As the famous wisdom says. Otherwise, how would a person know about the possibilities of his development, about how other people and nations live, what conditions he can create in order to improve his life? Comparison is present in all manifestations of human existence. And not only in everyday life.

Science has long used comparison as one of the main ways to obtain information about the world. It is called the comparative method of assessing the relationships, similarities and differences between the objects under study. - a narrower concept than comparison in everyday understanding.

Marx and Engels distinguished between these terms, since the method presupposes special organization, preparation, and adherence to principles. They also assigned the main role to the comparative method in the formation of a dialectical view of nature.

Almost all scientific disciplines owe their achievements to this research method. Read more about what the comparative method is, where and how it is used.

Characteristics of the comparative method

Comparative method in scientific knowledge it is used to compare more than two objects under study in order to identify what is common and different in them, and to construct classifications and typologies. Such objects may include different ideas, research results, phenomena, processes, qualitative characteristics of objects, etc.

This method is a general scientific empirical one, allows one to obtain theoretical knowledge and is universally used. It is the basis for many applied research, since it allows, based on distinctive features objects to create their groups. These classifications are used as a basis in subsequent studies.

Examples of the comparative method can be illustrated based on its forms:

• identifies differences in the nature of the objects being studied (for example, in Christian and Muslim religious culture);
• historical and typological comparison, which makes it possible to identify common features in unrelated phenomena under the same development conditions (for example, the relationship of different languages);
• a historical-genetic comparison shows the similarity between objects united by a common origin and development conditions, and their mutual influence (for example, the development of the psyche of an animal and a person).

Where are comparative research methods used?

The comparative method is one of the most universal in the theory and practice of knowledge, therefore it is used by many sciences:

• comparative anatomy (branch of biology);
• theology and religious studies;
• history of linguistics;
• history of literature;
• mythology;
• political science and law, in particular criminal law;
• genetic (comparative) psychology;
• philosophy.

Comparative method in psychology

The comparative research method has received widespread use in different industries psychological science. It allows you to compare personality traits, mental development, characteristics of groups of people and draw conclusions about the mechanisms of genesis and reasons for the appearance of differences in the objects under study.

Thus, it uses the comparative method to identify similarities and differences in the psychological properties of individual groups of people, zoopsychology - to trace the evolution of the psyche in representatives of different stages of development of the animal world, age-related psychology- changes in a person’s mental functions depending on his age.

How the comparative method in psychology allows us to determine the development of the same mental function or property in different groups of people. For example, compare the level of intelligence development among schoolchildren of different ages, different social groups or students various forms and training programs. There is also a “longitudinal section” method, or longitudinal method. It differs from comparative in that the same object is studied over a long period of its existence. This is done in order to track the changes that occur with this object over time.

Possibilities of the comparative method in psychology

All typologies of personalities, classifications of people according to certain characteristics in psychology were created through the use of the comparative method. Even setting up an experiment includes this method at the stage of assessing the effectiveness of the influence of some variables. In this case, the initial data and the result obtained after experimental influence are compared.

Along with other organizational complex methods), the comparative method is indispensable in psychological science. Without it, all psychological groups would be disparate units, there would be no classifications of professions, personality types, characteristics of age stages, etc. Therefore, this method can rightfully be considered a way of organizing knowledge and predicting changes.

Disadvantages of the comparative method in psychology

Among the disadvantages that, like any other method, the comparative method has are:

• dependence of the research results on the static, stability of the object;
• the risk of information becoming outdated at the time of processing the received data;
• the need to use additional research methods to obtain more complete information.

All the advantages and disadvantages of the chosen method determine the possibilities of its use. Of course, for extensive research, one method of obtaining and systematizing information is not enough.

Comparative legal method

The comparative legal method in the methodology of state and law is one of the main ways of cognition. It involves comparing processes, phenomena and concepts of a legal nature in order to study their similarities and identify the causes of differences. Such a comparison allows us to understand how their development and modification took place, in what sequence this happened, and to create classifications for such phenomena.

The comparative method allowed the emergence of a separate scientific branch - comparative law, which deals with the study and comparison of different legal systems world states.

When studying foreign experience jurisprudence, the state can improve its own legal system, abandon outdated imperfect methods of work and use positive experience in the development of its legislation.

This method owes its appearance in jurisprudence to the achievements of other technical and social sciences: mathematics, cybernetics, psychology.

Practical significance of the comparative legal method

The practical benefit of the comparative method in legal science is that it allows one to find optimal ways for solutions social problems. It allows us to understand why the same action is legal in the legal culture of one state, and criminal in another.

Comparative approach methods include various ways comparisons:

• functional, allowing one to compare the functions performed by one or another state institution;
• normative, using terms and categories of specific legal systems to analyze legal norms and legislative decisions;
• problematic, which compares the resolution of certain legal disagreements within the framework of the legislative system and analyzes the possibility of applying these decisions within the framework of its legislation;
• textual, analyzing which text design most productively influences the implementation of legal norms on a national scale;
• binary, which compares not a set, but only two existing political or social systems.

Comparative law and its aspects

Comparative law is considered in specialized literature in three main aspects:

1. As a comparative research method.
2. As a branch of independent science.
3. As a combination of a method and a separate scientific discipline.

The third approach is considered more modern, since it recognizes that comparative law can be a separate method of the entire legal science, which makes it possible to study the listed issues, and can also be an independent science, since it has its own subject of research, scope and practical significance.

Basic principles of the comparative legal method

Like any scientific way of cognition, the methods of the comparative approach are implemented by observing the basic principles:

1. Comparability of legal norms, which regulates the functional side of legal decisions, i.e. how they solve potential social problems.
2. Taking into account the conditions of historical development time legal norm, its social conditioning.
3. Critically reviewing the data obtained.

Practical significance of comparative research methods

The importance of the comparative method in the history of sciences is difficult to underestimate. Historical development states and societies, the evolutionary theory of the emergence and improvement of the physical functions of organs and systems of humans and animals, the history of linguistics, psychological typologies - these and many other achievements would have been impossible where the comparative method was not used.

