4.1 Comparison as a method of analysis
Description of the history of Comparative politics has shown that the method and its problems remain central in it at all value theory. Central here is the methodology of comparative analysis. Comparison acts as general installation of the knowledge. Comparing some (at least two) processes, facts, elements of the structure, the quality of phenomena, concepts, man is trying to find something in common or different between them. If you do not think more about the fact that, as a person compares, suffice it to say that the comparison as a method of learning is a method of identifying the general and the particular in the studied phenomena. If to raise the question of how well a person performs a comparison, here there are many problems and issues. Compare a person's ability to navigate the world of things and words can be described through a priori forms of sensibility, understanding of values constructed by ideal types, concepts of production, etc. In political science, the comparative method is seen by comparing its advantages and disadvantages with the experimental methods, statistics and case studies (“case-study”). At the same time there are problems of quantitative and qualitative comparisons of statistical and dynamic aspects of the comparison.
John Stuart Mill once wrote that the researcher is trying to find some general empirical laws when compared to historical facts. A priori lead them from the laws of human nature is not possible, they are obtained in the study of historical facts and events. However, the empirical laws are not always correct, so they require constant checking empirical comparison. At the same time the researcher compares the empirical laws with some general laws of human nature, confirming their validity not only inductively but deductively.
The comparative method in political science has become one of the central, as many researchers have considered and consider it the most appropriate substitute for the experiment method, widely used in the natural sciences. The desire of political scientists to use comparative method is to install for gaining scientific results, i.e. formation of a scientific political knowledge. But does this mean that the comparative method fully replace the experiment?
Сравнение The comparison is not identical to the experiment and its weaker counterpart – the statistical method, but the logic of the comparative analysis to a certain extent comparable with the logic of experimental science. First, comparativist-researcher is able to select the conditions of the phenomenon under study, which examined the relationship manifests itself in its purest form. However, this raises a number of methodological and methodical problems (comparability, equivalence, and etc.), but in general, a comparison allows to create something similar to the experimental situation, which the researcher can control, moving from one country to another, from one region to another and etc. Second, the manipulation of the relative terms and conditions here, it is carried out conceptually researcher rather than in reality, but this is often enough for a versatile validation study communications. In this respect, the quantitative or qualitative comparison technique is used not mechanically, but always with the theoretical work of the researcher. Third, a comparison resembles the experiment to the extent that it allows controlling the conditions included in the study process. Note that this control is, of course, is not absolute (it is not such in experiment), but still with the similarity of a group of countries on a number of conditions can be taken as constant. Fourth, an experimental researcher seeks to obtain a certain result in the presence of conditions that it may impose artificially. Here the logic of the study is related to the consequences of the search. Researcher-comparativist often has already repeatedly observed result, and his object is the search of terms, and not results. Although apparently these strategies are different, but in essence they are comparable with the general logic of search dependencies when the difference of initial analysis points. Fifth, comparative and experimental sciences are based on the general idea of the possibility of a quantitative measurement of the quality of the phenomena. Although in relation to the social dimension of the problem of knowledge, however, this setting led to the formation in Comparative politics broad movement for the use of statistical analysis techniques of the empirical material obtained as a result of the use of metric scales.
At present, the limitation of this approach seems obvious, but it does not mean that he was wrong on the merits. Moreover, the comparative method of research policy advantage was the fact that it allows you to combine quantitative and qualitative methodologies, while maintaining focus on obtaining scientific results. Neil Smelser described the importance of the comparative method in the social sciences: “Like the statistical method, the comparative method is a substitute for the experiment. It is produced in the analysis of historical data, the number of which is too small to apply the statistical manipulation ... Due to the limited number of cases, the researcher relies on systematic comparative illustration. Despite this restrictive indication of the comparative method, its logic is identical to the just discussed methods (experimental and statistical analysis) is that he is trying to give an explanation by systematic manipulation of parameters m operational variables”. Giovanni Sartori says that the scientific method is experimental, widely used in physics and biology. The statistical method is another best method, based on the requirements of scientific research. Comparisons are less clear in this respect in comparison with the latter method. But the use of scientifically weaker comparative method is necessary, particularly since social phenomenon prohibit the use of the experimental method. The statistical method, on the other hand, is widely used in relation to the political and social phenomena. It consists in the reduction of certain parts of the object being studied for quantitative variables and focus on their relationship. However, when the number of cases from which variables are allocated, is small (for example, national political systems), a statistical method reaches its limits of applicability.
