北京师范大学
教育研究中的比较―历史方法
Lecture 3
The Design and Logics of
Comparative-Historical Method in the Social Sciences
A. The Essentials of Comparative Studies
1. “We have only one means of demonstrating that one phenomenon is the cause of another:
it is to compare case the cases where they are simultaneously present or absent. When the
phenomenon can be artificially produced by the observer, the method is experimentation in
its proper sense. When, on the contrary, the product of fact is out of reach, when we can
thus only bring them together as they are spontaneously produced, the method we use is
that of indirect experimentation, or comparative method.” (Durkhiem; Quoted in Dogan
and Pelassy, 1990, P. 15-16)
2 “Comparison is a universal method in the social sciences; it is worthwhile not only to
those who study in international field. ….It is not surprise that the historical method is so
often combined with comparative method.” (Dogan and Pelassy, 1990, P. 16)
3. “Comparative sociology is not a special branch of sociology, it is sociology itself, in so far
as it cease to be purely descriptive and aspires to account for fact.” (Durkhiem, P. 157;
Quoted in Schriewer, 2003, P. 5)
B. The Basic Principles of Research Design of Comparative Research
Morris Zelditch (1971) specifies that the design of comparative research is conditioned largely
by four rules:
1. Comparability : Two or more instances of a phenomenon may be compared if and only if
there exists some variable, say V, common to each instance.
2. J.S. Mill's 1st Canon (Method of Agreement) : No second variable, say U, is the cause or
effect of V, if it is not found when V is found.
3. J.S. Mill's 2nd Canon (Method of Difference): No second variables U is the cause or effect
of V if it is found when V is not.
4. Rule of One Variable : No second variable U is definitely the cause or effect of V if there
exists a third variable, w, that is present or absent in the same circumstances as U.
C. Charles Ragin’s Boolean Approach to Comparative Analysis: The operation of the Boolean
Algebra consist of the following features
a. Binary data and truth table
b. Boolean addition and multiplication
c. Boolean minimization
d. De Morgan’s Law
e. Identifying prime implicants
f. Identifying necessary and sufficient causes
g. Limitations of the Boolean Approach
W.K. Tsang
Historical-Comparative Method in Ed Research
1
D. Objectives of Comparative-Historical Research in Education and the Social Sciences
1. To reveal the contextual and relative nature of social phenomena: "There is no such a
thing as comparative chemistry or contextual physics. In the natural sciences, the chain
of causality is everywhere identical. In experimental physics or chemistry discoveries
have a universal validity. On the contrary, the social sciences, because of the diversity
and idiosyncrasy of human societies, are contextual and relativistic …The best way to
comprehend such a biological and social diversity is the comparative method." (Dogan,
2006, p. 309) Accordingly, we have comparative education, comparative economics,
comparative politics and comparative sociology.
2. To elevate from ethnocentrism: In order to disenchanted themselves from the processes
of socialization and acculturation of a particular socio-historical context, into which all
human beings are born; social scientists are obliged to transcend themselves from the
social milieu that they have got so used to and have taken for granted. Therefore,
"comparison …helps to rid us of inherited fossilized notions, obliged us to reconsider
the validity of undiscussed interpretations, and enlarge our visual field." (Dogan and
Pelassy, 1984, p. 9) "Comparative studies point out and denounced ethnocentrism, and
in this way they certainly contribute to its lessening." (p. 13)
3. To construct complex causal explanatory models for big structures and large processes:
Big structures and large processes found in social phenomena are so complex that they
can never be explained by simple linear cause-effect models. None can these causal
explanations bear the features of universality and exhaustiveness as those in natural
sciences do. Instead, they are embedded in a network of causations involving the
interactive and/or circular dynamics between endogenous and exogenous factors and
among economic, political, social and cultural factors; and the cooperations and/or
competitions among various interesting parties.
