See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336278925

A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

Conference Paper · May 2019

CITATIONS READS

20 150,377

2 authors:

Seyed Mojtaba Miri Zohreh Dehdashti Shahrokh

Allameh Tabataba'i University Allameh Tabataba'i University
11 PUBLICATIONS 21 CITATIONS 206 PUBLICATIONS 228 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Seyed Mojtaba Miri on 05 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Allameh Tabataba'i University
Faculty of Management & Accounting
Department of Business Management

A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

Philosophy of Science and Research Method

Prof. Dr. Zohreh Dehdashti Shahrokh

Ph.D. Student: Seyed Mojtaba Miri

May 13, 2019

 Table of Content
What is Comparative Research? .......................................................................................................1
The Configuration of a Comparative Study .......................................................................................2
Goals of Comparison......................................................................................................................2
Modes of Comparison ....................................................................................................................3
Scales of Comparison ....................................................................................................................4
Scopes of Comparison ...................................................................................................................4
Comparative Methods as a Bridge....................................................................................................5
Developing, Testing, and Revising Theory ........................................................................................6
Types of Research Questions and Appropriate Statistical Analyses...............................................7
Descriptive Comparisons ...............................................................................................................7
Basic Explanatory Analysis ............................................................................................................7
Comparison of Relation .................................................................................................................8
Comparative Explanatory ...............................................................................................................8
The Comparative Process ..................................................................................................................8
Selection .........................................................................................................................................9
Description .................................................................................................................................. 10
Juxtaposition ............................................................................................................................... 11
Redescription .............................................................................................................................. 11
Rectification and Theory Formation ........................................................................................... 12
Limitations of Comparative Research ........................................................................................... 12
Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) ........................................................................................ 14
What Is QCA? ................................................................................................................................... 15
Three main types of QCA: ............................................................................................................... 16
Crisp-set QCA ............................................................................................................................... 16
Multi-value QCA ........................................................................................................................... 16
Fuzzy-set QCA .............................................................................................................................. 16
Ph.D. Dissertation ........................................................................................................................... 17
Research Objectives ................................................................................................................... 17
The Scope of Research (focus/approach) ................................................................................. 17
Research Questions .................................................................................................................... 18
The Research Design .................................................................................................................. 18
Methodology Used in the Research ........................................................................................... 19
Sample Article ................................................................................................................................. 19
Abstract........................................................................................................................................ 19
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 19
Method of operation ................................................................................................................... 20
Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 20
References ...................................................................................................................................... 21
A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

What is Comparative Research?

'Thinking without comparison is unthinkable. And, in the absence of comparison, so is all
scientific thought and scientific research" (Swanson, 1971). The use of comparison in the
study of human science, history and culture has a long history. The legacy of comparative
work in the field of social theory can be traced back at least to the Greek Antiquity and, never
interrupted, this sustained tradition has since then been only reinforced as the time has
passed. In our own time, due to certain historical developments like the enormous increase in
communications, technological advances and the immanent intensification of
internationalisation tendencies, comparative research, especially cross-national comparison,
has increasingly being receiving much attention and, as a result, the bulk of contemporary
human and social sciences abounds with examples of comparative approaches (Azarian,
2011). Researchers compare cases to each other; they use statistical methods to construct (and
adjust) quantitative comparisons; they compare cases to theoretically derived pure cases; and
they compare cases' values on relevant variables to average values in order to assess
covariation. Comparison provides a basis for making statements about empirical regularities
and for evaluating and interpreting cases relative to substantive and theoretical criteria. In this
broad sense, comparison is central to empirical social science as it is practiced today (Ragin,
2014). Social research is inherently comparative (Lieberson, 1985). Researchers compare the
relative effects of variables across cases; they compare cases directly with one another.
Comparative research is more of a perspective or orientation than a separate research
technique (Ragin & Rubinson, 2009).

A comparative study is a kind of method that analyzes phenomena and then put them together
to find the points of differentiation and similarity (MokhtarianPour, 2016).

A comparative perspective exposes weaknesses in research design and helps a researcher

improve the quality of research. The focus of comparative research is on similarities and
differences between units (Holt & Turner, 1970).

Comparative analysis means describing and explaining the similarities and differences of
situations or consequences among large scale of social units such as regions, nations,
societies and cultures. This definition reflects traditions such as cross-cultural analysis in
anthropology, cross-societal analysis in sociology, cross-national analysis in political science,
comparative historical analysis in history, and psychological analysis (Smelser, 1973).

Comparative research or analysis is a broad term that includes both quantitative and
qualitative comparison. Social entities may be based on many lines, such as geographical or
political ones in the form of cross-national or regional comparisons (Mills et al, 2006).

Comparative analysis can be divided into quantitative, qualitative and fuzzy. Quantitative
comparative analysis is variable-oriented, qualitative comparative analysis is case-oriented
and fuzzy comparative analysis is collection-oriented (Sa’ei, 2013).

Comparative research method can be defined as a research methodology in which aspects of

social science or life are examined across different cultures or countries. It is a form of

Page 1 of 25
A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

qualitative approach or analysis in which different types of methods like case study analysis
are used by the researchers to elucidate the similarities and differences between the entities or
countries. Comparative research method combines theory or theoretical concepts with data
collection (Given, 2008).

Causality is a major issue faced in comparative research. Under causality comparative

research, researchers focus on identifying causes of differences and similarities existing in
two statements or groups of individuals. Researchers may make errors in determining the
exact cause of the problem in comparative research due to the absence of a common scale for
applying both cases (Smelser, 2013).

On the one hand, comparison often serves as a broader analytical framework—a research
design rather than a research method. On the other hand, it is so fundamentally embedded in
most research methods that it can hardly be recognized as a separate method. Consequently,
Stausberg’s article on comparison was placed, in the Handbook, not under “methods” but
under “methodology,” alongside articles on epistemology, feminist methodologies, research
design, and research ethics (Stausberg, 2011).

The Configuration of a Comparative Study

Every comparative study is configured in a certain way with regard to its goal(s), mode(s),
scale, and scope(s). However, the decisions that lead to its final configuration are rarely all
made at the outset. More often, new insights emerging during the course of the research
process yield reconsiderations and revisions of preliminary decisions. Thus the categories
proposed here—which are also linked to one another in important ways—, are set up and
defined merely for analytical purposes. I argue that they may be useful in evaluating (and also
in conducting) comparative studies, but they do certainly not reflect a linear research process.
Research flows are often complex and unpredictable (Freiberger, 2019).

Goals of Comparison
The most general question “Why compare?” is almost as philosophical as the question “Why
do research?” and thus beyond the limits of this methodological discussion. Yet every
comparative study has its own agenda and specific goals, and responsible scholars reveal and
explain these goals in the introduction to their studies. For locating the goals more broadly it
is useful to consider the disciplinary orientation and the intended audience of a study—the
discourse out of which a study emerges and the readers to whom it is meant to speak.

For the study of human science, pursuing two goals, description and classification, seems
particularly productive. A comparative study whose primary goal is description aims at a
better understanding of a particular historical-empirical item by means of comparison.
Comparing that item with other items can serve a heuristic purpose by identifying aspects and
facets that would otherwise be missed or neglected. It can produce insights by de-
familiarizing the familiar. And it can be the method for testing hypotheses and causal

Page 2 of 25
A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

analyses that aim at a more nuanced description of the respective item. This goal corresponds
to the illuminative mode of comparison discussed below. Second, a study whose primary goal
is classification uses comparison to form, apply, critically evaluate, and refine metalinguistic
terminology in order to classify phenomena. This goal corresponds to the taxonomic mode of
comparison. While it seems useful to separate these two general goals analytically, they can
certainly complement each other, even within a single study (Freiberger, 2019).

