ocracies to establish trends and patterns. The qualitative method

ocracies
sacrifices too much depth of detail in its pursuit
of breadth of comparison’. Discuss

 

Political science focuses on
the analysis of how political decisions are made and implemented. ‘Comparative
politics, as a field of study, provides us with a ready array of conceptual and
analytical tools that we can use to address and answer a wide range of
questions about the social world.’ (Lim, 2010). Political scientists aim to
have a better understanding of how political institutions and systems function,
how problems have occurred and how other problems may come about in the future.
However, there is much debate on what method should be used to achieve this.
The quantitative method (large-N analysis) uses mass data from statistics and
inquiries, to establish trends and patterns. The qualitative method uses
singular case studies to control variables and provide in-depth analysis.
Small-N analysis binds these two methods together, by comparing a
small-handpicked selection of case studies. Many researchers champion the
large-N analysis, whilst others argue that this sacrifices depth and therefore
produces unreliable data. Due to the nature of comparative politics, although
depth is sacrificed for breadth in many cases, it is necessary to draw
comparisons and make assumptions about various democracies. This essay will explore
large-N and small-N comparisons, along with individual case studies, comparing individual
research reports, all using different methods, to then assess their strengths
and weaknesses.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Comparative
politics relies on breadth to generate variables and create typologies. The aim
of comparative research is to formulate rules and to apply them to similar
cases. Therefore, exploring multiple cases in a breadth study is imperative to
generalise and fulfill the requirements of the hypothesis. Hypotheses are key
in comparative politics, especially when considering the interaction of
different variables. Consequently, it is imperative that various results from
different studies are considered. Scientists must study, from alternative
perspectives, political systems, which should formulate and test similar
hypotheses. Wieviroka (1992:163) argues that to avoid starting again from
scratch, earlier findings have to be borne in mind. Therefore, when conducting
a study, there must be a basic knowledge of political systems as most political
scientists usually adopt the typical comparative politics methods; the method
of difference and the method of agreement. These make sure that variables
representing the differences and similarities can be identified to give the
study good foundations. For example, there are broad consensuses over
approaches used in comparative politics such as institutionalism, pluralism,
corporatism, behaviourism, cultural perspectives and policy analyses. This
emphasises that there is a need to integrate findings of various studies to
gain a better understanding of how institutions influence the individual’s
choice. Various approaches have aided comparative politics in its ability to
create a complex picture of political systems and the factors that contribute
to the structuring of the state. These breadth analyses then provide further
foundations for typologies and classifications. For example, Amorim Neto &
Cox’s “Electoral Institutions, Cleavage Structures, and the Number of Parties”
conducts a large-N study to analyse if there is a correlation (and if so, how
far it goes) between the different measures of electoral system permissiveness,
the number of effective parties and ethnic fragmentation. The data collected
was from 54 elections around the world, including both presidential and
parliamentary elections. From this, Neto and Cox were able to deduce that the
effective number of parties are dependent on the diversity of the state and the
types of electoral systems. The benefit therefore of conducting a large-N
analysis is that statistical controls can be used. Statistical control
(SC) refers to the ‘technique of separating out the effect of one particular
independent variable from the effects of the remaining variables on the
dependant variable in a multivariate analysis’ (Gujarati, 2003). Using SC can
aid political scientists in ruling out rival explanations for why outcomes are
produced. Within this, it is easier to identify ‘outliers’ and then make
generalisations as their theory is tested over a larger sample and in turn
becomes much more representative. One of the main problems with this type of
study is that it is often expensive and time consuming, as Collier (1993) notes
that there is a problem with “collecting adequate information in a sufficient amount of time”. However,
this is a necessity to gather evidence and draw comparisons, which is what
comparative politics is founded upon.

 

However, case studies can
prove to be valuable for scientists as they provide in depth analysis, which
takes into consideration multiple variables. This broaches the issue that often
arises from breadth studies that many people have different opinions. For
example, the question of ‘What is Democracy?’ is extremely controversial, as
many have different opinions of what it actually entails. This is often
contentious as different states carry different political cultures. This is a
problem often exacerbated by the fact many countries have different political
cultures. However, quantitative study is often guided on the basis of generally
acknowledged and accepted mass data. Dogan (1994) argues that a false sense of
security often arises with mass data and therefore this prevents researchers
from assessing the ‘validity of quantitative data’. Especially as some
worldwide studies that come from specific sources (e.g. the World Values
Survey) use statistics from specific institutions such as the United Nations,
World Bank and the European Union. These sources are not always precise and
therefore support Dogan’s claim. For example, political participation in
Islamic countries is very unalike the patterns we see in the Western world.
Norris and Inglehart (2004) link this with beliefs about how gender roles
should be carried out. Researchers often do not have the resources to conduct
all of their own studies, which allow them to control variables, and even if
they did so, by the time they had conducted the studies, the economic and
social realities may have changed. Here, case studies provide valuable, as they
are able to construct hypotheses, contribute to theory building, and produce
in-depth analysis of outliers that are found through large-N studies (Landman, 2000).
The benefits of a singular case study is portrayed in Robert Putnam’s Making
Democracy Work whereby he analysed 20 different regions throughout Italy
across 20 years of study. He studied the impact that institutional reform had
on institutional performance. When he came across discrepancies in these findings,
he assessed the reasons for cross-temporal and cross-sectional variation in
institutional performance, and he studied six of these regions in more depth as
a result. This would not have been possible with a large-N study. Hence, a key
benefit of case studies is that you can explain outcomes with process tracing (George
and Bennett, 2005). Bryman (1974) adds that qualitative research gives
political scientists more freedom to shape their own design and therefore adapt
to ‘social complexities’ to a much larger extent than quantitative methods of
study. Nevertheless comparative politics as a whole does
not sacrifice breadth for depth as case studies mean that only one entity is
analysed and are therefore of a limited value to political scientists. Case
studies merely lay foundations as an explorative method to further
understanding quantitative analysis (Lijphart,1975:160) as they are only useful
to “disconfirm a regularity to a limited degree” (Sartori, 1994:23). Therefore,
in the field of comparative politics they have limited value, as
generalisations cannot be drawn from them.

