Descriptive or ethnographic studies were once the stock-in-trade of the comparative politics of non-Western areas and illiberal states. The last few decades have seen a dramatic growth in quantitative—or at least systematic—studies of these systems. This marks real progress, but, in the process, some of the advantages of ethnographic and “unit-contextual” studies have been lost. The contributors to this symposium have used ethnographic methods—often in combination with other methods—to examine and compare episodes of contentious politics in a number of these countries. Drawing on some of the “classics” of comparative politics, this article emphasizes both the continuities and the departures of the new generation of “ethnography plus” research efforts represented in this symposium.
AlimiE.SelaA.SznajderM. (Eds.). (2016).Popular contention, regime, and transition: The Arab revolts in comparative global perspective. Oxford University Press.
2.
BeissingerM. R. (2011). Mechanisms of maidan: The structure of contingency in the making of colored revolution. Mobilization, 16, 25-43.
3.
BunceV. (1999). Subversive institutions: The design and the destruction of socialism and the state. Cambridge University Press.
4.
BunceV.WolchikS. (2011). Defeating authoritarian leaders in mixed regimes: electoral struggles, U.S. democracy assistance, and international diffusion in post-communist Europe and Eurasia. Cambridge University Press.
5.
BushnellJ. (1990). Moscow graffiti: Language and subculture. Unwin Hyman.
6.
CalhounC. (1982). The question of class struggle: Social foundations of popular radicalism during the industrial revolution. University of Chicago Press.
7.
ChenX. (2008). Collective petitioning and institutional conversion. In O’BrienK. J. (Ed.), Popular protest in China. (pp. 54-70). Harvard University Press.
8.
della PortaD. (1995). Social movements, political violence and the state: A comparative analysis of Italy and Germany. Cambridge University Press.
9.
della PortaD. (2008). Eventful protest, global conflicts. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory, 9, 27-56.
10.
della PortaD. (2013). Clandestine political violence. Cambridge University Press.
11.
DianiM.McAdamD. (Eds). (2003). Social movements and networks: Relational approaches to collective action. Oxford University.
12.
FuD. (2017). Mobilizing without the masses. Cambridge University Press.
13.
FukayamaF. (1989). The end of history? National interest summer (pp. 3-18). Center for the National Interest.
14.
JenkinsJ. C.,EckertC. (1986). Channeling black insurgency: Elite patronage and the development of the civil rights movement. American Sociological Review, 51, 812-830.
15.
LevitskyS.WayL. (2002). Elections without democracy: The rise of competitive authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 13, 51-65.
16.
MatovskiA. (2018). It’s the stability, stupid!Comparative Politics, 50, 347-368.
17.
McAdamD.BoudetH. S. (2012). Putting social movements in their place. Cambridge University Press.
18.
McAdamD.TillyC.TarrowS. (2001). Dynamics of contention. Cambridge University Press.
19.
McCarthyJ.ZaldM. N. (1973). The trend of social movements in America: Professionalization and resource mobilization. General Learning Press.
20.
McCarthyJ.ZaldM. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial Theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 1212-1241.
21.
MorrisA. (1984). The origins of the civil rights movement: Black communities organizing for change. Free Press.
22.
NeilsonR. (2020). Recite! Interpretive fieldwork for positivists. In PKrauseOSzekely (Eds.), From the field: A guide to navigating fieldwork in political science. (pp. 36-47). Columbia University Press.
23.
OlsonM. (1965). The logic of collective action. Harvard University Press.
24.
OnuchO. (2015). “EuroMaidan protests N Ukraine” social media versus social networks. Problems of Post-Communism, 62, 217-235.
25.
PepinskyT. (2014). Context and method in Southeast Asian politics. Pacific Affairs, 87, 441-461.
26.
PepinskyT. (2019). The return of the single-country study. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 187-203.
27.
PilatiK. (2016). Do organizational structures matter for protests in nondemocratic African countries? In Arab revolts in comparative global perspective (pp. 46-72). Oxford University Press.
28.
PutnamR. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press.
29.
ScottJ. C. (1976). The moral economy of the peasant: Rebellion and subsistence in Southeast Asia. Yale University Press.
30.
ScottJ. C. (1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of resistance. Yale University Press.
31.
ScottJ. C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. Yale University Press.
32.
SimmonsE. (2017). Meaningful resistance. Cambridge University Press.
33.
SnyderR. (2001). Scaling down: The subnational comparative method. Studies in International Comparative Development, 36, 93-110.
34.
TarrowS. (2010). The strategy of paired comparison: Toward a theory of practice. Comparative Political Studies, 43, 230-259.
35.
TertytchnayaK. (2019). Protests and voter defections in electoral autocracies: Evidence from Russia. Comparative Political Studies, 53, 1926-1956.
36.
ThompsonE. P. (1971). The moral economy of the English crowd in the eighteenth century. Past and Present, 50, 76-132.
37.
TillyC. (1984). Big structures, large processes, huge comparisons. Russell Sage Foundation.
38.
TillyC. (2006). Regimes and repertoires. Cambridge University Press.
39.
WoodE. J. (2000). Forging democracy from below: Insurgent transitions in South Africa and El Salvador. Cambridge University Press.
40.
WoodE. J. (2003). Insurgent collective action and civil war in El Salvador. Cambridge University Press.
