New Directions in the Logic of Social Inquiry: Political Research Quarterly

Abstract

AbstractThis essay contrasts conventional template for conducting social inquiry and alternate template provided by configurational, case-oriented analytic methods, first formalized in The Comparative Method. The essential contrasts address fundamental building blocks of social research, ranging from definition of relevant cases to understanding of social causation. The alternate template described in this essay provides a much stronger basis for articulation of within-case and cross-case analysis than is offered by conventional template.My initial goal in writing The Comparative Method was to formalize logic of comparative analysis as practiced by case-oriented comparative researchers and to unveil set-theoretic foundation of comparative analysis. The key step was to make explicit configurational thinking that undergirds comparative inquiry. Making this logic explicit also provided a way to address many communication breakdowns that occur when quantitative and qualitative comparativists venture out of their narrow methodological confines and talk to their colleagues in the other camp. It soon became apparent, however, that my formalization of comparative inquiry offered than a systematization of a specific type of macrosocial inquiry and also than a window on important aspects of qualitative research. It also provided foundation for a new way of conducting social research, especially inquiry involving examination of cross-case patterns. This essay presents an overview of alternate template spawned by The Comparative Method.The conventional template for social research, especially quantitative cross-case analysis, is straightforward. It starts with specification of a dependent variable and various independent variables thought to explain variation in dependent variable. Ideally, these specifications are based on theory and existing research literature. The preferred situation is one where researcher can link different independent variables to different theoretical perspectives. Researchers typically test their theories by collecting relevant data from taken-for-granted, given populations of observations, focusing either on entire population, if number of cases is small, or on a sample of observations, if number is very large. The researcher then develops and tests one or models. The focus of each test is typically on relative explanatory power of competing independent variables. Explained variation in dependent variable is partitioned according to independent variables associated with different theoretical perspectives.Table 1 lists seven key elements of conventional template and corresponding elements of alternate template prompted by The Comparative Method. The remainder of this essay sketches these seven contrasting features.Variables versus SetsThe life blood of conventional template is variable. A variable captures a dimension of variation, an aspect that varies by level, degree, or type across cases. Variables sort, rank, or array cases relative to each other. For example, some are more and some are less democratic. Some individuals have more income and some have less income. A set, by contrast, is a grouping and is case-oriented than a variable because sets entail membership criteria and have classificatory consequences. While a variable can be labeled of democracy, a set cannot, because this label does not group cases using membership criteria. However, it is possible to define and construct the set of democratic countries and to list relevant members of this set.This is not to say that a set is a mere nominal-scale classification, which is usual preconception. Cases can vary in degree to which they satisfy membership criteria, which is inspiration behind fuzzy sets. With fuzzy sets, membership scores can range from 0. …