The characteristics of this method of obtaining information include not only theoretical, but also its practical importance. For example, the use of the method in jurisprudence allows one to identify optimal ways to solve legal issues, in psychology - to draw conclusions about the patterns of mental development and create the most effective programs learning and self-development for everyone age groups and other categories of people. It becomes clear that comparative analysis is one of the most used in almost all technical, natural and social sciences.

Any comparative study includes the following stages:

a) selection and description of facts;

b) identification and description of identity and differences;

c) formation of relationships between elements political process and other social phenomena in the form of experimental hypotheses;

d) subsequent testing of hypotheses;

e) “recognition” of some fundamental hypotheses.

Methodology of comparative political science research

1. Basic concepts of comparative analysis.

Conceptualization – the process of creating a conceptual model

research necessary to produce hypotheses.

A hypothesis is a scientific assumption about the relationship between

independent and dependent variable, put forward to explain some

or phenomena and requiring verification.

Case – those countries or territories that are represented in

comparative analysis.

The unit of analysis is the object for which the researcher collects

Variables are concepts whose quality changes over time.

given set of units of analysis. Types of variables: dependent (factor,

which the researcher seeks to explain), independent (factor,

variable), interfering (third factor influencing

on the relationship between dependent and independent variables).

Operationalization is the transformation of abstract concepts into

concrete, accessible for comparative study.

Other concepts: indicator, indicator, comparison criterion.

2. Stages of comparative political science research:

1) formulation of the research problem and hypothesis;

conceptualization;

2) selection of cases, units of analysis, variables, indicators and

indicators, as well as monitoring and measurement;

3) collection and description of data in accordance with the conceptual framework,

identifying similarities and differences between political phenomena;

4) verification of hypotheses and creation of theories.

The essence of the comparative method is to identify common and

special in the phenomena being studied. The nature of comparison by

appeal to language is brilliantly revealed by M.V. Ilyin: “When co-

when placing a thing or phenomenon “put side by side”. Then they're done

equal” – c-equal. In this case, similarities are revealed -

“moving to one place” - and collapsing - “overlapping

friend”, as well as differences – “multiplying faces”, i.e. masks,

the appearance of something united"

Any comparisons are made on

based on a single principle - the correlation of phenomena with a “standard”,

which may be words, concepts, ideal constructions or

mathematical models

. "Establishing connections between abstractions

our thinking and the specifics of our immediate

perception of reality"

- this, in my opinion, is the key thesis,

revealing the nature of comparison.

J. Blondel emphasizes that we can “grab” reality

only by applying categories and constructs of a general nature:

“The various elements which together form a form of government are

leadership, cabinet, assemblies, parties, etc. - everyone is

"constructs" that allow us to understand "reality"

government life. We have to carefully develop

these constructs even when we are dealing only with governance

one country with significant characteristics. So,

office X can be considered as a special object: it is not at all

has less to do with the concept of “office” that exists

outside the characteristics of country X. It may be difficult to “understand” the cabinet

country X in all its details, and therefore any comparison

between the cabinets of countries X and Y will not be enough in terms of

completeness, because detailed description these two offices will be

Ilyin M.V. Comparative political science: scientific comparative studies in the system

political knowledge // Polis. – 2001. – No. 4. – P. 164.

See: ibid.

See: ibid. – P. 165. 62

limited. This means that we need to improve our knowledge and

tools with which we can operationalize

these descriptions. But this does not mean that comparisons are impossible."

The comparative method is actively used in political science,

since it is almost impossible to apply here

experimental method, which is one of the main ones in

natural sciences. We cannot “say to the Government of India:

change yours electoral system to proportional

because we want to see if this will lead to an increase in the number

parties in your parliament"

Or "ask Mrs. Thatcher to go to

resignation in 1983 so that we could find out whether

in fact, another Conservative Party leader and Prime Minister,

faced with the same political and economic

circumstances, would pursue a less radical policy than

Thatcher did it"

However, researchers have comparative

method for describing and explaining various combinations of political

events and institutions existing in different societies.

“Experiments” are carried out for political scientists by politicians themselves, because "With

With the end of the Cold War, the world found itself drawn into a gigantic

experiment to identify different approaches to economic

growth, different strategies for the transit of democracy, different forms

use and control of government power"

The use of comparison is a "substitute for experiment"

(N. Smelser), a quasi-experiment. M.V. Ilyin writes: “And the experiment,

and the comparison is based on the fact that the researcher methodically, i.e.

strictly observing our own “internal” rules –

method, correlates (matches, puts on a par, recreates)

“external” descriptive data for checking “external” rules

– speculations of scientific theory, morality, ideology or even faith,

everyday common sense. Thanks to methodical (i.e. not

random and non-random) experiments and methodical

Blondel J. Comparative Government: An Introduction. – New York and London: Philip Allan,

Hague R., Harrop M. and Breslin S. Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction. – 3rd ed. – P. 23.

March D. and Stoker G. (eds.) Theory and Methods in Political Science. – Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; London and New York: Macmillan Press and St. Martin's Press, 1995. –

See: Almond G., Powell J., Strom K. and Dalton R. Comparative Politics Today:

World review. – P. 71.

comparisons can be obtained empirical knowledge– high quality

new in relation to both descriptive and theoretical"

The difference between comparison and experiment is huge. Experiment

includes a pre-experimental phase when subjects

are pre-tested and then selected for a specific

group over which the researcher exercises control.

A quasi-experiment (comparative method) occurs after the fact,

after events have occurred that the researcher has no way of

influence or interfere with their course. Objects of study in

The quasi-experiment provides ready-made political results. Task

comparativist is to correctly select

existing cases and factors (variables).

J. Sartori builds a hierarchy of scientific methods: the best

the method (par excellence), in his opinion, is the experimental method,

which is widely used in physics and biology; after

the experiment follows the statistical method; Finally, the comparison is not

so perfect, based on the requirements for

scientific research

But political scientists often have no choice, since

the experiment is impossible, and there are no statistical data,

or do not inspire confidence. Moreover, the number of statistical cases is not

is large (as a rule, these are national political

systems). Therefore, an accessible and acceptable method is

comparative method, the use of which creates a “laboratory

scientist"

The comparative study of forms of government includes, like any

comparative research, several stages. In literature

(S. Beer and A. Alam) the comparison process was indicated by the following formula:

“description – classification – explanation – confirmation”

Indeed, every comparison begins with a conceptualization,

when theoretical approaches to political

phenomena and formulates the supposed relationship between

concepts (stage “description”). Classification helps

Ilyin M.V. Main methodological problems of comparative political science

// Policy. – 2001. – No. 6. – P. 144.