Modes of Comparison
Jonathan Z. Smith coined the term “mode of comparison” in his article, “Adde Parvum Parvo
Magnus Acervus Erit,” originally published in 1971 (Smith, 1978), and discussed it further in
his more widely quoted essay, “In Comparison a Magic Dwells” (Smith, 1982). In
accordance with Smith I understand modes as general styles of comparison that reflect both
the spirit in which scholars compare and, to a certain degree, the goals of the individual
study. Having reviewed previous scholarship Smith suggests that each and every study had
been conducted in one of four modes of comparison—what he calls the ethnographic,
encyclopaedic, morphological, and evolutionary modes.

Smith’s model highlights certain methodical deficiencies: The ethnographic mode (which, I
suggest, should better be called the spontaneous-associative mode) displays an undue use of
intuition; the encyclopaedic mode yields superficial categorizations of little analytical value;
the morphological mode decontextualizes phenomena in problematic ways; and the
evolutionary mode posits analogies based on the broader theory of evolution. In Smith’s
argument, the modes are meant to reveal the deficiencies of past scholarship (which he
therefore sweepingly dismisses).

Further, it is important to note that the modes are not mutually exclusive but can appear, in
some combinations, together in one and the same study. With these modifications, Smith’s
four modes can be useful tools to test and evaluate comparative studies (Smith, 1982).

Another model, suggested by David Freidenreich, distinguishes four modes as well, but does
so quite differently (Freidenreich, 2004). Freidenreich’s first mode describes studies that
display a strong focus on similarity and downplay or ignore differences between the
comparands. The second mode, accordingly, refers to studies with a one-sided focus on
difference. Freidenreich presents telling examples and argues that such approaches might
serve certain political, social, or religious agendas well. Studies in the third mode display a
focus on genus-species relationship, constructing (or deconstructing) a genus (such as
religious nationalism, scripture, or myth) by comparing various historical “species” and
identifying differences and similarities between them. The fourth mode describes studies that
use comparison to refocus, that is, to understand phenomenon A better in the light of
phenomenon B, with a refocused lens.

Page 3 of 25
A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

Scales of Comparison
The scale of a comparison marks the degree to which the study zooms in on the comparands.
I appropriate the cartographic tool “scale” to indicate different levels of abstraction that maps
have too. Maps can represent large territories like a country, a continent, or the whole world
(small-scale maps), or smaller ones, like a city, a neighborhood, or a museum floor (large-
scale maps). The scale is the degree of abstraction to which items are represented on the map.
Choosing an item for comparison goes along with determining the scale and picking a map—
that is, deciding on which level of abstraction one intends to compare. Since small-scale maps
have other purposes than large-scale maps, comparing, say, an item that is visible on a state
map of Arizona with an item visible on a floor map of a museum in New York City would
need a creative explanation. Normally, productive comparative studies aim at balanced
comparison, which means zooming in to the same degree for each comparand—for example,
comparing items located on two state maps (or on two museum maps) of the same scale.

Scopes of Comparison
The category “scope” reflects the distance between the items compared in a study. We may
distinguish, very broadly, between contextual, cross-cultural, and trans-historical scopes.
Studies with a contextual scope compare within one historical context or cultural milieu that
can be delineated both spatially and temporally, for example the Mediterranean world in late
antiquity, north-eastern India in the 5th century BCE, or contemporary Brazil. Studies with a
cross-cultural scope, on the other hand, go beyond postulated cultural boundaries, like in a
comparison of ancient Chinese and ancient Greek religion. Clearly, these categories are not
static and clear-cut. Spatial boundaries are often fluid, and cultural boundaries are
constructions. The category “cross-cultural” is not meant to reinforce the notion that the
respective cultures can be clearly delineated and are entirely separate from each other
(Welsch 1999; Juneja 2013). Rather, the categories have a specific analytical purpose.
Scholars who compare in a contextual scope normally expect connections and interaction
between the comparands, whereas scholars who conduct cross-cultural comparison normally
expect unrelated developments.

Comparisons are regularly drawn between various texts or manuscripts, ideas, rituals, objects,
etc., especially for exploring and evaluating relations between the comparands. This
relational approach is common practice, particularly in its genealogical variant, in which
comparison is used to study potential borrowings and dependency. Genealogical comparison
is indispensable for historical scholarship, but it can also come with an undue assumption of
unidirectional flows and linear developments and the creation of reductionist pedigrees for
certain religious phenomena (Smith 1990; Bornet 2016).

Freiberger, argues that the general configuration of every comparative study is constituted by
a certain combination of goals, modes, scales, and scopes. Analyzing existing studies with
this differentiated model may not only help to identify and pinpoint potential problems but
also stimulate new studies that highlight different aspects by modifying one or the other of
these elements. For scholars preparing to conduct a comparative study the model provides a

Page 4 of 25
A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

number of options to choose from when they configure their project. Which goal and which
do I wish to pursue? Can I zoom in (or out) more, and how would that affect my project?
What would happen if I modified the scope of my study in a particular way? Recognizing the
respective risks and benefits of those options may lead to greater methodological awareness,
and making decisions on the configuration with other possible options in mind may yield
more sophisticated research (Freiberger, 2019).

Comparative Methods as a Bridge

In describing the methodological landscape of the social sciences, it is conventional to
distinguish between quantitative, variable-oriented analysis and qualitative, case-oriented
analysis (Ragin, 1987). There is, of course, no inherent reason that variable-oriented analysis
must be quantitative and case-oriented analysis, qualitative (Rubinson & Ragin, 2007). Still,
there is a natural affinity, which is a consequence of the way in which the number of cases
influences the research process. Quantitative techniques require a large number of cases – the
more, the better – so as to meet model assumptions and enhance statistical power (Cohen,
1988). Faced with hundreds or thousands of cases, however, it is impossible for researchers
to know the details of each case. As the cases become obscured and retreat to the background,
variables advance to the fore. Large-N analysis, then, tends to focus on variables and their
relationships. The fundamental goal of variable-oriented research is the production of
descriptive or explanatory inferences (Brady, 2004). Descriptive inferences are produced by
generalizing from patterns found within samples (King et al., 1994). All else being equal, the
larger a sample is the greater the researcher’s confidence in generalizing to a wider
population. Explanatory inferences are produced through hypothesis testing (King et al.,
1994). Hypothesis testing requires a well-specified theory of the relationships among
variables, which may be confirmed or refuted by comparing the theory’s predictions against
evidence. Again, all else being equal, the larger the sample, the greater the researcher’s
confidence that a relationship found in a sample does, in fact, exist in the wider population.
As both benefit from a large number of observations, the affinity between variable- oriented
research and quantitative methods is mutually reinforcing. Case-oriented research and
qualitative methods, by contrast, are most useful when applied to a small number of cases.
Because qualitative techniques leverage the researcher’s in-depth knowledge of cases, every
additional case requires researchers to further divide their attention. Examination of details
highlights the distinctiveness of each case. While imposing limits on generalization and
thereby hindering hypothesis testing, this focus facilitates theory development (George &
Bennett, 2005). In-depth case knowledge makes it easier to see which case aspects are
relevant to the question at hand and how these aspects fit together. This understanding may
be used to construct new theory or revise existing theory, thus generating new hypotheses for
future testing. This is not to say that case-oriented researchers cannot engage in hypothesis
testing; indeed, popular examples of case-oriented research include ‘crucial,’ ‘most-likely,’
and ‘least-likely’ case studies that test whether a theory operates as predicted (Eckstein,
1992). In general, however, researchers who want to develop new theory tend to use
qualitative, case-oriented techniques to examine small-Ns, while those who want to test

Page 5 of 25
A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

theory tend to apply quantitative, variable-oriented methods to large-Ns (Ragin, 1994). A

consequence of this bifurcation is that social research is characterized by a large number of
studies that examine either small-Ns or large-Ns, but relatively few studies that examine a
moderate number of cases (Ragin, 2000). Comparative research can bridge the divide
between qualitative, case-oriented research and quantitative, variable-oriented research. Like
case-oriented methods, comparative methods maintain the integrity of cases; like variable-
oriented methods, comparative methods examine patterns of relationships among variables.
Comparative methods, then, may be used for both theory development and hypothesis testing.
With a moderate number of cases (usually around 5–50), it becomes possible to examine
cross-case patterns while still attending to the details of each case. In comparative research,
theory development and hypothesis testing interact in two ways. First, comparative methods
may be used to develop, test, and revise a particular theory. Second, comparative methods
may be used to adjudicate between competing theories (Ragin & Rubinson, 2009).

