300190 Comparative Social Research Methods (S) (SoSe 2015)

To compare is to be human, and we all have a wide and almost instinctive repertoire of assessing things as "bigger", "smaller", "nicer", "more comfortable" and so on. Yet, to compare in a social sciences research project requires great familiarity with comparative methods and applications in order to ensure rigor and feasibility for any study to go beyond common sensical statements.
In order to provide research students - especially but not only those who plan to conduct a comparative study themselves - with such basic knowledge, this two-day workshop discusses the following:

• major methodological approaches and debates in comparative social sciences research
• a number of specific research methods and techniques used to conduct comparative research, and their respective strengths and weaknesses
• major established studies in comparative social sciences research and the strengths and weaknesses of their methodologies.

There will be enough time to discuss your own comparative research projects in the course of the workshop.

Teilnahmevoraussetzungen, notwendige Vorkenntnisse

The workshop will be run entirely in English language. It involves a preparatory meeting on 15 April and two intense workshop days on 21 and 22 May.

Literaturangaben

In preparation for the May workshop, students are required to read the following texts (available on studIP asap after the preparatory meeting in April):

• Della Porta, Donatella (2008). ‘Comparative analysis: case-oriented versus variable-oriented research.’ Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences. D. Della Porta and M. Keating. Cambridge UP: 198-222. [great introduction to main camps in comparative research design]

• Lijphardt, Arendt (1971). "Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method." The American Political Sciences Review, Vol. 65:3, pp. 682-693 [key reading on differences between experimental, statistical and comparative method and strategies of minimizing the "many variables, small n" problem of the latter method]

• Lijphardt, Arendt (1999). Patterns of Democracy. Yale UP, Introduction and Chapter 4 [a prominent example of a large-n study of 36 democracies across 10 variables, classifying them into two types of democracy]

• Skocpol, Theda (1979). States and social revolutions. A comparative analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge UP: Chapter 1, pp. 3-46. [a prominent small-n historical comparison]

• Wilkinson, Richard and Kate Pickett (2009). The Spirit Level. Why equality is better for everyone. Penguin Books. (Flick through to get a sense of the comparative design and have a look at the appendix on methods especially) [recent widely-regarded large-n comparison of levels of inequelity and gravity of a variety of social problems]