HISTORICAL COMPARATIVE RESEARCH:Similarities to Field Research

<< OBSERVATION STUDIES (Contd.):Ethical Dilemmas of Field research

HISTORICAL-COMPARATIVE RESEARCH (Contd.):Locating Evidence >>

Research Methods STA630

Lesson 40

HISTORICAL COMPARATIVE RESEARCH

History has several meanings; one of which could refer to `the events of the past.' Historiography is

the method of doing historical research or of gathering and analyzing historical evidence.

Historical-comparative research is a collection of techniques and approaches. It is a distinct type of

research that puts historical time and /or cross-cultural variation at the center of research that is, which

treats what is studied as part of the flow of history and situated in cultural context.

Major questions

Historical comparative research is a powerful method for addressing big questions: How did major

societal change take place? What fundamental features are common to most societies? Why did current

social arrangements take a certain form in some societies but not in others? For example, historical-

comparative researchers have addressed the questions of what caused societal revolutions in china,

France, and Russia; how major social institutions, medicine, have developed and changed over two

centuries; how basic relationships, like feelings about the value of children, change; why public policy

toward the treatment of elderly developed in one way instead of another way in an industrial country;

why South Africa developed a system of greater racial separation as the United States moved toward a

greater racial integration.

Historical-comparative research is suited for examining the combination of societal factors that produce

a specific outcome (e.g., civil war). It is also appropriate for comparing entire social system to see what

is common across societies and what is unique, and to study long term change. An H-C researcher may

apply a theory to specific cases to illustrate its usefulness. And he or she compares the same social

processes and concepts in different cultural or historical contexts.

Researchers also use H-C method to reinterpret data or challenge old explanations. By asking different

questions, finding new evidence, or assembling evidence in a different way, the H_C researcher raises

questions about old explanations and finds support for new ones by interpreting the data in its cultural-

historical context.

Historical-comparative research can strengthen conceptualization and theory building. By looking at

historical events or diverse cultural contexts, a researcher can generate new concepts and broaden is or

her perspective. Concepts are less likely to be restricted to a single historical time or to a single culture;

they can be grounded in the experiences of people living in a specific cultural and historical context.

Historical-Comparative research focuses on:

· Tracing the development of social forms (patterns) overtime as well as its broad its broad

historical processes, and

· Comparing those forms and its developmental processes across cultures (countries/nations).

Historical-Comparative research follows scientific approach:

Can be a survey of events in history could be through the study of documents.

Organizations generally document themselves, so if one is studying the development of some

organization he/she should examine its official documents: charters, policy statements, speeches

by the leaders, and so on. Often, official government documents provide the data needed for

analysis. To better appreciate the history of race relations in the United States on e could

examine 200 years of laws and court cases involving race.

One could also do the communication analysis of different documents related to a particular

issue (like the communication among the leaders of Pakistan movement through their letters,

142

Research Methods STA630

communication between the migrants to a new country and their relatives back in their country

of origin)

Researcher could also get lot of information by interviewing people who may recall historical

events (like interviewing participants in the Pakistan movement).

Historical-Comparative researchers mostly do a longitudinal analysis i.e. look into the

developmental processes of the issues under reference.

Historical Comparative researchers make cross-cultural comparisons of the social forms or

economic form as well as the developmental processes of those forms, aiming at making

generalizations.

Examples:

Social forms: Several researchers have examined the historical development of ideas about different

forms of society. The have looked at the progression of social forms from simple to complex, from

rural, from rural-agrarian to urban-industrial. The US anthropologist Lewis Morgan, for example, saw a

progression from "savagery to "barbarism" to "civilization." Robert Redfield, another anthropologist,

has more recently written of a shift from "folk society" to "urban society." Emile Durkheim saw social

evolution largely as a process of ever-greater division of labor. Ibn-e-Khaldun looked at the cyclical

process of change in the form of societies from nomadic (Al-badawi) to sedentary (Al-hadari). These

researchers discuss the forces that produce changes as well as the characteristics of each form of society.

The historical evidence collected by researchers from different sources about different societies supports

the whole discussion.

Forms of economic systems: Karl Marx examined the forms of economic systems progressing

historically from primitive to feudal to capitalistic. All history, he wrote in this context, was a history of

class struggle the "haves" struggling to maintain their advantages and the "have-nots" struggling for a

better lot in life. Looking beyond capitalism, Marx saw the development of a `classless" society. In his

opinion the economic forces have determined the societal system.

Not all historical studies in the social sciences have had this evolutionary flavor. Some social scientific

readings of the historical record, in fact point to grand cycles rather than to linear progression (Ibn-e-

Khaldun, P. Sorokin).