4.2 Method and theory in Comparative politics
Nonidenticalness of comparative method and the experimental method is reflected in the results of the study. It was stressed previously that the comparative method is focused on obtaining empirical generalizations in the form of laws, correlations, patterns, typologies and classifications. To some extent, the results of the comparative analysis are descriptive and illustrative. In this regard, some researchers say that the comparison does not give a new meaning, but only checks or is already obtained generalizations. Andrew Faure specifically for this purpose studied two major comparative approaches in political research – study most similar systems and study the most different systems – and concluded that the comparative method rather serves as a scientific confirmation of theories and assumptions, than the discovery of new, although the latter is not excluded. On the other hand, the researchers are trying to find the specifics in comparative politics results, while not denying the possibility of a high heuristic this scientific branch. So, S. Lieberson wrote that the comparative method allows not deterministic and probabilistic causality, meaning that a certain set of conditions would be expected to modify the probability of the investigation, rather than producing it.
It should be emphasized that the comparison is rarely an end in itself acts as a scientific study of political science. Rather, it acts as a kind of researcher studied approach to their subject, i.e., its propensity to take some special view of the political phenomenon that is taken in advance, together with diverse national and regional-political conditions and the possibility of its modifications. The task, therefore, is not a comparison the forms of political phenomena and their conditions, and the search for dependencies, concepts and models. Comparisons in this case is not just a method, and a methodological research strategy affecting the image of the object of study, the original conceptual framework formulated research hypotheses recruited tools of measurement and analysis of empirical data obtained scientific result – synthesized concepts and classifications, models and theories. In this respect, the comparison is not only a technique of comparison, distinction, or association, but also the research outlook.
In the postwar years the dominant was the following overview of the features of comparative political research.
Firstly, the comparison includes the abstraction and processes specific situations and can never be compared as such. Each phenomenon is unique: any manifestation is unique; every process, every nation, like every individual is in some sense unique. Compare their means to select certain types or concepts and thus distort the uniqueness and specificity.
Secondly, before any comparison is necessary not only to establish the categories and concepts, but also to define the criteria of relevance particular components of social and political situation of the analyzed issue.
Thirdly, it is necessary to define the criteria of adequate representation of specific components that are included in the overall analysis, or analysis of the problem.
Fourth, when you try to develop the politics theory, it is necessary to formulate hypotheses arising from the content or conceptual schemes, or the formulation of problems.
Fifth, the formulation of hypothetical relations and their research on the scanned data can never lead to the proof. Hypothesis or a series of hypothetical relations would be considered proven (i.e. verified), unless they undergo falsification.
Sixth, it is necessary to formulate a series of hypotheses, and not the individual hypotheses. In each case, the connecting thread between the main and special series of hypothetical social relations should be provided by the definition of the conditions under which any or all probability fixed in this series would be expected to occur.
Seventh, the comparative study, even if it does not meet the expectations of the general theory of politics, could pave the way for the gradual and cumulative development of the theory: 1) enriching our ability to formulate hypotheses in the same sense in which any strangeness increases our ability to understand the social system 2) providing the means to test hypotheses, and 3) making us realize that everything we have is considered a matter of course, requires an explanation.
Eighth, one of the biggest dangers in our comparative study, is when we hypothesize, is designing a possible relationship in its purest form. This can be avoided if to collect data to hypothesis formulation. These data may themselves lead us to realize the irrelevance established relations. In itself this recognition makes data more manageable learning process. Hence, the importance attached to the development of some rough classification schemes to formulate hypotheses.
