British political science and comparative politics
In: Political studies, Band 38, S. 438-452
ISSN: 0032-3217
Analyzes the British approach to comparative research; based on a survey of major journals and books published in the 1970s and 1980s.
In: Political studies, Band 38, S. 438-452
ISSN: 0032-3217
Analyzes the British approach to comparative research; based on a survey of major journals and books published in the 1970s and 1980s.
In: Political studies: the journal of the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom, Band 38, Heft 3, S. 438-452
ISSN: 1467-9248
The internationalization of political science makes it especially difficult to identify a distinctive British approach to comparative politics. While there is certainly evidence of a distaste for cross-national comparison in Britain, this is no more marked than in other countries. In fact, on the evidence of a survey of major journals, Britons make relatively heavy use of the comparative method. British comparative research is less likely to use statistical indicators and methods than that found in other countries. Apart from this, the distinctions between comparative politics here and elsewhere are more matters of style and less matters of substance.
In: European journal of political research: official journal of the European Consortium for Political Research, Band 15, Heft 1, S. 103
ISSN: 0304-4130
In: Political studies, Band 38, Heft Sep 90
ISSN: 0032-3217
Internationalisation of political science makes it difficult to identify a distinctive British approach to comparative politics. On the evidence of a survey of major journals, Britons make relatively heavy use of method. British research is less likely to use statistical indicators and methods than that found in other countries. (Abstract amended)
In: Government & opposition: an international journal of comparative politics, Band 46, Heft 4, S. 411-435
ISSN: 1477-7053
AbstractFor more than four decades the analysis of party organizations in the European democracies has been completely separated from analyses of American party structures. The first part of this article examines how and why such a separation was to emerge in the aftermath of Duverger's and Epstein's path-breaking original work. It then goes on to outline how an analytic framework might be developed so that more wide-ranging comparative studies of party organizations in democratic regimes can be undertaken in future. Only with such research can the limitations of 'exceptionalist' and 'regionalist' explanations of party structure development and change be overcome.
In: European journal of political research: official journal of the European Consortium for Political Research, Band 15, Heft 1, S. 103-122
ISSN: 1475-6765
Abstract. The utility of comparative politics has been questioned from time to time in two ways. Doubts have been cast upon its ability to offer genuine and useful generalisations, and these doubts have been reinforced by the appearance of studies which, while statistically adventurous, are not grounded upon a sufficiently sound theoretical base. In this paper we consider Alasdair MacIntyre's objections to the idea of a science of comparative politics, and discuss the nature of law‐like generalisations. We explore the extent to which MacIntyre's objections may be overcome, and indicate the form that generalisations about political stability could take. We also argue that studies of stability need a clear explanatory linkage between the empirical data they utilise and the hypotheses of a theory about political stability. This is often lacking in such studies, which seem to substitute a sophisticated statistical technique for genuine political theory.
In: American political science review, Band 19, Heft 3, S. 615-620
ISSN: 1537-5943
In: Canadian journal of political science: CJPS = Revue canadienne de science politique : RCSP, Band 43, Heft 2, S. 495-497
ISSN: 0008-4239
In: American review of public administration: ARPA, Band 25, Heft 1
ISSN: 0275-0740
In: European political science: EPS, Band 6, Heft 3, S. 276-294
ISSN: 1682-0983
In: Government & opposition: an international journal of comparative politics, Band 46, Heft 4, S. 411-436
ISSN: 0017-257X
In: Political studies, Band 38, Heft 3, S. 438
ISSN: 0032-3217
In: Political studies, Band 37, Heft Sep 89
ISSN: 0032-3217
Comparative method in political science is currently going through a critical time, particularly after the failure of developmentalism, and of the classical paradigm of comparative government. This crisis stems from questioning universalism, mono-determinism and the compartmentalism between political science and history. New paradigms are conceived in order to overcome this. (Abstract amended)
In: Political studies, Band 37, Heft 3, S. 340-351
ISSN: 0032-3217
In political science, comparative method is currently experiencing a crisis, particularly after the failure of developmentalism & the classical paradigm of comparative government, that stems from questioning universalism, monodeterminism, & the compartmentalism between political science & history. New paradigms designed to overcome this crisis are described, including culturalism, social action, & historical sociology. Ways that they can contribute to constructing a new kind of comparison, & whether they deal effectively with the new objects of comparison that derive from the increasing differentiation of political situations & political practices are assessed. Adapted from the source document.
In: Political studies: the journal of the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom, Band 37, Heft 3, S. 340-351
ISSN: 1467-9248
Comparative method in political science is currently going through a critical time, particularly after the failure of developmentalism, and of the classical paradigm of comparative government. This crisis stems from questioning universalism, monodeterminism and the compartmentalism between political science and history. New paradigms are now conceived in order to overcome this crisis: culturalism, social action, historical sociology. Can they be used to construct a new kind of comparison? Can they deal effectively with the new objects of comparison which derive from the increasing differentiation of political situations and political practices that we currently observe?