Comparative Methods – From the Local to the Global (Advanced methodology course – practice-related methods)

E2024

Global and Development Studies / International Politics and Governance / Public Administration / Social Science

Course

English

Read about the Master Programme and find the Study Regulations at ruc.dk

Registration is through stads selvbetjeningwithin the announced registration period, as you can see on the Studyadministration homepage.

When registering for study activities, please be aware of the potential conflicts between study activities or exam dates. The planning of activities at Roskilde University is based on the recommended study programs which do not overlap. However, if you choose optional courses and/or study plans that goes beyond the recommended study programs, an overlap of lectures or exam dates may occur depending on which courses you choose.

5

Olivier Rubin (rubin@ruc.dk)

Markus-Michael Müller (muellerm@ruc.dk)

ISE Registration & Exams (ise-exams@ruc.dk)

U60378

A practice-oriented methodology course aims to equip students to competently apply a given technique or tool that is frequently used in practice.

The course equips students to argue for the applicability and relevance of the technique or tool to the problem, and to apply the technique or tool in work situations.

Conducting comparisons is an integral part of almost all research and academic practices.

This course allows participants to master different comparison strategies and provides insights into the advantages and disadvantages of various methods for comparisons on different analytical levels. These skills will help participants to improve the research design of various studies such as projects or master theses. The skills can also aid the participants in the practical work.

Participants are introduced to both basic as well as advanced tools for conducting social science comparisons including (but not limited to) single-country comparisons; few country comparisons; many countries comparisons; counterfactual and before/after comparisons; deductive comparisons; inductive comparisons; most similar case comparisons; most different case comparisons; the nested approach for comparisons, and crisp sets comparisons.

Emphasis will be given to displaying the utility of these comparative tools and approaches in practice, across local, regional and global levels. The students will also be exposed to critical reflection on these approaches and tools.

The course readings might be subject to minor changes – see Moodle for final version.

Bjørnskov, C. (2007). Determinants of generalized trust: A cross-country comparison. Public choice, 130(1-2), 1-21.

Ebbinghaus, B. (2005). When Less is More Selection Problems in Large-N and Small-N Cross-National Comparisons. International sociology, 20(2), 133-152.

Evertsson, N. (2017). A nested analysis of electoral donations. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(1), pp. 77-98

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative inquiry, 12(2), 219-245.

Healy, K. (2017). Fuck nuance. Sociological Theory, 35(2), 118-127

Kvist, J. (2006). Diversity, ideal types and fuzzy sets in comparative welfare state research. In Innovative comparative methods for policy analysis (pp. 167-184). Springer US.

Landman, T. & Carvalho, E. (2017) Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics An Introduction, 4th Edition. Abingdon: Routledge. Chapter 1: Why compare countries, pp. 3-28.

Landman, T. & Carvalho, E. (2017) Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics An Introduction, 4th Edition. Abingdon: Routledge. Chapter 2: How to compare countries, pp. 29-56.

Landman, T. & Carvalho, E. (2017) Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics An Introduction, 4th Edition. Abingdon: Routledge. Chapter 5: Single- country studies as comparison, pp. 86-96.

Landman, T. & Carvalho, E. (2017) Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics An Introduction, 4th Edition. Abingdon: Routledge. Chapter 6 Economic Development and Democracy: Single-country studies, pp. 123-26.

Landman, T. & Carvalho, E. (2017) Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics An Introduction, 4th Edition. Abingdon: Routledge. Chapter 9 Transitions to Democracy: Comparing many countries, pp. 197-203.

Landman, T. & Carvalho, E. (2017) Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics An Introduction, 4th Edition. Abingdon: Routledge. Chapter 4: Comparing few countries, pp. 72-85.

Landman, T. & Carvalho, E. (2017) Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics An Introduction, 4th Edition. Abingdon: Routledge. Chapter 6 Economic Development and Democracy: Comparing few countries, pp. 110-122.

Landman, T. & Carvalho, E. (2017) Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics An Introduction, 4th Edition. Abingdon: Routledge. Chapter 9 Transitions to Democracy: Comparing few countries, pp. 188-196.

Landman, T. & Carvalho, E. (2017) Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics An Introduction, 4th Edition. Abingdon: Routledge. Chapter 3: Comparing many countries, pp. 57-71.

Landman, T. & Carvalho, E. (2017) Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics An Introduction, 4th Edition. Abingdon: Routledge. Chapter 6 Economic Development and Democracy: Comparing many countries, pp. 103-109

Landman, T. & Carvalho, E. (2017) Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics An Introduction, 4th Edition. Abingdon: Routledge. Chapter 9 Transitions to Democracy: Comparing many countries, pp. 181-187.

Lieberman, E. S. (2005). Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review, 99(03), 435-452.

Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American political science review, 65(03), 682-693.Political Science Review, 99(03), 435-452.

Mahoney, J. (2007). Qualitative methodology and comparative politics. Comparative Political Studies, 40(2), 122-144.

Messerli, F. (2012) Chocolate Consumption, Cognitive Function, and Nobel Laureates, The New England Journal of Medicine, p. 1-3

Ragin, C. C. (2009). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press., pp. 1-68.

Rohlfing, I. (2008). What You See and What You Get Pitfalls and Principles of Nested Analysis in Comparative Research. Comparative Political Studies, 41(11), 1492-1514.

Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research a menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 294-308.

Snyder, R. (2001). Scaling down: The subnational comparative method. Studies in Comparative International Development (SCID), 36(1), 93-110.

Tarrow, S. (1996). Making social science work across space and time: A critical reflection on Robert Putnam's Making Democracy Work. American political science review, 90(02), 389-397.

Thomas, G. (2011). A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition, discourse, and structure. Qualitative inquiry, 17(6), 511-521.

The course is a 5 ECTS and has a total of 135 working hours for students. The hours are thought to be divided as follows: course participation 20 hours; preparation for courses: 75 hours; exam preparation 10; exam assignment 30 hours.

The course is evaluated this semester. The students will be asked to evaluate mid-term and by the end of the activity according to the evaluation practice of the study board

The format of the course is to have five four-hour sessions. The advantages with this format are that it will give us more time to engage with the readings in class; more flexibility when doing our exercises; and it will provide some intensity and consistency to the course. Each session will consist interchangeably of both lectures and exercises.

See Moodle for more detailed program.

At the conclusion of the course, students will be able to:

• Explain and evaluate key concepts relating to the given technique or tool, using academically relevant terminology

• Argue for the utility of the technique or tool in practice

• Master the application of the basic functions of the given technique or tool

• Take a critical position in relation to the use of the technique or tool in practice.

Individual written take-home assignment.

The character limit of the assignment is: maximum 12,000 characters, including spaces.
The character limit includes the cover, table of contents, bibliography, figures and other illustrations, but exclude any appendices.

The duration of the take-home assignment is 48 hours and may include weekends and public holidays.



Assessment: 7-point grading scale.

Samme som ordinær eksamen / same form as ordinary exam

The exam consists of a written assignment that will most likely consist of one or two overarching questions. Some of the key assessment criteria will include: the extent to which the student displays an understanding of the core concepts and theories when answering the questions; the extent to which the student activates the relevant readings when answering the questions; the extent to which the student is capable of applying the core concepts and theories to concrete cases; the extent to which the student can draw on relevant empirical examples; and the extent to which the student can critically engage with the concepts and theories.