SOC 60

Historical and Comparative Methods

Outline• 1. Four Types of Historical Comparative Research• 2. The Logic of Comparison

– J. S. Mills Two Methods– C. Ragin’s Qualitative Comparative Analysis Using Boolean Logic

• The AND and the OR and Writing a Boolean Expression/Equation• The Truth Table• How to Simplify a Boolean Expression

• 3. Data Used in Historical Comparative Research– Available Secondary Data Sources– Methodological Issues in Using Secondary Data Sources

• 4. Other Special Techniques

Four Types of Historical Comparative Research

• Comparison over time and space

Cross-Sectional Historical

Single Case

Historical Events Research

Historical ProcessResearch

MultipleCases

Cross-Sectional Comparative Research

Comparative/Historical Research

Question• A study explaining the

September 11, 2001 terror attack focusing on the social interactions among the participants is an example of

• A. Historical events reseach• B. Historical process research• C. Cross-sectional comparative

research• D. Historical comparative

research

Source: Marks, N., Abdallah, S., Simms, A, Thompson, S. (2006).

• Unhappy Countries• HUNGARY 190 • ……• PALESTINE 180 • SLOVAKIA 180 • …..• TURKEY 177 • ….• IVORY COAST 150 • NIGER 150 • ERITREA 147 • RWANDA 147 • BULGARIA 143 • LESOTHO 143 • PAKISTAN 143 • RUSSIA 143 • SWAZILAND 140 • GEORGIA 137 • BELARUS 133 • TURKMENISTAN 133 • ARMENIA 123 • SUDAN 120 • UKRAINE 120 • MOLDOVA 117 • CONGO DEMOCRATIC 110 • ZIMBABWE 110 • BURUNDI 100

• Happy Countries• DENMARK 273 • SWITZERLAND 273 • AUSTRIA 260 • ICELAND 260 • BAHAMAS 257 • FINLAND 257 • SWEDEN 257 • BHUTAN 253 • BRUNEI DARUSSALAM 253 • CANADA 253 • IRELAND 253 • LUXEMBOURG 253 • COSTA RICA 250 • MALTA 250 • NETHERLANDS 250 • ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA 247 • MALAYSIA 247 • NEW ZEALAND 247 • NORWAY 247 • SEYCHELLES 247 • ST KITTS AND NEVIS 247 • UAE 247 • USA 247• VANUATU 247 • VENEZUELA 247 • AUSTRALIA 243 • BARBADOS 243 • BELGIUM 243 • DOMINICA 243 • OMAN 243 • SAUDI ARABIA 243 • SURINAME 243 • BAHRAIN 240 • COLUMBIA 240 • GERMANY 240 • GUYANA 240 • HONDURAS 240 • KUWAIT 240 • PANAMA 240 • ST VINCENT AND THE 240 • UNITED KINGDOM 237

Question

• The study of happiness in the world is an example of

• A. Historical events reseach• B. Historical process research• C. Cross-sectional comparative research• D. Historical comparative research

The Logic of Comparison

• John Stuart Mill’s Two Methods

• Method of agreement – If the outcomes are the same, causes must be the same

• Method of difference– If outcomes are different causes must be different

Question

• The fact that both Iceland (frigid island close to the Arctic Circle) and the Bahamas (a sunny, Caribbean country) are among the happiest countries in the world suggests that climate is not the cause of happiness. This is an illustration of

• A. Method of Agreement• B. Method of Difference

Question

• The fact that both Haiti and the Bahamas are Caribbean countries with wonderful weather and beaches but one is among the poorest and the other is among the richest countries suggests that climate is not a real cause of affluence. This is an illustration of the

• A. Method of Agreement• B. Method of Difference

Question

• What do you think is the best predictor of happiness?

The Logic of Comparison

• Charles Ragin’s Qualitative Comparative Analysis Using Boolean Logic

• Boolean Algebra• Either A or B = A+B

Example: To purchase this car (P) you need either cash (A) or credit (B)P=A+B

A and B =A*BExample: To drive this car (D) you have to have both a license (L) and an insurance (I)D=L*I

If you also have to buy the car then D=P*L*I

D=(A+B)*L*I=A*L*I+B*L*I in words:You either have to have cash and a license and insurance or

you have to have credit and a license and insurance

Notation: not P is p (not A is a etc.)Example: p=a*b

d=???d=l+i

The Logic of Comparison

• TRUTH TABLE

• Example: Causes of regime Downfall• A=conflict between older and younger military officers• B= Death of a powerful dictator• C=CIA dissatisfaction with the regime• 0=No 1=Yes• A B C D=Downfall # of cases (total=32 cases)• 0 0 0 0 9• 1 0 0 1 2• 0 1 0 1 4• 0 0 1 1 3• 1 1 0 1 2• 0 1 1 1 7• 1 0 1 1 2• 1 1 1 1 3

• D=Abc+aBc+abC+ABc+aBC+AbC+ABC• D=A+B+C

Simplifying Boolean Expressions

• RULE: Look for two terms that are the same except for the fact that one element is present in one and absent in the other.

