Comparative Research

Abstract

The enduring importance and utility of comparative research in sociology are as old as the discipline itself. Although comparative research flourishes within this discipline, methodological problems persist. After defining comparative research, this article outlines some of its central problems, including: (1) case selection, unit, level and scale of analysis; (2) construct equivalence; (3) variable or case orientation; and (4) causality. The discussion finishes with a brief introduction of the critical and innovative articles within this special issue that not only address these problems, but also present promising solutions. keywords: comparative analysis ✦ methodological problems ✦ quantitative and qualitative methods ✦ small-N research design

Living with imperfect comparisons: The challenges and limitations of comparative paralympic sport policy research

“…Equivalence brings to the forefront concerns of how we know we are studying the exact same phenomena in different contexts and how we know that our observations and conclusions do not actually refer to fundamentally different things (Hantrais, 2008;Jowell, 1998;Kohn, 1987;Landman, 2003;Mills et al, 2006;Øyen, 2004)? More specifically, there are three interconnected equivalence-related issues discussed within the broader comparative literature that have particular relevance for sport: sampling, construct, and functional equivalence.…”

“…A second issue in comparative studies is construct equivalence which is about ensuring that instruments are measuring the same variables across cases (Hantrais, 2008;Mills et al, 2006). This issue has received much attention within in the broader comparative literature (e.g., Dogan & Pélassy, 1990;Jowell, 1998, Hantrais, 2008Landman, 2003;Mills et al, 2006;Øyen, 1990, 2004 but comparatively little within sport management/policy literature (for exceptions see De Bosscher et al, 2015).…”

“…This issue has received much attention within in the broader comparative literature (e.g., Dogan & Pélassy, 1990;Jowell, 1998, Hantrais, 2008Landman, 2003;Mills et al, 2006;Øyen, 1990, 2004 but comparatively little within sport management/policy literature (for exceptions see De Bosscher et al, 2015). If the goal of comparative research is to search for similarity and difference amongst cases (nations), then the research process requires equivalent instruments that measure concepts in order to make comparisons.…”

“…If the goal of comparative research is to search for similarity and difference amongst cases (nations), then the research process requires equivalent instruments that measure concepts in order to make comparisons. Thus, meaningful comparisons depend on ensuring construct equivalence (Mills et al, 2006). In discussing the issue of construct equivalence specifically, Øyen (2004) Øyen (2004) goes on to suggest that the issue of construct equivalence is compounded and/or magnified as more variables are added to the measurement tool.…”

“…The importance and utility of comparative research is a central tenet of intellectual inquiry, evidenced for example, in the development of sociology as an academic discipline (Jowell, 1998;Mills, van de Bunt, & Bruijn, 2006). Landman (2003) suggested that making comparisons is the essence of human nature.…”