Abstract
This paper draws on a distinction between two purposes of comparative research: (1) testing the universality of a proposition (theory testing) and (2) specification of a proposition (theory construction). These two distinct activities have been inadvertently mixed in comparative criminology thereby causing a great deal of confusion. The present paper argues that attention by comparative researchers to this distinction between theory testing and theory construction will contribute to the resolution of one major methodological problem: that of research site selection. We suggest that in light of the distinction drawn, the testing of the universality of a proposition is most appropriately done in research comparing Western and non-Western nations (“dissimilar design”). But comparative research aimed at the specification of a proposition is best conducted by comparing Western nations (“similar design”).
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.