 |
Debating the Direction of Comparative Politics: An Analysis of Leading Journals
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
1
Since the late 1980s, scholars of comparative politics based in the United States have
debated many fundamental issues concerning three broad dimensions of the research process: the scope and objectives of research, the methods of theory generation, and the methods of empirical analysis. In these discussions, conventional research practices as well as proposed alternatives have been challenged. Indeed, it has become readily apparent over the past fifteen years that comparativists often hold widely divergent views about the nature of the problems facing their field and the solutions required to realize more fully the potential of comparative politics to produce knowledge about politics around the globe.
With regard to the scope and objectives of comparative politics, though some authors
suggest that scholars in the field are addressing big, substantive questions about politics (Pierson and Skocpol 2002: 695-98), others express doubts about this. For example, Robert Dahl states that “very few people study power today” and that “perhaps we’ve not only failed to progress in the study of power, we’ve actually gone into reverse” (Munck and Snyder 2004: 26-27). In turn, Juan Linz and Samuel Huntington highlight the lack of attention to political leadership and political elites (Munck and Snyder 2004: 28-29). Others raise questions about the policy relevance of comparative politics research. Thus, Giovanni Sartori (2004) argues that comparative politics places much emphasis on the theory-research nexus yet largely disregards the theory-praxis nexus or, as Adam Przeworski puts it, in less complex language, “we do not speak about politics to people outside academia” (Munck and Snyder 2004: 31; see also Laitin 2004: 16).
The methods of theory generation in comparative politics have also been a topic of much
discussion. One hotly-debated issue concerns the role of paradigms. Overall, there has been considerable agreement regarding the depiction of the evolution of the field as involving the rise and fall of past paradigms, leaving us today without a single dominant paradigm (Geddes 1991a, 2003: 4, 6-21). Still, scholars offer quite divergent suggestions as to how the field should respond to the current situation. Some see it as a chance to move forward by placing bets on a new, economics-inspired rational choice paradigm (Geddes 2003: Ch. 5, Levi 1997, Weingast 2002), whereas others calls for pluralistic competition that avoids the hegemony of any single paradigm, such as rational choice theory (Lichbach 1997, 2003; see also Almond 1990: Ch. 4). And others perceive an opportunity to avoid paradigms altogether—and allegedly sterile paradigm disputes—and shift instead to mid-range theorizing (Portes 2005: 34-38, see also Pierson and Skocpol 2002: 698; Huntington in Munck and Snyder 2004: 29; Laitin 2004: 35-36).
Scholars have also counterposed, sometimes quite starkly, deductive and inductive
methods of theorizing. Some defend the traditionally inductive methods used by comparativist (Collier 1999: 4-5; Brady, Collier and Seawright 2004: 13). In contrast, others advocate greater reliance on deductive and also formal methods of theorizing as part of a broader proposal of incorporating tools and theories from economics into comparative politics (Keech, Bates and Lange 1991, Levi 2000).
The methods of empirical analysis in comparative politics have also been subject to great
scrutiny and divergent assessments. Much of the discussion focuses on the methodological underpinnings of the qualitative research that is very common in comparative politics. This debate was initially dominated by quite critical assessments of the qualitative tradition that argued that the area studies literature—seen as largely qualitative in orientation—lacked methodological sophistication (Bates 1996), unwittingly introduced biases because of flawed case selection (Geddes 1991b, 2003: Ch. 3) and, more broadly, was poorly equipped to test
|
| |
| |
|
|
1
Since the late 1980s, scholars of comparative politics based in the United States have
debated many fundamental issues concerning three broad dimensions of the research process: the
scope and objectives of research, the methods of theory generation, and the methods of empirical
analysis. In these discussions, conventional research practices as well as proposed alternatives
have been challenged. Indeed, it has become readily apparent over the past fifteen years that
comparativists often hold widely divergent views about the nature of the problems facing their
field and the solutions required to realize more fully the potential of comparative politics to
produce knowledge about politics around the globe.
With regard to the scope and objectives of comparative politics, though some authors
suggest that scholars in the field are addressing big, substantive questions about politics (Pierson
and Skocpol 2002: 695-98), others express doubts about this. For example, Robert Dahl states
that “very few people study power today” and that “perhaps we’ve not only failed to progress in
the study of power, we’ve actually gone into reverse” (Munck and Snyder 2004: 26-27). In turn,
Juan Linz and Samuel Huntington highlight the lack of attention to political leadership and
political elites (Munck and Snyder 2004: 28-29). Others raise questions about the policy
relevance of comparative politics research. Thus, Giovanni Sartori (2004) argues that
comparative politics places much emphasis on the theory-research nexus yet largely disregards
the theory-praxis nexus or, as Adam Przeworski puts it, in less complex language, “we do not
speak about politics to people outside academia” (Munck and Snyder 2004: 31; see also Laitin
2004: 16).
The methods of theory generation in comparative politics have also been a topic of much
discussion. One hotly-debated issue concerns the role of paradigms. Overall, there has been
considerable agreement regarding the depiction of the evolution of the field as involving the rise
and fall of past paradigms, leaving us today without a single dominant paradigm (Geddes 1991a,
2003: 4, 6-21). Still, scholars offer quite divergent suggestions as to how the field should respond
to the current situation. Some see it as a chance to move forward by placing bets on a new,
economics-inspired rational choice paradigm (Geddes 2003: Ch. 5, Levi 1997, Weingast 2002),
whereas others calls for pluralistic competition that avoids the hegemony of any single paradigm,
such as rational choice theory (Lichbach 1997, 2003; see also Almond 1990: Ch. 4). And others
perceive an opportunity to avoid paradigms altogether—and allegedly sterile paradigm
disputes—and shift instead to mid-range theorizing (Portes 2005: 34-38, see also Pierson and
Skocpol 2002: 698; Huntington in Munck and Snyder 2004: 29; Laitin 2004: 35-36).
Scholars have also counterposed, sometimes quite starkly, deductive and inductive
methods of theorizing. Some defend the traditionally inductive methods used by comparativist
(Collier 1999: 4-5; Brady, Collier and Seawright 2004: 13). In contrast, others advocate greater
reliance on deductive and also formal methods of theorizing as part of a broader proposal of
incorporating tools and theories from economics into comparative politics (Keech, Bates and
Lange 1991, Levi 2000).
The methods of empirical analysis in comparative politics have also been subject to great
scrutiny and divergent assessments. Much of the discussion focuses on the methodological
underpinnings of the qualitative research that is very common in comparative politics. This
debate was initially dominated by quite critical assessments of the qualitative tradition that
argued that the area studies literature—seen as largely qualitative in orientation—lacked
methodological sophistication (Bates 1996), unwittingly introduced biases because of flawed
case selection (Geddes 1991b, 2003: Ch. 3) and, more broadly, was poorly equipped to test
|
|
 Convention | | Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events! | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