Ragin (1994) Constructing social research

Developing, Testing, and Revising Theory

Comparative methods encourage a reciprocal relationship between theory development and
theory testing. In a strictly qualitative case-oriented study, researchers enter the field armed
only with sensitizing concepts, which they use to help them construct new theory as they try
to make sense of their cases. In a purely quantitative variable-oriented study, researchers
begin their research armed with a well-specified theoretical model and hypotheses regarding
how change in one variable affects changes in others. In contrast to these two extremes,
comparativists typically begin their research with a rough idea of the concepts, variables, and
cases that are likely to be relevant to their research question. Because comparative
researchers typically study a moderate number of cases, it is not feasible to use a purely
exploratory approach and conduct an open-ended, in-depth examination of every case. At the
same time, conventional hypothesis testing fails due to the limited degrees of freedom
available. Instead, comparative researchers seek to answer their research questions by
examining the fit between concepts and cases, ideas and evidence. The notion of ‘fit’ is key.
For comparativists, a good theory is a middle-range theory that fits the evidence well (Mjoset
& Clausen, 2007). Such a theory will identify which variables are relevant to the question at
hand, explain how these variables are related to one another, and, specify the contexts under
which they operate. The advantage of using comparative methods to develop, test, and revise

Page 6 of 25
A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

theory is that they make these choices, considerations, and decisions explicit (Ragin &
Rubinson, 2009).

Types of Research Questions and Appropriate Statistical Analyses

(Vliegenthart, 2012) distinguishes four types of research questions. These include
descriptive, basic explanatory, comparison of relation, and comparative explanatory
questions. These four types of questions differ in the degree of sophistication in regard to
explanatory ambitions and have different requirements in terms of quality and quantity of
cases.

Descriptive Comparisons
The most basic research questions are often descriptive in nature, and seek to describe the
occurrences of certain phenomena and how these occurrences vary between cases. For
example, a study may examine how newspapers and television reports differ across two
countries, that is, Sweden and Belgium, with respect to the framing of an election campaign
(Strömbäck & Van Aelst, 2010). In this example, the cases being compared are two countries.
In this study and in similar studies, the analyses are descriptive in nature, and as such, they
involve comparisons regarding the presence of issue framing and game framing in various
newspapers.

Statistically, the descriptive comparison of two (or more) countries is not too difficult, and
comparisons of means (e.g., t-tests) and analyses of variance (e.g., ANOVAs) are often
sufficient. In some instances, especially those with a mid-range number of cases, one might
be interested in a more systematic grouping of cases, for example, to identify two or more
clusters of countries that are highly similar. In those instances, techniques such as
multidimensional scaling, correspondence analysis, or cluster analysis may be warranted
(Esser & Vliegenthart, 2017).

Basic Explanatory Analysis

The second type of research question addressed in comparative research is a basic
explanatory one. The key question is whether certain variables at the unit level impact other
variables measured at the same level. (Schuck et al. 2013), for example, studies how political
system characteristics (closed-list proportional system or not) affected the level of conflict
framing in national outlets during the 2009 European Parliamentary election campaign. In
such instances, multivariate analyses, such as regression analysis, can be applied. An issue
for many of the studies, however, is the limited number of cases. To conduct multivariate
statistical techniques, a considerable number of cases are required, and in many instances,
data for a sufficient number of cases are unavailable. In such situations, two solutions exist,
specifically, to introduce an additional longitudinal component to the design or to rely on the
comparative logic of QCA, and its extension of fuzzy sets (Esser & Vliegenthart, 2017).

Page 7 of 25
A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

Comparison of Relation
A third type of research question is the comparison of relation, which involves investigating
in different contexts the relationship between an independent and a dependent variable. The
comparison of contexts serves as a robustness check to determine whether a relationship
holds in various situations. (Holtz-Bacha & Norris, 2001), for example, test the effects of
public television preferences on political knowledge and find that in 10 out of the 14
countries they studied, a positive and significant relationship was present. They rely on a set
of regression analyses, one for each single country. Alternatively, one can pool the data and
use dummy variables for the countries and interaction terms between the independent
variable of interest and the dummy variables. If these interaction terms are not significant, the
relationship is similar across countries (Esser & Vliegenthart, 2017).

Comparative Explanatory
The final type of question is labeled comparative explanatory. It goes one step beyond the
comparison of relation question in that it addresses explanations for different relationships
across units by taking characteristics of those units into consideration. An example of a
comparative explanatory question is found in the study by (Schuck et al. 2016). They
investigate the effect of exposure to conflict framing on turnout for the 2009 European
parliamentary elections campaign. This relationship is positioned at the individual level
wherein the individuals are nested within the various EU member states.

In this case, two levels are combined, the individual (micro) level and the macro (country)
level, where the first is nested in the latter. In comparable cases, even additional levels can be
considered such as journalists nested in organizations nested in countries (Hanitzsch &
Berganza, 2012). In these instances, it makes sense to rely on multilevel modeling, though
alternative strategies can also be considered when the number of higher level units is limited
(e.g., clustered standard errors).

The Comparative Process

The comparative process can be analyzed and categorized in methodical terms. Slightly
revising and expanding Jonathan Z. Smith’s four-fold model of description, comparison,
redescription and rectification (Smith 2000; described in greater detail by Burton Mack in
(Mack, 1996)) we may distinguish five operations that are potentially included in the
comparative process: selection; description; juxtaposition; redescription; rectification and
theory formation. While some activities must logically precede others (for example, an item
cannot be redescribed before it has been described), most of them occur at various and often
unexpected moments in the actual research process, and some are done repeatedly. For
example, a redescription undertaken far into the study may cause the scholar to bring in
(“select”) an additional, entirely new item and incorporate it in the comparison. Thus the
order in which the five operations are presented here is analytical and pragmatic. It does not
mean to suggest a neat linear, sequential procedure. It is also important to note that not every

Page 8 of 25
A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

comparative study necessarily features all five operations; especially the last two,
redescription as well as rectification and theory formation, are related to the respective goals
of the particular study (Freiberger, 2019).

Selection
Case selection is the most critical problem with comparative research In the case of cross-
national comparative research (Ebbinghaus, 2005). The cases are pre-selected because of
political and historical processes. The taken for granted concept of selection of case in
research affects the results. This may contain irrelevant cases that significantly impact the
results (Azarian, 2011). Example: In cross-national comparative research the researchers
must take cases of limited alternatives. This way, the target population is also certain. This
can affect the research results.