See: Dogan M. and Kazancigil A. (eds.) Comparing Nations: Concepts, Strategies, Substance. – Oxford and Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers, 1994. – P. 2.

See: Landes R.G. The Canadian Polity: A Comparative Introduction. – 2nd. ed. – Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice-Hall Canada, 1987. – P. 21.

See: Roberts G.K. What is Comparative Politics? – London and Basingstoke: The Macmillan

Press, 1972. – P. 19. 64

differentiate cases, units of analysis, variables, indicators

etc. The explanatory stage includes the construction

theoretical model, and confirmation is the final stage

research work.

Organizing a comparative study is complex and

labor-intensive process. In addition to conceptualization and correct

which is seen as affecting the dependent

(independent variable) (dependent variable)

is built on

See: ibid. – P. 458.

in one person or divorced)

electoral rules)

Essence, types, levels of variables.

Types and levels of variables

These methodological requirements for comparison actually focus attention on the initial stage of comparative political science analysis - the conceptualization and selection of research hypotheses. Equal importance is also attached to organizing a comparative study by identifying variables for collecting quantitative and qualitative data. The identification of types and levels of variables in comparative political science is actually no different from any social research focused on the measurement and analysis of empirical data. Since in the future we will use the concept of “variable”, we note here only the following.

A variable is understood as the changing quality of the political phenomenon being studied, to the measurement of which non-metric or metric scales can be applied. The organization of variables in a study involves dividing them into groups depending on the goals and hypotheses of the study. The choice of variables is also determined by the general conceptual framework of the study and is based on its basic concepts.

The set of studied variables can be defined as operational variables. These include dependent, independent and confounding variables. A dependent variable is understood as that variable quality of the object of study, which is considered as a consequence or result of the action of certain conditions, factors, circumstances. The variables that characterize these influencing conditions, factors and circumstances are called independent. There is some relationship between the dependent and independent variables that is being examined. When studying the nature of this relationship, it is necessary to keep in mind that in addition to the dependent and independent variables identified by the researcher, it is necessary to take into account the influence of other conditions, i.e. control conditions. Regarding operational variables, this means that the relationship between the dependent and independent variables can be influenced by some third variable, which is called an intervening variable. Its influence needs to be controlled, and sometimes during the research process, if a greater influence of the intervening variable is found than the independent one, then the first one receives the status of independent. Along with operational variables, variable qualities of an object are identified, which are taken by the researcher as constants. They are called parameters. It is precisely when selecting countries in a comparative study that one of the most difficult problems is the determination of parameters, i.e. that group of characteristics in which the countries being studied least differ. Quantitative and qualitative relationships can be established between dependent and independent variables. How this methodological scheme works will become clear when reading subsequent chapters of this book.

Concerning levels dependent variables in comparative research, then Smelser, building on Talcott Parsons' ideas about the dual hierarchy social life(one: biological organism, personality, social system, cultural system; the other in the social system: roles, groups, norms, values), builds the following hierarchy of levels of dependent variables: aggregative qualities of the population, assessments of behavioral precipitation, social structures, cultural structures. He emphasizes that the transition from the lowest level (aggregative qualities of the population) to the highest (cultural structures) complicates the organization of variables, since a significant part of them cannot be interpreted as parameters, but must be included in operational variables.

Since the concept of variables is one of the central ones in organizing comparative research, the definition of the comparative method itself is given based on the specific attitude towards control over variables. Thus, Arendt Lijphart writes that the limits of the comparative method are determined by a strategy in which cases are “selected so as to maximize the variance of the independent variables and minimize the variance of the controlled variables.” Spencer Wellhofer defines the comparative method as “a strategy of selecting among a small number of cases or systems (usually countries) in order to include controlled variables in the search for causal or functional relationships within systems.”

In addition to conceptualization and correct

putting forward hypotheses, correct selection plays an important role here

cases, units of analysis, variables and indicators, and

carrying out observation (measurement). By cases we mean those

countries or territories that are represented in comparative

analysis. If the task is to identify the relationship between

presidential system and the consolidation of democracy, then in cases

there will be countries with a presidential form of government, successful and

unsuccessful from a democratic point of view. Units of analysis are

objects for which researchers collect data (form

board in our example). Variables are concepts that

the quality of which varies this set units of analysis. Accepted

distinguish three types of variables - dependent, independent and

interfering. Dependent variable is a factor that

the researcher seeks to explain, or in other words, the factor

considered as a consequence of other factors

(consolidated democracy). Independent variable – factor,

which is seen as affecting the dependent

variable (presidential form of government). Intervening

variable is the third factor that influences

the relationship between the dependent and independent variables (in our example

it could be a party system). Choice of dependent and independent

variables depends on the specifics of the research problem, but in

to a greater extent - from the theoretical premises of the researcher and

put forward hypotheses. For example, in relation to the problem

relationship between form of government and political regime

two opposing hypotheses can be formulated, in

which have mirrored variables:

(independent variable) (dependent variable)

(independent variable) (dependent variable)

Using indicators, the researcher obtains indicators, i.e.

qualities of variables, which can be numerical, verbal

or even visual. So, for example, indicators of the variable

"consolidated democracy" may be the "age" of democracy

(indicators – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. years) or political guidelines

population, when the majority of citizens believe that a change of government

should be carried out through democratic procedures (indicators

– 50%, 51%, 52%, etc. population shares these attitudes).

I will give an example of the brilliant implementation of the requirements of comparative

analysis related to the selection of cases, variables and indicators.

