Download pdf Rethinking comparison innovative methods for qualitative political inquiry erica s. sim

Rethinking

Erica S. Simmons (Editor)

Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://ebookmeta.com/product/rethinking-comparison-innovative-methods-for-qualitat ive-political-inquiry-erica-s-simmons-editor/

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...

Qualitative Research Methods for Media Studies 2nd

Edition Bonnie S. Brennen

https://ebookmeta.com/product/qualitative-research-methods-formedia-studies-2nd-edition-bonnie-s-brennen/

Research Methods for Political Science Quantitative

Qualitative and Mixed Method Approaches 3rd Edition

David E. Mcnabb

https://ebookmeta.com/product/research-methods-for-politicalscience-quantitative-qualitative-and-mixed-method-approaches-3rdedition-david-e-mcnabb/

Qualitative Methods for Health Research 4th Edition

Judith Green

https://ebookmeta.com/product/qualitative-methods-for-healthresearch-4th-edition-judith-green/

Postfoundational Approaches to Qualitative Inquiry 1st

Edition Lisa A. Mazzei

https://ebookmeta.com/product/postfoundational-approaches-toqualitative-inquiry-1st-edition-lisa-a-mazzei/

Qualitative Research Methods for Community Development 2nd Edition Robert Mark Silverman

https://ebookmeta.com/product/qualitative-research-methods-forcommunity-development-2nd-edition-robert-mark-silverman/

Digital Literacies in Education Creative Multimodal and Innovative Practices Rethinking Education Yvonne Crotty

https://ebookmeta.com/product/digital-literacies-in-educationcreative-multimodal-and-innovative-practices-rethinkingeducation-yvonne-crotty/

Windows 11 for Seniors For Dummies Curt Simmons

https://ebookmeta.com/product/windows-11-for-seniors-for-dummiescurt-simmons/

Fostering Social Justice Through Qualitative Inquiry A Methodological Guide 2nd Edition Corey W. Johnson (Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/fostering-social-justice-throughqualitative-inquiry-a-methodological-guide-2nd-edition-corey-wjohnson-editor/

Hearing Voices Qualitative Inquiry in Early Psychosis 1st Edition Katherine M Boydell H Bruce Ferguson

https://ebookmeta.com/product/hearing-voices-qualitative-inquiryin-early-psychosis-1st-edition-katherine-m-boydell-h-bruceferguson/

RethinkingComparison

Qualitativecomparativemethods – andspecificallycontrolledqualitativecomparisons – arecentraltothestudyofpolitics.Theyarenotthe onlykindofcomparison,though,thatcanhelpusbetterunderstand politicalprocessesandoutcomes.Yettherearefewguidesforhowto conductnon-controlledcomparativeresearch.Thisvolumebrings togetherchaptersfrommorethanadozenleadingmethodsscholars fromacrossthedisciplineofpoliticalscience,includingpositivistand interpretivistscholars,qualitativemethodologists,mixed-methods researchers,ethnographers,historians,andstatisticians.Theirwork revolutionizesqualitativeresearchdesignbydiversifyingtherepertoire ofcomparativemethodsavailabletostudentsofpolitics,offering readersclearsuggestionsforwhatkindsofcomparisonsmightbepossible,whytheyareuseful,andhowtoexecutethem.Bysystematically thinkingthroughhowweengageinqualitativecomparisonsandthe kindsofinsightsthosecomparisonsproduce,thesecollectedessays createnewpossibilitiestoadvancewhatweknowaboutpolitics.

EricaS.SimmonsisAssociateProfessorofPoliticalScienceand InternationalStudiesandholdstheDepartmentofPoliticalScience BoardofVisitorsProfessorshipattheUniversityofWisconsin–Madison.

NicholasRushSmithisAssistantProfessorofPoliticalScienceatthe CityUniversityofNewYork–CityCollegeandSeniorResearch AssociateintheDepartmentofSociologyattheUniversityof Johannesburg.

RethinkingComparison

InnovativeMethodsforQualitativePolitical Inquiry

Editedby

ERICAS.SIMMONS

UniversityofWisconsin–Madison

NICHOLASRUSHSMITH

CityUniversityofNewYork–CityCollege

UniversityPrintingHouse,Cambridge cb28bs,UnitedKingdom

OneLibertyPlaza, 20thFloor,NewYork, ny10006,USA

477 WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne, vic3207,Australia

314–321, 3rdFloor,Plot 3,SplendorForum,JasolaDistrictCentre, NewDelhi – 110025,India

103 PenangRoad,#05–06/07,VisioncrestCommercial,Singapore 238467

CambridgeUniversityPressispartoftheUniversityofCambridge.

ItfurtherstheUniversity’smissionbydisseminatingknowledgeinthepursuitof education,learning,andresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.

www.cambridge.org

Informationonthistitle: www.cambridge.org/9781108832793

doi: 10.1017/9781108966009

©CambridgeUniversityPress 2021

Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements, noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.

Firstpublished 2021

AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.

isbn978-1-108-83279-3 Hardback

isbn978-1-108-96574-3 Paperback

CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracyof URLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain, accurateorappropriate.

WededicatethisvolumetothememoryofLeeAnnFujiiandKendra Koivu,bothofwhomwerecommittedtohelpingusrethinkhowwesee theworld.

7.1 DiffusionofviolenceinChicagoRaceRiot (July 26–29, 1919) page 143

8.1 MilitantA’segocentricsocialnetworkperspective 165

7.1 Methodologicalchoiceandcomplexcomparisons page 138

7.2 RaciallymotivatedviolenceintheUnitedStates(1919) 145

Contributors

NickCheesman isFellowintheDepartmentofPoliticalandSocialChange, AustralianNationalUniversity.Heistheauthorof OpposingtheRuleof Law:HowMyanmar ’ sCourtsMakeLawandOrder (Cambridge UniversityPress, 2015 ),and Myanmar:APoliticalLexicon (Cambridge Elements,forthcoming).Hehoststhe “ NewBooksinInterpretivePolitical andSocialScience ” podcastontheNewBooksNetwork.

MalaHtun isProfessorofPoliticalScience,Co–PrincipalInvestigatorandDeputy DirectorofADVANCEatUNM,andspecialadvisorforinclusionandclimate intheSchoolofEngineeringattheUniversityofNewMexico.Sheworkson women’srights,socialinequalities,andstrategiestopromoteinclusionand diversity.Htunistheauthorofthreebooks,mostrecently TheLogicsof GenderJustice:StateActiononWomen’sRightsaroundtheWorld, coauthoredwithLaurelWeldon(CambridgeUniversityPress, 2018).

FrancescaR.Jensenius isProfessorofPoliticalScienceattheUniversityofOslo andResearchProfessorattheNorwegianInstituteofInternationalAffairs (NUPI).Shespecializesincomparativepoliticsandcomparativepolitical economy,witharegionalfocusonIndia.Sheistheauthorof SocialJustice throughInclusion:TheConsequencesofElectoralQuotasinIndia (Oxford UniversityPress, 2017).

JonathanObert isAssistantProfessorinPoliticalScienceatAmherstCollege. Heistheauthorof TheSix-ShooterState:PublicandPrivateViolencein AmericanPolitics (CambridgeUniversityPress, 2018)aswellasnumerous articlesonviolence,stateformation,andAmericanpoliticaldevelopment.