The selection of the sources and the tertium comparationis is arguably the most challenging
operation for the comparativist1. Put in general terms, every comparative act requires two (or
more) items that are to be compared (the comparands) and a point or question with regard to
which they are compared (the “third of comparison,” or tertium comparationis). All this
seems fairly obvious, but a closer look reveals that the process of selecting both the
comparands and the tertium comparationis is extremely complex. Multiple factors are at play
in the selection process, from the researcher’s training and personal interests to cultural,
academic, and disciplinary frameworks and paradigms. In addition, thorough reflection
shows that the comparands and the tertium that eventually get chosen have been in a complex
relationship—in the mind of the scholar and possibly also in academic discourse—long
before they were put forward for comparison in an actual study. The selection of two
comparands presupposes a prior act of comparison in which a productive comparability of the
two was established. In other words, the assertion that two items deserve to be compared
implies that they have already been compared2. the comparands and the tertium may be
modified in the course of the comparative process. Thus the selection process appears as all-
encompassing and non-linear. This complex activity, labeled “selection” here, is also the least
transparent of the five operations with regard to the researcher’s agency. In most scholarship
in the humanities and social sciences, the reasons for why a researcher picks a certain subject
for his or her study are manifold—being rooted not only in the academic discourse but also in
very individual experiences, preferences, and agendas—and can rarely be traced to the full
extent, even by the scholar him- or herself. This is even more relevant in comparative studies
with its selection of not one, but two (or more) items and, most importantly, of the tertium
comparationis which reflects the envisioned connection between the comparands (relational
or analogical). The selection of the tertium in particular is closely linked to the goal of the
study and thus also to the audience for which the study is intended. Since unstated agendas,
1
Surprisingly, Smith does not include this most crucial operation in his four -fold model.
2
Swiss philosopher Ralph Weber speaks of a “pre -comparative tertium.” “In comparative studies, the
placing of one comparatum next to the other for the sake of subsequent comparison is not done purely
at will but on the basis of a presumed or asserted relation, which is expr essive of a claim of
resemblance or dissemblance (or of identity or difference) and thus is also the result of prior
comparison(s): ‘pre comparative’ is in this sense always ‘post -comparative’” (Weber, 2014).

Page 9 of 25
A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

unconsciously followed or intentionally concealed, can shape the research most effectively in
the selection process, a high level of transparency is of paramount importance (Freiberger,
2019).

Description
Before juxtaposing the chosen items comparativists should provide a historical-empirical
description that situates the items in their respective socio-historical and discursive contexts.
In J. Z. Smith’s words, there is “[f]irst, the requirement that we locate a given example within
the rich texture of its social, historical, and cultural environments that invest it with its local
significance” (Smith, 2000). Here a major issue for reflection is how an “item” is to be
delineated and thus separated from its “context”. Considering parallel sociological
discussions about how to define a “case” (Charles & Becker, 1992), one may conclude that
all items to be compared are, simultaneously, empirical units and theoretical constructs
(Freiberger, 2018). The degree to which they can be identified as one or the other places them
on a spectrum ranging from most theoretical to most empirical. At one end of this spectrum
are highly abstract items such as fundamentalism, syncretism, or secularity. Fundamentalism
in present-day America, for example, may be productively compared with fundamentalism in
contemporary India. Here the comparands are primarily theoretical constructs, but they have
to be studied empirically too; they need both theoretical and empirical properties. At the other
end of the spectrum are items that, at first glance, may seem to be purely empirical, like a
certain book or a specific piece of religious art. But these have theoretical properties too,
because they have been conceptualized—both by the religious actors and by scholars—as
items that can be circumscribed and delineated from their immediate context, that stand out in
a certain way, and that have a specific religious value. Only this theorization makes them
interesting for a comparative study. Smith’s remark about the “local significance”—which
may also be called emic conceptualization—is thus closely connected to his second point:
“The second task of description is that of reception history, a careful account of how our
second-order scholarly tradition has intersected with the exemplum. That is to say, we need to
describe how the datum has become accepted as significant for the purpose of argument.
Only when such a double contextualization is completed does one move on to the description
of a second example undertaken in the same double fashion” (Smith, 2000). In practice, it
must be noted, the description of the comparands in their contexts is also informed by the fact
that the items will enter a comparative study. The description will highlight features that are
This process urgently needs more analysis. See (Freiberger, 2018), for some initial
reflections. Fitz Poole stresses this double perspective too from an anthropological
perspective when he writes: “All academic studies of religion are thus obliged to forge an
explicit and precise relationship between the particular and the general in the construction of
any analysis. The particular anchors the analysis to some sense of ethnographic reality, and
thus gives it empirical force. The general makes the analysis significant as an illuminating
instance of religion, and thus makes it applicable to the constitution of an explanation”
(Poole, 1986). Most relevant for the subsequent comparison. The challenge lies in avoiding
an overemphasis of those particular features—and in essentializing the item by reducing it to

Page 10 of 25
A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

those features. The most productive studies aim at providing a comprehensive and rich
description that takes the items’ historical-empirical context into consideration. The general
rule is that other experts in the study of the respective context must altogether approve of the
description.

Juxtaposition
The most essential operation of a comparative study is the act of juxtaposing the comparands.
In the course of this juxtaposition the researcher observes and analyzes their similarities and
differences with regard to the tertium comparationis. That both similarities and differences
are equally important becomes apparent when we consider two seemingly contradictory
perspectives on them. On the one hand, one could argue that since the comparands are
separate items, the fact that they are different is obvious; the similarities need to be pointed
out. On the other hand, the fact that they enter a comparison means that they have already
been identified as members of the same class; what is now interesting is how they differ.
Since both statements are valid, a careful and balanced approach is essential for conducting a
productive comparative study. While juxtaposition is the most essential act of comparison, it
is also the most individual act for each study. Where exactly the emphasis lies in the analysis
of similarities or differences is determined by the goal of the particular study and the mode in
which it is conducted (Freiberger, 2019).

Redescription
While the first three operations are inherent in all comparisons, the following two may or
may not apply to a particular study. The first, redescription, is the act of describing a
historical-empirical item once again in light of the insights gained from the juxtaposition with
a different item. As Mack puts it, “[i]t may be that something will have been learned about
factors that make the two situations similar, something about the difference another myth
makes, something about the reasons for a people’s interest in or fascination with a particular
notion, role, or activity, and so forth. These insights will change the way in which the
examples under investigation are understood and thus require redescription. A redescription
will register what has been learned in the study” (Mack, 1996). This act of redescription
particularly applies to studies conducted in the illuminative mode. Studying an item through
the lens of a different one, observing previously unnoticed features, discovering blind spots,
etc. may result in a new description of the item that is more comprehensive or more refined.
The new description of an historical-empirical phenomenon reflects the progress in
scholarship that has been made as a result of the comparative study. Future studies of this
item and its context will have to recognize and consider the revised description. In some
studies illuminating phenomena by means of comparison happens in both (or more) ways.
Arvind Sharma has called such a multidirectional process “reciprocal illumination” (Sharma,
2005).

