GRAEME NEWMAN [*] GREGORY J. HOWARD [**] Introduction ALMOST EVERY PAPER one reads on topic of criminology repeats quote from Durkheim to effect that comparative sociology is ... sociology itself (Durkheim 1938:39). True enough, if Durkheim meant that we follow in sociology, given that kernel of scientific method lies in comparison of experimentally allocated groups. Of course, in social science, especially sociological version, chances of conducting a scientific study in which compared groups are constructed according to the scientific are not too great, since subjects of study -- from small to large groups -- have already formed without aid of social scientists. When groups are constructed by social scientists, such as in variants of social survey, there is unavoidable problem that such groups are necessarily artificial, constructed by research solely for purposes of study. Once data are collected, such groups disappear. They live only as long as study. Scientists with aid of statisticians have, however, invented all kinds of ways to simulate scientific comparisons, using data that groups and organizations in society produce. Today, it is possible to conduct comparisons in many unlikely settings and with an incredible array of data. These data -- and there are increasingly massive amounts of such data emerging as one of byproducts of electronic revolution -- challenge ingenuity of sociologists to adapt them for research purposes and, if sociologist is so disposed, development of social policy. We use word group in a very general sense. It is apparent that a bunch of students in a classroom taking Criminology 101 from Professor Y is a though what kind of group, how it is organized, and what its goals are, may be a puzzle. If we compare grades of this with those of Criminology 101 taught by Professor X, we may also ask why there are differences in performance between two groups. All of this makes much sense, and is stuff of many introductory methods and design courses in all social science curricula. But suppose we compared performance of Professor Y's students (from United States) with those of Professor A in another country (Japan)? Must method change? In fact, what is it that is being compared? Group performance itself, or performance in particular countries? Such groups cannot be said to represent in scientific sense their respective countries, can they? Would Professor Y learn anything by examining why Professor A's students performed at a higher level than his students? One could reasonably expect that he would -- perhaps by discovering that there was a stronger among Japanese students, or that there were higher demands placed on them. Arguably, Professor Y might learn something similar by comparing his class's performance to that of Professor X's, just down hail from him. But what would he learn? He might learn that Professor X also places higher demands on his students. But he might not learn that it is poor work ethic of his students since that would be more or less invariant. By doing a cross-cultural comparison, one can ask questions that may not arise in a single cultural setting. Such initial comparisons are not very scientific; in fact, they may be not much more than impressionistic. But they do raise possibility that we will be confronted by novel discoveries that can set stage for research on a more solid scientific footing. What kinds of comparisons did Durkheim have in mind, scientific comparisons or impressionistic comparisons? We think both, given range of methods reflected in Durkheim's own work, from empirical and almost doctrinaire Suicide to his Elementary Forms of Religious Life, where impressions and speculation were woven together into a rich theory that remains a classic in sociology of religion. …