So sánh phương pháp
Xem các phương pháp đã chọn cạnh nhau; những hàng khác biệt được làm nổi bật.
| Nghiên cứu giải thích so sánh× | Nghiên cứu nhân quả-so sánh× | |
|---|---|---|
| Lĩnh vực | Thiết kế nghiên cứu | Thiết kế nghiên cứu |
| Họ | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Năm ra đời≠ | 1843 (Mill); contemporary social-science formalisation 1971–1987 | 1964 |
| Người khởi xướng≠ | John Stuart Mill (methods of agreement and difference, 1843); formalised in social science by Arend Lijphart and Charles Ragin | Fred N. Kerlinger |
| Loại≠ | Observational explanatory research design | Non-experimental quantitative research design |
| Công trình gốc≠ | 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 ↗ |
| Tên gọi khác | comparative explanation, explanatory comparative design, cross-case explanatory research, comparative causal analysis | ex post facto research, causal-comparative design, retrospective causal study, CCR |
| Liên quan≠ | 4 | 3 |
| Tóm tắt≠ | 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. |
| ScholarGateBộ dữ liệu ↗ |
|
|