Page 11 of 25
A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

Rectification and Theory Formation

With the act of rectification “the academic categories in relation to which [the exempla] have
been imagined” are rectified (Smith, 2000). Unlike redescription, rectification does not refer
to the analysis of a particular historical-empirical item but to a revision of the definition and
conceptualization of the (meta-linguistic) categories involved in the study. In contrast to
Smith, who elsewhere blends the two terms when he says that redescription “expressed a
central goal, the redescription of classical categories to the end that these be ‘rectified’”
(Smith, 2004), we follow Mack’s understanding of the term that to rectify a category is to
“rename the phenomenon of which our case studies are examples” Note that we distinguish
redescription—a new historical-empirical description of a certain item that is now enriched
by the conclusions of the comparison—from rectification, which refers to the
conceptualization of the phenomenon (Mack, 1996). This separation seems analytically
useful: We redescribe a concrete item in its historical, object-linguistic context, and we
rectify a metalinguistic category. Rectification is particularly relevant for studies that are
conducted in the taxonomic mode. The comparison of “species” results in a better
conceptualization of the “genus.” A cross-cultural and cross-tradition comparison of
particular relic practices, for example, can result in identifying broader theoretical dynamics
that enrich the scholarly conceptualization of the category “relic” (Trainor, 2010). A thorough
comparison of medieval Christian and Tibetan Buddhist texts can offer new insights on how
“hagiography” works (Rondolino, 2015; Rondolino, 2017). Rectifying metalinguistic
categories is an act of theorizing. According to the most general definition in the Oxford
English Dictionary a theory is “[t]he conceptual basis of a subject or area of study” (Oxford
English Dictionary Online, 2015). We may specify that theory can be regarded as a
conceptual network of a certain area of study in which various metalinguistic categories are
structurally interlinked. A comparative study may result in rectifying existing categories, but
it may also lead to the suggestion of new ones. It may even help revise or create more
complex theoretical formations. For example, a comparison of ancient Greek and early
modern Indian texts can complicate the typologies of links between religion, gender, and
violence (Pasche Guignard, 2015). This contributes, eventually, to a better theoretical
understanding of religion. Again, in Mack’s words, “The point is nothing less than the
construction of a theory of religion. A new designation for a recognizable phenomenon can
become a building block for constructing a descriptive system. And the descriptions of
phenomena in such a studied system can actually become mid-range axioms that might
eventually be used to build a cultural (and in Smith’s case, cognitive) theory of religion”
(Mack, 1996). In other words, a comparative study may result in the formation of a theory
about a certain religious phenomenon, and this theory can be incorporated in a larger theory
of religion. While this is one possible outcome, most comparative studies operate on lower—
but equally relevant—levels of abstraction (Freiberger, 2019).

Limitations of Comparative Research

The widespread use of comparison can easily cause the impression that this method is a
firmly established, smooth and unproblematic mode of analysis, which due to its

Page 12 of 25
A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

unquestionable logical status can generate reliable knowledge once some technical
preconditions are met satisfactorily. Yet, as we have already seen, comparison is a quite
demanding method strategy that requires reflection and careful consideration. Indeed, there
are a number of severe limitations and constraints associated with comparison that, calling for
serious attention, should warn against and prevent any easy-minded uncritical adoption of
this mode of analysis (Azarian, 2011).

It is more difficult, more costly, and more time consuming than research that is not
comparative. The types of data that can be collected and problems with equivalence (to be
discussed) are also frequent Problems.

Another limitation is the number of cases. Comparative researcher can rarely use random
sampling. Sufficient information is not available for all of the approximately 150 nations in
the world. It is unavailable for a nonrandom subset (poor countries, nondemocratic countries,
etc.). In addition, can a researcher treat all nations as equal units when some have over a
billion people and others only 100,000? The small number of cases creates a tendency for
researchers to particularize and see each case as unique, limiting generalization. For example,
a researcher examines five cases (e.g. countries), but the units differ from each other in 20
ways. It is difficult to test theory or determine relationships when there are more different
characteristics than units.

A third limitation is that comparative researchers can apply, not test, theory, and can make
only limited generalizations. Despite the ability to use and consider cases as wholes in H-C
research, rigorous theory testing or experimental research is rarely possible. For example, a
researcher interested in the effects of economic recession cannot cause one group of countries
to have a recession while others do not. Instead, the researcher waits until a recession occurs
and then looks at other characteristics of the country or unit.

As various species of entities are picked up to be compared, there is often an underlying and
tacit assumption about their autonomy and a silent tendency to ignore the complex interplays
and mutual influences among the units. Facing this difficulty, i.e. the absence of enough
independent, self-contained cases to be compared in order to identify causal patterns, the
researcher is thus often left with a substitute, namely that of narrating a story instead. To
illustrate the point let us take an example. In his major work, The Sources of Social Power,
(Michael Mann, 1986) ponders over the possible causes behind the rise of the West and
stagnation of other civilisations. In this context he spends a few moments on alternative and
potentially possible historical outcomes that nonetheless remained unrealised. He then goes
on and discusses some of the difficulties in arriving at a definite causal explanation and,
among other things, points at the interplay among the compared units as a sever obstacle in
developing causal accounts. According to him, since none of these cases was autonomous
and detached from the mutual influences that constantly flowed across them, it is hard to
identify any tidy indigenous causal patterns.

Another fundamental issue with far-reaching implications concerns the choice of the units
being compared. The main point is that, far from being an innocent and/or simple task, the

Page 13 of 25
A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

choice of comparison units is a critical and tricky issue. This point has been observed by
many, among them Kocka who, drawing on the experiences form the case of the so-called
Sonderweg thesis, puts the issue as follows. According to him (Kocka, 1999), this case
“makes extremely clear the degree to which the results of a comparison depend on the
selection of the objects of comparisons. Compared with its Dutch or English parallels, the
nineteenth century German economic bourgeoisie appears relatively limited in extent, power,
and bourgeois qualities. But compared with east-central or eastern European countries, it
appears strong and intensely bourgeois.

Moreover, as we have seen, one of the main reasons for the use of comparison is exactly the
small number of the cases of the phenomenon under study. In other words, it is typically the
absence of large enough number of cases that prevents the analyst from using the
conventional statistical methods. In consequence, comparative studies often embrace only a
handful of cases, which in a sense are not chosen freely by the analyst but rather make up a
given premise in his or her approach simply because they are the only ones available. That
one in his or her research is confined to a small number or, as it often is, to a few cases is of
course a serious limitation and constitutes an inherent bias in the structure of comparison,
with far reaching implications for the validity of the outcomes of these studies especially with
regards to their generality (Azarian, 2011). Since the choice range is often radically
circumscribed, the analyst is often left with a small number of cases determined by factors
beyond his or her power. Under these more or less imposed research conditions, it is often the
case that the analyst is forced to conduct a comparison among units not of all of which he or
she has equally adequate knowledge.

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)

There are (at least) two ways to understand “methods” in the social sciences: on the one hand,
this refers to how to conduct interviews, how to analyze texts, or how to calculate a statistical
correlation. In this perspective, methods are understood as techniques. On the other hand, in
methodology (as the logos, that is, the science of methods and how to work with them), the
term “method” is always more often used in expressions such as “the case study method” (see
George & Bennett, 2005; Gerring, 2007; Blatter & Haverland, 2012; Rohlfing, 2012), or for
the description of procedures such as “process tracing” (George & Bennett, 2005). In this use,
“method” is not so much understood as a technique, since these “methods” can be based on
several techniques, but as a general description of a specific research design. This important
difference in the understanding of methods is too often only a vague and not explicitly visible
difference. This problem becomes especially valid in the case of Qualitative Comparative
Analysis (QCA), with which this chapter deals. While QCA certainly makes use of certain
techniques (as explained later), it should be better understood as a “research approach,” since
it is more of a design than a technique (on this, see also Wagemann, 2010; Wagemann &
Schneider, 2013). There are plenty of opportunities to connect a QCA analysis with various
data collection techniques. It can be easily imagined to combine fieldwork, participant
observation, archival research, in-depth or semi-structured interviews, survey analysis,

Page 14 of 25
A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

protest event analysis, discourse analysis, and even network analysis (see various chapters in
this volume) with QCA.3

