Page 26 - DPOL202_COMPARATIVE_POLITICS_AND_GOVERNMENT_ENGLISH

Unit 2: Comparative Method and Politics

condition that the cetera are indeed paria—can be achieved by a process of deliberate randomization. Notes
The experimental method is the most nearly ideal method for scientific explanation, but
unfortunately it can only rarely be used in political science because of practical and ethical
impediments.
An alternative to the experimental method is the statistical method. It entails the conceptual
(mathematical) manipulation of empiricially observed data—which cannot be manipulated
situationally as in experimental design—in order to discover controlled relationships among
variables. It handles the problem of control by means of partial correlations. For instance, when one
wants to inquire into the relationship between political participation and level of education attained,
one should control for the influence of age because younger generations have received more
education than older generations. This can be done by partialing—dividing the sample into a
number of different age groups and looking at the correlations between participation and education
within each separate age group. Paul F. Lazarsfeld states that this is such a basic research procedure
that it “is applied almost automatically in empirical research. Whenever an investigator finds
himself faced with the relationship between two variables, he immediately starts to ‘cross-tabulate,’
i.e., to consider the role of further variables.”
The statistical method can be regarded, therefore, as an approximation of the experimental method.
As Ernest Nagel emphasizes, “every branch of inquiry aiming at reliable general laws concerning
empirical subject matter must employ a procedure that, if it is not strictly controlled experimentation,
has the essential logical functions of experiment in inquiry.” The statistical method does have
these essential logical functions, but it is not as strong a method as experimentation because it
cannot handle the problem of control as well. It cannot control for all other variables, merely for
the other key variables that are known or suspected to exert influence. Strictly speaking, even the
experimental method does not handle the problem of control perfectly, because the investigator
can never be completely sure that his groups are actually alike in every respect. But experimental
design provides the closest approximation to this ideal. The statistical method, in turn, is an
approximation—not the equivalent—of the experimental method. Conversely, one can also argue,
as Lazarsfeld does, that the experimental method constitutes a special form of the statistical method,
but only if one adds that it is an especially potent form.
The logic of the comparative method is, in accordance with the general standard expounded by
Nagel, also the same as the logic of the experimental method. The comparative method resembles
the statistical method in all respects except one. The crucial difference is that the number of cases
it deals with is too small to permit systematic control by means of partial correlations. This
problem occurs in statistical operations, too; especially when one wants to control simultaneously
for many variables, one quickly “runs out of cases.” The comparative method should be resorted
to when the number of cases available for analysis is so small that cross-tabulating them further in
order to establish credible controls is not feasible. There is, consequently, no clear dividing line
between the statistical and comparative methods; the difference depends entirely on the number
of cases. It follows that in many research situations, with an intermediate number of cases, a
combination of the statistical and comparative methods is appropriate. Where the cases are national
political systems, as they often are in the field of comparative politics, the number of cases is
necessarily so restricted that the comparative method has to be used.
From the vantage point of the general aims and the alternative methods of scientific inquiry, one
can consider the comparative method in proper perspective and answer such questions as the
following, raised by Samuel H. Beer and by Harry Eckstein: Can comparison be regarded as “the
social scientist’s equivalent of the natural scientist’s laboratory?” and: “Is the comparative method
in the social sciences ... really an adequate substitute for experimentation in the natural sciences,
as has sometimes been claimed?” The answer is that the comparative method is not the equivalent
of the experimental method but only a very imperfect substitute. A clear awareness of the limitations
of the comparative method is necessary but need not be disabling, because, as we shall see, these
weaknesses can be minimized. The “conscious thinker” in comparative politics should realize the
limitations of the comparative method, but he should also recognize and take advantage of its
possibilities.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 21