4.3 Types and levels of variables
These methodological requirements of comparison actually fix attention on the initial stage of the comparative political analysis – conceptualization and choice of research hypotheses. Considerable importance is also attached to a comparative study of the organization by identifying the variables to collect quantitative and qualitative data. Isolation of levels and types of variables in Comparative politics itself is no different from any social study, based on the measurement and analysis of empirical data. Since in the future we will use the term “variable”, we note only the following here. Under the variable refers to changing the quality of the studied political phenomenon, to which non-metric measurement or metric scale can be applied. Organization of the variables in the study suggests splitting them into groups depending on their goals and research hypotheses. The choice of variables is also determined by the overall scheme of the conceptual study and based on its basic concepts. The totality of the studied variables can be defined as operating variables. Among them are dependent, independent and intervenient variables. Under the dependent variable refers to the variable quality of the object of study, which is regarded as a consequence or result of the action of certain conditions, factors, circumstances. The variables that characterize these conditions influencing factors and circumstances are called independent. Between dependent and independent variables, there is some connection, which is studied. In the study of the nature of that connection must be borne in mind that in addition to the dedicated researcher of dependent and independent is necessary to take into account the influence and other conditions, i.e., monitor conditions. Regarding the operational variables, this means that the relationship dependent and independent variables can affect some third variable, which is called mixed. Its influence must be controlled, and sometimes in the course of the study, if it is found greater impact confounding variable than an independent, then the first receives the status of an independent. Along with the operational variables are allocated variable quality of the object, which the researchers are taken as stable. They are called parameters. Just when selecting the countries in a comparative study of one of the most difficult problems and acts defining the parameters, i.e., of the characteristics of the group, in which the least studied of all countries differ. Quantitative and qualitative communication can be established between the dependent and independent variables.
With regard to the levels of the dependent variables in a comparative study, Smelser, based on the ideas of Talcott Parsons of the dual hierarchy of social life (the same: biological organism, personality, social system, cultural system, the other – in the social system – roles, groups, norms, values) It builds a hierarchy of levels of dependent variables: aggregative qualities of the population, assessment of behavioral precipitate, social structure, cultural structure. He emphasizes that the transition from the lowest level (aggregative quality of the population) to the highest (cultural structures) complicates the organization of variables, because a large part of them cannot be treated as a parameter, and should be included in the operational variables.
Since the concept of variables is one of the central in the organization of comparative studies and determining the proper comparative method is given, based on the specific relation to the control variables. So, Arend Lijphart writes that the comparative method boundaries defined strategy, in which cases are chosen in such a way as to maximize the variance of independent variables and minimize the variance of the controlled variables.
4.4 The organization of comparative study
Conceptualization, therefore, is the first step in a comparative study of political systems. It allows you to define a common approach to the understanding of the studied characteristics. On its basis selects the variables, their conversion into indicators and indexes, and then measurement of qualities and analysis of the data quality specification technology under review the phenomenon called operationalization. It marks the transition from the abstract qualities of expression in terms of a choice of specific indicators derived from observation of the studied phenomenon. Thus, the operationalization is a transition from the initial to the measurement theory and includes conceptualization selection of variables and instrumentalization actual measurement (collection of empirical data). The result of all these actions will be concepts, variables, indicators and indices, indicators.
We will not talk about all the methodological problems of operationalization. We emphasize only that it is often difficult to reach full compliance with the concept, and the indicator variable, and therefore operationalization is carried out with some loss of information, simplification of the value of the concept. But anyway, the researcher seeks to preserve the key characteristics of the studied phenomenon, going from abstraction to a specific value of the indicator.
If conceptualization, as noted earlier, is largely determined by the original methodology, and often ideological position of the researcher, the choice of variables and indices are often determined by the following circumstances. First, the researcher, of course, linked to the original theory of politics and forced to choose variables t turn them into operational definitions, obeying the logic of the theory and theoretical hypotheses. In fact, the researcher bases himself on the results of previous work. Secondly, the researcher must take into account the experience of previous developments in the study of political phenomena and strive not to repeat the mistakes of previous measurements. Thirdly, he is guided by the principles of comparability and relevance elected variables, indices and indicators, i.e. exercise their choice, taking into account the general and particular countries in the study group and the applicability of the conceptual apparatus to the original hypothesis (hypotheses), and the latter – to the studied phenomenon. Fourth, the researcher focuses on the accuracy of the analysis in terms of both content and form of the mathematical expression. Fifth, the researcher must take into account the way in which he will collect empirical data (observations, questionnaires, review of documents, interviews, study of statistical data collection of sociological surveys, etc. available data), and his cash in national or international statistical reports. Sixth, a significant influence on the choice of variables and indicators has the character of a comparative study (static or dynamic study), elected for the study time period. In general, however, the selection of variables and indicators are determined by the logic of comparative analysis.
