Advertisement

Theory Development in Comparative Social Research

  • Clemens KronebergEmail author
Abhandlungen

Abstract

While questions of methodology and research design have received a lot of attention, less is known about theory development in comparative social research. As theoretical objectives and orientations are diverse, theorizing takes many forms, ranging from orienting statements and typologies to different kinds of causal propositions. After introducing different understandings of “theory” and associated types of research questions, the article discusses the interplay between empirical research and theory development in comparative social research. Using examples from different fields of application, I argue that theory development in comparative research can be hampered by placing too much emphasis on general micro-level theories, but also by a lack of theoretical abstraction, that intertwines mechanism sketches with historical and contextual details of the particular macro-level phenomena under investigation. The article calls for a greater focus on meso-level theorizing, as it has the greatest potential to produce theoretical knowledge about contextual variation in causal mechanisms and to motivate the development of theoretical models that are explicit enough to be systematically revised across studies.

Keywords

Methodology Models Mechanisms Cross-national research Analytical sociology 

Theorieentwicklung in der international vergleichenden Sozialforschung

Zusammenfassung

Im Vergleich zu der Aufmerksamkeit, die Methodologie und Forschungsdesign erhalten, wurden allgemeine Fragen der Theorieentwicklung in der international vergleichenden Sozialforschung bislang wenig diskutiert. Aufgrund der vielfältigen theoretischen Zielsetzungen und Orientierungen existieren viele Arten der Theoriebildung, von orientierenden Feststellungen und Typologien bis hin zu kausalen Propositionen. Ausgehend von unterschiedlichen Theorieverständnissen und entsprechenden Arten von Forschungsfragen diskutiert der Beitrag das Wechselspiel von empirischer Forschung und Theorieentwicklung in der international vergleichenden Sozialforschung. Anhand von Beispielen aus unterschiedlichen Forschungsfeldern argumentiert der Autor, dass Theorieentwicklung in der komparativen Forschung oftmals durch zwei Tendenzen behindert wird: einerseits durch die Überbetonung allgemeiner Mikrotheorien, andererseits durch den Mangel an theoretischer Abstraktion in Arbeiten, die Skizzen von Mechanismen zu eng mit historischen und kontextuellen Details konkreter Makrophänomene fusionieren. In diesem Beitrag wird dafür argumentiert, bei der Theorieentwicklung einen stärkeren Fokus auf die Mesoebene zu richten. Dies birgt das größte Potenzial, theoretisches Wissen über kontextuelle Variation in kausalen Mechanismen zu generieren sowie die Entwicklung theoretischer Modelle anzuregen, die explizit genug sind, um systematisch über verschiedene empirische Studien hinweg verbessert werden zu können.

Schlüsselwörter

Methodologie Modelle Mechanismen Ländervergleichende Forschung Analytische Soziologie  

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the late Jürgen Friedrichs, Karl-Dieter Opp, the editors, and other attendees at the SOCLIFE conference on “How should we analyze country differences and what have we learned about them? Analytical strategies and explanations based on international comparative surveys” at the University of Cologne, December 2017, for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this work. My interest in the questions discussed in this article grew out of the colloquium series of the Mannheim Centre for European Social Research (MZES), which exposed me to different styles of comparative research.

