Vertaile menetelmiä
Tarkastele valitsemiasi menetelmiä rinnakkain; eroavat rivit korostetaan.
| Comparative Historical Analysis× | Most Different Systems Design× | |
|---|---|---|
| Tieteenala | Political Science | Political Science |
| Menetelmäperhe | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Syntyvuosi≠ | 1979 | 1970 |
| Kehittäjä≠ | Theda Skocpol, Barrington Moore, James Mahoney & Dietrich Rueschemeyer (tradition) | John Stuart Mill (method of agreement); Przeworski & Teune (systems framing) |
| Tyyppi≠ | Macro-causal, case-based comparative method with temporal emphasis | Small-N comparative case-selection design |
| Alkuperäislähde≠ | Mahoney, J., & Rueschemeyer, D. (Eds.) (2003). Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9780521016452 | Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: Wiley-Interscience. ISBN: 9780471701422 |
| Rinnakkaisnimet | CHA, Macro-causal analysis, Historical-comparative method, Comparative historical sociology | MDSD, Most different cases design, Mill's method of agreement, Diverse systems design |
| Liittyvät≠ | 4 | 3 |
| Tiivistelmä≠ | Comparative historical analysis (CHA) is a macro-causal research tradition that explains large-scale outcomes — revolutions, regime change, welfare states, development paths — by systematically comparing a small number of cases reconstructed in depth across historical time. It combines cross-case comparison with close attention to temporality: sequences, timing, critical junctures, and path dependence. Associated with Barrington Moore, Theda Skocpol, and codified by Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, CHA treats history not as background but as the medium through which causes operate. | The most different systems design (MDSD) is a small-N comparative strategy that selects cases that differ on as many background characteristics as possible yet share the same outcome. If wildly dissimilar cases nonetheless converge on the same result, the explanation cannot lie in the many features on which they differ — it must lie in whatever they have in common. Grounded in John Stuart Mill's method of agreement and named by Przeworski and Teune, it is the mirror image of the most similar systems design and a staple of comparative politics. |
| ScholarGateAineisto ↗ |
|
|