Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research.Qualitative Inquiry, 1,275–289.
Noddings, N. (2003).Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education(2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
general processes across different contexts or cate- gories. The ontology of patterns or categories is assumed to be universal and independent of time and space. In other words, the comparison should be broad enough to allow researchers to compare at a “higher level” of abstraction. However, it remains difficult to determine these general patterns. For this reason, comparative research is often used to separate patterns that are more general and isolate regularities or dis- crepancies from the context-laden environment.
Following Max Weber’s comparative sociology, for example, the search for variance places more empha- sis on context and difference so as to understand specificities. Comparisons not only uncover differ- ences between social entities but also reveal unique aspects of a particular entity that would be virtually impossible to detect otherwise.
Examples of Comparative Qualitative Research
The majority of qualitative research relies on some type of comparison either to establish regularities, catego- rizations, and links or to understand phenomena within the context they are observed and experienced. Because comparison is often a key aspect in studies, there are numerous examples of comparative research across a variety of topics and disciplines. Several examples aid us in understanding how we can use these methods to engage in a comparative study design.
A well-known type of comparative analysis used in qualitative research is Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss’s technique of “constant comparative analy- sis” derived from the sociological theory of symbolic interactionism. The central task is to compare one piece of data with all others to compare similarities and differences. Data may be in the form of an inter- view, a statement, a theme, or another specified unit.
These comparisons are used to develop categories and conceptualizations and then to examine potential rela- tionships between these categories. The researcher then compares each new interview, account, or obser- vation until all of them have been compared. This technique is frequently used in narrative research.
Using the lens of phenomenological theory, for exam- ple, George Butte examined the historical shift in literary subjectivity and intersubjectivity via a com- parative analysis of 18th- and 19th-century English novels. Comparative analysis is a useful technique to establish general phenomena such as processes of
marital breakdown, stages of grieving or coping with illness, and other fundamental processes.
Another common comparative application within qualitative research is that of cross-national compar- isons. A long-standing practice in ethnography is the use of “controlled comparison” of different societies stemming from the work of Frederick Eggan during the early 1950s. More recent examples include Sneja Gunew’s cross-country comparative study of the meaning of multiculturalism in Canada, Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. This research was grounded in comparative studies and Donna Haraway’s prominent concept of situated knowledge or the idea that meanings are often embedded in local, national, and global contexts. Cross-national qualita- tive case study comparisons are also often used within political science in the research fields of comparative politics and international relations. The use of com- parative methods and measurement issues in compar- ative politics has been the central focus of authors such as David Collier. Researchers can also refer to the widely used book on qualitative data analysis by Matthew Miles and Michael Huberman, who provided a more detailed list of strategies for comparison and advice on how to use these strategies.
Central Problems in Comparative Research
Comparative research poses several key methodologi- cal problems that continue to frustrate, captivate, and stimulate researchers. These are the selection of cases (including the unit, level, and scale of analysis), con- struct equivalence, case versus characteristic orienta- tion, and the debate regarding causality.
Case Selection and Unit, Level, and Scale of Analysis
Bernard Ebbinghaus recently argued that case selection or sampling is one of the most critical prob- lems in comparative research. In cross-national com- parative research, cases have been preselected due to historical and political processes. In small-Nquali- tative studies, the selection of cases is often deliberate and theory driven. This is what Charles Ragin catego- rized as the difference between a “given” population and a “constructed” population. Because the con- structed population is more theory driven, it is like- wise more driven by the researcher and may be open Comparative Research———101
to favoring the findings of a particular research question. Conversely, although given or taken- for-granted populations are seemingly objective, they may contain many irrelevant cases that significantly affect the results.
In addition, researchers need to decide on the scale of the analysis. The choice lies between a small sample size and a relatively large sample size (often referred to as theN), each of which poses specific problems. In the case where the choice is to include a large number of units (e.g., countries, cases) with only scant, more gen- eral comparative characteristics, the researcher runs the risk of producing superficial results. On the other hand, if the choice is to include only a few units of analysis with a large amount of descriptive depth and character- istics, there is the risk of having too many comparative characteristics and too few cases to effectively examine different explanations or causal models. Some qualita- tive methods, such as phenomenological approaches, do not aim at finding common patterns but want to find the underlying structure or essence via an inten- sive descriptive study of individual cases. Other ethno- graphic approaches also choose to examine detail and depth and to engage in in-depth comparisons within one case.
