Vertaile menetelmiä
Tarkastele valitsemiasi menetelmiä rinnakkain; eroavat rivit korostetaan.
| Vertaileva selittävä tutkimus – tapausten välinen kausaalianalyysi× | Kausi-komparatiivinen tutkimus – Retrospektiivinen ryhmävertailuasetelma× | |
|---|---|---|
| Tieteenala | Tutkimusasetelma | Tutkimusasetelma |
| Menetelmäperhe | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Syntyvuosi≠ | 1843 (Mill); contemporary social-science formalisation 1971–1987 | 1964 |
| Kehittäjä≠ | John Stuart Mill (methods of agreement and difference, 1843); formalised in social science by Arend Lijphart and Charles Ragin | Fred N. Kerlinger |
| Tyyppi≠ | Observational explanatory research design | Non-experimental quantitative research design |
| Alkuperäislähde≠ | Ragin, C. C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. University of California Press. ISBN: 978-0520063167 | Kerlinger, F. N. (1964). Foundations of Behavioral Research. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. link ↗ |
| Rinnakkaisnimet | comparative explanation, explanatory comparative design, cross-case explanatory research, comparative causal analysis | ex post facto research, causal-comparative design, retrospective causal study, CCR |
| Liittyvät≠ | 4 | 3 |
| Tiivistelmä≠ | Comparative explanatory research is an observational design that systematically examines two or more groups, nations, organisations, or time points in order to explain why differences in outcomes occur. Rather than merely describing variation, it seeks causal or contributing mechanisms by holding some conditions constant while contrasting others — drawing on Mill's classical methods of agreement and difference. | Causal-comparative research is a non-experimental quantitative design in which the researcher compares two or more groups that already differ on an independent variable — one that was not manipulated — to investigate possible causes or consequences of that difference. Because group membership is pre-existing rather than randomly assigned, the design can suggest causal relationships but cannot establish them with the certainty of a true experiment. It is widely used in education, psychology, and social sciences when experimental manipulation is impractical or unethical. |
| ScholarGateAineisto ↗ |
|
|