The research I mentioned by A. Siaroff

is built on

identifying the diversity of parliamentary forms of government in 32

industrialized democracies since World War II

variables and carries out their measurement. They use

factor analysis. One factor is the dominance of the executive

power over parliament – ​​assessed by 11 variables: control

government over the agenda of plenary sessions of parliament;

restrictions on introducing bills privately

initiatives of members of parliament; definition at the first plenary

meeting of the principles of the bill; ability of parliamentary

committees to rewrite bills; influence of committee members

parliament on the party's position; financial bills like

the prerogative of the government; reduction of discussion time before

parliamentary bureau or presidium; recognized leader of the opposition;

election in single-member constituencies; the power of the prime minister.

Each country is given numerical values ​​for each of the 11 variables.

values ​​"0", "1" or "2", resulting in the maximum value

The indicators of the first factor are graded as follows: 0-8 – very low and

low level of executive dominance (e.g.

Austria since 1945 – “6”); 9-13 – average level (for example,

See: Siaroff A. Varieties of Parliamentarism in the Advanced Industrial Democracies. 66

Portugal since 1982 – “10”); 14-22 – tall and very tall

level (for example, Canada since 1945 - “21”)

The second factor is the so-called. "fused" (fused) parliamentary

mode – demonstrates how connected or disconnected

functions of the assembly and government. 6 is used here

variables: no more than 10 standing parliamentary committees

similar to government departments; control

governments over committee chairmen; no difficulties with

early dissolution of parliament; ministers can be members

parliament or not; ministers are specialists in a broad or

narrow profile; pluralism or corporatism. The ratings are the same: “0”,

“1” or “2” (though for the last three variables only “0” or

"2"). The gradation of the second factor is as follows: range 0-4 – low level

“mergers” (for example, Germany since 1949 – “3”);

5-7 – average

level (for example, Belgium since 1946 – “6”) and 8-12 – high and

very high level (for example, Iceland since 1991 – “10”)

An important point in comparative research is the collection and

description of data in accordance with the analysis scheme, identification

identities and differences between political phenomena. When collected

data on forms of government, a variety of useful

sources. These may be regulations, official

documents, political data banks, reference books on individual

countries and groups of countries, information resources, special

information and analytical work. The latter include

for example, M. J. Sullivan III's book "Comparison

State Polities: Framework for Analysis of 100 Systems"

sets itself no special research task, does not

formulates hypotheses and does not make any general conclusions. On

based on the richest empirical material he creates

comparative framework, a defined framework for further study

modern polities. M. J. Sullivan III's book contains

factual material on 100 countries of the world (the author excluded

sparsely populated countries from their field of vision), or more precisely, by

political systems and societies. Among different aspects

political and social life (organization of the state,

See: ibid. – P. 458.

See: Siaroff A. Varieties of Parliamentarism in the Advanced Industrial Democracies. –

See: Sullivan III M.J. Comparing State Polities: A Framework for Analyzing

100 Governments. – Westport, Connecticut and London: Greenwood Press, 1996.

political parties, economics, culture, violence, quality of life and

etc.) there is a “distribution of power”.

Scheme of analysis proposed by M.J. Sullivan III

curious: a) heads of executive power: distribution of real

minister, leader of the main political party and

commander-in-chief of the armed forces, as well as the relationship

between the head of state and government (these positions coincide

in one person or divorced)

; b) representative authorities:

strength of the assembly (presidential, parliamentary and mixed

; c) significant constitutional or other

“balancing” (informal) mechanisms and their relationship to

important centers of power (cabinet, administrative-territorial

units, interest groups); d) factors of state dependence

(international, geographical or historical); d)

electoral systems (type; direct or indirect elections;

electoral rules)

Each of points (a–e) is divided into

each of 100 countries, thereby creating a rich data bank

on the distribution of power of half the states of the modern world.

Finally, the “apotheosis” of comparative research is

verification of hypotheses that are gradually “recognized” as

universal theories. At this stage there is a danger that can be

means: “much ado about nothing.” The point is that

a researcher can spend a huge amount of time collecting

and description of a large amount of data in order to confirm some

or a hypothesis, and the result turns out to be negative. Some

research, as part of testing the hypothesis mentioned above

H. Linz about the tendency of the presidential system towards authoritarianism,

ended with zero results. The only excuse for such

research is that the hypothesis was not put forward by the researchers themselves;

the latter only tested it, but did not find an empirical

confirmation that may be of some scientific value.

Discipline: Scientific Research Methods

ABSTRACT

TOPIC: Comparison as a Method scientific research

Performer: Elena Safonova, R-531
Teacher: Ph.D. Phil. Sciences, Associate Professor

Khan T.V.

Content:
Introduction

General concept of comparison
Types and techniques of comparison
Comparison like….??
Comparison in political science

Introduction

General concept of comparison

One of the most common methods of cognition is comparison, as a result of which the commonality that is inherent in two or more objects is established, and the identification of commonality that is repeated in phenomena, as is known, is a step towards the knowledge of patterns and laws. Thus, comparison is a comparison of features inherent in two or more objects, establishing differences between them or finding something common in them.
For a comparison to be fruitful, it must satisfy two basic requirements:
1) only such phenomena should be compared between which there can be a certain objective commonality
2) for the cognition of objects, their comparison should be carried out according to the most important, significant (in terms of a specific cognitive task) characteristics.
Comparison is one of the ways in which man began to recognize the environment. Comparison is a scientific method of cognition, in the process of which an unknown (studied) phenomenon, objects are compared with already known, previously studied, in order to determine the common features or differences between them.
Comparison and measurement are special cases of the observation method. This method is an active cognitive process, based primarily on the work of human senses and his objective material activity. This is the most elementary method, which, as a rule, acts as one of the elements in other empirical methods.
Comparison and measurement play important role in knowledge. Comparison is a method of comparing objects in order to identify similarities or differences between them. If objects are compared with an object that acts as a standard, then such a comparison is called measurement. In addition to the subject (measurer) and object, measurement includes a unit of measurement (standard, or reference object), a measuring device, and a measurement method. So, when comparing two objects by weight, it can be established that one of them is heavier than the other. In this case, the standard, measuring device, and measurement method are not used. When measuring these objects to establish that one object weighs 3 kg, another - 4, these measurement elements are necessary.
Using measurements, the numerical characteristics of objects are established, and this is important for many areas scientific knowledge, where precise quantitative characteristics of the objects being studied are required, primarily in natural and technical sciences. As for comparison, sciences such as comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, comparative historical linguistics and some others are based on this method. Comparative analysis is one of the main methods used in scientific research in economics. Almost always, the formulation or clarification of economic concepts is carried out using comparative analysis.