 

The idea that brings both the
large-N design and case studies together is the practice of small-N studies.
Small-N analysis examines a small number of cases in depth, which are all
selectively handpicked. One of the main strengths of these types of studies are
that they are “specified, complex models that are sensitive to variations by
time and place.” (Coppedge, 1999). “Perils of Presidentialism” (Linz, 1990) is
an example of small-N analysis. Linz considers the consequence that
presidential and parliamentary government types have on states’ democratic
ability. Linz’s research was carried out through selected cases (countries)
from Western Europe (e.g. Italy, Spain and France), Latin America (such as
Chile, Argentina and Brazil) and North America. His hypothesis was based on
proving if the nature of parliamentary rule was superior nature of presidential
rule. Small-N analysis enabled him to intentionally select case studies that
had alike characteristics to aide specific hypothesis testing. The
Comparative Method (Collier, 1993) argues that small-N designs such as
Linz’s enable the intensive analysis of a few cases with less energy
expenditure, financial resources and time. Therefore, intensive analysis can be
more productive than superficial statistical analysis, which can be time
consuming and difficult to successfully execute as the collection of large date
can be extremely difficult. A benefit of utilising small-N instead of large-N
is that the studies can be operationalised at a lower level and consequently
the results are likely to be valid as the concepts chosen are being accurately
measured. Small-N scientists are critical of the case study method as they
believe that patterns must come from theory or observation which is “validated
by intimate knowledge of the detail, nuance, and history of the small number of
cases” (Paul et al. 2013). However, once the number of cases expands, analysts
can no longer “hold all the cases in their head” and the information is too
large to be compared holistically and qualitatively without expecting a margin
of error. Lijphart argues that this is because small-N analyses can focus on
“comparable cases” that are matched on many variables that are not central to
the study. This means that they can effectively ‘control’ these variables. They
can then choose countries, which differ in terms of key variables that are the
focus of the study which allows a more reliable assessment of their influence. Yet,
small-N analysis has various weaknesses, which make it inferior to its large-N
counterpart. Goggin (1986) comments on the nature of small-N analysis, as there
are many variables yet a small number of cases. Therefore, it is more efficient
to study more countries and consequently conduct a large-N study instead. As a
result, Linz’s study has come under great criticism for its underdevelopment.
Kerlinger (1973) argues that the ideal research design must answer the research
question, introduce the element of control for extraneous independent variables
and permit the investigator to generalize from their findings. Small-N studies
are incapable of fulfilling these criteria. However, Prezworski et. al in Democracy and Development (2000) studies 150 countries over 40 years to
achieve a similar objective to Linz. Conversely, unlike Linz’s analysis, this
study complies with Kerlinger’s ideal research design as it allows
generalisation due to the increased scale of the project and randomisation of case
studies.

 

After analysing the evidence, it portrays that
none of the aforementioned methods achieve a perfect outcome, but that large-N
analysis serves the purpose of comparative politics best. This is due to the
fact that it is the only method, which can successfully draw large comparisons
and create generalisations to create typologies. Without large-N studies, theories
could not be widely developed and created. Although small-N studies are useful
for those who do not possess the time or resources to conduct a large-N study,
they carry a selection bias and therefore results are not always accurate.
Similarly, both case studies and small-N studies still have the issue whereby
even the smaller samples they handpick/select are not always guaranteed to be
completely representative. This means that large-N comparisons are more valid
and representative as they study a much larger percentage of the population and
additional countries. Even though case studies can take variables into
consideration and therefore provide a more accurate picture, they are limited
as to what conclusions political scientists can draw from them. Subsequently,
although depth is inevitably lost when comparing a large-N study to a small-N
study, breadth is essential to carry out the main function of comparative
politics, which is to draw substantial comparisons.