SarahE.Parkinson isAronsonAssistantProfessorofPoliticalScienceand InternationalStudiesatJohnsHopkinsUniversity.Groundedbysocial xi

networktheoryandethnographicmethodologies,herresearchexamines organizationalbehaviorandsocialchangeinwar-anddisaster-affected settings.Parkinson’ sworkfocusespredominantlyontheMiddleEast andNorthAfrica;shehasconductedextensive fi eldworkinLebanon andIraq.ShereceivedherPhDandMAinpoliticalsciencefromthe UniversityofChicagoandhasheldfellowshipsatYaleUniversity, GeorgeWashingtonUniversity,a ndtheUniversityofMinnesota. Parkinsonisalsoaco-founderoftheAdvancingResearchonCon fl ict (ARC)Consortium.

BenjaminL.Read isProfessorofPoliticsattheUniversityofCalifornia,Santa Cruz.HisresearchhasfocusedonlocalpoliticsinChinaandTaiwan,andhe alsowritesaboutissuesandtechniquesin fieldresearch.Heistheauthorof RootsoftheState:NeighborhoodOrganizationandSocialNetworksin BeijingandTaipei (StanfordUniversityPress, 2012)andcoauthorof Field ResearchinPoliticalScience:PracticesandPrinciples (CambridgeUniversity Press, 2015).Heco-editstheCambridgeElementsseriesinEastAsianPolitics andSociety.Hisarticleshaveappearedin ComparativePoliticalStudies,the JournalofConflictResolution,the ChinaJournal,the ChinaQuarterly,and the WashingtonQuarterly,amongotherjournals,andseveraleditedbooks.

TheaRiofrancos isAssociateProfessorofPoliticalScienceatProvidenceCollege andanAndrewCarnegieFellow(2020–2022).Herresearchfocusesonresource extraction,renewableenergy,climatechange,greentechnology,social movements,andtheleftinLatinAmerica.Thesethemesareexploredinher book ResourceRadicals:FromPetro-NationalismtoPost-Extractivismin Ecuador (DukeUniversityPress, 2020)andherco-authoredbook APlanetto Win:WhyWeNeedaGreenNewDeal (VersoBooks, 2019).

FredericCharlesSchaffer isProfessorofPoliticalScienceattheUniversityof Massachusetts – Amherst.Hisareaofspecializationiscomparativepolitics. Substantively,hestudiesthemeaningofdemocracy,thepracticeofvoting, andtheadministrationofelections.Whatsetsmuchofhisworkapartfrom otherempiricalresearchondemocracyisamethodologicalfocuson language.Byinvestigatingcarefull ythedifferingwaysinwhichordinary peoplearoundtheworldusetermssuchas “democracy,”“politics, ” or “votebuying”– ortheirroughequivalentsinotherlanguages – heaimsto arriveatafullerappreciationofhowtheyunderstandandmakeuseof electoralinstitutions.ProfessorSchaffer ’ spublicationsincludefourbooks: ElucidatingSocialScienceConcepts:AnInterpretivistGuide (Routledge, 2016 ), TheHiddenCostsofCleanElectionReform (CornellUniversity Press, 2008 ) ,ElectionsforSale:TheCausesandConsequencesofVote Buying (LynneRiennerPublishers, 2007 ),and DemocracyinTranslation: UnderstandingPoliticsinanUnfamiliarCulture (CornellUniversityPress, 1998 ).

JillianSchwedler isProfessorofPoliticalScienceattheCityUniversityof NewYork’sHunterCollegeandtheGraduateCenterandisNonresident SeniorFellowattheCrownCenteratBrandeisUniversity.Sheisamember oftheeditorialcommitteefor MiddleEastLawandGovernance (MELG) andwasamemberoftheBoardofDirectorsandtheEditorialCommitteeof theMiddleEastResearchandInformationProject(MERIP),publishersof thequarterly MiddleEastReport.ShehasservedasamemberoftheBoard ofDirectorsoftheMiddleEastStudiesAssociation(MESA)ofNorth AmericaandthegoverningCounciloftheAmericanPoliticalScience Association.Duringthespring 2020 semester,shewasVisitingProfessor andSeniorFulbrightScholarattheCenterforGlobalandInternational StudiesattheUniversityofSalamanca,Spain.Dr.Schwedler’sbooks includetheaward-winning FaithinModeration:IslamistPartiesinJordan andYemen (CambridgeUniversityPress, 2006)and(withLalehKhalili) PolicingandPrisonsintheMiddleEast (ColumbiaUniversityPress, 2010). Herarticleshaveappearedin WorldPolitics, ComparativePolitics, Middle EastPolicy, MiddleEastReport, MiddleEastCritique,Journalof Democracy,and SocialMovementStudies,amongmanyothers.Sheis currently finalizingabookmanuscripttitled ProtestingJordan:Geographies ofPowerandDissent (StanfordUniversityPress,forthcoming).

JasonSeawright isProfessorofPoliticalScienceatNorthwesternUniversity. ProfessorSeawright’ sresearchinterestsincludec omparativepolitics,with anemphasisoncomparativepolitical partiesandonpoliticalbehavioras wellasmethodology,particularlyinvolvingmulti-methodresearch designsandissuesofcausalinference.Heistheauthorof Party-System Collapse:TheRootsofCrisisinPeruandVenezuela.Hisresearchhas beenpublishedin PoliticalAnalysis, PerspectivesonPolitics, ComparativePoliticalStudies,andarangeofotherjournalsandedited volumes.

EricaS.Simmons isAssociateProfessorofPoliticalScienceandInternational StudiesattheUniversityofWisconsin –Madison,wheresheholdsthe PoliticalScienceDepartmentBoardofVisitorsProfessorship.Sheisthe authorof MeaningfulResistance:MarketReformsandtheRootsofSocial ProtestinLatinAmerica (CambridgeUniversityPress, 2016 ),whichwas awardedthe 2017 CharlesTillyawardfordistinguishedcontributionto scholarshiponcollectivebehaviorandsocialmovements.Sheisalsothe authorofnumerousarticlesoncontentiouspoliticsandqualitative methods.Herworkhasappearedin WorldPolitics,ComparativePolitical Studies,ComparativePolitics,PS:PoliticalScienceandPolitics, and Theory andSociety, amongothers.

NicholasRushSmith isAssistantProfessorofPoliticalScienceattheCity UniversityofNewYork–CityCollegeandaSeniorResearchAssociateinthe

DepartmentofSociologyattheUniversityofJohannesburg.Hisprimary researchinterestsincludedemocraticpoliticsasseenthroughthelensof crimeandpolicinginpost-apartheidSouthAfricaandonqualitativeand ethnographicmethods.Heistheauthorof ContradictionsofDemocracy: VigilantismandRightsinPost-ApartheidSouthAfrica (OxfordUniversity Press, 2019).Hisworkhasbeenpublishedin AfricanAffairs, American JournalofSociology, ComparativePolitics, PerspectivesonPolitics, Polity, PS:PoliticalScienceandPolitics,and QualitativeandMulti-Method Research.

JoeSoss isCowlesChairfortheStudyofPublicServiceattheUniversityof Minnesota,whereheholdsfacultypositionsintheHubertH.Humphrey SchoolofPublicAffairs,theDepartmentofPoliticalScience,andthe DepartmentofSociology.Hisresearchandteachingexploretheinterplay ofdemocraticpolitics,socialinequalities,andpublicpolicy.Heis particularlyinterestedinhowpracticesofgovernanceintersectwith relationsofdomination,oppression,andpredationintheUnitedStates.