Types and techniques of comparison

Methods of comparison in scientific knowledge

Comparative Description - establishing similarities and differences, changes in the development of phenomena according to the same essential characteristics; determination of significant features of objects.
Comparative explanation - establishing causal, causal and genetic relationships.
Comparative characteristics - establishment of patterns in complex comparison, development of mental operations (analysis, synthesis, abstraction...)

Comparison as the most important method of cognition

Although observation is the initial means in the process of human cognition of reality, it is often necessary to know how to organize observation in order to make it effective.
Let's imagine the following elementary problem. Given are two similar figures, slightly different in size. It is required to determine the largest of them. To avoid mistakes, we superimpose the figures on top of each other and compare them with each other using observation. This procedure ensures that the answer is obtained with the required accuracy. Comparison in this case acts as a special way of organizing observation.
When we compare two objects A and B, then we have two logical possibilities: 1) A and B are identical, 2) A and B are different.
The identity relation can appear in the form of equality, similarity, isomorphism, etc. The difference relation can, in particular, be detailed, keeping in mind the following two possibilities: 1) A is greater than B, 2) A is less than B.
In the real world, relationships and connections between objects are extremely diverse. In fact, two objects can be equal in weight, but different in volume, or have the same length, but be dissimilar in size. physical properties. That is why, when we say “A is identical to B” or “A and B are different”, but do not specify in what sense this is true, then our statements are vague and, therefore, devoid of cognitive value.
From here it is clear that objects can only be compared according to any precise characteristic, property or relationship identified in them, i.e., within a given interval of abstraction. Only that which is homogeneous can be compared, identified or distinguished. Reduction to a certain unity is a necessary condition for the comparison procedure. Comparison makes sense only within the boundaries of a certain quality, and the latter is always actualized only in one context or another.
But achieving unity as a condition of comparison is not at all some purely subjective device. We have before us a situation that is, in principle, similar to the one that, in particular, was considered by K. Marx using the example of determining the weight of one object using the weight of another object. Marx reasoned as follows: a sugar loaf as a physical body has a certain heaviness, weight, but not a single sugar loaf makes it possible to directly observe its weight. If we take a piece of iron, then its corporeal form in itself is just as little a form of manifestation of gravity as the corporeal form of a sugar head. “However, in order to express the head of sugar as a heaviness, we give it a weight ratio to iron. In this relationship, iron appears as a body that represents nothing but gravity... Iron plays this role only within the limits of the relationship in which sugar or any other body enters into it when the weight of the latter is found. If both bodies did not possess gravity, they could not enter into this relationship, and one of them could not become an expression of the gravity of the other. Having thrown them onto the scales, we will be convinced that, as weights, both of them are really identical and therefore, taken in a certain proportion, have the same weight.”
So, the comparison procedure presupposes the existence of a relationship in which the objects being compared objectively appear as qualitatively homogeneous, and no other properties of these objects play any role for this relationship. In the above example, properties of the objects being weighed, such as volume, color, hardness, etc., did not in any way affect the possibility and accuracy of weighing. All objects appear here as embodied heaviness. This is an example of a concrete identity.
It should be emphasized that relations in which objects appear as identical, homogeneous, comparable, etc., exist objectively, regardless of the comparison procedure. By comparing, a person only uses similar relationships, selecting or reproducing them. The use of comparison as a cognitive procedure assumes that we have somehow clarified the objective situation within which the comparison is made.
etc.................

ABSTRACT

Comparison as a method of analysis. Types and levels of comparative research

Comparison is a general attitude of cognition. By comparing some (at least two) processes, facts, structural elements, qualities of phenomena, concepts, a person tries to discover something common or different between them. Without thinking further about the essence of how a person compares, then suffice it to say that comparednie as a method of cognition represents a way to identify the general and special in the phenomena being studied. If we raise the question of how a person makes comparisons, then many problems and topics arise here. Comparison as a person’s ability to navigate the world of things and words can be described through a priori forms of sensibility, ideas about values, constructed ideal types, the production of concepts, etc. In political science, the comparative method is considered by comparing its advantages and disadvantages with the methods of experiment, statistics and case-study. At the same time, problems arise with quantitative and qualitative comparisons, static and dynamic aspects of comparison.

The comparative method in political science has become one of the central ones, because many researchers considered and consider it the most suitable substitute for the experimental method widely used in natural sciences. Outlining the reasons for the use of comparison in political science, Tom Mackey and David Marsh write: " main reason comparative research reflects the basic nature of social scientific research; it is almost always unable to use the experimental method. Unlike physicists, we cannot design precise experiments to determine the extent to which policy outcomes depend on leaders. Thus, we could not ask Mrs Thatcher to resign in 1983 so that we could determine whether another Conservative Party leader and Prime Minister, faced with the same political and economic circumstances, would pursue less radical policies. However, ...we can use other comparisons to approach the same question. More specifically, we can identify two main reasons why comparative analysis is essential: firstly, to avoid ethnocentrism in analysis, and secondly, to generalize, test and accordingly reformulate theories and related concepts and hypotheses about the relationships between political phenomena." . The desire of political scientists to use the comparative method means an intention to obtain scientific results, i.e. on the formation of scientific political knowledge. But does this mean that the comparative method fully replaces experiment?

