Comparing and Miscomparing¶
Sartori, G. (1991). Comparing and Miscomparing. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 3(3), 243-257.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Comparison
- Auditing the alignment rule is the structural form of methodological critique in experimental design — selection bias, confounding, and equating failures are all alignment-rule failures in disguise — and the same audit transfers to cross-cultural and cross-domain comparison, as Sartori (1991) argues in his account of "cat-dog" miscomparisons: aggregates assembled under an alignment rule that papers over genuine non-equivalence, defeating the comparison from inside.
This sourceIdentifies "cat-dog" miscomparisons — aggregates assembled under an alignment rule that conceals genuine non-equivalence — as the central failure mode, with alignment-rule audit as the discipline — supports the Manages-Complexity alignment-rule-audit claim.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
Sartori's abstract backs "cat-dog" aggregates that defy comparison for non-comparable traits, but not the alignment-rule audit or its transfer to experimental design.
“a growing cause of frustration and failure is the undetected proliferation of `cat-dogs' (or worse), that is, nonexistent aggregates which are bound to defy, on account of their non-comparable characteristics, any and all attempts at law-like generalizations.”
- Auditing the alignment rule is the structural form of methodological critique in experimental design — selection bias, confounding, and equating failures are all alignment-rule failures in disguise — and the same audit transfers to cross-cultural and cross-domain comparison, as Sartori (1991) argues in his account of "cat-dog" miscomparisons: aggregates assembled under an alignment rule that papers over genuine non-equivalence, defeating the comparison from inside.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
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.
Registry ID ref:25a4a017054e · see in the full table