LisaWedeen isMaryR.MortonProfessorofPoliticalScienceandthe Co-DirectoroftheChicagoCenterforContemporaryTheoryatthe UniversityofChicago.SheisalsoAssociateFacultyinAnthropologyandCoEditoroftheUniversityofChicagoBookSeriesStudiesinPracticesof Meaning.Herpublicationsincludethreebooks: Ambiguitiesof Domination:Politics,Rhetoric,andSymbolsinContemporarySyria (UniversityofChicagoPress, 1999;withanewpreface, 2015); Peripheral Visions:Publics,Power,andPerformanceinYemen (UniversityofChicago Press, 2008);and AuthoritarianApprehensions:Ideology,Judgment,and MourninginSyria (UniversityofChicagoPress, 2019),whichreceivedthe AmericanPoliticalScienceAssociation’sCharlesTaylorBookAward, sponsoredbytheInterpretativeMethodologiesandMethodsgroup,and theAPSA’sinauguralMiddleEastandNorthAfricaPoliticsSection’sbest bookaward.SheistherecipientoftheDavidCollierMid-Career AchievementAwardandalsoafellowshipfromtheNationalScience Foundation.

Acknowledgments

Theideaforthisprojectwasbornduringconversationsbetweentheeditors neartheendofourtimeingraduateschooltogetherandearlyinourcareersas assistantprofessorsattheUniversityofWisconsin–Madison(Simmons)andat theCityUniversityofNewYork–CityCollege(Smith).Webelievedthatwhile wehadeachbenefitedenormouslyfromlearningcomparativemethodsrooted intheMillianparadigm,suchmethodsoftensatawkwardlyagainstthepolitical worldsweeachconfrontedduringourdissertationandbookprojects.Howto practicecomparisonoutsideofcontrolledmethods,though,wassomething aboutwhichwehadlittleinsight,evenasitwassomethingthatwesaw regularlyinthesocialscience “classics” wereadduringgraduateschool.We decidedthatdevelopingaguideononepotentialapproachtoperformingsuch comparisonswouldbeausefulserviceforthenextgenerationofgraduate studentsandthatitmightopenthekindsofquestionsstudentswouldfeel empoweredtoask.Wealsohopeditmighthelpourcolleaguesnotonly understandthemethodologicallogicsbehindourownworkbutalso encouragethemtothinkdifferentlyaboutpossibilitiesfortheirownresearch designs.Tothatend,wedraftedapaperofsomeinitialideasrootedinour experienceasethnographers,thinkingitwouldbeaone-timeexercisethat mightopenaconversationwithinthedisciplineofpoliticalscienceabout comparisonbeyonditscontrolledvariants.Throughourconversations, though,werealizedthatourownviewwaslimitedbythefactthatwewere trainedprimarilyinethnographicandcomparativehistoricalmethodsandthat scholarsoutsideoftheseparadigmswouldhaveinsightonformsofcomparison thatwentbeyondourrelativelynarrowviews.Inotherwords,werealizedwe neededconspirators.

Our firstmajorstepinassemblingthisteamwastoholdaworkshopatthe CityCollegeofNewYorkinthefallof 2017.Throughgenerousfunding suppliedbytheNationalScienceFoundation(Award#1713769 )andthe Dean’sOfficeoftheColinPowellSchoolforCivicandGlobalLeadership, thenundertheleadershipofDeanVinceBoudreauandhischiefofstaff,Dee

DeeMozeleski,wewerefortunatetobringanextraordinarysetofscholarsto CityCollege’scampustotalkaboutcomparison.Wepurposefullyassembled scholarswhosawtheworlddifferentlyfromoneanother – somepositivists, othersinterpretivists;somequantitativelyoriented,othersqualitativelydriven; somecomparativists,othersAmericanists;sometheorists,othersempiricists –allwiththegoalofpushingoneanothertothinkharderaboutwhytheclaims wemakeabouttheworldholdup.Overthecourseoftwodays,surprisinglines ofepistemologicalagreementemerged,methodologicaldisagreementswere clarified,andasenseofjointpurposewasformed.Wethenpublishedanearly andabbreviatedselectionofthepapersaspartofasymposiumon “Rethinking Comparisons” in QualitativeandMultimethodResearch,whileplottinghowto expandtheworkbegunattheworkshopintothepresentvolume.

Overthemanyyearsithastakenthisbooktocometofruition,wehavebeen fortunatetohavereceivedsupportfromaremarkablesetofcolleagues,someof whomwerepresentattheinitialworkshopandsomeofwhomoffered commentsoradviceinitswake.Thecontributorstothisvolumedeservethe firstthanksfortheirseriousness,hardthinking,andpatienceoverseveralyears asweworkedtopublishthisvolume.Additionally,JenniferCyr,DaraghGrant, AnnikaHinze,MuradIdris,HelenKinsella,SamathaMajic,Zachariah Mampilly,DipaliMukhopadhyay,TimothyPachirat,RachelSchwartz, PeregrineSchwartz-Shea,DanSlater,DvoraYanow,andDeborahYasharall providedcomments,sharedinsights,orpresentedpapersatvariouspointsin bothourindividualresearchprocessesandoureffortstoproducethisvolume thatsharpenedourthinkingaboutcomparativemethods.DanSlaterandLisa Wedeendeservespecificmention.Withouttheinspiration,support,and guidancetheyprovidedtobothofuswhileweweregraduatestudentsatthe UniversityofChicago,weneverwouldhavefeltthefreedomtoquestion dominantapproachestocomparativemethods.Audiencesattwopanels featuringpapersfromthisvolumeatthe 2018 AnnualMeetingofthe AmericanPoliticalScienceAssociationaskedsharpquestionsthatimproved severalofthepaperswhilemakingcleartheneedforavolumelikethis.Without thehardworkofRachelSchwartz,theoriginalworkshopatCityCollegenever wouldhavebeenpossible.Coordinatingschedules,meals,travel,andlodging fortwentyscholarscomingfromalloverthecountryisnosmallfeat,and Rachelpulleditalloffwhilealsocontributingapaperherselftothe discussion.WithoutthehardworkofAnnaMeier,the finalmanuscriptnever wouldhavecometogether.Annanotonlycopyeditedandassembledthe final volumebutshealsochaseddowncontributors(includingourselves)for everythingfrommissingcitationstopast-duechapters.LindaBensonalso servedasasuperbcopyeditor,makingsureearlyonthattheproseinourown chapterswasintelligibleandthenjoiningusinthe finalstagesoftheprojectto copyedittheentiremanuscript.RobertDreesenatCambridgeUniversityPress hasbeenanunfailingadvocateforthisprojectsincewe firstbroughttheideato

him.Commentsfromtwoanonymousreviewerswiththepressimprovedthe manuscriptimmensely.

Yet,evenaswehavebeenfortunatetobenefitfromtheengagementof remarkablescholars,wehavealsobeenprofoundlysaddenedbythepassing oftwowonderfulcolleaguesintheyearsithastakentobringthisprojectto light.LeeAnnFujiiandKendraKoivucontributedremarkablepapers, intellectualvitality,andwarmspiritsatouroriginalworkshopattheCity CollegeofNewYork.Theirimpactoneachofusandonthedisciplineof politicalsciencewentfarbeyondtheworkshop,aseachworkedtoopenthe sometimesclosedintellectualandsocialspacesofthedisciplineforustoseethe worldmorefully.Forthatreason,wededicatethisvolumetotheirmemory.

RethinkingComparison

AnIntroduction

EricaS.Simmons

UniversityofWisconsin–Madison

NicholasRushSmith

CityUniversityofNewYork–CityCollege

Comparativemethodshaveseenadoublemovementoverthepasttwodecades. Ontheonehand,politicalscientistspointtothe “enduringindispensability” of comparativemethods,particularlycontrolledcomparativemethods(Slaterand Ziblatt 2013),toexplainpoliticaloutcomes – aninvestmentthathasbeen deepenedamidtheincreasedinfluenceofscholarshipthatrelieson subnationalcomparison(Giraudy,Moncada,andSnyder 2019)ornatural experiments(Dunning 2012)toimprovecausalinference.Ontheotherhand, inthehumanitiesandhumanisticsocialsciences,comparativemethodshave comeunderintensescrutiny.Acrossthesedisciplines,particularlywiththerise ofpostcolonialtheory,suchmethodsarefrequentlyseenas “oldfashionedat best,retrogradeatworst” (FelskiandFriedman 2013b, 1).Suchcritiqueshave gainedparticulartractionbecausecomparativemethodswereoftenusedto compare “civilizations” throughhierarchical,evolutionarysocialscientific paradigmsandweretiedtoEuropeancolonialexpansion(seealso vander Veer 2016).Therefore,dependingonone’svantageanddisciplinarytraining, comparativemethodsmightappeareitherasanindispensabletoolfor understandingtheworldorasintellectuallyandpoliticallydubious.

RethinkingComparison appearsamidthisbifurcatedviewofthe comparativemethod,tacklingsomeofthechallengesraisedbyboth perspectives.Todoso,thebookaskstwofundamentalmethodological questions:(1)whydowecomparewhatwecompareand(2)howdothe methodologicalassumptionswemakeaboutwhyandhowwecompareshape theknowledgeweproduce?Intheprocessofaddressingthesequestions,the chapterscollectivelysetoutcomparativepracticesthatdiversifytherepertoire ofcomparativemethodsavailabletostudentsofpoliticswhilebeingcognizant oftheirhistoryastoolstopoliticallyandeconomicallydominate(see

Riofrancos, Chapter 6,thisvolume)orintellectuallydiscipline(seeCheeseman, Chapter 4,thisvolume;andWedeen, Chapter 13,thisvolume).

Inpursuingthesegoals,thevolumeisintentionallyaimedatabroad scholarlyaudience.Ourhopeisthatthechaptersoffertoolsforscholarsof politicsregardlessoftheirepistemologicalorontologicalassumptions,regions ofinterest,orscaleofinquiry.Someofthecontributorstothisvolumeconsider themselves “positivists”;othersmightusethelabel “interpretivists.” Some compareacrossregions,otherswithincountries,andothersacrosstime. Irrespectiveofthesestartingpoints,theyallshareacommitmenttothe importanceofapluralisticapproachtocomparison.Rootedinthispluralism, thechaptersthatfollowsimultaneouslyallowustoexpandourunderstanding oftheworldevenaswearecognizantthatourcomparativetoolsarethemselves freightedwithcomplexintellectualandpoliticalhistories.Thiscommitmentis evidentinthechapters’ pragmaticgoalofrethinkinghowcomparisonis practiced,theirtheoreticalgoalofrethinkingwhywepracticecomparison, theirdisciplinarygoalofrethinkingwhoisauthorizedtocompare,andtheir politicalgoalofrethinkingtheendstowhichwecompare.

comparisonandpoliticalscience

Ourinterestinengagingwithquestionsofcomparisonemergesamidarevival ofqualitativemethodsinthedisciplineofpoliticalsciencegenerallyand arenewedinterestincontrolledorpairedcomparisonsspecifically.1 Building onfoundationalworklayingoutthevalueofcontrolledcomparisonandthe closelyrelatedstrategiesofpairedcomparisons,subnationalcomparisons,and naturalexperiments,thisrecentworkshowshowthemethodcancombinethe bestofboththequalitativeandthequantitativetraditions.2 Specifically, controlledcomparisonsallowscholarstotraceoutdynamiccausalprocesses whileaccountingforornegatingtheeffectsofpossibleconfounding explanations,ultimatelyenablinggeneralizablearguments.3 Notsurprisingly, controlledcomparativeapproachesdominatecurrentbestpracticesincase

1 Onqualitativemethodsinpoliticalsciencegenerally,see Wedeen 2002; Mahoneyand Rueschemeyer 2003; GeorgeandBennett 2005; Gerring 2006; Schatz 2009; BradyandCollier 2010; Mahoney 2010; AhmedandSil 2012; GoertzandMahoney 2012;and Ahrametal. 2018 Oncontrolledorpairedcomparisons,see Snyder 2001; Tarrow 2010; Dunning 2012; Slaterand Ziblatt 2013; Gisselquist 2014;and Giraudy,Moncada,andSnyder 2019.

2 Oncontrolledcomparison,see PrzeworskiandTeune 1970; Lijphart 1971, 1975; Skocpoland Somers 1980; BradyandCollier 2010;and SlaterandZiblatt 2013.Onpairedcomparison,see Tarrow 2010.Onsubnationalcomparisons,see Snyder 2001 and Giraudy,Moncada,andSnyder 2019.Onnaturalexperiments,see,e.g., Dunning 2012

3 Thiskindofcomparison,oftencalled “mostsimilarwithdifferentoutcomes” or “mostdifferent withsimilaroutcomes,” orthemethodofagreementandthemethodofdifference,continuesto reference Mill([1843] 1882),althoughscholarsoftenfailtoacknowledgeMill’sowndiscussion ofthelimitationsoftheapproach(foranexception,see GeorgeandBennett 2005).Regardless, whatareofteninvokedasMill’smethodsofdifferenceandagreementareubiquitousin

studypoliticalscienceresearch.Graduatestudentsandprofessorsalikelookto selectcasesthatholdpotentialalternativeexplanationsconstantorleverage variationininitialconditionsoroutcomes.4 Indeed,inanarticleonthevalueof controlledcomparisons, SlaterandZiblatt(2013, 1302)notethe “enduring ubiquity” ofthestrategyinqualitativecomparativeresearch.

Contributions(andaFewCritiques)ofControlledComparisons

Thus,evenasqualitativecomparativemethods – andspecificallycontrolled qualitativecomparisons – havecomeunder fireoutsideofpoliticalscience, withinthediscipline,theyhavebeencentraltosomeofthemostenduringand influentialscholarship.5 Controlledcomparisonsdrivecanonicalstudiesof phenomenaasvariedasthepreconditionsofsocialrevolution(Skocpol 1979),theeffectsofsocialcapitalonstateeffectiveness(Putnam 1993),and partysystemstabilityandregimetype(CollierandCollier 1991).Indeed, controlledcomparisonissuchadominantforceinpoliticalsciencemethods trainingthatastwoleadingmethodsscholarsnote, “Nearlyallgraduatecourses oncomparativepoliticscommencewithadiscussionofMill’smethodsof ‘difference’ and ‘agreement,’” whichservesasthefoundationforcontrolled comparativestudies(SlaterandZiblatt 2013, 1302).

Weagreethatcontrolledcomparisonshaveimportantutilityforscholars engaginginsmall-nwork.Contemporaryscholarshaveeffectivelyused controlledcomparisontoshedlightonstatecapacity(Slater 2010),ethnic violence(Wilkinson 2006),andindigenousmobilization(Yashar 2005),just tonameafewsubjects.Yet,evenascontrolledcomparisonshaveproduced someofourmostinfluentialtheoriesofpolitics,somescholarshavenotedtheir limitations.Thoseworkingwithinaquantitativeepistemologyhavearguedthat researchbasedoncontrolledcomparisonhaslimitedabilitytogeneralize(King, Keohane,andVerba 1994; Geddes 2003),aproblemthatscholarsutilizing amixtureofquantitativeandqualitativemethodshavetriedtoanticipateby implementing “nested” researchdesigns(Lieberman 2005).Scholarsworking fromvariousqualitativetraditions,bycontrast,havearguedthatprojects deployingcontrolledcomparisonstendtooveremphasizetheirabilityto addressconfoundingexplanationswhilenecessarilyunderemphasizing processesofdiffusion(Sewell 1985, 1996a)andinteraction(Lieberson 1991, 1994).Stillotherssuggestthatcontrolledcomparisonsmayunintentionally effacecontextbylimitingtheimportanceofpeople’slivedexperiencesandthe

qualitativecomparativework(foradiscussion,see SlaterandZiblatt 2013)andremaincentralto thewaysinwhichwequestionandevaluatecomparativecaseresearch.

4 Theapproachtocomparisonandprocesstracingthat GeorgeandBennett(2005) layoutandthe qualitativecomparativeanalysismethodsthat Ragin(2014) pioneeredareimportantexceptions here.

5 SlaterandZiblatt(2013) makethispointpersuasively.

specificmeaningstheyattachtopoliticalphenomena(SimmonsandSmith 2017).

Asanexampleofthesechallenges,takesubnationalcomparisons,which scholarshavearguedareparticularlywellpositionedforcontrolled comparativeapproachesbecausetheyallowscholarstoholdsomany potentiallyconfoundingvariablesconstant(Snyder 2001; Giraudy,Moncada, andSnyder 2019).As Soifer(2019) carefullyshows,however,seriousproblems emergewhenwetreatsubnationalunitsasindependentbecausedrawing appropriatesubnationalboundariesischallengingandthecompound treatmentproblemplagueseventhebestsubnationalstudies.6 The consequenceisthatevenwithseeminglyidealsubnationalcomparisons,as withanycontrolledcomparison,itishardtodefendtheclaimthatthereis onlyonerelevantdifferencebetweenunitsand,therefore,difficulttoestablish causalityinthewaythatscholarspursuingthesecomparisonsoftenhopetodo (Soifer 2019).Ultimately,theconcernisthatstudiesthatrelyoncontrolled comparisonsmaynotbeaspredictiveandtestableasclaimed(Burawoy 1989), pushingscholarstoignoreresearchquestionsthatdonotimmediatelyevidence variationthatcanbeexplainedthroughlogicsofcontrol(Ragin 2004, 128).

Inthisvolume,JasonSeawright(Chapter 2)givesusatrenchantcritiqueof theinferentialcapabilitiesofcontrolledcomparisons.Hedoessobyapplying thecomparativemethodtoaclassofindividualswhowouldseemcomparable and,therefore,aboutwhomitshouldbeeasytomakegeneralclaims: billionaires.WithintheUnitedStates,atleast,billionaires(particularly politicallyconservativeones)wouldseemideallycomparablebecausethey haveacommonpoliticalculture,overlappingsocialnetworks,andashared elitestatus.Yet,despitethesesimilarcharacteristics,asSeawrightshows, attemptstomakegeneralclaimsabouthowconservativebillionairesengage inpoliticsquicklyfallapart,astheyhavedivergentpoliticalstyles,theyfund differentkindsoforganizations,andtheyoftenhavevaryingconcretepolitical goalsdespitethebroadlyshared “conservative” label.Theproblemof comparingbillionairesraisesatroublingquestion,though:ifcontrolled comparativemethodsareoflittlehelpinunderstandingthepoliticalpractices ofsuchseeminglycomparableindividuals,howusefularecontrolled comparativemethodsforunderstandingpoliticalpracticesofmorecomplex unitsofanalysislikeorganizations,socialmovements,orstates?

Ifpoliticalscientistsareaskingwhatthevalueofcontrolledcomparisonsis forgeneralizablecausalinference,inthehumanitiesandthehumanisticsocial sciences,scholarshavegonemuchfurtherbyquestioningthevalueof comparisoninthe firstplace.Specifically,inthewakeofpostcolonialtheory andamidrecentdemandstodecolonizetheacademy,scholarshaveexamined

6 Giraudy,Moncada,andSnyder(2019, 36)definethecompoundtreatmentproblemasemerging “whenthetreatmentencompassesmultipleexplanatoryfactors,thusmakingitdifficultto pinpointwhichfactoractuallycausestheeffect.”

thehistoricalconditionsunderwhichcomparativemethodsemergedandthe politicalendsthattheyserved(seeRiofrancos, Chapter 6,thisvolume).Scholars writinginthistraditionhavetracedthecontemporaryuseofcomparative methodstoEurope’scolonialencounters,seeingsuchmethodsaspartofthe evolutionarytheoriesofcivilizational “development” thathelpedjustify colonialdomination(see Cheah 1999, 3–4; vanderVeer 2016, 1–2).

Thisdubioushistory,somescholarsargue,meansthatcomparisonisalways politicallysuspect.As Radhakrishnan(2013, 16)argues, “Comparisonsare neverneutral:theyareinevitablytendentious,didactic,competitive,and prescriptive.” Evenfurther,forscholarsinthisvein, “Comparisonsworkonly whenthe ‘radicalothers’ havebeenpersuadedordownrightcoercedinto abandoningtheir ‘difference’” (Radhakrishnan 2013, 16).Indeed,forsome, thisneedtocreateunitsthatcanbecomparedwithotherlikeunits – say,astate oranethnicgroup – makescomparisonitselfaviolentprocessasthematerial anddiscursiveconditionsfromwhichaunitiscreated as aunitareeffaced (Cheah 2013, 178;seealso Cheah 1999 andCheeseman, Chapter 4,this volume).Worse,thematerialandpoliticalconditionsunderwhichtheseunits areproduced,scholarsargue,areneverequal(Spivak 2013, 253).So,evenas mostsocialscientistsmayconsciouslyrejectevolutionarytheoriesofsocietyand thecolonialprojectstowhichtheywereharnessed,criticalscholarsarguethat thisviolentpastisneverfullydead;itcontinuestohauntpresentpracticesof comparison(seeRiofrancos, Chapter 6,thisvolume).

Suchhauntingtakesmyriadforms:Parkinson’s(Chapter 8,thisvolume) contributiontothisvolumeoffersanexcellentexample.StudyingPalestinian refugeecampsinLebanon,Parkinsonquicklyfoundthattheorganizational dynamicsshehopedtounderstandcouldnotbeeasilydisentangledinto independentanddependentvariables.Instead,shefoundthatany understandingofthedynamicswithinthecampsneededtobeembeddedin thehistoricalcontextthathadconstructedcampsas “camps” thatcouldbe comparedtooneanotherinthe firstplace.Thecampswerehardlynaturalunits, afterall,giventhattheywereproductsofviolentpoliticalprocesses.Yet,the disciplinarytrainingthatmostpoliticalscientistsreceivemakessuchunits appearasnaturalandunproblematic,evenasParkinsondiscoveredinher researchthattheywereanythingbut.

BeyondControl

Whileitisimportanttorecognizesomeofthelimitationsofcontrolled comparisons,ourprimarygoalwiththisvolumeis not tocritiquecontrolled comparison(thoughcritiquesdoinevitablyemergeinsomeofthechapters). Instead,itistobothdrawourattentiontoandbetterelaboratethelogicsbehind somealternativewaysofcomparing.Evenascontrolledcomparisonshave producedlastinginsightsandcontinuetodominateresearchdesigns,theyare nottheonlyformofcomparisonthatscholarsutilize.

Scholarsfromvirtuallyeverysubfieldofpoliticalsciencehaveusedformsof comparisonthatarenotcontrolledtomakecentralcontributionstoour understandingofpolitics,evenasthelogicsbehindthesecomparisonsare rarelyelaborated.Inpoliticaltheory,thetraditionofsystematicbut uncontrolledcomparisonsaturatestheWesterncanon.Indeed,Aristotle’s considerationofwhatwasthebestpoliticalregimewasarguablythe first uncontrolledcomparativepoliticalsciencestudy(see,e.g., Tilly 2010, 8–10). Yet,ifcreativecomparisonsundergirdthepoliticaltheorycanon,theyalso showupinboththeclassicsandthecuttingedgesofmodernpoliticalscience. InAmericanpolitics,suchworkrangesfromDouglas McAdam’s(1982) foundationalstudyofAfricanAmericanpoliticalmobilizationtoJamila Michener’s(2019) recentworkoninequalityandcivillaw.Ininternational relations,politicalsociologistImmanuel Wallerstein(1974) andhisfollowers developedworldsystemstheorytoexaminetheunevendynamicsofcapitalist accumulation,whilePaul Amar(2013) hasmorerecentlystudiedhowfreemarketeconomicpolicieshaverequirednovelsecurityarrangementsacrossthe globethroughasurprisingcomparisonofsuchpracticesinBrazilandEgypt. Incomparativepolitics – thesubfieldmostcloselyassociatedwithcomparative methods – theexamplesarelegion.Foundationalworksbydivergentscholarsin thesubdisciplineincludeSamuel Huntington’s(1968) canonicalstudyofpolitical order,Benedict Anderson’s(1983) classictextonnationalism,andCharles Tilly’s (1990) agenda-settingstudyofstateformation.Thesestudieshavebeenreadby almosteverygraduatestudentatsomepointandcontinuetoprofoundlyshapethe discipline,despitethefactthattheydonotrelyoncontrolledcomparisons.More recent – yetstillhighlyinfluentialworks – byMahmood Mamdani(1996) onthe logicsofcolonialstatesacrossAfrica; DougMcAdam,SidneyTarrow,andCharles Tilly(2001) onthedynamicsofcontentiouspolitics;James Scott(1998) onhigh moderniststateideology;and RichardM.LockeandKathyThelen(1995) on laborpolitics – haveallusedmodesofcomparisonthatdonotutilizecontrolled comparativelogics.Thesameistrueforsomeofthemostrecentworkinthe subdisciplineincludingLisa Wedeen’s(2019;seealsotheEpilogue, Chapter 13, thisvolume)studyofSyrians’ desireforautocracyamidthecountry’scivilwar,and ourownworkonsocialmovementsinLatinAmerica(Simmons 2016)and vigilantismamiddemocraticstateformationinSouthAfrica(Smith 2019;see also Chapter 12,thisvolume).

Somehow,though,despitethislegacyofclassicstudiesandaprofusionof recentscholarshipthatreliesonnon-controlledcomparisontomakeclaims aboutpolitics,surprisinglylittlemethodologicalguidanceisavailableto graduatestudentsforhowtodesignorexecutecomparisonsthatdonotrely oncontrolasacentralelement.7 Worse,thereislittleepistemologicalinsighton

7 Theworksof Tilly(1984); LockeandThelen(1995); Sewell(1996a, 1996b, 2005); Ragins (2004); Ahrametal.(2018);and Boswell,Corbett,andRhodes(2019),whichwediscusslater inthechapter,areimportantexceptionshere.

whysuchcomparisonsmightbecompellinginthe firstplace.Asaresult, scholarsofteneschewcomparativeresearchdesignsthatarenotpremisedon controlledcomparisons,ortheyshoehorncasesintocontrolledcomparison frameworksthatmaynot fit.Andevenwhenscholarsdoemployanoncontrolledcomparativeapproach,theyrarelyexplaintheutilityoforlogic behindthecomparisonsthattheyemployorhowotherscholarsmight performsimilarcomparisons.Theconsequencesforourunderstandingof politicsaresevere.Whenwelimitthekindsofcomparisonswemake,we necessarilyconstrainthekindsofquestionsweask,limitthekindsof knowledgeweproduce,andforecloseourabilitytoimaginepolitics differently(Ragin 2004, 128).

BuildingtheFoundationsforanExpandedComparativeMethod

Scholarswithinpoliticalsciencehavemostcertainlydevelopedvaluable critiquesofcontrolledcomparisons,andthoseoutsidepoliticalsciencehave raisedimportantquestionsaboutthegoalsofcomparisonasawhole.Yet, socialscientistshavebeenlesseffectiveinlayingoutalternativeapproachesto comparison.Themethodologicallogicsbehindthecomparisonsattheheartof theirstudiesarerarelydescribed,evenasawiderangeofapproachesto comparisonappearsinsomeofthemostinfluentialworkacrossthesubfields ofpoliticalscience(seeourearlierdiscussion).

Think,forexample,ofBenedict Anderson’s(1990,butseealso 2016) importantworkcomparingideasofpowerinJavaneseandEuropeanpolitical thought.ComparisonbetweenJavaandEuropeviolatesvirtuallyeverytenetof howacontrolledcomparisonshouldbeperformed.Andersonwritesacross differentscales(anislandversusacontinent),differentregimetypes(a monarchyandsubsequentdictatorshipsversusawidevarietyofregimes),and differentreligioustraditions(anIslamicsystemwithanimistelementsversus largelyChristiansystems).Despitethelackofcontrol,Andersonusesthe frictionbetweentheconflictingconceptsofpowertoilluminatehowideas inverselystructurepoliticalpracticeinbothsettings.HadAndersonapproached thecomparisonthroughthelogicofcontrol,hewouldnothavebeenableto generatetheseinsights.Atthesametime,itisnotclearwhattheepistemology underlyingthesecomparisonsisorwhytheyarepersuasiveorinsightful.This explanatorygapleavesgraduatestudentsandfacultywithoutthetoolstoexplain whysimilarresearchdesignswillproduceimportantinsights.

Tobesure,somecoremethodstextsarguethattoolslikeprocesstracingcan “amelioratethelimitations” ofthemethodsofagreementanddifferenceand promisetoexpandtherangeofquestionspoliticalscientistsask(Georgeand Bennett 2005, 214–15).Buteveninthesecases,processtracingisseenas asecond-bestapproachwhencontrolledcomparisonsarenotpossible(214–15),giventhatprocesstracingoftenappearsasacritical component of controlledcomparativeresearchdesignsasopposedtoan alternative tothem

(e.g.,Luebbert 1991; Htun 2003; Slater 2010).8 Indeed,absentacontrolled comparison,processtracingrunstheriskofbeinglabelledas “mere” descriptive inferencebecauseitwouldbeunclearhowgeneralizabletheprocesses highlightedinaspecificinstanceare – acritiquethatitwouldbehardforany politicalscientisttowithstand,eventhoughdescriptiveinferencehasacritical roletoplayinourexplanationsofpolitics(see Wendt 1998).9

Evenifweweretovaluethekindsofexplanationsthatemergefromprocess tracingordescriptiveinferenceequallytocausallogicsthatemergefrom controlledcomparisons,questionsremainabouthowtopursueprojects askingconstitutivequestionsinacomparativefashion.Anderson’sworkon powerinJavaandEurope,forexample,mightbeconsideredaprojectof descriptiveinferenceinthathegivesustwowaystothinkaboutconceptsof power.Processtracing’sfocusoncausalprocesses,though,isnotappropriate forengaginginthiskindofconstitutiveworkgiventhatAndersonisnot describingahistoricalprocess.Andclearly,controlledcomparisonswould notmakesensetojustifyhisprojectgiventhewidedivergencesacrosscontext wedescribedearlier.Butifthemostcommonlytaughttoolsingraduate methodscoursesarenotuptothetaskofhelpingusproduceworklike Anderson’s,whatotheroptionsarethere?

