In Search of Theoretical Frameworks
for Comparative Research
Vladimir Gel’man
(European University at St.Petersburg / University of Helsinki)
International Workshop
Comparative Methods in History and Social Sciences
Perm, Center for Comparative History and Political Science,
September 2013
In Search of Theoretical Frameworks…
• Do we need a theoretical framework before we start our research?
• “No” – the radical response of “grounded theory” approach (travel by
intuition, without a map), popular among sociologists: lack of a priori
theoretical framework open new opportunities for research findings;
• But:
• - risks of “invention of the wheel” (anthropological observation at the
polling station in provincial Russia);
• - risks of inappropriate data collection;
• - risks of wasting time and efforts;
• In most research ventures in history and political science, theoretical
framework is needed – especially in comparative studies (otherwise,
there is a risk of comparing apples and kangaroos)
In Search of Theoretical Frameworks…
• What is a “theory” in social research?
• A major set of logically connected and empirically
verifiable and/or falsifiable research statements, which is
recognized as a “theory” by the meaningful segment of
the global academic community (Radaev, 2000);
• “Conspiracy theory” – not a theory;
• Geopolitical theory in IR studies – not a theory;
• Marxist class theory – a theory (?)
In Search of Theoretical Frameworks…
• Classification of theories:
• holistic (universal) vs. partial – Marxism or rational
choice theories;
• macro-theories, mid-range theories, micro-theories
(“ladder of abstraction” – Sartori, 1970).
• Theory as a toolbox (Radaev, 2000) – similarly to
digging holes (the use of shovel or excavator);
• In most cases we use standard toolboxes (theorytesting) but often need to adjust them for digging of our
holes, although sometimes have to construct a new tool
(theory-building)
In Search of Theoretical Frameworks…
• What is a “good theory” (for our research)?
• 1) big explanatory power (e.g., it can explain a large part of the
observed phenomena – e.g., socio-economic modernization as an
explanation of democracy (Przeworski et al., 2000));
• 2) wide-ranging application beyond initial tasks (a shovel which can
also dig other holes than we need – e.g., a “free-rider” problem in
collective action (Olson, 1965));
• 3) simplification of understanding the real world (a classical Marxist
theory of class struggle – the most well-known example);
• 4) clear explanation and logical boundaries (we have to understand
when theory works well and when its use is inappropriate – e.g.,
how to overcome “free-riding”);
• 5) explaining important and broad set of relevant scholarly issues
(this is why there is no “theory of the first thirty minutes of the French
revolution”)
In Search of Theoretical Frameworks…
• 6) falsifiability – the theory should be recognized as false
if some conceivable observation is true (Popper, 1934) –
e.g., “all swans are white”;
• But: one should distinguish falsification of theory from
falsification of data;
• “Research program” (Lakatos, 1970) – a hard core of
theory (e.g., set of basic statements) and auxiliary
hypotheses (e.g., extended set of arguments in its favor);
• New empirical data could undermine auxiliary
hypotheses but not the hard core of theory (it could be
falsified only through replacement by another theory);
• 7) prognostic power – is it necessary for a “good
theory”?
In Search of Theoretical Frameworks…
• How to use existing theories and when we need to invent
a new one?
• Different stages of “research cycle”:
• (1) theory testing – comparing explanatory power of
existing theories (usually based upon large-N
quantitative research);
• (2) crucial case – a situation when none of existing
theories can explain a particular phenomenon (e.g.,
stability of democracy in India);
• (3) theory building – construction of a new theory upon
re-formulation or (more often) adjustment of research
statements with the use of data
In Search of Theoretical Frameworks…
• How theories evolve over time?