References

  1. Abascal, Maria, and Delia Baldassarri. 2015. Love thy neighbor? Ethnoracial diversity and trust reexamined. American Journal of Sociology 121:722–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abend, Gabriel. 2008. The meaning of ‘theory’. Sociological Theory 26:173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arts, Wil, and John Gelissen, 2002. Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? A state-of-the-art report. Journal of European Social Policy 12:137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates, Robert H., Avner Greif, Margaret Levi, Jean-Laurent Rosenthal and Barry R. Weingast. 1998. Analytic narratives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, Andrew, and Jeffrey T. Checkel. Eds. 2014. Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Boudon, Raymond. 1976. Comment on hauser’s review of education, opportunity, and social inequality. American Journal of Sociology 81:1175–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boudon, Raymond. 1981. the logic of social action: An introduction to sociological analysis. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  8. Brady, David, and Amie Bostic. 2015. Paradoxes of social policy: Welfare transfers, relative poverty, and redistribution preferences. American Sociological Review 80:268–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Camerer, Colin F. 2003. Behavioral game theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Christ, Oliver, Katharina Schmid, Simon Lolliot, Hermann Swart, Dietlind Stolle, Nicole Tausch, Ananthi Al Ramiah, Ulrich Wagner, Steven Vertovec and Miles Hewstone. 2014. Contextual effect of positive intergroup contact on outgroup prejudice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111:3996–4000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cieciuch, Jan, Eldad Davidov, Peter Schmidt and René Algesheimer. 2019. How to obtain comparable measures for cross-national comparisons.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-019-00598-7. In this volume.
  12. Coleman, James S. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cox, Michael, Gwen Arnold and Sergio Villamayor-Tomás. 2010. A review of design principles for community-based natural resource management. Ecology and Society 15:38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Epstein, David L., Robert Bates, Jack Goldstone, Ida Kristensen and Sharyn O’Halloran. 2006. Democratic transitions. American Journal of Political Science 50:551–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 1990. The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Esping-Andersen, Gøsta, and Francesco C. Billari. 2015. Re-theorizing family demographics. Population and Development Review 41:1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Esser, Hartmut. 1993. Soziologie. Allgemeine Grundlagen. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  18. Esser, Hartmut. 2004. Does the “new” immigration require a “new” theory of intergenerational integration? International Migration Review 38:1126–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Esser, Hartmut, and Clemens Kroneberg. 2015. An integrative theory of action: The model of frame selection In Order on the edge of chaos: Social psychology and the problem of social order, Eds. Edward J. Lawler, Shane R. Thye and Jeongkoo Yoon, 63–85. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gangl, Markus. 2006. Scar effects of unemployment: An assessment of institutional complementarities. American Sociological Review 71:986–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gehlbach, Scott, Konstantin Sonin and Milan W. Svolik. 2016. Formal models of nondemocratic politics. Annual Review of Political Science 19:565–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldthorpe, John H. 2007. On sociology—volume one: Critique and program. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Granovetter, Mark. 1979. The idea of “advancement” in theories of social evolution and development. American Journal of Sociology 85:489–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hardin, Garrett. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162 (3859):1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hedström, Peter. 2005. Dissecting the social: On the principles of analytical sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hempel, Carl G., and Paul Oppenheim. 1948. Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science 15:135–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Henrich, Joseph, Robert Boyd, Samuel Bowles, Colin F. Camerer, Ernst Fehr, Herbert Gintis and Richard McElreath. 2001. In search of homo economicus: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. American Economic Review 91:73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Henrich, Joseph, Robert Boyd, Samuel Bowles, Colin F. Camerer, Ernst Fehr and Herbert Gintis. 2004. Foundations of human sociality. Economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Henrich, Joseph, Jean Ensminger, Richard McElreath, Abigail Barr, Clark Barrett, Alexander Bolyanatz, Juan Camilo Cardenas, Michael Gurven, Edwins Gwako, Natalie Henrich, Carolyn Lesorogol, Frank Marlowe, David Tracer and John Ziker. 2010. Markets, religion, community size, and the evolution of fairness and punishment. Science 327:1480–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Homans, George C. 1967. The nature of social science. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  31. Kalter, Frank, and Clemens Kroneberg. 2014. Between mechanism talk and mechanism cult: New emphases in explanatory sociology and empirical research. In Social Contexts and Social Mechanisms, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Special Issue 54, Ed. Jürgen Friedrichs, Alexandra Nonnenmacher, 91–115. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  32. King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Korpi, Walter. 1980. Social policy and distributional conflict in the capitalist democracies. A preliminary comparative framework. West European Politics 3:296–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Korpi, Walter. 