Read more
This book presents a wide array of warrants and methodologies for comparison to improve explanations of historical change in social-scientific research.
List of contents
Acknowledgments
Comparison After Positivism, by Damon Mayrl and Nicholas Hoover Wilson
Part I. Why Compare?
1. The Qualitative-Quantitative Divide in Comparative Historical Analysis, by Stefan Bargheer
2. Comparison in Action: Immersion and Recursion as Heuristics in Historical Sociology, by Damon Mayrl
3. The Meaningfulness of Comparison: A Macro-Phenomenological Exploration, by Xiaohong Xu
4. From Causality to Constitution: Why Good Historical Comparisons Are the Same as Good Ethnographic Case Studies, Deep Down, by Josh Pacewicz
Part II. What to Compare
5. Process Theories and Comparative Sociology: Some Problems and a Solution, by Natalie B. Aviles
6. Designing Narratives and Recovering Legal Narrativity: An Exploratory Essay, by Laura R. Ford
7. Comparison, Context, and the Power of Modern Corruption, by Nicholas Hoover Wilson
Part III. How to Compare
8. Comparative Sociology, Critical Realism, and Reflexivity, by George Steinmetz
9. Historicizing Comparisons in Historical Sociology, by Jonah Stuart Brundage
10. How Not to Lie with Comparative Historical Sociology: A Realist Balance Sheet, by Simeon J. Newman
11. Historical Causation and Temporally Sensitive Comparisons, by Yang Zhang
12. The Dialectical Comparative Methodology, by Rebecca Jean Emigh, Dylan Riley, and Patricia Ahmed
Afterword, by Philip Gorski
Contributors
Index
About the author
Nicholas Hoover Wilson is associate professor of sociology at Stony Brook University. He is the author of Modernity’s Corruption: Empire and Morality in the Making of British India (Columbia, 2023).
Damon Mayrl is associate professor of sociology at Colby College. He is the author of Secular Conversions: Political Institutions and Religious Education in the United States and Australia, 1800–2000 (2016).
Summary
This book presents a wide array of warrants and methodologies for comparison to improve explanations of historical change in social-scientific research.
