Comparative Designs

  • Oddbjørn Bukve


A comparative design involves studying variation by comparing a limited number of cases without using statistical probability analyses. Such designs are particularly useful for knowledge development when we lack the conditions for control through variable-centred, quasi-experimental designs. Comparative designs often combine different research strategies by using one strategy to analyse properties of a single case and another strategy for comparing cases. A common combination is the use of a type of case design to analyse within the cases, and a variable-centred design to compare cases. Case-oriented approaches can also be used for analysis both within and between cases. Typologies and typological theories play an important role in such a design. In this chapter I discuss the two types separately.


  1. Bukve, O. (2001). Lokale utviklingsnettverk ein komparativ analyse av næringsutvikling i åtte kommunar. Høgskulen i Sogn og Fjordane, Sogndal.Google Scholar
  2. Collier, R. B., & Collier, D. (1991). Shaping the political arena: Critical junctures, the labor movement, and regime dynamics in Latin America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Dion, D. (1998). Evidence and inference in the comparative case study. (Case studies in politics). Comparative Politics, 30, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Goggin, M. L. (1986). The “too few cases/too many variables” problem in implementation research. The Western Political Quarterly, 39, 328–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Landman, T. (2008). Issues and methods in comparative politics: An introduction (3rd ed.). Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lange, M. (2013). Comparative-historical methods. Los Angeles: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Luebbert, G. M. (1991). Liberalism, fascism, or social democracy: Social classes and the political origins of regimes in interwar Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 5(2), 145–174.Google Scholar
  10. Paige, J. (1975). Agrarian revolution: Social movements and export agriculture in the underdeveloped world. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  11. Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ragin, C. C., & Amoroso, L. M. (2011). Constructing social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  15. Skocpol, T. (1979). States and social revolutions: A comparative analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Weber, M. (1971). Makt og byråkrati: essays om politikk og klasse, samfunnsforskning og verdier. Oslo, Norway: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
  17. Wickham-Crowley, T. P. (1992). Guerrillas and revolution in Latin America: A comparative study of insurgents and regimes since 1956. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oddbjørn Bukve
    • 1
  1. 1.Western Norway University of Applied SciencesSogndalNorway

Personalised recommendations