Economic forms and ideas: In his analysis of economic history, Karl Marx put forward a view of

economic determinism. That is, he felt that economic factors determined the nature of all other aspects

of society. Without denying that economic factors could and did affect other aspects of society, Max

Weber argued that economic determinism did not explain everything. Indeed, Weber said, economic

forms could come from non-economic ideas. In his research in the sociology of religion, Weber

examined the extent to which religious institutions were the source of social behavior rather than mere

reflection of economic conditions. His most noted statement of this side of the issue is found in The

Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. John Calvin, a French theologian, was an important figure

in the Protestant reformation of Christianity. Calvin thought that God had already decided the ultimate

salvation or damnation of every individual; this idea is called predestination. Calvin also suggested that

God communicated his decisions to people by making them either successful or unsuccessful during

their earthly existence.

God gave each person an earthly "calling" an occupation or profession and manifested his or her

success or failure through that medium. Ironically, this point of view led Calvin's followers to seek

proof of their coming salvation by working hard, saving for economic success.

In Weber's analysis, Calvinism provided an important stimulus for the development of capitalism.

Rather than "wasting" their money on worldly comforts, the Calvinists reinvested it in economic

enterprises, thus providing the capital necessary for the development of capitalism. In arriving at this

interpretation of the origin of capitalism, Weber researched the official doctrines of the early Protestant

churches, studied the preaching of Calvin and other church leaders, and examined other historical

documents.

143

Research Methods STA630

In three other studies, Weber conducted detailed analyses of Judaism, and the religions of China and

India. Among other things, Weber wanted to know why capitalism had not developed in the ancient

societies of China, India, and Israel. In none of the three religions did he find any teaching that would

have supported the accumulation and reinvestment of capital strengthening his conclusion about the

role of Protestantism in that regard.

Logic of Historical-Comparative Research

Confusion over terms reigns H_C research. Researchers call what they do historical, comparative or

historical-comparative, but mean different things. The key question is: Is there a distinct historical-

comparative method and logic, or is there just social research that happens to examine social life in the

past or in several societies? Some researchers use positivist, quantitative approach to study historical or

comparative issues, while others rely on qualitative approach.

Quantitative approach: Positivist researchers reject the idea that there is a distinct H-C method. They

measure variables, test hypotheses, analyze quantitative data, and replicate research to discover

generalizable laws that hold across time and societies. They see no fundamental distinction between

quantitative social research and historical-comparative research. They apply quantitative research

techniques, with some minor adjustments, to study the past or other cultures.

· The researcher can focus on the issue in one society few societies or multiple societies.

· The researcher can focus on the issue in one time in the past or examine the issue across many

years/periods in the past.

· The researcher can focus on the issue in the present or a recent past period.

· The researcher's analysis could be based primarily on quantitative data or qualitative data.

· Nevertheless, the debate continues.

H-C researchers sometimes use time-series data to monitor changing conditions over time, such as data

on population, crime rates, unemployment, infant mortality rates, and so forth. The analysis of such data

sometimes requires sophistication for purposes of comparability. In case the definitions of the concept

vary, it becomes difficult to make comparisons. The definitions not only could vary across nations but

also these could vary within the same country over time (In Pakistan the definition of literacy changed

from what it was in first population census of 1951 and what we had later on).

Qualitative approach:

There are no easily listed steps to follow in the analysis of historical data. Max Weber used the German

term verstehen "understanding" in reference to an essential quality of research in behavioral

sciences. He meant that the researcher must be able to take on, mentally, the circumstances, views, and

feelings of those being studied to interpret their actions appropriately.

The historical-comparative researcher must find patterns among the voluminous details describing the

subject matter of study. Often this takes the form of what Weber called ideal types: conceptual models

composed of the essential characteristics of the phenomena. Thus, for example, Weber himself

conducted lot of research on bureaucracy. Having observed numerous bureaucracies, Weber detailed

those qualities essential to bureaucracies in general: jurisdictional areas, hierarchically structured

authority, written files, and so on. Weber did not merely list those characteristics common to all

bureaucracies he observed. Rather, he needed to understand fully the essentials of bureaucratic

operation to create a theoretical model of the "perfect" (ideal type) bureaucracy.

A distinct, qualitative historical-comparative research differs from the positivist approach. Historical-

comparative researchers who use case studies and qualitative data may depart from positivist approach.

Their research is an intensive investigation of a limited number of cases in which the social meaning

and context are critical. Case studies even in one nation, can be very important. Without case studies,

scholars "would continue to advance theoretical arguments that are inappropriate, outdated, or totally

irrelevant for a specific region".

144

Research Methods STA630

Historical-comparative researcher focuses on culture (patterns of behavior), tries to see through the eyes

of those being studied, reconstructs the lives of the people studied, and examines particular individuals

or groups.

A distinct H-C approach borrows from ethnography and cultural anthropology, and some varieties of H-

C are close to "thick description" in their attempt to recreate the reality of another time or place.

A Distinct Historical-Comparative Approach

A distinct historical-comparative research method avoids the excesses of the positivist and interpretive

approaches. It combines sensitivity to specific historical or cultural contexts with theoretical

generalization. Historical-comparative researches may use quantitative data to supplement qualitative

data and analysis. The logic and goals of H-C research are closer to those of field research than to those

of traditional positivist approaches.

