The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry¶
Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. Wiley.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Comparative Method
- Przeworski and Teune (1970) distinguished two canonical case-selection strategies that follow Mill's logic: most-similar designs (maximize shared background conditions, vary the explanatory factor of interest) and most-different designs (maximize background difference, hold the outcome constant).
This sourceCanonical exposition of most-similar and most-different systems designs following Mill's logic; formalizes the selection-bias problem and design-based solutions — directly supports the two-canonical-designs claim.
- Przeworski and Teune (1970) distinguished two canonical case-selection strategies that follow Mill's logic: most-similar designs (maximize shared background conditions, vary the explanatory factor of interest) and most-different designs (maximize background difference, hold the outcome constant).
Mechanisms¶
- Most-Different Systems Design
- Its central failure mode is that "maximally different" cases are never fully different — they usually share more than one thing, so the method can indict a shared factor that is merely a common correlate rather than the cause.
This sourceTreats most-different systems as deliberately diverse cases that still share an outcome and one or more candidate explanatory variables.
- Its central failure mode is that "maximally different" cases are never fully different — they usually share more than one thing, so the method can indict a shared factor that is merely a common correlate rather than the cause.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 2 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 1 other way.
Registry ID ref:05e7e804f71a · see in the full table