E. Strategies in comparative-historical research: We may tentatively codify the strategy in
comparative-historical method into three interrelated dialogues
1. Dialogue between theory and evidence:
a. As Weber indicates (1949), researchers of historical and social phenomena are
confronted with infinite reality, as result researchers have to equip their finite
minds with ideal-typical concepts and theories and strive to "mediate" the
multiplicity of evidences generated from the infinite reality with their ideal-typical
concepts and theoretical constructs. Therefore, one of the procedures of
comparative-historical method is to engage in repeated and intensive dialogue
between theory and evidences.
b. Mattei Dogan and Dominique Pelassy (1990) have further specified these
mediating conceptual devices into
i. Operational concepts: “The concept is an abstract idea in that it considers only
certain characteristics of the objects; and it is a general idea, in that it extends
the considered characteristic to all objects of the same class.” (Dogan and
Pelassy, 1990, P. 24; original emphases) Hence, Dogan and Pelassy underlines
that “there is an unending dialectic between a priori and a posteriori”, (ibid) i.e.
between abstract and concrete or between concept and fact. As this unending
dialectic is “applied to comparative analysis, the point could be briefly stated
as following: Without abstraction and intellectual construction, there are no
common denominators between the several objects submitted to comparison.
W.K. Tsang
Historical-Comparative Method in Ed Research
2
2.
3.
Because the concept is this very abstraction. There can be no comparisons
without concepts.” (ibid)
ii. Theoretical framework: “Concepts are indispensable but not sufficient for the
comparativists, who must not only analyze and dissect reality but also
coherently structure data. It is the creation of logical frameworks that the
comparativist can make knowledge cumulative.” (Dogan and Pelassy, 1990, P.
32) Dogan and Pelassy further suggest that “For the comparativist,
undoubtedly, functionalism is the most useful of all theoretical frameworks. By
liberating comparative analysis from its formal shackles, it permits progress
that remains above criticism.” (P. 35)
iii. Functional equivalences: ….(To be expounded in details in subsequent
lectures)
b. As Mahoney and Rueschemeyer specify "most comparative historical work aims
for explanations of important outcomes within delimited historical contexts,
usually focusing on a small number of cases. While this approach does not directly
aim for universally applicable knowledge, it represents a bargain in which
significant advantages are gained. Above all, the approach makes possible a
dialogue between theory and evidence of an intensity that is rare in quantities social
research. By employing a small number of cases, comparative-historical researchers
can move comfortably back and forth between theory and history in many iterations
of analysis as they formulate new concepts, discover novel explanations, and refine
preexisting theoretical expectations in light of detailed case evidence." (2003, P.13)
Dialogue between historical studies of particular case and comparative studies of
multiple cases
a. Jurgen Schriewer specifies that comparative-historical research “aims at the
‘reconciliation of history and comparison’. …This reconciliation is not merely the
merging of cross-cultural comparison and historical process analysis into
comparative-historical research. It also implies an approach which transmutes
comparison’s explanatory claims into the conceptually informed reconstruction of
the developmental path taken by distinct sociocultural configuration.” (Schriewer,
2003, P. 33) More specifically, comparative-historical research strives to bridge
two research emphases, namely, one the one hand, the emphasis of comparative
research in the social sciences, which focuses on building generalized explanatory
models across different countries on their paths of economic growth, political
development, and modernization in general; and one the other hand, the emphasis
of historical research, which strive to reveal rich and thick historical evidence to
account for particular event and/or process.
b. Dialogue between historical research and comparative research in the social
sciences can therefore be conceived as the process of build on an accumulative
spiral of knowledge on big structure and huge process. That is, by undertaking
historical studies on particular cases and comparative studies across cases
alternatively, we may gain particular insights into the developmental process of
each case. These sights will in turn help us to conduct comparative studies across
cases and generate knowledge of higher degree of universality. Again, these
universal knowledge will inform researcher to explore new sights into the
developmental path of particular case. …
Dialogue between functional equivalence and institutional configuration: …(To be
explicated in subsequent lecture)
W.K. Tsang
Historical-Comparative Method in Ed Research
3
F. The Tasks at Hand: The Significance and Prospect of Comparative-Historical Research
1. Double traps and dilemma of comparative-historical research:
Charles Tilly, one of the most prominent historical and comparative sociologists of the
field (1929-2008), concludes his work Big Structures, Large processes, Huge
Comparison under the heading of “the tasks at hand” by highlighting two traps
confronting comparative-historical researchers.