Comparison is not identical to experiment and its weaker analogue - the statistical method, but the logic of comparative analysis is to a certain extent comparable to the logic of experimental science. Firstly, a comparative researcher is able to select those conditions of the phenomenon under study in which the relationship being studied is manifested in its purest form. True, this raises a number of methodological and methodological problems (comparability, equivalence, etc.), but in general, comparison allows us to create something like an experimental situation that the researcher can control, moving from one country to another, from one region to another etc. Secondly, the manipulation of conditions here is relative; it is carried out by the researcher more conceptually than in reality, but this is often sufficient for a comprehensive verification of the relationship being studied. In this regard, the technique of quantitative or qualitative comparison is not used mechanically, but always together with theoretical work researcher. Third, a comparison resembles an experiment in that it allows one to control the conditions involved in the research process. Note that this control, of course, is not absolute (it is not so in the experiment either), but still, if the group of countries is similar in a number of conditions, they can be accepted as unchanged. Fourthly, the experimental researcher seeks to obtain a certain result in the presence of certain conditions that he can introduce artificially. Here the logic of research is associated with the search for a consequence. The comparative researcher often has a consequence that has already been observed repeatedly, and his task is to search for conditions rather than results. Although these strategies appear to be different, in essence they are comparable to the general logic of searching for dependencies when the starting points of analysis differ. Fifthly, comparative and experimental sciences are based on the general idea of ​​the possibility of quantitative measurement of the qualities of the phenomena being studied. Although measurement is a problem in relation to social knowledge, nevertheless, this attitude led to the formation in comparative political science of a broad movement for the use of statistical techniques for analyzing empirical material obtained as a result of the use of metric scales. At present, the limitations of this approach seem obvious, but this does not mean that it turned out to be fundamentally wrong. Moreover, the advantage of the comparative method of policy research turned out to be that it allows you to combine quantitative and qualitative methodology while maintaining the focus on obtaining scientific results.

An analogy with the experimental method is also made by Charles Ragin, pointing out two types of comparative studies: (1) quantitative, focused on studying the variances of characteristics of phenomena, (2) qualitative, focused on comparing categorical variables. In both cases, there is an experimental logic of limiting conditions and searching for causal dependencies between variables (in quantitative analysis, also correlation ones).

It should be emphasized that comparison rarely acts as an end in itself in scientific political science research. Rather, it acts as a certain approach of the researcher to the subject he is studying, i.e. his predisposition to accept a certain special view of a political phenomenon, which is taken in advance along with diverse national and regional political conditions and with its possible modifications. The task, therefore, is not to compare the forms of political phenomena and their conditions, but to search for dependencies, concepts and models. Comparison in this case is not just a method, but a research methodological strategy that affects the image of the subject of study, the initial conceptual structure, formulated research hypotheses, the instruments collected for measuring and analyzing empirical material, the resulting scientific result - synthesized concepts and classifications, models and theories. In this regard, comparison is not so much a technique of comparison, differentiation or unification, but rather a research worldview.

Types of comparative studies

The description of the comparative method in political science should be supplemented by an indication of the variety of types of comparisons that are practiced in it today. The types of comparisons are established using various criteria (method, number of countries studied, orientation), but in reality it is difficult to establish any single measure of differentiation. In this case, let us pay attention to those types of comparisons that are most often mentioned and discussed in the literature: “case-study”, binary, regional, global, cross-temporal comparisons.

« Case - study » comparison. This type comparison is used when one country is analyzed (any political phenomenon in a separate country) against the background of comparing it with other countries. Not everyone considers such research to be comparative, but most believe that a comparative emphasis can be found among case studies. For confirmation, the typology of case study research proposed in 1971 by Arend Lijphart is taken as a basis. He identified the following types: (1) interpretive "single case" research, which uses existing theory to describe the case; (2) case studies to test and confirm the theory; (3) studying individual cases to produce hypotheses; (4) studies of deviant individual cases. With the exception of the first type, all the others are, in one way or another, related to comparative studies and can be interpreted as some of their modifications.

In general, the “case-study” research strategy is defined as follows: A case study is an empirical study in which, firstly, an existing phenomenon is analyzed within its real-life context, and secondly, when the boundaries between the phenomenon and its context are not clear, in Third, multiple sources of evidence are used. In general, a “case-study” comparison (or a study of many individual cases, as well as a single case in a comparative context) in a project does not differ from a regular single case study. It has its advantages and disadvantages. But it differs from other types of comparisons in that each case is considered separately and must serve a specific research purpose in general complex cases. This type of comparison is guided not by the logic of “sampling”, but by the logic of “replication”, i.e. logic of multiple experiments.

Case-study comparison is one of the most common types of comparative strategies. Thus, of the 565 articles published in the two main journals of comparative politics - Comparative Politics and Comparative Political Studies - between 1968 and 1981, 62% were publications on individual countries.

Binary comparison. A description of binary comparison can be found in the book “Comparative Political Sociology” by M. Dogan and D. Pelassi, published in Russian. Binary comparison is a strategy for studying two countries, allowing one to identify common and special features in their political development. In this case, two types of binary comparisons are distinguished: indirect and direct. A binary comparison, as the authors write, is indirect in the sense that any other, considered dissimilar, object of comparison is considered depending on the researcher’s own vision. As an example, Tocqueville's study of democracy in America is given, which allowed him to form a different idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe political institutions of France. Direct binary comparison is immediate and allows the researcher, using the historical method, to include two countries in the orbit of study at once.

Lipset, who also analyzes the features of binary comparison, identifies two similar strategies: implicit and explicit. It emphasizes the importance of research hypotheses in selecting the two countries to be compared. In this regard, not every comparison between the two countries is useful. He pays special attention to the problem of exclusivity when choosing countries to compare. Considering a comparative study of Japan and the United States as two examples of the most successful industrial development, Lipset talks about another characteristic of the binary comparison strategy: the choice of the most characteristic difference between the countries being compared that is relevant to the subject of analysis. In this case, we can talk about completely different ways to achieve industrial success, found not at a specific level of analysis, but at a global one. Hence; the uniqueness or exclusivity of the two countries under study is visible when there are different levels of binary comparison.

Regional comparison. A common type of comparison is comparison of regions, i.e. a group of countries chosen due to the similarity of their economic, cultural, political, etc. characteristics. Regional comparison refers to the currently debated type in comparative politics of comparing the most similar countries as opposed to studying a group of countries with differing characteristics. Researchers emphasize the fruitfulness of such research, since it allows solving a number of comparison problems (comparability, equivalence). As a rule, in comparative politics the countries of Western Europe, Scandinavian countries, Latin America, English-speaking countries, Eastern Europe, etc. are studied. True, the premise of regional similarity often leads the researcher away from a possible search for vital differences in the corresponding group of countries, which can act as explanatory variables.