Similarities to Field Research:

First, both H-C research and field research recognize that the researcher's point of view is an avoidable

part of research. Both involve interpretation, which introduces the interpreter's location in time, place,

and world-view. H-C research does not try to produce a single, unequivocal set of objective facts.

Rather, it is a confrontation of old with new or different world-views. It recognizes that the researcher's

reading of historical or comparative evidence is influenced by an awareness of the past and by living in

the present. Our present day consciousness of history is fundamentally different from the manner in

which the past appeared to any foregoing people.

Second, both field and H-C research examine a great diversity of data. In both, the researcher becomes

immersed in data to gain an emphatic understanding of events and people. Both capture subjective

feelings and note how everyday, ordinary activities signify important social meaning. The researcher

inquires, selects, and focuses on specific aspects of social life from the vast array of events, actions,

symbols, and words. An H-C researcher organizes data and focuses attention on the basis of evolving

concepts. He or she examines rituals and symbols and dramatize culture and investigates the motives,

reasons, and justifications for behaviors.

Third, both field and H-C researchers often use grounded theory. Theory usually emerges during the

process of data collection. Both examine data without beginning with fixed hypotheses. Instead, they

develop and modify concepts and theory through a dialogue with the data, then apply theory to

reorganize evidence. [Historically grounded theory means that concepts emerge from the analytic

problem of history: ordering the past into structures, conjectures and events. History and theory can

thus be simultaneously constructed.]

Fourthly, both field and H-C research involve a type of translation. The researcher's meaning system

usually differs from that of people he or she studies, but he or she tries to penetrate and understand their

point of view. Once the life, language, an perspective of the people being studied have been mastered,

the researcher "translates" it for others who read his or her report.

Fifth, both field and H-C researchers focus on action, process, and sequence and see time process as

essential. Both say that people construct a sense of social reality through actions that occur over time.

Both see social reality simultaneously as something created and changed by people and as imposing a

restriction on human choice.

Sixth, generalizations and theory are limited in field and H-C research. Historical and cross-cultural

knowledge is incomplete and provisional, based on selective facts and limited questions. Neither

deduces propositions or tests hypotheses in order to uncover fixed laws. Likewise replication is

unrealistic because each researcher has a unique perspective and assembles a unique body of evidence.

Instead, researchers offer plausible accounts and limited generalizations.

145

Research Methods STA630

Unique Features of H-C Research: Despite its many similarities to field research, some important

differences distinguish H-C research. Research on past and on an alien culture share much in common

with each other, and what they share distinguishes them from other approaches.

First, the evidence of H-C research is usually limited and indirect. Direct observation and involvement

by a researcher is often impossible. A H-C researcher reconstructs what occurred from the evidence, but

he or she cannot have absolute confidence in his reconstruction. Historical evidence in particular

depends on the survival of data from the past, usually in the form of documents (e.g., letters and

newspapers). The researcher is limited to what has not been destroyed and what leaves a trace, record,

or other evidence behind.

Second, H-C researchers interpret the evidence. Different people looking at the same evidence often

ascribe different meanings to it, so a researcher must reflect on evidence. An understanding of it based

on a first glance is rarely possible. The researcher becomes immersed in and absorbs details about a

context. For example, a researcher examining the family in the past or a distant country needs to be

aware of the full context (e.g., the nature of work, forms of communication, transportation technology,

etc.).

Another feature is that a researcher's reconstruction of the past or another culture is easily distorted.

Compared to the people being studied, H-C researchers is usually more aware of events occurring prior

to the time studied, events occurring in places other than the location studied, and events that occurred

after the period studied. This awareness gives the researchers a greater sense of coherence than was

experienced by those living in the past or in an isolated social setting. Historical explanation surpasses

any understanding while events are still occurring. The past we reconstruct is more coherent than the

past when it happened.

A researcher cannot see through the eyes of those being studied. Knowledge of the present and changes

over time can distort how events, people, laws, or even physical objects are perceived. When the

building was newly built (say in 1800) and standing among similar buildings, the people living at the

time saw it differently than people do in the 21st century.

H-C researcher does not use deterministic approach. H-C research takes an approach to causality that is

more contingent than determinist. A H-C researcher often uses combinational explanations. They are

analogous to a chemical reaction in which several ingredients (chemicals, oxygen) are added together

under specified conditions (temperature, pressure) to produce an outcome (explosion). This differs from

a linear causal explanation. H-C research focuses on whole cases and on comparisons of complex

wholes versus separate variables across cases. The logic is more "A, B, and C appeared together in time

and place, then D resulted" than "A caused B, and B caused C, and C caused D."

H-C researcher has the ability to shift between a specific context and a generalized context for purposes

of comparison. A researcher examines several specific contexts, notes similarities and differences, then

generalizes. He or she looks again at the specific context using the generalization. H-C researchers

compare across cultural-geographic units. They develop trans-cultural concepts for purposes of

comparative analysis. In comparative research, a researcher translates the specifics of a context into a

common, theoretical language. In historical research theoretical concepts are applied across time.

146

Table of Contents: