Clashing Validities in the Comparative Method? Balancing In-Depth Understanding and Generalizability in Small-N Policy Studies

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen van der Heijden
Author(s):  
Patrick Köllner ◽  
Rudra Sil ◽  
Ariel I. Ahram

Two convictions lie at the heart of this volume. First, area studies scholarship remains indispensable for the social sciences, both as a means to expand our fount of observations and as a source of theoretical ideas. Second, this scholarship risks becoming marginalized without more efforts to demonstrate its broader relevance and utility. Comparative Area Studies (CAS) is one such effort, seeking to balance attention to regional and local contextual attributes with use of the comparative method in search of portable causal links and mechanisms. CAS engages scholarly discourse in relevant area studies communities while employing concepts intelligible to social science disciplines. In practice, CAS encourages a distinctive style of small-N analysis, cross-regional contextualized comparison. As the contributions to this volume show, this approach does not subsume or replace area studies scholarship but creates new pathways to “middle range” theoretical arguments of interest to both area studies and the social sciences.


2007 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul F. Steinberg
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-67
Author(s):  
Tatiana-Camelia Dogaru Cruceanu

Abstract Over the past decades, the comparative method has attracted the attention of the theorists, and studies based on this approach have increased in applied policy research. In their daily and strategically policy decisions, the decision makers from local, regional and national levels use more and more the comparative research methods, especially due to interlinked relationship and the need for bench learning and benchmarking practices. The comparative method allows the actors to analyse other experiences, and thus to take decisions more efficient. This is a normal, an inevitable situation, when the unit of analysis is a country, a field of matters or a process where researchers compare cases from empirical or theoretical point of view. The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical view on the capacity of comparative method to foster knowledge in policy studies. The intention is to see and to explore the utility of comparative method for policy studies and policy analysis, since a new approach “evidence-based policymaking” arise, emphasising the importance of using evidence from other political and policy systems.


Author(s):  
Sandra Halperin ◽  
Oliver Heath

This chapter explores the principles of comparative research design as well as the issues and problems associated with different aspects of the approach. In particular, it considers the issue of case selection, the common sources of error that are associated with comparative research, and what can be done to try and avoid or minimize them. The comparative method is one of the most commonly used methods in political research and is often employed to investigate various political phenomena, including democratization, civil war, and public policy. The chapter discusses the three main forms of comparison, namely case study, small-N comparison, and large-N comparison. It also describes two main approaches used to select cases for small-N studies: Most Similar Systems Design and Most Different Systems Design. It also evaluates qualitative comparative analysis and concludes with an analysis of issues arising from case selection and data collection in large-N comparative research.


2020 ◽  
pp. 231-259
Author(s):  
Sandra Halperin ◽  
Oliver Heath

This chapter explores the principles of comparative research design as well as the issues and problems associated with different aspects of the approach. In particular, it considers the issue of case selection, the common sources of error that are associated with comparative research, and what can be done to try and avoid or minimize them. The comparative method is one of the most commonly used methods in political research and is often employed to investigate various political phenomena, including democratization, civil war, and public policy. The chapter discusses the three main forms of comparison, namely case study, small-N comparison, and large-N comparison. It also describes two main approaches used to select cases for small-N studies: Most Similar Systems Design and Most Different Systems Design. It also evaluates qualitative comparative analysis and concludes with an analysis of issues arising from case selection and data collection in large-N comparative research.


2012 ◽  
pp. 32-47
Author(s):  
S. Andryushin ◽  
V. Kuznetsova

The paper analyzes central banks macroprudencial policy and its instruments. The issues of their classification, option, design and adjustment are connected with financial stability of overall financial system and its specific institutions. The macroprudencial instruments effectiveness is evaluated from the two points: how they mitigate temporal and intersectoral systemic risk development (market, credit, and operational). The future macroprudentional policy studies directions are noted to identify the instruments, which can be used to limit the financial systemdevelopment procyclicality, mitigate the credit and financial cycles volatility.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document