1983. The democratic class struggle. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  35. Korpi, Walter, and Joakim Palme. 1998. The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: Welfare state institutions, inequality, and poverty in the western countries. American Sociological Review 63:661–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kroneberg, Clemens, and Frank Kalter. 2012. Rational choice theory and empirical research. Methodological and theoretical contributions in Europe. Annual Review of Sociology 38:73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lange, Peter, and Hudson Meadwell. 1991. Typologies of democratic systems: From political inputs to political economy. In New directions in comparative politics, ed. Howard J. Wiarda, 82–117. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  38. Laver, Michael. 1998. Models of government formation. Annual Review of Political Science 1:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lindenberg, Siegwart. 1992. The method of decreasing abstraction. In Rational choice theory. Advocacy and critique, eds. James S. Coleman and Thomas J. Fararo, 3–20. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Lindenberg, Siegwart. 1996. Choice-centred versus subject-centred theories in the social sciences: The influence of simplification on explananda. European Sociological Review 12:147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1959. Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. The American Political Science Review 53:69–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mahoney, James, and Gary Goertz. 2006. A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political Analysis 14:227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Manzo, Gianluca. 2014. Data, generative models, and mechanisms: More on the principles of analytical sociology. In Analytical sociology: Actions and networks, ed. Gianluca Manzo, 4–52. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marx, Karl. 1859. A contribution to the critique of political economy. Moscow: Progress Publishers.Google Scholar
  45. Messner, Steven F. 2012. Morality, markets, and the ASC: 2011 Presidential address to the American Society of Criminology. Criminology 50:5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nauck, Bernhard. 2007. Value of children and the framing of fertility: results from a cross-cultural comparative survey in 10 societies. European Sociological Review 23:615–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nonnenmacher, Alexandra, and Jürgen Friedrichs. 2013. The missing link: Deficits of country-level studies. A review of 22 articles explaining life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research 110:1221–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Opp, Karl-Dieter. 2013. What is analytical sociology? Strengths and weaknesses of a new sociological research program. Social Science Information 52:329–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ostrom, Elinor. 2005. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Ostrom, Elinor. 2010. Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review 100:641–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Parsons, Talcott. 1964. Evolutionary universals in society. American Sociological Review 29:339–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Peters, B. Guy. 2013. Strategies for comparative research in political science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Poteete, Amy R., Marco Janssen and Elinor Ostrom. 2010. Working together: Collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Putnam, Robert D. 2007. E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century the 2006 Johan Skytte prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies 30:137–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ragin, Charles C. 1987. The comparative method. Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of Calofornia Press.Google Scholar
  57. Ragin, Charles C. 1991. The problem of balancing discourse on cases and variables in comparative social science. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 32:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Raub, Werner, and Thomas Voss. 2017. Micro-macro models in sociology: Antecedents of Coleman’s diagram. In Social Dilemmas, Institutions and the Evolution of Cooperation. Festschrift for Andreas Diekmann, eds. Ben Jann and Wojtek Przepiorka, 11–36. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  59. Schröder, Martin. 2019. Varieties of capitalism and welfare regime theories: Assumptions, accomplishments, and the need for different methods.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-019-00609-7. In this volume.
  60. Schwartz, Shalom H. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances in experimental Social Psychology 25, ed. Mark P. Zanna, 1–65. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  61. Thelen, Kathleen. 2002. The explanatory power of historical institutionalism. In Akteure—Mechanismen—Modelle: Zur Theoriefähigkeit makro-sozialer Analysen, ed. Renate Mayntz, 91–107. Frankfurt a. M.: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.Google Scholar
  62. Tilly, Charles. 1984. Big structures, large processes, Huge comparisons. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  63. Turner, Jonathan H. 1991. Sociological theory. Diversity and disagreement. In The structure of sociological theory, ed. Jonathan Turner, 1–30. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
  64. Weber, Max. 1958. Essays in sociology. New York: Oxford University Pres.Google Scholar
  65. Wimmer, Andreas, and Nina Glick Schiller. 2002. Methodological nationalism and beyond: Nation-state building, migration and the social sciences. Global Networks 2:301–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ylikoski, Petri. 2012. Micro, macro, and mechanisms. In The Oxford handbook of philosophy of the social sciences, ed. Harold Kincaid, 21–45. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Sociology and Social PsychologyUniversity of CologneKölnGermany

Personalised recommendations