– E.g. ABC and ABc are such pair of terms. AB works with or without C. So C is irrelevant, and both can be simplified into AB.

– Similarly, ABcd and ABcD are pairs and both can be simplified into ABc. – BUT ABC and aBc are not pairs, and nor are ABc and ABd.To find the pairs, 1. create a table of all the terms and find the pairs, indicate their simplified forms

put 0 otherwise. (The table will have content only above the diagonal.)2. See if any term is left without a pair. Write that down. That term will enter the

final equation.3. Take the simplified forms, create a table and look for pair again. 4. Repeat 2. 5. Repeat 3 and 4 until you have only terms with a single element. (With 3 causes

you will have two tables. With 4 you will have three. In general, you will have k-1 tables where k is the number of causes.)

Simplifying D=Abc+aBc+abC+ABc+aBC+AbC+ABC

Abc aBc abC ABc aBC AbC ABC Abc X 0 0 Ac 0 Ab 0 aBc X 0 Bc aB 0 0 abC X 0 aC bC 0 ABc X 0 0 AB aBC X 0 BC AbC X AC ABC X

Ac Ab Bc aB aC bC AB BC AC Ac X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A Ab X 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 Bc X 0 0 0 0 B 0 aB X 0 0 B 0 0 aC X 0 0 0 C bC X 0 C 0 AB X 0 0 BC X 0 AC X

Checking Results

• D=Abc+aBc+abC+ABc+aBC+AbC+ABC• Simplifies to• D=A+B+C

• Checking Results– Create a table of the original terms by the terms in the simplified

form.– Write a 1 if the simplified term is part of an original term (write 0

otherwise).– Does each original term have at least a 1?

Checking ResultsD=Abc+aBc+abC+ABc+aBC+AbC+ABC

D=A+B+C

Abc aBc abC ABc aBC AbC ABC

A 1 0 0 1 0 1 1

B 0 1 0 1 1 0 1

C 0 0 1 0 1 1 1

The Logic of Comparison• Example: Causes of successful strikes

• A= booming product market• B= threat of sympathy strikes• C= Large Strike Fund• A B C S=Success Number of cases• 1 0 1 1 5• 0 1 0 1 4• 1 1 0 1 3• 1 1 1 1 2• 1 0 0 0 2• 0 0 1 0 2• 0 1 1 0 1• 0 0 0 0 3•• S=AbC+aBc+ABc+ABC if both aBc and ABc work we can ignore A/a if B is present but C is absent ( c ) Bc

» if both AbC and ABC work we can ignore B/b if AC are present AC» if both ABc and ABC work we can ignore C/c if AB are present AB

•• S=Bc+AC+AB• This further simplifies to S=Bc+AC (see later)

Simplifying S=AbC+aBc+ABc+ABC

AbC aBc ABc ABC AbC X 0 0 AC aBc X Bc 0 ABc X AB ABC X

Bc AC AB Bc X 0 0 AC X 0 AB X

Checking ResultsS=AbC+aBc+ABc+ABC S=Bc+AC+AB

AbC aBc ABc ABC Bc 0 1 1 0 AC 1 0 0 1 AB 0 0 1 1

Simplifying even further

• The previous table revealed that we can drop AB and still each original term will have at least one 1. So the best and final model is:

• S=Bc+AC

• Example: Causes of successfully passing the class• A= Having taken other sociology classes B= Having studied a lot (more than 3 hours a week)• C= Having attended the lectures regularly D= Having a roommate/friend who took this class before• A B C D S=Success Number (Total: 70)• 0 0 0 0 0 3• 1 0 0 0 0 5• 0 1 0 0 1 2• 0 0 1 0 0 4• 0 0 0 1 0 7• 1 1 0 0 1 4• 1 0 1 0 1 5• 1 0 0 1 1 8• 0 1 1 0 1 3• 0 0 1 1 0 4• 0 1 0 1 1 4• 1 1 1 0 1 9• 1 1 0 1 1 3• 1 0 1 1 1 5• 0 1 1 1 1 2• 1 1 1 1 1 2

