Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:20:36.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Comparative Method in Practice: Case Selection and the Social Science of Revolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2017

Colin J. Beck
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Formalization of comparative case methodology has given the appearance of growing consensus and cross-disciplinary acceptance around a set of best practices. Yet how researchers use a method may differ widely from what methodologists believe, which is the crux of institutionalization of a method. This study examines whether comparative methodology has, in fact, institutionalized within the social sciences using evidence from the entire corpus of comparative studies of revolution published from 1970 to 2009. Content analysis of methods of case selection within the revolution subfield reveals a wide diversity of strategies with only modest methodological awareness by practitioners, a lack of consensus among which case selection strategies to use, and little convergence over time. Thus, the comparative method has not yet institutionalized in its practice. Methodological practice has implications for the coverage of cases of revolution and what is substantively known about the phenomenon.

Type
Articles
Information
Social Science History , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , Fall 2017 , pp. 533 - 554
Copyright
Copyright © Social Science History Association, 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alesina, Alberto, Devleeschauwer, Arnaud, Easterly, William, Kurlat, Sergio, and Wacziarg, Romain (2003) “Fractionalization.” Journal of Economic Growth 8 (2): 155–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Andrew, and Elman, Colin (2007) “Case study methods in the international relations subfield.” Comparative Political Studies 40 (2): 170–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, Henry E., and Collier, David (2004) Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Collier, David, and Mahon, James E. Jr. (1993) “Conceptual ‘stretching’ revisited: Adapting categories in comparative analysis.” American Political Science Review 87 (4): 845–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, David, and Mahoney, James (1996) “Insights and pitfalls: Selection bias in qualitative research.” World Politics 49 (1): 56–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, David, Brady, Henry E., and Seawright, Jason (2004) “Sources of leverage in causal inference: Toward an alternative view of methodology,” in Brady, H. E. and Collier, D. (eds.) Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers: 229–66.Google Scholar
Conge, Patrick J. (1996) From Revolution to War: State Relations in a World of Change. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dix, Robert H. (1984) “Why revolutions succeed and fail.” Polity 16 (3): 423–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, John (1972) Modern Revolutions: An Introduction to the Analysis of a Political Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eckstein, Harry (1975) “Case studies and theory in political science,” in Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W. (eds.) Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 7, Political Science: Scope and Theory. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley: 94–137.Google Scholar
Eckstein, Susan (1985) “Revolutions and the restructuring of national economies: The Latin American experience.” Comparative Politics 17 (4): 473–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, John (1973) Armies in Revolution. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. (1991) “Counterfactuals and hypothesis testing in political science.” World Politics 43 (2): 169–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foran, John (2005) Taking Power: On the Origins of Third World Revolutions. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geddes, Barbara (1990) “How the cases you choose affect the answers you get: Selection bias in comparative politics.” Political Analysis 2 (1): 131–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geddes, Barbara (2003) Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, Alexander Lawrence, and Bennett, Andrew (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gerring, John (2007) Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goertz, Gary, and Mahoney, James (2012) A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstone, Jack A. (1991) Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Goldstone, Jack A. (2001) “Toward a fourth generation of revolutionary theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 4 (1): 139–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstone, Jack A. (2003) “Comparative historical analysis and knowledge accumulation in the study of revolutions,” in Mahoney, J. and Rueschemeyer, D. (eds.) Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press: 41–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldthorpe, John H. (1991) “The uses of history in sociology: Reflections on some recent tendencies.” British Journal of Sociology 42 (2): 211–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Jeff (1989) “Colonialism and revolution in Southeast Asia: A comparative analysis,” in Boswell, T. (ed.) Revolution in the World System. New York: Greenwood Press: 59–78.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Jeff (2001) No Other Way Out: States and Revolutionary Movements, 1945–1991. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Jeff, and Horowitz, Ruth (2002) “Introduction: The methodological strengths and dilemmas of qualitative sociology.” Qualitative Sociology 25 (1): 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgkin, Thomas (1976) “Scholars and the revolutionary tradition: Vietnam and West Africa.” Oxford Review of Education 2 (2): 111–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kautsky, John H. (1975) Patterns of Modernizing Revolutions: Mexico and the Soviet Union. New York: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiser, Edgar, and Hechter, Michael (1991) “The role of general theory in comparative-historical sociology.” The American Journal of Sociology 97 (1): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberson, Stanley (1991) “Small n's and big conclusions: An examination of the reasoning in comparative studies based on a small number of cases.” Social Forces 70 (2): 307–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arend (1971) “Comparative politics and the comparative method.” The American Political Science Review 65 (3): 682–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arend (1975) “The comparable-cases strategy in comparative research.” Comparative Political Studies 8 (2): 158–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Michael Tien-Lung (1988) “States and urban revolutions.” Theory and Society 17 (2): 179–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James (1999) “Nominal, ordinal, and narrative appraisal in macrocausal analysis.” The American Journal of Sociology 104 (4): 1154–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James (2000) “Path dependence in historical sociology.” Theory and Society 29 (4): 507–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James (2004) “Comparative-historical methodology.” Annual Review of Sociology 30: 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James (2007) “Qualitative methodology and comparative politics.” Comparative Political Studies 40 (2): 122–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James, and Goertz, Gary (2004) “The possibility principle: Choosing negative cases in comparative research.” American Political Science Review 98 (4): 653–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James, and Rueschemeyer, Dietrich (2003) Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moghadam, Valerie M. (1995) “Gender and revolutionary transformation: Iran 1979 and East Central Europe 1989.” Gender and Society 9 (3): 328–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Barrington (1966) Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Munck, Gerardo L. (2004) “Tools for qualitative research,” in Brady, H. E. and Collier, D. (eds.) Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers: 105–21.Google Scholar
Munck, Gerardo L., and Snyder, Richard (2007) “Debating the direction of comparative politics: An analysis of leading journals.” Comparative Political Studies 40 (1): 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Kane, Rosemary H. T. (1995) “The national causes of state construction in France, Russia and China.” Political Studies 43 (1): 2–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paige, Jeffery M. (1990) “The social origins of dictatorship, democracy, and socialist revolution in Central America.” Journal of Developing Societies 6 (1): 37–42.Google Scholar
Ragin, Charles C. (1989) The Comparative Method: Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, Charles C. (2008) Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragin, Charles C., and Zaret, David (1983) “Theory and method in comparative research: Two strategies.” Social Forces 61 (3): 731–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rihoux, Benoît, Álamos-Concha, Priscilla, Bol, Damien, Marx, Axel, and Rezsöhazy, Ilona (2013) “From niche to mainstream method? A comprehensive mapping of QCA applications in journal articles from 1984 to 2011.” Political Research Quarterly 66 (1): 175–84.Google Scholar
Russell, Diana E. H. (1974) Rebellion, Revolution, and Armed Force: A Comparative Study of Fifteen Countries with Special Emphasis on Cuba and South Africa. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda (1979) States and Social Revolutions. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skocpol, Theda (1984) Vision and Method in Historical Sociology. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skocpol, Theda, and Somers, Margaret (1980) “The uses of comparative history in macrosocial inquiry.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 22 (2): 174–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, Dan, and Ziblatt, Daniel (2013) “The enduring indispensability of the controlled comparison.” Comparative Political Studies 46 (10): 1301–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinmetz, George (2005) The Politics of Method in the Human Sciences: Positivism and Its Epistemological Others. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stinchcombe, Arthur L. (1978) Theoretical Methods in Social History. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles (1964) The Vendée. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Mark (1983) “The mid-nineteenth-century crisis in France and England.” Theory and Society 12 (4): 455–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valenta, Jiri (1984) “Revolutionary change, Soviet intervention, and ‘normalization’ in East-Central Europe.” Comparative Politics 16 (2): 127–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, John (1984) Reluctant Rebels: Comparative Studies of Revolution and Underdevelopment. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, Eric R. (1969) Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar