ABSTRACT
Charles Ragin defines comparative social science as a subfield of social science (most often sociology, political science, or social history) that is concerned with cross-societal differences and similarities. It may involve comparisons among only a handful of societies (or “macrosocial units,” to use Ragin’s terminology), but often involves much larger samples of a hundred or more societies. The former approach has been dominant among comparativists and is associated with the tradition of qualitative social research. Qualitative research eschews the use of numerical data and is based instead on a close interpretive analysis. Selection 23 (Capitalist Development and Democracy) is an excellent example of this type of comparative research. Those comparativists who use large samples of societies (invariably contemporary nation-states) are, by contrast, engaged in quantitative research. They use large quantities of numerical data involving many variables and analyze these data through the use of statistical methods. Ragin aligns himself with the qualitative tradition, and he identifies the methodological approach of this tradition as the comparative method. Ragin responds to Neil Smelser’s argument that the quantitative version of comparative research is superior to the qualitative version. He stands Smelser’s claim on its head and notes four ways in which the qualitative approach is superior. Ragin’s argument, however, is not intended to imply that quantitatively-oriented comparative research should not be used; there are indeed situations where it is eminently appropriate.