• S= aBcd+ABcd+ AbCd+AbcD+aBCd+ aBcD+ABCd+ABcD+AbCD+aBCD+ABCDS=B+AC+AD

SimplifyingS= aBcd+ABcd+ AbCd+AbcD+aBCd+

aBcD+ABCd+ABcD+AbCD+aBCD+ABCD

aBcd ABcd AbCd AbcD aBCd aBcD ABCd ABcD AbCD aBCD ABCDaBcd X Bcd 0 0 aBd aBc 0 0 0 0 0 ABcd X 0 0 0 0 ABd ABc 0 0 0 AbCd X 0 0 0 ACd 0 AbC 0 0 AbcD X 0 0 0 AcD AbD 0 0 aBCd X 0 BCd 0 0 aBC 0 aBcD X 0 BcD 0 aBD 0 ABCd X 0 0 0 ABC ABcD X 0 0 ABD AbCD X 0 ACD aBCD X BCD ABCD X

Bcd aBd aBc ABd ABc ACd AbC AcD AbD BCd aBC BcD aBD ABC ABD ACD BCD Bcd X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bd 0 Bc 0 0 0 0 0 aBd X 0 Bd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 aB 0 0 0 0 aBc X 0 Bc 0 0 0 0 0 aB 0 0 0 0 0 0 ABd X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AB 0 0 ABc X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AB 0 0 0 ACd X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AC 0 AbC X 0 0 0 0 0 0 AC 0 0 0 AcD X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AD 0 AbD X 0 0 0 0 0 AD 0 0 BCd X 0 0 0 0 0 0 BC aBC X 0 0 BC 0 0 0 BcD X 0 0 0 0 BD aBD X 0 BD 0 0 ABC X 0 0 0 ABD X 0 0 ACD X 0 BCD X

Bd Bc aB AB AC AD BC BD Bd X 0 0 0 0 0 0 B Bc X 0 0 0 0 B 0 aB X B 0 0 0 0 AB X 0 0 0 0 AC X 0 0 0 AD X 0 0 BC X 0 BD X

CheckingS= aBcd+ABcd+ AbCd+AbcD+aBCd+

aBcD+ABCd+ABcD+AbCD+aBCD+ABCDB+AC+AD

aBcd ABcd AbCd AbcD aBCd aBcD ABCd ABcD AbCD aBCD ABCD

B 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1

AC 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

AD 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1

Data Used in Historical Comparative Research

• Secondary Data Sources • US Bureau of the Census• Bureau of Labor Statistics• International Data sets• Survey Data sets• International Organizations (World Bank, ILO etc.)

• DATA ARE OFTEN AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSocial Science Database

• Methodological issues in using secondary data sources• What was the original study's purpose?• Who collected the data and what were her qualifications?• What data were collected and what was it intended to measure?• When was the information collected?• What method was used in collecting the data?• How consistent is the data with other sources?• ALWAYS LOOK AT THE QUESTIONNAIRE IF POSSIBLE!•

Other Special Techniques

• Demographic Analysis• Archival Research• Content Analysis• Oral History

SOC 60OutlineFour Types of Historical Comparative ResearchQuestionSource: Marks, N., Abdallah, S., Simms, A, Thompson, S. (2006). Slide Number 6QuestionThe Logic of ComparisonQuestionQuestionQuestionThe Logic of ComparisonThe Logic of ComparisonSimplifying Boolean Expressions�Simplifying �D=Abc+aBc+abC+ABc+aBC+AbC+ABCChecking ResultsChecking Results�D=Abc+aBc+abC+ABc+aBC+AbC+ABC�D=A+B+C�The Logic of ComparisonSimplifying � S=AbC+aBc+ABc+ABC Checking Results� S=AbC+aBc+ABc+ABC S=Bc+AC+ABSimplifying even furtherSlide Number 22Simplifying� S= aBcd+ABcd+ AbCd+AbcD+aBCd+ aBcD+ABCd+ABcD+AbCD+aBCD+ABCDSlide Number 24Slide Number 25Checking�S= aBcd+ABcd+ AbCd+AbcD+aBCd+ aBcD+ABCd+ABcD+AbCD+aBCD+ABCD �B+AC+ADData Used in Historical Comparative ResearchOther Special Techniques