• The case of Marxist theory of class struggle:
• (1) classical stage – “Communist manifesto” (Marx,
Engels, 1848): a zero-sum conflict between bourgeoisie
and proletariat as two major classes;
• (2) updated version – “The Eighteen Brumaire of Louis
Napoleon” (Marx, 1852): a case study of French
revolution and counter-revolution (a more nuanced
analysis the logic of inter-class alliances and their
breakup – petite bourgeoisie as a traitor of revolution;
the role of ideology and organizations); ad hoc approach
In Search of Theoretical Frameworks…
• (3) revised version – “Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy”
(Moore, 1966):
• a comparative analysis of eight cases (Britain, France, Germany,
United States, Russia, India, China and Japan)
• an enlarged set of classes (landowners, bourgeoisie, proletariat and
peasantry):
• Research question: why socio-economic changes caused
democracy in some countries, and dictatorships in others?
• Answer: a key role of bourgeoisie as a pivotal member of inter-class
alliances (“no bourgeoisie, no democracy”)
• But: why bourgeoisie choose different allies in different countries?
In Search of Theoretical Frameworks…
• (4) extended version – “Economic Origins of Dictatorship and
Democracy” (Acemoglu, Robinson, 2006):
• A formal mathematical model and empirical statistical (large-N)
analysis:
• three major classes: elites, middle class, and lower class;
• Research question: why socio-economic changes caused
democracy in some countries, and dictatorships in others? (the
same as those in Moore (1966));
• Answer: due to a redistributive nature of democracy, alliances of
middle classes depends upon degree of inequality: if inequality is
relatively low, then the middle class aligned with lower classes for
democracy at the small price, otherwise the middle class aligned
with elites against democracy, because it is too costly for them
(Britain vs. Argentine);
In Search of Theoretical Frameworks…
•
•
•
•
How to build a theory?
deductive vs. inductive approaches
(1) inductive approach – usually based upon:
crucial case studies (“deviant case analyses” –
e.g., democratic stability in India or party/political
competition in Sverdlovsk oblast)
• comparative case studies (e.g., the role of
pension provision in economic growth: Chile vs.
Sweden);
• counterfactual analysis (e.g., could WWII occur if
Hitler committed suicide in 1930?)
In Search of Theoretical Frameworks…
• (2) deductive approach – through the careful selection of
appropriate tools for analysis:
• Research puzzle: why Stalin won over Trotsky?
• Search of toolbox: why some dictators hold power more
successfully than others? (thinking as a social scientist)
• Possible (not necessarily correct) answer: based upon
“The Logic of Political Survival” (de Mesquita et al.,
2003), one might argue that Stalin was more successful
in building a “winning coalition” due to its non-ideological
nature (vis-à-vis his rival, who lost);
• Testing: a need of gathering and quantitative large-N
analysis of data
In Search of Theoretical Frameworks…
• Major methodological problems of the use of theories in
comparative research:
• (1) comparability problem (Sartori, 1970) – how to avoid
“conceptual stretching” and not to fall from the ladder of
abstraction;
• (2) “too many variables – too few cases” (Lijphart, 1971)
(e.g., studies of social revolutions);
• (3) Galton’s problem – to what extent units of
comparative analysis are independent from each other
and not caused by a single external factor (e.g., all
Communist governments in Eastern Europe were
modeled by the Soviet Union in the same way);
In Search of Theoretical Frameworks…
• (4) Over-determination problem (problem of “Orient
Express” – a crime novel by Agatha Christie (1934)): too
many factors are responsible for explaining the same
phenomenon (Lopez, 1992) (e.g., why present-day
Russia is a non-democracy?);
• (5) Measurement problem – how to measure some
variables (in some instances, standard tools are not
always appropriate – e.g., an analysis of party system
fragmentation under presence of dominant parties –
Golosov (2010));
• (6) Eternal problem of interpretation (is the glass half-full
or half-empty – e.g., an analysis of “hybrid” political
regimes (Bogaards, 2009));
• … and numerous other problems 
In Search of Theoretical Frameworks…
• Thanks for your attention!
• Comments are welcome (gelman@eu.spb.ru)