4.5 Types of comparative studies
Description of the comparative method in political science should be supplemented with an indication of the variety of types of comparisons, which are now practiced in it. Types of comparisons are set by different criteria (the method, the number of countries surveyed, orientation), but in reality difficult to establish some common measure of differentiation. In this case, we pay attention to those kinds of comparisons that are most often mentioned and debated in literature “case-study”, binary, regional, global, cross-temporal comparisons.
“Case-study” comparison. This type of comparison is used when one country is analyzed (a political phenomenon in a particular country) against the background of its comparison with other countries. Not everyone believes such a study comparative, but most believe that it is possible to find comparative studies among emphasis on “certain case” type. To confirm as a basis is taken the typology of the study in an “individual case”, proposed in 1971 by Arend Lijphart. He singled out the following types:
1) interpretive research “certain case”, which uses the existing theory for the description of the case;
2) the study of the certain to verify and validate the theory;
3) the study of certain cases, for the production of hypotheses;
4) study of deviant certain cases.
With the exception of the first type, all the others are somehow connected with the comparative studies, and can be interpreted as some of their modifications.
Generally, strategy of “case-study” research is defined as follows. The study of the individual case is an empirical study in which, firstly, there is the phenomenon analyzed in its real-life context, and secondly, when the boundaries between the phenomenon and its context are unclear; third, used a lot of evidence sources. In general, “case-study comparison (or the study of many individual cases, as well as a separate case in the comparative context) for the project is different from the usual study individual case. It has its own advantages and disadvantages. But it differs from other types of comparisons that each case is considered separately and must serve a special purpose in the general research complex cases. This type of comparison is not guided by “selection”, but the “replication”, i.e., logic of multiple experiments.
Binary comparison. Description binary comparison can be found in the published book in Russian M. Dogan and D. Pelassy “Comparative political sociology”. A binary comparison is a research strategy of the two countries, allowing identifying the general and specific in their political development. In this case there are two types of binary comparisons: indirect and direct. A binary comparison is indirect in the sense that any other considered dissimilar object of comparison is considered depending on the researcher's own vision. As an example, there is the study of democracy in America by Tocqueville, which allowed the author to form a different view of the French political institutions. Direct binary comparison is immediate and allows the researcher using the historical method included in the study orbit of two countries at once.
Lipset, who also analyzes the features of a binary comparison, the highlights are two strategies: implicit and explicit. He stresses the importance of research hypotheses for the selection of the two countries, subjected to comparison. In this regard, not any comparison between the two countries is helpful. Particular attention is drawn to the problem of exclusivity in the selection of the compared countries. Considering the comparative study of Japan and the USA as two examples of the most successful industrial development, Lipset says about more one characteristics of the strategy of the binary comparison, selection of the most characteristic differences between the compared countries concerning the analysis of the subject. In this case, we can talk about completely different ways to achieve commercial success, is not detected on a particular level of analysis, and the global. Therefore, the uniqueness and exclusivity of the two countries studied can be seen when multi-level binary comparison.
Regional comparison. A spreading type of the comparison performs a comparison of regions, i.e. groups of countries elected by virtue of the similarity of their economic, cultural, political, etc. characteristics. Regional comparison refers to the debated right now in Comparative politics type of comparison the most similar countries, as opposed to the study of a group of countries with different characteristics. Researchers emphasize the fruitfulness of such a study, as it allows you to solve a number of problems of comparison (comparability, equivalence). As a rule, in Comparative politics are examined countries of Western Europe, Scandinavia, Latin America, English-speaking countries, Eastern Europe, etc. However, the premise of the similarity of the region often leads researchers from the ability to search the vital differences in the respective group of countries, which can act as explanatory variables.
