how to write a comparative politics paper by prof. david meyer, cedarville university ©2006 note: this template may also be useful fo

How to Write a Comparative Politics Paper
By Prof. David Meyer, Cedarville University
©2006
Note: This template may also be useful for certain term papers in
history, comparative sociology, social work, international
relations/international studies, criminal justice, etc. Always ask
your professor first whether or not one of the below strategies is
acceptable.
1.
The Introduction:
Alice: 'Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?'
Cheshire Cat: 'That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,'
Alice: 'I don’t know where. . .'
Cheshire Cat: 'Then it doesn’t matter which way you go!’
--Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland.
There are several different ways to write an introduction, but ALWAYS
ANSWER THE “So what?!” QUESTION! In other words, why is this
question/problem/case/comparison interesting theoretically, important
practically (especially in terms of domestic or foreign policy),
counter-intuitive (“man bites dog”), or rivetingly puzzling? i.e.
“Here is a case that no current body of literature in comparative
politics theory can explain.” Or “Iran is interesting per se as a case
because it may soon develop nuclear weapons and start a thermonuclear
war.” Or “Comparing different welfare states may yield key insights
for American policy makers seeking to improve the content of and the
efficiency of delivery of social-welfare programs.”
All but the Story Hook technique should have a clear and concise
one-paragraph topic declaration as the first paragraph, or after a
description of a problem. Some authors use their entire introduction
for laying out the problem, and then they put the topic sentence at
the very end of the introduction.
a.
Clearly state the problem and how you intend to solve it, using
which theories. Do this in one paragraph.
b.
Pose a question and then state how you will attempt to answer
it.
c.
Declare that you are comparing two or more authors’ approaches
to two or more cases, i.e. see the section below on the
Hypothetical Deductive Method.
d.
The Story Hook: Tell an interesting story to get the reader’s
attention first.
i.
Then, at the end of the story, clearly state the problem and
how you intend to solve it OR
ii.
Pose a question and then state how you will attempt to
answer it.
2.
The Body: A Variety of Approaches.
a.
The Hypothetical-Deductive Method: Starting with the theory, and
then testing it against the case(s). Having stated in the
introduction which one or more theories are to be applied to one
or more cases, proceed as follows:
i.
Subsection 1: Explain why you chose the one or more theories
that you chose. Why are theses authors and their theories
particularly important or particularly representative?
ii.
Subsection 2: Justify your choice of which case studies you
are choosing. Why are those particular cases interesting or
important in and of themselves, or are they exotic or random
cases that are just selected in order to provide most
similar or most different cases?
iii.
Subsection 3: Deduce a series of testable hypotheses from
the theories. Quote and/or footnote from whence in the
author’s works each hypothesis comes.
iv.
Subsection 4: Describe each case, or just take the first
case, follow the procedure in v. Subsection 5 below and then
repeat for each case.
v.
Subsection 5: Test each hypothesis with the given case.
Repeat for each case you are using. State whether the case
seems to confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis.
b.
Induction-to-Theory Method: Starting with observing a case or
several cases, then choosing which theories can explain the
case(s) or else inventing a new theory to explain the given
case.
i.
Observe the case. Use Geertzian “thick-description” and/or
any statistical information on the case or cases that you
can find.
ii.
Derive hypotheses from the case(s).
1.
Is this case totally unique? Why or Why not?
2.
What similarities are seen across the cases? Which
similarities are the ones which are the most likely to
be the most causally important?
3.
What dissimilarities are there and which are the ones
most likely to be the most causally important?
4.
What correlations are there? Are the correlations
direct? Inverse? Slightly correlated or highly
correlated? (slant angle of the regression curve).
iii.
Can the correlations be process-traced in order to produce
an assertion of a causal mechanism?
1.
If not, speculate on the most probable cause of the
correlation, and why the alleged cause should be
considered as the most probable one (seek to eliminate
rival hypothesized causes).
2.
If yes, then is this causal mechanism likely to be
universally applicable to the whole world, or just one
region, or just one country?
a.
If universal, show other cases that the theory fits.
b.
If the theory is only local in scope, then why does
the theory not work outside of the defined region of
its scope?
iv.
Attempt to eliminate spurious correlations by asking if
their might be other, previously unconsidered possible
causes of the given effects, in order to eliminate omitted
variable bias.
c.
Straight Comparative Case Method (“Focused, Structured
Comparative Case Method”):
i.
Deductive Comparison: Propose a theory, and then test it
against several cases to see how “robust” the theory is in
its “goodness of fit” to each case.
ii.