“Therein lie two traps: the trap of refinement and the trap of despair.
a. It is tempting to look for finer and finer comparisons, with larger numbers of cases
and more variables controlled. In the present state of our knowledge of the big
structures and large processes, that would be a serious error. It would be an error
because with the multiplication of cases and the standardization of categories for
comparison the theoretical return declines more rapidly than the empirical return
rises. …In a distant future, we can aim to have theories of large-scale social
processes sufficiently precise that a well-measured chunk of a single region’s
experience will provide strong proof of a theory’s validity or invalidity.
b. The trap of despair opens up when we decide that such a day will never come ―
can never come.” (Tilly, 1984, P. 144)
2. The value and significance of comparative-historical research: Entangled within these
two traps, Tilly raises the question: What is the use of such a research method.
Simultaneously he answer the question as follow,
a. “The use is this: Historical grounded huge comparisons of big structures and large
processes help establish what must be explained, attach the possible explanations to
their context in time and space, and sometime actually improve our understanding
of those structures and processes.” (Tilly, 1984, 145)
b. The relative value of comparative-historical method; or more specifically, the four
types of comparisons categorized by Tilly, namely individualizing, universalizing,
encompassing and variation-finding comparisons; mainly “depends on the
intellectual task at hand.” (Tilly, 1984, P. 145)
i. Pragmatically, the significance of different types of comparisons depends on the
nature of the issue that the researcher is to address. If the research question at
hand is a particularistic issue on a specific socio-historical even or process at a
definite point in time, method of individualizing comparison will be relevant to
the task. On the other hand, if the research question at hand involves diverse and
numerous units in various localities and across long period of time, the method
qualifies for the task will either be the universalizing comparison or
encompassing comparison. (Tilly, 1984, Pp. 145-46)
ii. Ontologically, the value of comparative-historical research also depends on the
nature and features of the phenomenon confronting us. It all depends on whether
we oriented to the world view that the world (with its fundamental units of
sovereign states or coherent sociocultural communities) we are living is
converging into a relatively similar “world system” or “global village” or on the
contrary that the world is diverging further into isolated fragments of no
connection. (Tilly, 1984, P. 146-47)
iii. Epistemologically, the significance of comparative-historical research finally
rests on the research interest of the researchers themselves. If one is interest in
revelation of idiosyncratic features and meanings of a specific social aggregate in
a particular location and specific point in time, it will be advisable that one
should migrate to other research paradigms such as interpretive-ethnographic
W.K. Tsang
Historical-Comparative Method in Ed Research
4
3.
studies or behavioristic-psycho-metric studies. On the other hand, if one ahs
decided to elevate one’ understanding from marcohistorical to either worldsystem or world-history level, it will then be advisable that one must strive hard
to master one’ craft within the big structures, large processes, and huge
comparisons. (Tilly, 1984, P. 147)
Heuristic device of enquiry:
More recently Charles Tilly concludes the state of the art of comparative-historical
research tools as “a fine heuristic but a logically and ontological flawed basis for
serious explanation of social process. …The lining up of civilizations, societies,
cultures, wars, revolutions, and other great chunks of social experience for arguments
about causes and meanings will persist as the heuristic and literary trope it has been for
hundred of years, but will shrivel as a method of systematic analysis." (Tilly, 2006,
225-226)
Additional References
Weber, Max (1958) The Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons.
Appendix
Basic Logics of Research Design for Causal Explanation
A. Three principles of research design of causal explanatory study
1. Definite association between two instances of a phenomenon (say U and V are highly
correlated)
2 The permanent temporal order between the two instances (say U always precede V in all
phenomena)
3. Ceteris paribus (all the things being equal or constant)
B. Three strategies of research design
1. Treatment
2. Control
3. Randomization
W.K. Tsang
Historical-Comparative Method in Ed Research
5