John Matz makes the following recommendations for peer-country comparisons based on comparative studies of Latin American countries: (1) in order to apply a peer-country comparison strategy and generate meaningful theories, it is necessary to limit the spatial scope; i.e., instead of exploring all of Latin America, you need to limit the object of study to a subregion - Central America, the Southern Cone, etc.; (2) it is necessary to focus not on macrotheories, but on middle-rank theories built on multivariate empirical analysis and suitable for middle-level generalizations; (3) practice more analytical eclecticism, and especially include cultural variables in the analysis along with economic and institutional ones; (4) in order to avoid regional provincialism, it is necessary to connect regional research methodologically, theoretically and substantially with global problems and trends.

The strategy of comparing dissimilar countries was previously noted; it was isolated in the 70s and received some support from researchers. It was based on a criticism of the basic premise of regional studies, according to which it is possible to find a group of countries that differ in only two conditions while all the others are similar. Adam Przeworski wrote: “I am not aware of a single study that has successfully applied Mill's canon of single distinction. I continue to be convinced that in reality "design of most similar systems" is actually a bad idea. The premise is that we can find a pair (or more) of countries that differ in only two characteristics, and that we will be able to confirm the hypothesis that X causes Y in a type of natural experiment in which all other conditions are equal. No two countries in the world differ in only two characteristics, and in practice there are always many competing hypotheses.” This type of comparative strategy is used by some researchers who are trying to test any hypotheses under a variety of conditions. It also builds on Mill's inductive canons, but overemphasizes the canon of singular resemblance. More moderate researchers believe that both strategies (similar and various systems) complement each other, allow you to reduce negative traits using only one strategy and can be used to solve various research problems.

Global comparison. Although interest in global comparisons based on a large array of empirical data and statistical analysis decreased in the 90s, they still constitute an independent type of comparison and are observed today. A feature of global research is that the entire political system and its main characteristics are taken as the unit of analysis. The opportunity to conduct global research appeared in the 60s in connection with the development of comparative statistics, the emergence of data for most countries and the development of computer programs for processing statistical and sociological data. Particular attention in global comparative studies of politics began to be paid to the socio-economic conditions for the emergence and strengthening of regimes, ranking countries by level of democracy, the relationship between different types of states and regimes, the problem of equality and politics, etc. The limitations of global studies have been previously noted. We emphasize that the “third wave” of democratization again forced attention to global comparative analysis, although without biasing quantitative and statistical strategies.

Cross-temporal comparisons. All higher value Comparative studies are beginning to emphasize time as an operational variable. Time is included in the study to overcome the static nature of comparison, Neil Smelser considered dynamic comparative analysis to be more complex than static because the variable of time was included in the study of the relationship between dependent and independent variables. So, if a researcher simply takes two points of development of a phenomenon in time and compares them, then this, according to Smelser, is not yet a dynamic comparison. Comparison acquires the quality of dynamism when the researcher considers the dynamics of changes in any quality in a given period of time.

One of traditional types Cross-temporal comparison is defined as asynchronous comparison. This strategy involves comparing the same country (region) or different countries at different historical times. For example, the political dynamics of modern Africa and medieval Europe, the Weimar Republic and the emergence of democracy in post-war Germany, various historical types of social revolutions, etc. are explored. Historically oriented research is opposed to synchronic comparative research.

This chapter described the main approaches to determining the essence of the comparative method in political science. The comparative method in unity with middle-level theories form a specific field political science- comparative political science. The development of comparative research has given rise to a number of methodological problems, the debate on which continues today. The totality of the problems demonstrates the tension that exists today between qualitative and quantitative comparative research. In this regard, one should probably agree with Carl van Meter, who writes: “When one examines the literature on the differences between “qualitative” and “quantitative” methodologies, and when analyzing the evolution of sociological methodology in general over recent decades, one finds that both approaches are productive and that the conflict between them is primarily institutional.” The debatability of the comparative method is also expressed in the types of comparisons that comparative political science offers today.

Types and levels of variables

These methodological requirements for comparison actually focus attention on the initial stage of comparative political science analysis - the conceptualization and selection of research hypotheses. Equal importance is also attached to organizing a comparative study by identifying variables for collecting quantitative and qualitative data. The identification of types and levels of variables in comparative political science is actually no different from any social research focused on the measurement and analysis of empirical data. Since in the future we will use the concept of “variable”, we note here only the following.

A variable is understood as the changing quality of the political phenomenon being studied, to the measurement of which non-metric or metric scales can be applied. The organization of variables in a study involves dividing them into groups depending on the goals and hypotheses of the study. The choice of variables is also determined by the general conceptual framework of the study and is based on its basic concepts.

The set of studied variables can be defined as operational variables. These include dependent, independent and confounding variables. A dependent variable is understood as that variable quality of the object of study, which is considered as a consequence or result of the action of certain conditions, factors, circumstances. The variables that characterize these influencing conditions, factors and circumstances are called independent. There is some relationship between the dependent and independent variables that is being examined. When studying the nature of this relationship, it is necessary to keep in mind that in addition to the dependent and independent variables identified by the researcher, it is necessary to take into account the influence of other conditions, i.e. control conditions. Regarding operational variables, this means that the relationship between the dependent and independent variables can be influenced by some third variable, which is called an intervening variable. Its influence needs to be controlled, and sometimes during the research process, if a greater influence of the intervening variable is found than the independent one, then the first one receives the status of independent. Along with operational variables, variable qualities of an object are identified, which are taken by the researcher as constants. They are called parameters. Just when choosing countries in a comparative study, one of the most complex problems and the definition of parameters comes into play, i.e. that group of characteristics in which the countries being studied least differ. Quantitative and qualitative relationships can be established between dependent and independent variables. How this methodological scheme works will become clear when reading subsequent chapters of this book.

