lack of

resources (time, energy, funding!)

COMPARATIVE METHOD (CONT.) Ideal methodology for political science and IR due

to nature of social phenomena There exists relatively few cases of wars, famines, etc. Unlike natural sciences, social phenomena such as

World Wars and Revolutions cannot simply be replicated in their exact historical contexts in any laboratory)

Rise of comparative historical analysis methodology Need for identifying causal variables among the

few available cases (risk of confusing cause vs. correlation)

However, because few cases are compared, it is difficult to make generalizations and formulate theory

REFINEMENTS TO COMPARATIVE METHOD Lijphart’s suggestions on dealing with few cases:

Limit cases to “comparable” ones Identify cases that have common peripheral variables

(variables that are not central to the study, thereby in effect “controlling” those variables)

Identify cases that are different in terms of key variables to enhance analysis of the influence of causal variables

End goal: Developing theory that is parsimonious Focuses on a smaller number of explanatory factors Reduction of variables leading to (over)simplification

(i.e. Assumptions made in Rational Choice Theory) Leads to causal analysis, hypothesis testing, eventually to a

theory with (hopefully) predictive powers!

“SCIENCE” IN SOCIAL SCIENCE

Can the social world be quantified? Natural science theories: Tend to be deterministic Social science theories: Tend to be probabilistic

Possibility of oversimplification of social phenomenas Why can’t IR scholars and economists predict important events? End of Cold War, Arab Spring, recessions, the list goes on…! No agreement among scholars of different schools of thought!!

Levels of Analysis: 2nd and 3rd Levels of Analysis: May be easier to seek

patterns and make generalizations (trade patterns, outbreaks of war, revolutions, election poll/results, famines/victims)

1st Level: Difficult to quantify human pschye in each social context/historical situation (minds of leaders/ decision-makers)