What Is QCA?
Qualitative Comparative Analysis is, first of all, a particular name for a research design.
From the very wording, we can deduce that it is qualitative, comparative, and analytical.
However, none of these three terms is without problems. Perhaps the least problematic term
is “comparative,” since we could simply assume that QCA works with more than one single
case. But this leaves us with the question: if more than one case, then how many cases should
be compared? The word “comparative” itself does not give us an answer: in theory, an
infinite number of cases could be compared. Nevertheless, in social science practice, above
all since Lijphart’s (1971) seminal article, a small (two, four, six), and less often a mid-sized
(between ten and thirty, very rarely also more) number of cases is understood as typical for a
comparative design. In QCA, this has to be put a slightly differently: QCA has a (rather
technical) problem with very low numbers of cases, since it is an approach based on
diversity. Readers are probably familiar with Przeworksi and Teune’s (1970) most different
and most similar systems designs (MDSD and MSSD). With the MDSD, it is possible to
explain similarities in the outcome for otherwise different cases. With the MSSD, by contrast,
differences in the outcome are explained for generally similar cases.3 No matter on which of
these classical designs we rely, we will find diversity: either with regard to the constitution of
the cases (MDSD) or with regard to the outcome (MSSD). QCA adds to this: in order for it to
function well, it is advisable to ensure some variation in the outcome and, at the same time, to
base the analysis on different cases. The difference among the cases follows Lazarsfeld’s
(1937) ideas of a property space: every case is decomposed into its constituting properties
and is understood as a specific configuration of these properties. For example, social
movements could be described in terms of their number of activists, their date of origin, and
their mode of protest. Any single social movement can then be defined in terms of these three
properties, for example as a movement with many activists that is old and that uses
demonstrations as a main form of protest. The case as such disappears and is grouped with
other cases that belong to the same configuration. “Case” in this sense does not necessarily
refer to organizations: individuals can also be described in terms of their characteristics. For a
comparison of these configurations to make sense, a high level of diversity among the cases
is needed. Also, in order to avoid a no-variance design, the outcome also has to show a
certain level of diversity. In brief: QCA is based on diversity with regard to both the outcome
and a plenitude of different case configurations. Since diversity is such an important feature
of QCA, which renders it even more diversity-based than the MDSD and the MSSD, we can
see that QCA’s application is suboptimal for a very small number of cases. Therefore, as a

3
In this sense, QCA offers itself as a typical “mixed methods” or “triangular” (for the historical
formulation, see Campbell and Fiske 1959.; for more recent accounts, see Seawright and Collier 2004;
Tarrow 2004; della Porta and Keating 2008) research design (for an example with explicit references to
the mixed methods component, see Hollstein and Wagemann 2014). This also means that topics such as
the subjectivity of qualitative research (Bryman 2012) or ethical issues are indeed important for QCA —
but not in a different manner from the data collection techniques being used.

Page 15 of 25
A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

comparative method is more suited for a mid-sized number of cases than for a small number
of cases. While the term “comparative” within the expression “Qualitative Comparative
Analysis” has not been too complicated and has mainly revised the understanding of the
number of cases to be included in a comparison, the word “analysis” might pose a certain
challenge. Most importantly, QCA can be differentiated from other analytical approaches
through its being rooted in set theory. Set theory is usually taught at high schools in only
superficial ways; its notation system and its operations are very similar, if not equal (for a
comparison, see Schneider and Wagemann 2012) to Boolean algebra and the logic of
propositions.

Three main types of QCA:

Crisp-set QCA
csQCA was the first QCA technique developed, in the late 1980s, by Charles Ragin and
programmer Kriss Drass. Ragin’s research in the field of historical sociology led him to
search for tools for the treatment of complex sets of binary data that did not exist in the
mainstream statistics literature. He adapted for his own research, with the help of Drass,
Boolean algorithms that had been developed in the 1950s by electrical engineers to simplify
switching circuits, most notably (Quine, 1952) and (McCluskey, 1968).

Multi-value QCA
Multi-value QCA, as the name suggests, is an extension of csQCA. It retains the main
principles of csQCA, namely to perform a synthesis of a data parsimonious solution (the
minimal formula). As in csQCA, the minimal formula contains one or more terms, each of
which covers a number of cases with the outcome, while no cases with a different outcome
are explained by any of the terms in minimal formula. The main difference is that whereas
csQCA allows only dichotomous variabes, mvQCA also allows multi-value variables. In fact,
mvQCA is a generalization of csQca, because indeed a dichotomous variable is a specific
subtype of multi-value variables (Porta, 2014; Cronqvist & Berg-Schlosser, 2009).

Fuzzy-set QCA
One apparent limitation of the truth table approach is that it is designed for conditions that are
simple presence/absence dichotomies (i.e., Boolean or “crisp” sets) or multichotomies
(mvQCA). Many of the conditions that interest social scientists, however, vary by level or
degree. For example, while it is clear that some countries are democracies and some are not,
there is a broad range of in-between cases. These countries are not fully in the set of
democracies, nor are they fully excluded from this set (Rihoux & Ragin, 2009).

Fortunately, there is a well-developed mathematical system for addressing partial

membership in sets, fuzzy-set theory (Zadeh, 1965; Klir, 1997). Fuzzy sets are especially
powerful because they allow researchers to calibrate partial membership in sets using values
in the interval between [0] (nonmembership) and [1] (full membership) without abandoning
core set theoretic principles such as, for example, the subset relation (Rihoux & Ragin, 2009).

Page 16 of 25
A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

Ph.D. Dissertation
A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON STRATEGIC LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT BETWEEN
MILITARY AND BUSINESS SECTOR (Focused on Military Perspectives)

CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY (SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT)

Ph.D. Thesis of Mr. Soo-Hyun Kim 1996

Research Objectives
This research is designed to get the answers to 'why, what and how can the military adapt
civil business practices?'

In order to achieve the ultimate objective, the research is focused on five specific objectives
which are sequentially linked to each other.

1. To identify the strategic implications of logistics.

2. To develop a conceptual model for strategic logistics management.
3. To identify specific requirements for military logistics in a real case.
4. To identify business practices in strategic logistics management.
5. To initiate a course of action regarding the benchmarking of business logistics.

The Scope of Research (focus/approach)

The research basically follows the comparative study approach with the prime objective
being to learn military lessons from the commercial business sector.

(1) The scope of research is on the subject of 'strategic logistics management' in the logistics-
oriented organization, which mainly concerns the:

- Management process between the overall strategy of organizations and their logistics
management (the strategic perception of logistics leverage);

- Logistics capability in an organization which provides 'means' - time/place utility - against

'ends' - objective/desire (strategic competence of logistics capability).

This scope is decided in connection with the military's requirements, which were initially
identified in preliminary analysis to reflect the research rationale. Of course this scope can be
applied to the business sector as well.

(2) This research is not just to compare - discovering similarities and differences - military
logistics with business logistics, but to benchmark a part of business practice, based on the
military requirements identified through a preliminary analysis of military war history.

(3) With reference to the comparability problem, (Warwick and Osherson, 1973) suggested
that a relational criterion can be used to bypass the potentially unmanageable problems of
comparing contents among distinctive groups. By adopting the notion of the relational
criterion approach, this study will concentrate on the identification of key variables of

Page 17 of 25
A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

strategic logistics management and the relationship based on the 'strategic linkage' criteria.
The criteria will be used as dimensions for comparative measurement in the further empirical
study.

(4) Since the nature of this research is dealing with a cross-sectional comparative study, the
term `benchmarking' is used frequently throughout the thesis. The author's perception on
benchmarking is 'learning from the best lesson of the others through a purposeful cross-
sectional analysis.' Therefore the logic of benchmarking approach applied in this thesis is
adopted based on the assumptions as follows:

- There must be a pattern of successful logistics management observed consistently in both

sectors;

- Military logistics can adapt the practices from the successful firms' logistics management in
a military context.

Research Questions
(1) What are the strategic implications of military logistics in general terms? Can it be
represented in a conceptual model, incorporating business logistics?

(2) What are the military's requirements for improving their logistics performance with a
specific reference of the Gulf War case?

(3) What are the major business practices in terms of the strategic linkage of logistics, in
some successful U.K commercial firms?

(4) How can military logistics adapt military lessons from business logistics practices?

The Research Design

The research is divided into five phases. Each phase has its own objectives and methodology.

• Phase 1 reviews the literature on the subjects of strategic management, military logistics and
business logistics, focusing on the strategic implication of logistics. The results of the
comprehensive studies provides the general background of research, and are described in the
logistics systems comparison; identification of strategic implications of military logistics; and
theoretical background for Phase 2 & 3.