John Martz makes the following recommendations for the comparative analysis of similar countries, based on comparative studies of countries of Latin America:
1) in order to apply the strategy of comparing similar countries and create meaningful theory, it is necessary to limit the spatial domain; those. rather than to explore all of Latin America, it is necessary to limit the object of study of the subregion – Central America, the Southern Cone, etc;
2) it is necessary to focus not on the macrotheory, and the theory of middle-ranking built on multivariate empirical analysis and suitable for middle-level generalizations;
3) to practice greater analytical eclecticism and in particular to include in the analysis of cultural variables, together with economic and institutional;
4) in order to avoid regional provincialism, it is necessary to link regional study methodologically theoretically and substantial with global issues and trends.
Previously stated strategy of comparing dissimilar countries; It was highlighted in the 1970's and received some support of researchers. It was based on a criticism of the basic prerequisites of regional studies, according to which it is possible to find a group of countries, differing only by two conditions during the rest of the similarity. This type of comparative strategies is used by some researchers who are trying to test any hypothesis in diverse conditions. Regional comparison is also based on inductive canons of Mill, but the exaggerated importance only similarities the canon. More moderate scholars believe that both strategies (similar and different systems) complement each other, can reduce the negative traits use only one strategy, and can be used for a variety of research tasks.
Global comparison. Although interest in global comparisons, based on a large array of empirical data and statistical type of analysis in the 1990s decreased, but still this independent kind of comparison is used today. A feature of global research is that as the unit of analysis is taken the whole political system, its basic characteristics. The ability to conduct global studies appeared in 1968s in connection with the development of comparative statistical data availability for most countries and the development of computer programs, processing of statistical and sociological data. Particular attention in the global comparative policy studies has been given the socio-economic conditions of the emergence and strengthening regimes, ranking countries in terms of democracy, the ratio of different types of states and regimes, the issue of equality and policies, etc. Previously were noted shortcomings of global research. We emphasize that the “third wave” of democratization again forced to pay attention to the global comparative analysis, though without the involvement of quantitative and statistical strategies. However, it should be noted that the 2000s again updated the global studies in various fields. In political science this is the study of political regimes, governance, corruption, protest and violence, human rights, social policy, gender mainstreaming.
Cross-temporal comparisons. Increasingly emphasis in comparative studies begins to place on time as the operational variable. The time involved in research to overcome the static nature of the comparison. Neil Smelser considered a dynamic comparative analysis as more complex than static, as the time variable is included in the study of the relationship between the dependent and independent variables. So, if the researcher takes just two points of the development of a phenomenon in time and compares them, it is, according to Smelser, still cannot be called a dynamic comparison. Compare acquires dynamic property when the researcher examines the dynamics of change of any quality in some period of time.
One of the traditional forms of cross-temporal comparisons is defined as asynchronous comparison. This strategy involves comparing the same country (region) or different countries at different historical times. Historically oriented research stands against synchronic comparative studies.
More complex construction of the inclusion of time as a variable of the comparative analysis proposed Stefano Bartolini. In some degree, he develops the idea of including time as a variable in a comparative study. The inclusion of a time variable raises a number of methodological problems. Firstly, it is necessary to find a method by means of which can be set the temporal change in qualities. For this purpose it is necessary to accurately determine the temporal unit of analysis. This problem can be called the problem of determining the temporal units or periodization. Secondly, it is necessary to determine the extent in which the relationship, established between the variable characteristics by time, are special or by status. Or in any other sense, are differ from the variables, set during cross-spatial analysis. This is the problem of specificity of generalizations, regarding development. Thirdly, it is necessary to determine the extent to which multicollinearity may be as a particular feature in the analysis of the temporal change. Whether it possible to explore one or general development trends in causal terms based on a temporal change? This is the problem of temporal multicollinearity. Bartolini proposed methods for solving these problems, pointing to the necessity of using both methodological traditions: comparative research in space and time.
Control questions
Questions for discussion
2. What kind of comparisons are needed to representatives of various political occupations?