ABSTRACT
As the last chapter made clear, there are different strategies of comparative research in political science, including comparing many countries, comparing few countries, and single-country studies. In contrast to some comparativists (Lijphart 1971; Peters 1998) and in agreement with Mackie and Marsh (1995: 177), this book argues that all three of these strategies of research are subsumed under the broader umbrella of comparative politics, which can be unified under one logic of inference. The comparative literature is replete with examples of all these methods, but why have they come about and what are the advantages associated with each? This chapter demonstrates that these methods are a function both of the explanatory aspirations of the researcher and the level of conceptual abstraction contained within a given study. The chapter outlines each method and discusses how each is useful for drawing inferences. In no way is one method privileged over another, as each has different advantages and disadvantages.