• Phase 2 is the conceptual model formulation stage. The output of Phase 1 is further
aggregated into the abstract form of a conceptual model of Strategic Linkage in strategic
logistics management, which provides a theoretical framework for the field work proceeding
in Phase 3 & 4.

• Phase 3 is planned to undertake a case study on the Gulf War logistics practiced by the U.S.
Army. The main objective of this case study is to identify specific requirements for
developing strategic logistics management in the military in general. The Gulf War is
selected because it is regarded as the role model for modern warfare.

Page 18 of 25
A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

• The objective of Phase 4 is to identify major practices and trends of business logistics in
some of the most successful companies in the UK. The survey is undertaken, focused on
strategic issues in logistics management. Later, the survey results will be interpreted for the
military implications of business logistics, concerning specific military requirements.

• Phase 5 is called a benchmarking stage, where the case study and survey results are
matched. The final output is to come up with recommendations for the military logistics
management. Those field works exercised in two distinctive sectors are jointly matched and
analyzed, based on the management parameters and variables according to the conceptual
model proposed in Phase 2.

Methodology Used in the Research

The objective of this research demands information from two distinctive sectors of the
military and commercial firms. Moreover, as the whole research process follows the
comparative approach.

Sample Article
The Comparative Study of EOQ Newsboy and Silver-Meal Method for SMEs Business

Lakkana Ruekkasaem - 2014

Faculty of Industrial Technology, Phranakorn Rajabhat University, Bangkhen, Thailand

Abstract
This study was conducted to determine an appropriate model to be used so that a cleanroom
equipment company will be able to order a proper number of various types of products to
serve the demand of customers at different periods of time. The case study had high inventory
cost due to the fact that it could not order goods accordingly. The research compared the
efficiency of Economic Ordering Quantity (EOQ), Newsboy Model and Silver-Meal Method
to find the optimal order quantity model for this company. The results of the study indicated
that the EOQ model (in case allowing for some inventory shortage) obtained the least
inventory cost.

Introduction
The electronics industry is considered as an industry which has a significant impact to the
current Thai economy with the industry being one of the top exporting industries of the
country for many years. In 2013, the value of electric appliances and electronics summed up
to 491,236 million Baht with 3.2% growth rate. The production process of each electronic
part needs to be free of static electricity. For the process to be dust free, control process must
emphasize on having a clean control room where staff or personnel could only enter when
they clean, wears outfit, and special equipment only to be worn in the control room. The
equipment, which helps shield contaminant, is therefore highly important for electronics
industry. These equipment include but not limited to static control wrist strap, disposable
bouffant cap, polyurethane coated gloves. In Thailand, most control room equipment are

Page 19 of 25
A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

imported from South Korea, however the equipment have different expiration dates and
prices. The case study company importing equipment for control room for this research
therefore faces issue regarding cost of inventory. Researcher therefore uses knowledge in
industrial engineering to find solutions to reduce cost of inventory according to inventory
management theory.

Method of operation
1. Study and gather data from case study factory

2. Study theories and research results related to inventory

2.1 Categorizing inventory with ABC Analysis

2.2 Calculating Economic Order Quantity (EOQ)

Summary
The study took into account of data dating back 1 year with inclusion of value and quantity of
demand of each product depicted in Table 1. After the data has been analyzed and results
have been compared, the following results were concluded to find solutions for inventory
management. Categorizing inventory with ABC Analysis calculated the percentage of total
value and demand quantity of each product category. The products were able to be
categorized in ABC categories as depicted in table 2. According to Table 2, raw materials in
group A include STATIC SHIELDING BAG (METAL IN) and STATIC CONTROL
RUBBER MAT according to the overall value, products under this category have relatively
high total value (84.44 %). If strictly controlled and reported into each accounting book and
physical verification is performed to compare quantity presented in accounting book with
physical existence, cost of inventory can decrease. In addition, control process in inventory
system should be continuous and kept safe. In terms of ordering, company should consider
many buyers to reduce risk of inventory shortage and allow for price negotiation. After
calculating order quantity in the cases of first, not allowing any inventory shortage and
second, allowing for some inventory shortage (depicted in Table 3), it is shown that in the
case of allowing for some inventory shortage, total cost is 50% less.

However, economic ordering could only be successful when the product demand is stable and
constant which consumer demand may fluctuate. Therefore, researcher uses calculation of the
Silver – Meal (SM) and used Newsboy Model as a method of inventory management. Total
cost is depicted in Table 4. From Table 3 and Table 4, it shows that economic order quantity
has the lowest overall inventory cost and, therefore is the most appropriate method for the
case study this research is based on. However, inventory management according to this third
method is appropriate in some cases with regards to the customer’s demand and quantity of
competitors holding market shares. In summary, economic order quantity is the most
appropriate method when product demand is stable and constant, whereas the Silver – Meal
method is the most appropriate method when product demand highly fluctuates from one
period to another, and lastly Newsboy Model is the most appropriate method when product
demand is unstable and inconsistent.

Page 20 of 25
A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

References
Azarian, R. (2011) Potentials and Limitations of Comparative Method in Social Science,
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(4), pp. 113-125.

Blatter, Joachim and Haverland, Markus (2012). Designing Case Studies. Houndmills
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bornet, Philippe. 2016. Comparison as a Necessary Evil: Examples from Indian and
JewishWorlds. In Interreligious Comparisons in Religious Studies and Theology:
Comparison Revisited. Edited by Perry Schmidt-Leukel and Andreas Nehring. London:
Bloomsbury, pp. 72–92.

Brady, H. E. (2004) ‘Doing good and doing better: How far does the quantitative template get
us?’, in H. Brady and D. Collier (eds), Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared
standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. pp. 53–67.

Bryman, Alan (2012). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Campbell, Donald T. and Fiske, Donald W. (1959). “Convergent and Discriminant Validation
by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix,” Psychological Bulletin 56: 81–105.

Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Cronqvist, L. & Berg-Schlosser, D. (2009). Multi-value qca (mvqca). In Rihoux, B., &
Ragin, C. C. Applied Social Research Methods: Configurational comparative methods:
Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques (Vol. 51, pp. 69-86).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Della Porta, Donatella and Keating, Michael (2008). “How Many Approaches in the Social
Sciences? An Epistemological Introduction,” in Donatella della Porta and Michael Keating
(eds), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 19–39.

Ebbinghaus, B. (2005) ‘When Less is More: Selection Problems in Large-N and Small-N
Cross-National Comparisons’, International Sociology 20(2): 133–52.

Eckstein, H. (1992) ‘Case study and theory in political science’, in Regarding Politics: Essays
on Political Theory, Stability, and Change. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 117–
173.

Esser, F., & Vliegenthart, R. (2017). Comparative research methods. The International
Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, 1-22.

Freiberger, Oliver. (2018). Freedom for the Tertium: On Conditions and Provisions for
Comparison in the Study of Religion. History of Religions 57: 288–305.

Page 21 of 25
A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

Freiberger, Oliver. (2019). The Comparative Method in the Study of Religion. Considering
Comparison, 7-44.

Freidenreich, David M. 2004. Comparisons Compared: A Methodological Survey of

Comparisons of Religion from ‘A Magic Dwells’ to A Magic Still Dwells. Method and
Theory in the Study of Religion 16: 80–101.

George, A. L. and Bennett, A. (2005) Case studies and theory development in the social
sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gerring, John (2007). Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Given, L.M. (2008) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. UK: SAGE
Publications.

Hanitzsch, T., & Berganza, R. (2012). Explaining journalists’ trust in public institutions
across 20 countries:Media freedom, corruption and ownershipmattermost. Journal of
Communication, 62(5), 794–814.