Concerning levels dependent variables in comparative research, then Smelser, based on the ideas of Talcott Parsons about the dual hierarchy of social life (one: biological organism, personality, social system, cultural system; the other in social system: roles, teams, norms, values), builds the following hierarchy of levels of dependent variables: aggregative qualities of the population, assessments of behavioral precipitation, social structures, cultural structures. He emphasizes that the transition from the lowest level (aggregative qualities of the population) to the highest (cultural structures) complicates the organization of variables, since a significant part of them cannot be interpreted as parameters, but must be included in operational variables.

Since the concept of variables is one of the central ones in organizing comparative research, the definition of the comparative method itself is given based on the specific attitude towards control over variables. Thus, Arendt Lijphart writes that the limits of the comparative method are determined by a strategy in which cases are “selected so as to maximize the variance of the independent variables and minimize the variance of the controlled variables.” Spencer Wellhofer defines the comparative method as “a strategy of selecting among a small number of cases or systems (usually countries) in order to include controlled variables in the search for causal or functional relationships within systems.”

The comparative method is one of the most common in various sciences. In many areas of human activity there is a need optimal choice. In this case, all the characteristics of the objects under study are taken into account, as well as their comparison according to the necessary criteria.

Comparison as a way of knowing

Comparison is one of the main methods of understanding the surrounding reality. The basis of this method is quite simple: identifying and comparing individual phenomena of a social, economic, political or other nature in order to detect distinctive similarities and differences.

Based on the comparison, a conclusion of a justified or conjectural nature is made about the homogeneity of phenomena, the similarity of their content, general orientation, etc. This allows the use of data about one object when studying another. If, during the course of the study, some discrepancies were discovered, this allows us to indicate the peculiarity, specificity and uniqueness of one phenomenon or object in relation to another.

Concept and categories of comparative analysis method

The method of comparative analysis originates from such a general scientific method as analogy. However, unlike the latter, comparison involves the use of elements of other methods, including analysis, methods of thinking, modeling, synthesis, induction, deduction, etc. The main purpose of comparison is to obtain new facts not only from the various properties of the objects or phenomena being compared, but also analysis their various relationships. Based on this, it is possible to draw up a general trend for their subsequent functioning and development.

The methods of the comparative approach lead to the fact that already established views on certain phenomena and facts can be revised. The comparison can also reveal features that are specific to a particular object or phenomenon, but were previously not known to researchers. Thus, comparison contributes to a deeper study and knowledge of objects and phenomena, as well as the search for them distinctive features and differences on different levels research.

Benchmarking mechanism

The comparative research method has its own mechanism, which includes the following components:

• General scientific methods. These include: analogy, induction and deduction, analysis and synthesis, etc.
• Logical apparatus. An extensive system of categories that is used in comparison and analysis operations. Each object or phenomenon has its own system of categories.

A variation of the comparison method such as segmentation also deserves special attention. Its essence is that information about an object or phenomenon is divided into separate parts - segments, which are subsequently subjected to research. In this case, comparison can be made according to different criteria, in particular, the historical-comparative method is often used, where an object is studied not only in comparison with other objects, but also in comparison with itself at different time stages.

Segmentation as one of the methods of comparative analysis involves the study of not only characteristics individual elements a specific object or phenomenon, but also the nature and tendency of its functioning and development within the framework of the whole.

Stages of comparative analysis and forecasting

The comparative method of assessing objects and phenomena provides for the implementation of research at several levels:

• Collection and processing of all received information. Moreover, all data must be objective, accurate and provable.
• Systematization of information. All data must be distributed to different categories and give the collected material a structural appearance.
• Interpretation of the received data. Based on the analysis and comparison of information, specific conclusions are drawn.

If these steps are carried out correctly, the researcher can formulate a justified forecast. The simplest method of forecasting is the direct comparison of information about an object or phenomenon at different levels, for example, in different regions, countries, etc. The second method of forecasting involves putting forward specific hypotheses, supported by real facts.

Rules for carrying out comparative analysis

The comparative research method will be effective only if all the rules for its implementation are followed:

• Carrying out comparisons at different levels using analogy, system-historical analysis and logic.
• Correct selection of objects for the comparison process.
• Specific goal setting.
• The comparative analysis method must be carried out using specific criteria.
• Clear definition of the characteristics of compared objects and phenomena.
• Processing of comparison results and analysis of the possibility of their application in practice.

All data obtained during the research process must be clear, unambiguous and provable.

Types of comparative studies

The comparative method has its own typology. In science they distinguish the following types research:

• According to the scope of the study: macro and micro comparison.
• According to the goals, practical (or functional) and theoretical (or scientific) research are distinguished.
• According to the level, research can be intersystem, intrasystem, intranational, historical, intersectoral, etc.

In addition, synchronous and asynchronous comparison are also distinguished. In the first case, we are talking about parallel and simultaneous comparison, and in the second case, the comparative method can be applied to objects that are located in different time periods.

Pros and cons of the comparative method

The comparative approach has a number of pros and cons that the researcher must take into account in his work. Concerning positive aspects, then they are as follows:

• The method allows you to reflect the current and real situation in relation to the object or phenomenon under study.
• All data are statistically substantiated.
• During the research process, adjustments can be made to the phenomena or objects being compared.
• Given a large amount of information, the method is very easy to implement and produces reliable and reliable results.

The method also has its disadvantages:

• The data may be out of date at the time the study results are interpreted.
• The accuracy of the data obtained depends on the stability of the object being studied.
• For reliable and accurate data you need a large number of information.

The ratio of the positive and negative aspects of the method determines the effectiveness of its application in each specific case.

Examples of using the comparative analysis method

Features of the comparison method allow it to be used in the most different areas, such as:

• Biology and anatomy.
• Linguistics, in particular comparative linguistics.
• Literary studies and mythology.
• Comparative Politics.
• Economic Sciences.
• Jurisprudence and jurisprudence.
• Psychology.
• Sociological Sciences.
• Religious Studies.
• Philosophy, etc.

The comparative method has a number of features that allow it to be used effectively in a variety of sciences. The method has its own classification, typology, as well as rules and features of research on different stages. The choice of this method is determined by the availability required quantity information and selection of optimal criteria.