Fortunately,inthepastfewyearssomepoliticalscientistshavestartedto developjustificationsforalternativemodesofcomparison. Boswell,Corbett, andRhodes(2019, 36–39),forinstance,arguethatscholarsmightbeableto expandtherangeofcomparisonstheymakeiftheyfocusonthesimilar dilemmaspeoplefaceacrossseeminglydivergentcontexts.Asanexample, theypointtothewaysinwhichbothapensionerintheIsleofWightand apoliticianinPalaufacemajordilemmasinhowtonavigatethelimited transportationoptionsforcarryingouttheirdailytasks(shoppinginthecase ofthepensionerandcampaigninginthecaseofthepolitician).Althoughdistant inplaceandexperience,Boswellandcoauthorsargue,comparingshared dilemmascreatesopportunitiesforseeingpoliticalandconceptual connectionsacrosswidelydifferingcontextsthatmightnotbeimmediately obvious.

Similarly,policyscholars BartlettandVavrus(2017) emphasizeformsof comparisonthatlooknotonlytosimilaritiesanddifferencesbutalsoto linkages,hierarchiesofpower,andquestionsofscale.Theydescribethree, mutuallyimbricatedaxesofcomparison – vertical,horizontal,andtransversal

8 See SlaterandZiblatt(2013, 1304)onthispointaswell.

9 Descriptiveinferencelooksdifferentfromcausalinferenceinsofarasitdoesnotattempttoshow thatAcausedB.Instead,itmightexplainhowBcametobedesignedthewayitisortheconditions thatmadeBpossibleinthe firstplace.Thiskindofinferenceallowsustoexplainphenomenain theworldwhilenothavingtomaketheoften-challengingassumptionsrequiredbythelogicsof causalinference(e.g.,variableindependence).Althoughtheydonotnecessarilyusetheterm, severalofthechaptersinthisvolumemakethecasethatdescriptiveinferenceshouldplayacentral roleinouranalysisofpolitics(seeSchaffer, Chapter 3,andHtunandJensenius, Chapter 10).

comparisons – thatsituatecomparisonsnotonlyspatiallybutalsoacrossscales andwithinhistoricalcontextsandrelations(ontransversalcomparison,seealso Kazanjian 2016).10 Engaginginthistypeofcomparison,though,meansridding ourselvesofsomepreexistingideasabouthowwethinkaboutourcases – to engageinan “unbounding” (BartlettandVavrus 2017, 13;seealsoCheeseman, Chapter 4,thisvolume)ofourcasessothatwecanseeunexpectedconnections. Unbounding,Cheesemanargues,leadsusto “followresemblancesacross apoliticaltopographyinpursuitofaproblematiccategoryorpolitically salientidea” (thisvolume,p. 66).Evenaswelocateourstudiesinaspecific setting,weusethatlocationasavantagetohelpusexplorethegeneral. Attentiontotheseaxesalsoinvitesustothinkdifferentlyaboutcasesinways thatareechoedbySoss(Chapter 5,thisvolume)andRiofrancos(Chapter 6,this volume).Whenwefocusonthe “importanceofexamining processes ofsense makingastheydevelopovertime,indistinctsettings,inrelationtosystemsof powerandinequalityandinincreasinglyinterconnectedconversationswith actorswhodonotsitphysicallywithinthecircledrawnaroundthetraditional case” (BartlettandVavrus 2017, 10–11),wecanbothseeourcasesfrom multiplevantages,asSossencouragesustodo,andsituatethosecasesinthe globalcontextsthatRiofrancosemphasizesinhercontribution.

Contributorstoarecentvolumethatrevivescomparativeareastudiesoffer athirdpathoutofthebindscontrolledcomparisonscancreate(Ahram, Köllner,andSil 2018).Areastudieshavelongbeenrelegatedtoasecond-class statusrelativetosocialsciencedisciplineswithintheacademybecauseoftheir supposedfocuson “mere” description,ratherthangeneralizabletheories(see Cheeseman, Chapter 4,thisvolume).(Note,here,echoesofthecritiquesof processtracinganddescriptiveinferenceweraisedearlierinthissection.)

Comparingacrossworldregions, Köllner,Sil,andAhram(2018, 4)suggest,is onemeansofsolvingthisproblembycombiningthe “thick” knowledgeofan areaspecialistwiththebroadviewofasocialscientist.Aswith Lockeand Thelen’s(1995) workoncontextualizedcomparisons,comparativeareastudies promiseamiddlepathbetweentherelativelynarrowconcernsofcountry expertsandthemaximizinggoalsofquantitativesocialscientistsbyhelping casestudyresearchersidentifycausallinkagesthatscholarsinbothofthese othertraditionsmightmiss(Köllneretal. 2018, 5).Toplaceareastudieswithin acomparativeframework,therefore,isinsomesenseinfringingondisciplinary borderswiththegoalofbalancing “acontext-sensitiveexplorationof phenomenawithinindividualcaseswithcomparativeanalysisacrosscases frommorethanoneareasoastodevelopportableinferencesandilluminate

10 Atransversalcomparisonshowsaconnectionbetweenseeminglydissimilarplaces,timeperiods, orconcepts.ComingfromtheLatinword transvertere,whichcombinesthewordsfor “across” and “toturn,” Kazanjian(2016, 7)writesthattheconcept “meanstoturnacrossorathwart,to turnintosomethingelse,toturnabout,ortooverturn.Atransverseisthusnotsimplyalinethat cutsacross,butalsoanunrulyactionthatundoeswhatisexpected.”

theconvergence,divergence,ordiffusionofpracticesacrossregions” (Köllner etal. 2018, 6).

Yetevenwiththeserecenteffortstorethinkthebuildingblocksofthe comparativemethod,workthatreliesonnon-controlledcomparisonsisoften understoodtobeextremelyrisky.Becausetheirlogicisnotbroadlyunderstood, thesestudiesareoftenreservedforseniorscholarswithwell-established reputations,arepublishedinoutletsnotnecessarilygearedtowardpolitical scientistssuchasareastudiesjournals,oraresimplydismissed.Suchwork, therefore,comeswithrisks – risksthatarenotborneequallyacrossthe profession.Forexample,inhiscontributiontothisvolume,Soss(Chapter 5) writesaboutsomeoftheriskshehastakenindoingnon-controlledcomparative workthroughouthiscareer.Sossasks:

Wouldthefreedomtotakethispath – andtherisksandeventualrewardsinvolvedin doingso – havebeenthesameforamoresociallyandinstitutionallydisadvantaged graduatestudent?Doscholarstodayhaveequalopportunitiestotakethispath,regardlessofgender,race,class,sexuality,tenure,orinstitutionalprestige?Ithinktheansweris clearlyno. Thehopeinthissortofwritingisthatwecanbroadenthewayspeople thinkaboutwhatismethodologicallysound sothatitbecomeslessrisky topursue alternativebutequallyvalidwaysofknowinganddoing.(thisvolume,p. 101,italicsin original)

Takingsociallocationseriouslymeansnotonlythatpoliticalscientistsneed additionaltoolsfordesigningandexecutingnon-controlledcomparisons; scholarsalsoneedthosetoolstobecomeacentralpartofmethodstraining.In doingthiswork,wewouldbroadenwhohastheabilitytodothisnontraditional workbyloweringitsrisks.