Inductive Comparison: Compare and contrast the similarities
and differences of several different countries. Theorize why
those similarities or differences exist, if this is
interesting and not obvious.
d.
Single Case Method: This is the method that is closest to the
field of history per se, but is nevertheless distinct because of
its concentration on isolating the most important and causal of
variables, and how those independent variables actually produced
the dependent variable.
i.
This method is most often used on cases that are allegedly
very unique and whose similarities to other cases are
alleged to be far less important that its dissimilarities.
ii.
Take the case, and attempt to elucidate how a cause produced
a given effect.
iii.
Eliminate rival hypotheses of explanation concerning other
allegedly independent variables (i.e. “why all the competing
theories are wrong”).
e.
Time Lapse Studies: This is a unique type of Single Case Method
which comparing changes in one defined area over time.
i.
Comparative Time-Period Method: Compare two or more
different periods of time with in a case’s history, OR
ii.
Single Period Time-Lapse Process Tracing: Examine one time
period, tracing the cause to the effect from the start of
the time period to the end of the time period.
3.
The Conclusion: Wrapping it all up, summarizing it, and driving it
home.
The White Rabbit put on his spectacles. “Where shall I begin, please
your Majesty?” he asked. 'Begin at the beginning,' the King said
gravely, 'and go on till you come to the end: then stop.' --Lewis
Carroll, Alice in Wonderland.
Writing a good conclusion is, however, a bit more complicated than the
Card Deck King’s command printed above. There are several different
ways in which a conclusion can be written.
a.
Summarize Findings: Clearly state whether cause and effect
relationships were found, what they were, and what the
relationship of this finding is to the previous literature. i.e.
i.
“I was expecting to find X, as the literature would suggest,
but instead I found Z, and here is why.”
ii.
“As I was expecting, on the basis of my literature review, I
did indeed find X.”
iii.
“My findings confirm the theory, thus expanding the
literature with further evidence for the theory.”
iv.
“My findings undermine the theory, which calls for further
research in order to find a better theory or to revise the
old theory.”
v.
“The results are mixed, with some cases supporting the
theory for reason A, and others disconfirming it for reason
B, and here is why there is a difference between the
confirming and disconfirming cases.”
vi.
“I was not able to find a definitive answer to my question,
but I was at least able to rule out some answers as
incorrect. My contribution to the literature of comparative
politics is that I have narrowed the field of possible
answers to the question.”
vii.
If you used the Hypothetical-Deductive Method, clearly state
which theory, if any, did the best job of explaining the
cases, and why: i.e.
1.
“Theory A fit cases x, y, & z clearly (or marginally)
better than theory B did, because theory A’s hypotheses
#1.1, 2.4, and 3.6 all clearly were confirmed by the
case, whereas some (or all) of theory B’s hypotheses
were falsified.”
2.
“Neither theory A nor B fit cases x, y, & z clearly.”
3.
“Both theories A and B had some hypotheses which fit the
cases well, and some hypotheses which did not fit the
cases, therefore further research is needed to produce a
new theory C which will combine the best elements of
theories A and B.”
4.
“None of our theories fit the cases well at all, so we
must throw out all our theories and start from scratch.
I propose we start off in thus and such direction on the
basis of the specific findings of my research, namely
_________”
b.
State the theoretical, chronological, and geographical scope and
relevance of your findings. i.e.
i.
“My theory works very well in Post-Communist cases, but not
so well in Western Europe, for X, Y, and Z reasons” or
“...for reasons which are not yet clear, and therefore into
which further research needs to explore.”]
ii.
“My theory is globally applicable to all regions and
countries, regardless of their level of economic development
and their shoe sizes.”
iii.
“My theory only works in the case of explaining the price of
tea in the Lower East Occupied Wongo-Bongo Province of China
from January 23rd of 451 BC to August 2nd of 678 AD.” [Hmmm,
this one may not pass the “SO WHAT?!?!?” test. Think maybe?]
iv.
“The theory of Neo-Liberal Institutionalism explains the
security situation of the European Union very well, explains
North America fairly well, explains Latin America to some
degree, explains Africa to a much lesser degree, and totally
fails to explain the Middle East and Asia, where the rival
theory, Neo-Realism, clearly does a better job of
description, explanation, and prediction.”
c.
Enumerate all possible theoretical and “policy-relevant”
implications: i.e.
i.
“Based on my findings, the US government should change its
foreign policy and do X, as opposed to Y, and the US State
Department should modify the way that it does Z, namely by
creasing U and decreasing P.”
ii.
“My research findings fly in the face of all the previous
literature on subject X. Thus we need to seriously rethink
this literature and do more research in the direction of Y”
iii.