Yet it is not only the unit but also the level of analy- sis that is vital for comparative research, and this brings problems on the substantive, theoretical, and methodological levels. This is the difference between studying the effects of macro-structural aspects, such as cultural norms, and studying the effects of micro- level individual characteristics, such as an individual’s position in a kinship group or meaning ascribed to certain norms. Another related problem that emerges with case selection is that the unit of analysis or pop- ulation under study is not always self-evident, for example, the nation-state in cross-national studies or the unit of speech or text in narrative or discourse analysis. Finally, among other issues is the issue of how to deal with large comparative differences across groups such as variation in cultural norms or the value of certain objects or meaning attributed to different aspects across groups and societies.
Construct Equivalence
Because the goal of comparative research is to search for both similarity and variance in cases, research necessitates equivalent instruments or definitions to
measure constructs. Many argue that cross-cultural or cross-national comparisons are valid only when there is construct equivalence. Construct equiva- lence refers to the instance where the instrument measures the same latent trait across all speech units, groups, nations, or cultures. This includes, for example, efforts to build cross-national and cross- group comparative categorizations of ethnicity, class, or sexuality.
The necessity of equivalent comparison within comparative studies also forces us to debate the util- ity and meaning not only of standard analytic con- cepts, such as race and class, but also of seemingly straightforward concepts, such as age and gender.
The ethnographer Clarence Gravlee, for instance, demonstrated that the termraceas used in the North American context is vastly different from what Latin Americans mean for the same term. Cross- national or cross-cultural comparisons of con- structs allow researchers to identify which definitions transcend a particular context or which are nation or cultural bound.
Case Versus Characteristic Orientation
Another broader debate within comparative research pertains to the orientation of the approach.
The case-oriented approach used in many qualitative methods aims at fully understanding one case, or only a few cases, with “thick description” or rich data, thereby using many comparative characteristics or variables. This is in opposition to a more quantitative variable-oriented approach that stresses the search for parsimony (i.e., the statistical explanation of variance in many cases by means of only a few variables or characteristics). There is a vibrant debate within the literature on this issue, focusing largely on whether researchers should concentrate on characteristics or define comparisons by “sets” of cases.
Causality
Causality is another central methodological issue in comparative research. However, the definition and very relation to the concept of causality differs funda- mentally between quantitative and qualitative approaches and has been an area of fierce debate. The more positivist and quantitative nomothetic notions of causality, such as those based on David Hume and 102———Comparative Research
advocated by John Goldthorpe, attempt to draw out regularities and specify the underlying social mecha- nisms and processes that generate these regularities.
Conversely, a wider debate within qualitative research questions the very validity of the concept of causality (e.g., by Yvonna Lincoln and Egon Guba) or chal- lenges the necessity to establish universals with vari- able-oriented approaches (e.g., by Ragin). Joseph Maxwell provided an excellent summary and discus- sion of strategies for causal explanation using qualita- tive methods.
Qualitative researchers are often interested in exam- ining differences, similarities, and associations among a variety of objects such as statements, individual meanings, and political configurations. This makes comparative research virtually inescapable. To accom- plish this, researchers need to consider vital aspects such as selecting a particular case or scale of analysis, defining constructs, and deciding whether they will focus on cases or characteristics. Comparisons can then take place on a variety of topics using many different types of qualitative methods.
Melinda C. Mills See alsoComparative Analysis
Further Readings
Butte, G. (2004).I know that you know that I know:
Narrating subjects from Moll Flanders to Marnie.
Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Collier, D. (1993). The comparative method. In A. Finifter (Ed.),Political science: State of the discipline II (pp. 105–119). Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.
Collier, D., & Mahon, J. E. (1993). Conceptual “stretching”
revisited: Adapting categories in comparative analysis.
American Political Science Review, 87,845–855.
Ebbinghaus, B. (2005). When less is more: Selection problems in large-Nand small-Ncross-national comparisons.International Sociology, 20,133–152.
Eggan, F. (1954). Social anthropology and the method of controlled comparison.American Anthropologist, 56, 743–763.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967).The discovery of grounded theory.Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
Gravlee, C. C. (2005). Ethnic classification in southeastern Puerto Rico: The cultural model of “color.”Social Forces, 83,949–970.
Gunew, S. (2004).Haunted nations: The colonial dimensions of multiculturalisms.London: Routledge.
Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Using qualitative methods for causal explanation.Field Methods, 16,243–264.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. B. (1994).Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970).The logic of comparative social inquiry.NewYork: John Wiley.
Van de Vijver, F. J., & Leung, K. (1997).Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.