Wesee RethinkingComparison asanefforttoaccomplishthesegoalsby buildingonandexpandingexistingeffortsinthreecrucialways.First, RethinkingComparison isdeliberatelydesignedtoofferlogics,tools,and insightsfor all scholarsengagedinqualitativepoliticalscience(andwehope socialsciencegenerally),regardlessofepistemologicalassumptions.Whereas Boswelletal.(2019) makeacrucialcontributiontoourunderstandingofhow comparisonmightbepracticedbyinterpretivescholars,weaimtotaketheir workonestepfurtherbybringingtogetherscholarsworkingfromboth positivistandinterpretivistepistemologiestomakethegeneralcaseforthe valueofnon-controlledapproachestocomparisonand,insodoing,bring intotheconversationtwoepistemologicalcommunitiesthatareoftenseenas distinctandirreconcilable.Second,whileweareencouragedbyeffortstobring comparativeareastudiesbackin,notallresearchprojectslendthemselvesto thatparticularkindoffocusandnotallscholarsareequippedwithdeep regionalexpertise(andwearenotarguingthatallresearchquestionsrequire thiskindofexpertise).So,havinganexpandedrangeofoptionsforhowto compareforawiderangeofmethodsisdesirableand,wehope,canhelppush thecomparativeareastudieseffortforwardbybroadeningtherangeof

comparativetoolsavailabletoareastudiesspecialists.Finally,thisvolumenot onlyallowsustodevelopmultipleapproachestocomparison;italsoputsthem intoconversationwithoneanotheraspartofasingletext.Thechaptersthat followdonotofferaunifiedvisionofcomparison.Instead,theyofferavaried toolkit,allowingscholarstobecome bricoleurs,adoptingthebestcomparative toolforagivenproject.Themoreoptionswehaveforhowtopursue comparison,thebetterequippedwearetoexplainandunderstandwhyit makescrucialcontributionstoourunderstandingsofpolitics,andthemore weempowerscholarsacrossvariedprofessionalpositionsandsubstantive intereststopursuenon-controlledcomparativework.

Thus,evenaswerecognizethestrengthsofcontrolledcomparisons,political scientistsneedtodevelopepistemologicallogicsforadditionalstrategiesof comparativeinquiry.Thisconversationhasbegun,butthereismuchwork lefttodo.Weneedtocontinuetobothaddclearlyexplainedandelaborated strategiestoourrepertoireandstrengthenthecaseforthevalueofthesekindsof comparisonsthroughconcreteexamples.Byelaborating why numerous strategiesofnon-controlledcomparisonsshouldbecompellingandproviding scholarswithavocabularytodescribetheirapproach,thechaptersthatfollow dojustthat.Theyprovideafoundationforexpandingthepossibilitiesfor comparativeinquiryinpoliticalscience.Doingso,however,involves rethinkingwhatistobecompared,howtochoosethosecomparisons,and howthosecomparisonsadvanceourknowledge – objectivestowhichweturn intheremainderofthisintroduction.

rethinkingcomparisontorethinkpoliticalscience

Thusfar,wehavesuggestedthatasystematicconsiderationofvaried comparativelogicsbeyondMill’smethodscanopennewpathwaysfor comparativeresearchforscholarsoldandnew – somethingthechaptersin thisvolumeaimtoachievebybringingtogetherworkfromscholarswithvaried methodologicalandepistemologicalbackgroundstopushtheboundariesof comparisonwithinthediscipline.Withthecombinationofbetterguidancefor howtodesignandexecutenon-controlledcomparisonsandincreased understandingofthevalueofthesecomparisonsamongearlycareerand establishedscholars – bothgoalsthatthisvolumehelpsusachieve – scholars shouldfeelenabledtotacklenewandambitiouscomparativeprojectswhile havingthetoolsavailabletoexplainwhytheirresearchdesignsleadto compellingarguments.Furthermore,withthisvolumewehopenotonlyto enablemorescholarstoengageinthesekindsofcomparisonsbutalso toencouragescholarsalreadyengagedinnon-controlledcomparisonstotake thetimeintheirownworktothinkthroughandarticulatethelogicsbehindthe comparisonstheyuse.Themorewetakethetimetoexplainwhatthelogicswe useareandwhytheyarecompelling,themorewewillempowerotherstotackle thesekindsofcomparisonsaswell.

Toachievethesegoals,thechaptersthatfollowdeveloplogicsofcomparison thatarenotmotivatedbycontrol.Thecollectedchaptersachievethisgoalby askingandansweringfoundationalquestionsaboutcomparativemethodsand theirapplicabilitytosocialscienceresearch.Forinstance,whatkindsof questionslendthemselvestonon-controlledcomparisons?Howshouldwe thinkthroughcaseselection?Whatkindsofinsightsabouttheworldarenoncontrolledcomparisonsuniquelypositionedtoproduce?Whatarepotential modelsforwhatanon-controlledcomparisonlookslike?Whyandhowdo theseapproachescontributetoknowledge?Bybringingtogetherscholars workinginbothpositivistandinterpretivisttraditionsandaskingthemto systematicallythinkthroughhowtheyengageinqualitativecomparisonsand theinsightssuchcomparisonscanproduce,thecollectedchapterschallengethe conceptualfoundationsthroughwhichweseethepoliticalworld,createnew possibilitiestoadvancewhatweknowaboutpolitics,andopenoureyestothe politicalassumptionsbuiltintothecomparativemethodsweuse – allwiththe goalofallowingustoseetheworlddifferently.

Thechapterstacklethesechallengesbyfocusingonthreecentralcomponents ofthecomparativemethod.First,theyaskustorethinkwhatacaseisby challengingdominantconceptionsofacasethatfocusontimeorgeography andexploringalternativetypesofcasesincluding,amongothers,political processes(howthingshappen),11 practices(whatpeopledo),meanings(how peopleinteractwithsymbolicsystems),12 andconcepts(howpeopleorderthe world).Second,thechaptersexpandournotionofwhatitmeanstocompare. Theypushpoliticalscientiststoincludeattentiontothelivedexperiencesofthe peopletheystudyandhowthoseexperiencesreordersocialworlds.Finally,the chaptersexpandtheexplanatorygoalsofcomparison.Whilemostcomparative studiesinpoliticalscienceemphasizevariationsinoutcomes,thesechapters urgescholarstoconsidercomparingvariationsinpoliticalprocesses,sites, relations,practices,meanings,andconcepts.Theyalsopushustothinkabout whatitmeanstogeneralizeanargument(typicallythegoldstandardof explanatoryworkinpoliticalscience)byelaboratingalternativelogics.More foundationally,thesechaptersaskustothinkabouthowtostudypolitical worldsthatdonotalwayslendthemselvestodiscrete, fixedoutcomesthat caneasilybeidentified.Insodoing,theypushustoacknowledgeand

11 Tobesure,scholarsofcontentiouspoliticsoftenfocustheirattentiononpoliticalprocesses. However,whentheydesignthesestudiestoconformtothelogicsofcontrol,thekindsof dynamicstheycanexploreareseverelyconstrained.Worse,theassumptionsrequiredbycontrolledcomparisonresearchdesignsaredifficulttomaintaininthestudyofcontentiousepisodes, asmuchiscontingentonthedynamicsoftheepisodeitself,andapparentlysimilarconditionscan influenceprocessesinverydifferentwaysdependinguponsuchcontingentdynamics(see Sewell 1996a).Thus,wewouldarguethatwhencomparingprocessesofcontention,thelimitscreated bydemandsforcontrolareparticularlyconstrainingandthatexpandingtherepertoireof comparativelogicswouldbeparticularlyvaluableforscholarsofcontentiouspolitics.

12 See Wedeen(2002).