“My research builds upon the previous literature written by
the Federalism-Skeptical School and further clarifies the
arguments against ethno-federalism by elucidating the exact
process by which ethno-territorial autonomy produces
incentives for ethnic minority elites to exacerbate ethnic
tensions by making political appeals which are explicitly
based upon a fear of other ethnic groups.”
I welcome feedback from other professors and from students who can
tell me what is or is not acceptable for them in writing or grading.
Please contact me with feedback at:
David J. Meyer, M.Phil. (ABD)
Assistant Professor of Political Science
and International Studies
Department of Social Sciences and History
Collins Hall, Room 16
251 North Main Street
Cedarville University
Cedarville, OH 45314
Tel. 937-766-7932
Fax. 937-766-7583
[email protected]

  • EL CASTELLANO VIEJO DE MARIANO JOSÉ DE LARRA YA
  • NZQA EXPIRING UNIT STANDARD 26849 VERSION 2 PAGE 5
  • KEPALA DESA CINUNUK KABUPATEN BANDUNG PERATURAN DESA CINUNUK NOMOR
  • FLASH 50 1 ABRIMOS FLASH 5 CUANDO ABRIMOS EL
  • JOB DESCRIPTION FOR CAMP MANAGER PAGE 2 O AK
  • HDR1010500210000203111600KCCO DOMESTIC SOLICITATION (IFB) VP8021 VEGETABLE OIL PRODUCTS SOLICITATION
  • OCHRONA DÓBR KULTURY PODCZAS KONFLIKTÓW ZBROJNYCH – PODSTAWOWA PROBLEMATYKA
  • METODOLOGIA DESCRIÇÃO DO MÉTODO DE TENDÊNCIA PARA ESTIMAR OS
  • PEREIRA DOMÍNGUEZ C Y PINO JUSTE M R (2005)
  • T EMA 8 SEGUIMIENTO DE JESÚS Y MORAL
  • WYKAZ NAUCZYCIELI I DYREKTORÓW KTÓRYM ZOSTAŁA PRZYZNANA NAGRODA PREZYDENTA
  • VISVABHARATI SANTINIKETAN SUBJECTWISE SENIORITY LIST OF PROFESSOR SL NO
  • KINHLED 40154016 – INTERNSHIPRESEARCH EXPERIENCE FACT SHEET EACH
  • PROJECT NAME 2014 INTEL CUP UNDERGRADUATE ELECTRONIC DESIGN CONTEST
  • INFORMATIVA SUL TRATTAMENTO DEI DATI PERSONALI (ART 13 REGOLAMENTO
  • THE EXPORT OF CERTAIN NETWORKING ENCRYPTION PRODUCTS UNDER ELAS
  • RACC “TV PANTALLA PLANA – PRÓRROGA 4” BASES COMPLETES
  • ANEXO I PROGRAMAS PROFESIONALES DE MODALIDAD GENERAL SOLICITUD DE
  • RUPAFIN 10 MG COMPRIMIDOS (RUPATADINA) RESUMEN DE LAS CARACTERÍSTICAS
  • STANDARD WORK OBTAINING PASTEURIZED DONOR HUMAN MILK (PDHM) OUTPATIENTS
  • REGIONÁLNY ÚRAD VEREJNÉHO ZDRAVOTNÍCTVA SO SÍDLOM VO SVIDNÍKU SOVIETSKYCH
  • III N Á V R H VĚCNÝ ZÁMĚR ZÁKONA
  • ACTIVIDAD OBLIGATORIA LECTURA Y COMENTARIO DEL SIGUIENTE PRONUNCIAMIENTO JURISPRUDENCIAL
  • T ÁMOP 31408220080069 „KOMPETENCIA ALAPÚ OKTATÁS EGYENLŐ HOZZÁFÉRÉS –
  • R ESOURCES WITH FREE ACCESS FOR NHS MEDICINES INFORMATION
  • UNIVERSIDAD EXPERIMENTAL POLITÈCNICA DE LA FUERZA ARMADA NACIONAL UNEFA
  • ČERNOBÍLÁ OBRAZOVKA BEZ OHLEDU NA KONKRÉTNÍ PROVEDENÍ NEBO POUŽITÍ
  • SELVFORSVAR GENERELT SELVFORSVAR ER EN IDRÆT DER ER OPBYGGET
  • COMISSIO JUNTA DIRECTIVA PRESIDENT BLAY SERRA MARTIN VICEPRESIDENT 1º
  • ZAŁĄCZNIK DO UCHWAŁY NR KEXVI00071512016 RADY GMINY DĘBE WIELKIE