Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The perennial sociological problem of the incommensurability of concepts becomes acute in the context of comparative research. In theoretical discourse second degree sociological concepts and the first degree societal concepts of the members of societies are both subject to this problem to which the unsatisfactory responses have been either radical relativism and theoretical anarchism, or ethnocentrism and dogmatism. Now actual historical tendencies, the globalisation of society and internationalisation of sociology are providing trans-societal and trans-theoretical concepts. At the same time the naturalistic model of comparative study of independent cases becomes less possible. Research shifts its emphasis from seeking uniformity to seeking uniqueness, and by cross-tabulating the focus and direction of comparative research we can develop a six-fold typology of comparisons: (1) encompassing, (2) universalising, (3) generalising, (4) individualising, (5) specifying, (6) particularising. The new opportunities for individualising comparisons take sociology away from natural science patterns to the logic of interpretation in history and the humanities.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ALEXANDER, J.C. 1982. Theoretical Logic in Sociology, Vol. 1. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

ALEXANDER, J.C. 1987. Twenty Lectures. New York: Oxford University Press.

BERGER, P.L. and KELLNER, H. 1981. Sociology Reinterpreted. Garden City: Anchor.

EISENSTADT, S.N. and CURELARU, M. 1976. The Form of Sociology: Paradigms and Crises. New York: Wiley.

GAREAU, F.H. 1985. `The Multinational Version of Social Science with Special Emphasis upon the Discipline of Sociology'. Current Sociology 33 (3).

GELLNER, E. 1970. `Concepts and Society', in Emmet, D. and MacIntyre, A. (eds.), Sociological Theory and Philosophical Analysis. New York: Macmillan.

GELLNER, E. 1985. Relativism and the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

HOLLIS, M. and LUKES, S. 1982. Rationality and Relativism. Oxford: Blackwell.

JARVIE, I.C. 1984. Rationality and Relativism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

10.

McLUHAN, M. 1964. Understanding Media. New York: McGraw-Hill.

11.

MERTON, R.K. 1976. `Structural Analysis in Sociology', in Sociological Ambivalence and Other Essays. New York: Free Press. pp. 109-144.

12.

NAISBITT, J. 1984. Megatrends. London: Futura.

13.

NAROLL, R. 1968. `Some Thoughts on Comparative Method in Cultural Anthropology', in Blalock, H.M., Jr. and Blalock, A.B. (eds.), Methodology in Social Research. New York: McGraw-Hill.

14.

PRZEWORSKI, A. and TEUNE, H. 1970. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: Wiley.

15.

SCHUTZ, A. 1975. On Phenomenology and Social Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

16.

SZTOMPKA, P. 1974. `O prawach socjologicznych' (`On Sociological Laws'). Studia Socjologiczne 3: 51-86.

17.

SZTOMPKA, P. 1979a. `Strategy of Theory-Construction in Sociology', in Wiatr, J. (ed.), Polish Essays in the Methodology of the Social Sciences. Dordrecht: Reidel. pp. 173-194.

18.

SZTOMPKA, P. 1979b. Sociological Dilemmas: Toward a Dialectic Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

19.

SZTOMPKA, P. 1986. `The Renaissance of Historical Orientation in Sociology'. International Sociology 1 (3): 321-338.

20.

TILLY, C. 1984. Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons. New York: Russell Sage.

21.

TIRYAKIAN, E.A. 1985. `On the Significance of De-differentiation', in Eisenstadt, S.N. and Helle, H.J. (eds.), Macro-Sociological Theory. Beverly Hills: Sage. pp. 118-134.

22.

WALLERSTEIN, I. 1974/1980. The Modern World System, 2 vols. New York: Academic Press.

23.

WILSON, B.R. ed. 1984 [1974]. Rationality. Oxford: Blackwell.

24.

WINCH, P. 1958. The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

25.

ZNANIECKI, F. 1969. On Humanistic Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS IN COMPARATIVE INQUIRY: DIVERGENT OR CONVERGENT?

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References