Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method¶
Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method. American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682-693.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Comparison
- A biologist comparing two species on phenotype, a metrologist comparing a sample to a calibration standard, a literary critic reading a simile, an economist running a difference-in-differences study, a particle physicist running a CPT test, and a perception researcher measuring a just-noticeable difference are all instantiating the same operation with different comparands, frames, and dimensions; Lijphart's (1971) systematic comparison of the experimental, statistical, and comparative methods in political science is the canonical demonstration that the same role-slots underlie all three traditions, with the differences confined to how each fills the alignment rule.
This sourceSystematic comparison of the experimental, statistical, comparative, and case-study methods, showing the same role-slots underlie all of them, differing in how each implements the alignment rule — supports the Knowledge-Transfer claim about shared role-slots across traditions.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
Lijphart's abstract backs a systematic comparison of the experimental, statistical, and comparative methods, but not shared role-slots or an alignment rule.
“The comparative method is defined and analyzed in terms of its similarities and differences vis-à-vis the experimental and statistical methods.”
- A biologist comparing two species on phenotype, a metrologist comparing a sample to a calibration standard, a literary critic reading a simile, an economist running a difference-in-differences study, a particle physicist running a CPT test, and a perception researcher measuring a just-noticeable difference are all instantiating the same operation with different comparands, frames, and dimensions; Lijphart's (1971) systematic comparison of the experimental, statistical, and comparative methods in political science is the canonical demonstration that the same role-slots underlie all three traditions, with the differences confined to how each fills the alignment rule.
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:dbd51310ee4d · see in the full table