Hollstein, Betina and Wagemann, Claudius (2014). “Fuzzy Set Analysis of Network Data as
Mixed Method. Personal Networks and the Transition from School to Work,” in Silvia
Domínquez and Betina Hollstein (eds), Mixed Methods Social Networks Research: Design
and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Holt, R. T., & Turner, J. E. (1970). The Methodology of Comparative Research: A

Symposium from the Center for Comparative Studies in Technological Development and
Social Change and the Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota.

Holtz-Bacha, C., & Norris, P. (2001). To entertain, inform, and educate: Still the role of
public television? Political Communication, 18(2), 123–140.

Juneja, Monica. 2013. Understanding Transculturalism: Monica Juneja and Christian

Kravagna in Conversation. In Transcultural Modernisms. Edited by Model House Research
Group. Vienna: Sternberg, pp. 22–33.

King, G., Keohane, R. and Verba, S. (1994) Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in
qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Klir, G. J. (1997). Fuzzy set theory (p. 0). IEEE.

Kocka, Jurgen 1999 “Asymmetrical Historical Comparison: The Case of the German
Sonderweg” History and Theory 38: 40-50.

Lazarsfeld, Paul (1937). “Some Remarks on Typological Procedures in Sociological

Research,” Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung 6: 119–39.

Lieberson, S. (1985) Making it count: The improvement of social research and theory.
Berkeley: University of California Press.

Page 22 of 25
A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

Lijphart, Arend (1971). “Comparative Politics and Comparative Method,” American Political
Science Review 65: 682–93.

Mack, Burton. 1996. On Redescribing Christian Origins. Method and Theory in the Study of
Religion 8: 247–69.

Mann, Michael. (1986). The Sources of Social Power. Vol. I. A History of Power from the
Beginning to A. D. 1760 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McCluskey, E. J. (1968). Introduction to the theory of switching circuits. Taipei: Chuang

Yuan Pub. Service.

Mills, M., Van de Bunt, G. G., & De Bruijn, J. (2006). Comparative research: Persistent
problems and promising solutions. International Sociology, 21(5), 619-631.

Mjoset, L. and Clausen, T. H. (eds) (2007) Capitalisms compared, Oxford: Elsevier.

Mokhtarianpour, Majid. (2016). Islamic Model of Iranian Pattern Development Process

Model. The Pattern of Islamic Development of Iran, 4 (8), 9-30.

Oxford English Dictionary Online, 3rd ed. 2015. Available online: www.oed.com

Pasche Guignard, Florence. 2015. Fight, Flight, Freeze, Fool, or Pray: Comparative
Perspectives on Gender, Violence, and Religion. Zeitschrift für Religionswissenschaft 23:
285–319.

Poole, Fitz John Porter. 1986. Metaphors and Maps: Towards Comparison in the
Anthropology of Religion. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 54: 411–57.

Porta, D. D. (2014). Methodological practices in social movement research. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Przeworski, Adam and Teune, Henry (1970). The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New
York: Wiley InterScience.

Quine, W. V. (1952). The problem of simplifying truth functions. Menasha, WI:

Mathematical Association of America.

Ragin, C. C., & Rubinson, C. (2009). The distinctiveness of comparative research. The
SAGE handbook of comparative politics, 13, 34.

Ragin, C. C. (1987) The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and Quantitative
Strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Ragin, C. C. (1994) Constructing social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Ragin, C. C. (2000) Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ragin, C.C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

Page 23 of 25
A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. C. (2009). Applied Social Research Methods: Configurational
comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques (Vols.
1-51). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Rohlfing, Ingo (2012). Case Studies and Causal Inference: An Integrative Framework.
Houndmills Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Rondolino, Massimo A. 2015. Prolegomena to a Comparative Reading of the Major Life of

St. Francis and the Life of Milarepa. Buddhist-Christian Studies 35: 163–80.

Rondolino, Massimo A. 2017. Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Hagiographical Strategies: A

Comparative Study of the "Standard Lives" of St. Francis and Milarepa. London: Routledge.

Rubinson, C. and Ragin, C. C. (2007) ‘New methods for comparative research?’, in L. Mjoset
and T. H. Clausen (eds), Capitalisms compared. Oxford: Elsevier. pp. 373–389.

Sa’ei, Ali. (2013). Comparative research method: Quantitative, historical and fuzzy analysis.
Tehran. Iran. pp. 10-50

Schneider, Carsten Q. and Wagemann, Claudius (2013). “Doing Justice to Logical

Remainders in QCA: Moving Beyond the Standard Analysis,” Political Research Quarterly
66(1): 211–20.

Schuck, A., Vliegenthart, R., & de Vreese, C. (2016). Who’s afraid of conflict? The
mobilizing effect of conflict framing in campaign news. British Journal of Political Science,
46(1), 177–194.

Sharma, Arvind. 2005. Religious Studies and Comparative Methodology: The Case for
Reciprocal Illumination. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Smelser, Neil. (1973). The methodology of comparative analysis. In Comparative Research

Methods, ed. Donald Warwick and Samuel Osherson, 45-52. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.

Smelser, N.J. (2013) Comparative Methods in the Social Sciences. USA: Quid Pro Books.

Smith, Jonathan Z. 1978. Adde Parvum Parvo Magnus Acervus Erit. In Map Is Not Territory:
Studies in the History of Religions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 240–64.

Smith, Jonathan Z. 1982. In Comparison a Magic Dwells. In Imagining Religion: From

Babylon to Jonestown. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 19–35.

Smith, Jonathan Z. 1990. On Comparison. In Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early

Christianity and the Religions of Late Antiquity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
pp. 36–53.

Smith, Jonathan Z. 2000. The ‘End’ of Comparison: Redescription and Rectification. In A

Magic Still Dwells: Comparative Religion in the Postmodern Age. Edited by Kimberly C.
Patton and Benjamin C. Ray. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 237–41.

Page 24 of 25
 A Short Introduction to Comparative Research

Smith, Jonathan Z. 2004. When the Chips are Down. In Relating Religion: Essays in the
Study of Religion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–60.

Stausberg, Michael. 2011. Comparison. In Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in the

Study of Religion. Edited by Michael Stausberg and Steven Engler. Florence: Routledge, pp.
21–39.

Strömbäck, J., & Van Aelst, P. (2010). Exploring some antecedents of the media’s framing of
election news: A comparison of Swedish and Belgian election news. International Journal of
Press/Politics, 15(1), 41–59. doi:10.1177/1940161209351004

Swanson, Guy. 1971. Frameworks for comparative research: Structural anthropology and the
theory of action. In Comparative Methods in Sociology: Essays on Trends and Applications,
ed. Ivan Vallier, 141-202. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Seawright, Jason and Collier, David (2004). “Glossary of Selected Terms,” in Henry E.
Brady and David Collier (eds), Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards.
Lanham, Md. et al.: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 273–313.

Tarrow, Sidney (2004). “Bridging the Quantitative–Qualitative Divide,” in Henry E. Brady

and David Collier (eds), Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards.
Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 171–9.

Trainor, Kevin. 2010. Pars Pro Toto: On Comparing Relic Practices. Numen 57: 267–83.

Wagemann, Claudius (2005). “Organizational Change in Business Associations of the Dairy

Industry: Lessons from PIGs for COWs and Beyond.” PhD thesis, European University
Institute, Florence.

Weber, Ralph. 2014. Comparative Philosophy and the Tertium: Comparing What withWhat,
and in What Respect? Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 13: 151–71.

Welsch, Wolfgang. 1999. Transculturality: The Puzzling Form of Cultures Today. In Spaces
of Culture: City, Nation, World. Edited by Mike Featherstone and Scott Lash. London: Sage,
pp. 194–213.

Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and control, 8(3), 338-353.

Page 25 of 25

View publication stats