Challenges for Comparative Social Research

The comparative study of nations and countries has been built on the notion that causal inferences in the field should approximate the design of natural science expenments. It seems fair to say, however, that there is not a single social science comparative study which has succeeded many strict manner in complyingwith the rulesof scientific experiments and the canons of John Stuart Mill. The attempts to base comparative sociology on a quantitative tradition with roots in the rules forscientific expenments have nevertheless been fruitful in the sense that they have helped to raise and formulate many core problems of comparative research. Yet, the time is ripe for realizing that most comparative studies would greatly profit from a combined quantitative and qualitative approach It is generally assumed that the qualitative study is best at the explorative stage of a project and that it ought to be followed by a more strict quantitative study In the light of expenence from many comparative studies it is reasonable to argue that it is the other way around and that quantitative analysis usually is at its best at the explorative stage whereas a qualitative- oriented analysis provides the final insight and understandmg The need for a reversal of the order of the two kinds of approach is not a purely methodological issue. The call for quantitative, comparative research proliferated at a time when internationalization and the integration of single countnes into bigger units appeared to be not only politically salient but also humane goals. Today the preservation of the nationally and ethnically unique in the midst of hom ogenizing and uniformizing international tendencies has at least in small coun tries become not only politically but also humanely important.

[1]  Erwin K. Scheuch,et al.  THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS OF COMPARATIVE SURVEY RESEARCH: WHY THE WHEEL OF CROSS-CULTURAL METHODOLOGY KEEPS ON BEING REINVENTED , 1989 .

[2]  P. Sztompka CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS IN COMPARATIVE INQUIRY: DIVERGENT OR CONVERGENT? , 1988 .

[3]  R. Erikson,et al.  The Scandinavian Model: Welfare States and Welfare Research , 1987 .

[4]  Charles Tilly,et al.  Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons , 1986 .

[5]  J⊘rgen Elklit,et al.  Elements for a Structural Theory of Ethnic Segregation and Assimilation , 1984 .

[6]  Stein Rokkan,et al.  Economy, Territory, Identity: Politics of West European Peripheries , 1983 .

[7]  U. Himmelstrand,et al.  Beyond Welfare Capitalism: Issues, Actors and Forces in Societal Change , 1981 .

[8]  Erik Allardt Forschungsnotiz. Ethnie Mobilization and Minority Resources , 1981 .

[9]  G. Esping‐Andersen,et al.  Social class, social democracy, and state policy : party policy and party decomposition in Denmark and Sweden , 1978 .

[10]  S. Kuhnle The Beginnings of the Nordic Welfare States: Similarities and Differences * , 1978 .

[11]  Erik Allardt Dimensions of welfare in a Comparative Scandinavian Study , 1976 .

[12]  M. Armer,et al.  Comparative social research: methodological problems and strategies , 1976 .

[13]  D. Apter,et al.  Comparative methods in sociology : essays on trends and applications , 1973 .

[14]  S. Rokkan Comparative Research across Cultures and Nations , 1969 .

[15]  J. Galtung Peace and social structure , 1978 .

[16]  Stefan Nowak,et al.  CHAPTER 1 – The Strategy of Cross-National Survey Research for the Development of Social Theory , 1977 .

[17]  A. Przeworski,et al.  The logic of comparative social inquiry , 1970 .

[18]  S. Rokkan,et al.  Citizens, elections, parties , 1970 .

[19]  Richard N. Adams,et al.  The Rise And Fall Of Project Camelot , 1967 .