There are different types of scientific research that can be used to explain a phenomenon. The three basic types of scientific research include the experimental method, the statistical method, and the comparative method. These different types of research are used for different applications in scientific inquiry. For instance, the experimental method is used to identify attributes of a population by comparing the experimental group and control group while the statistical method involves manipulation of data that has been observed empirically. The comparative method is similar to statistical analysis but the number of cases that are considered are small. In the article “Comparative Politics and Comparative Method”, Lijphart (1971) explores the use of the comparative approach by considering its differences to other types of research and its strengths and weaknesses. This paper analyzes the article by summarizing it, analyzing the evidence used, identifying points that stand out, and considering the implication of the article.
Summary of Author’s Main Arguments
The article begins by providing a definition of comparative methods in politics. The specific characteristics of the comparative method include that the approach analyzes the “how” but not the “what” of the analysis and it is one of the scientific methods and not the main one. It is also identified as one of the basic methods of research which other methods including experimental, statistical, and the case study method. The comparative method is also identified to show relationships among variables and is thus not the main method.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Lijphart (1971) then goes ahead to analyze the specific characteristics of the experimental method and the statistical method and then compares them with the comparative method. The experimental method is identified to use the experimental group and control group while the statistical approach is identified to entail mathematical manipulation of empirical data. The experimental method is identified to be quite ideal compared to other methods but can be applied in a limited approach due to ethical and practical limitations. The statistical method is identified as a better approach than the comparative method as it detailed. However, Lijphart (1971) notes that the scarcity of time, financial resources, and energy make the comparative method a more viable approach. The comparative approach as a statistical method is however identified by making use of macro hypothesis and micro replications.
There weaknesses of the comparative method involved having many variables and a “small N.” Lijphart (1971) identified that there were several ways to overcome these weaknesses. The first approach involved increasing the number of cases as possible to improve the chance of having some control. The second approach involves reducing the “property-space” of the analysis by combining variables. The third approach involved focusing on a comparative analysis for cases that are comparable. The fourth approach involved focusing on comparative analysis of the key variables through scanning the variables extensively.
In order to fully understand the application of the comparative method in politics, the author considers the case study method. While the comparative method involves few cases, the case study method was identified to incorporate only one case. The advantage of the case study was identified that a single case can be examined with limited resources. However, case studies were limited because they cannot be the basis for valid generalizations. Six types of case studies were also identified. The first two case studies, atheoretical and interpretive case studies were not based on theory-building. However, the other four case studies hypothesis-generation, theory-confirming, theory-infirming, and deviant case studies are used for theory-building. Out of the six types, the author identifies that the hypothesis-generating and deviant case studies have the greatest contribution to theory.
Evidence and Methods Used to Support Argument
The article was mainly an expert opinion paper that incorporated evidence from the works of other types of research and authors. The evidence of the author can thus be critiqued by considering the quality of the research materials that were used. From a general analysis, the research was used throughout the paper in almost every strong point put forth by the author. The result is that the author does not just put forth their own opinions but shows that the opinions are supported by other authors. One of the strengths of the use of other types of research is that the author was able to make their arguments easy to follow and understand. The research that was used contained analogies that were used to provide further clarifications to the topic being studied. For instance, the author explains the argument raised by Smelser who illustrates intra-nation and inter-nation comparisons by comparing Northern Italy and Southern Italy an intra-nation and better form of comparison compared to Germany and Italy which is an inter-nation comparison. However, one of the weaknesses of the method of such an approach is that it could be subject to bias since the author could only choose research articles that supported the main arguments and discard research articles that did not support the main argument.
Interesting and “Irritating” Points That Stand Out
One of the interesting points that the author proposed was the ways to reduce the weaknesses of the comparative method. The different methods were simply based on minimizing the many variables and solving the problem of a small N by increase number of cases. While such an approach appeared simple, it presents a novel way for other researchers to improve their analysis of politics through the comparative method. However, one of the weaknesses that the author overlooks with the comparative method is the bias in the research and the lack of flexibility when selecting cases. The author fails to point out these weaknesses and does not identify various strategies that can be used to minimize them.
Significance of the Article to the Topic Under Discussion
The significance of the article is that it would help any investigator that wants to undertake a scientific political inquiry understand the different research methods that can be undertaken. The investigator should understand the strengths and weaknesses of the different methods and understand why the comparative method would be the best for political inquiry. The investigator should thus closely consider strengths and weakness of the experimental, statistical, case study, and comparative methods. The comparative method would be chosen over experimental and statistical as it is a simpler approach and does not require a lot of time, energy, and financial resources. However, the comparative method would be chosen over the case study as it contains several studies that can be used for generalization.
Another significance of the article to the topic of comparative method and comparative politics is that it can be used to provide a better way to carry out the comparative method in scientific political inquiry. The main conclusion that the author arrives at is that while the comparative method has many drawbacks it is still a highly useful method in scientific political inquiry. Lijphart (1971) identifies that these limitations are inevitable and the investigator should apply the method in a way that minimizes the weaknesses but capitalizes on the inherent strengths of the different approaches. The main approach to minimize the weaknesses of the comparative method involves increasing the number of variables and the sample.
Conclusion
The article “Comparative Politics and Comparative Method” expounds on the comparative method by comparing it to other methods of research and identifying its strengths and weaknesses. The main strength of the comparative method was that it was a simple approach that could be carried out in limited resources when compared to other methods. The main weakness of the method was its many variables and small N. These weaknesses could be solved by minimizing the variables and minimizing the small N.
References
Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American political science review , 65 (3), 682-693.
