CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 320Qualitative Comparative Analysis ResearchCritical Realism in SociologyContemporary Sociological Theory and Practice

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 206 of the 209 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Odious Comparisons: Incommensurability, the Case Study, and “Small N's” in Sociology

Steinmetz, George·2004·Sociological Theory
DOI 10.1111/j.0735-2751.2004.00225.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Case studies and “small-N comparisons” have been attacked from two directions, positivist and incommensurabilist. At the same time, some authors have defended small-N comparisons as allowing qualitative researchers to attain a degree of scientificity, yet they also have rejected the case study as merely “idiographic.” Practitioners of the case study sometimes agree with these critics, disavowing all claims to scientificity. A related set of disagreements concerns the role and nature of social theory in sociology, which sometimes is described as useless and parasitic and other times as evolving in splendid isolation from empirical research. These three forms of sociological activity—comparative analysis, studies of individual cases, and social theory—are defended here from the standpoint of critical realism. In this article I first reconstruct, in very broad strokes, the dominant epistemological and ontological framework of postwar U.S. sociology. The next two sections discuss several positivist and incommensurabilist criticisms of comparison and case studies. The last two sections propose an understanding of comparison as operating along two dimensions, events and structures, and offer an illustration of the difference and relationship between the two.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.0735-2751.2004.00225.x

Cites

206 of 206 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Adorno T., 1955, Prisms., 17
  2. Bakhtin M. M., 1981, The Dialogic Imagination.
  3. Bhaskar R., 1994, Plato Etcetera: The Problems of Philosophy and Their Resolution.
  4. Bourdieu P., 1984, Distinction.
  5. Bourdieu P., 2001, Science de la Science et Réflexivité.
  6. Cervantes D. M., 1950, Don Quixote.
  7. Coleman J. S., 1992, Duke Dialogue. Faculty Newsletter, 3, 1
  8. D'Agostino F., 2002, Incommenurability and Commensuration.
  9. Favretti R. R., 1999, Incommensurabilty and Translation. Kuhnian Perspectives on Scientific Communication and Theory Change.
  10. French S., 1989, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 25, 293
  11. Freud S., 1957, Standard Edition, 14, 243
  12. 10.2307/j.ctv11smrtk.10 · DOI
  13. Hell J., 2001, Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik (LiLi), 31, 71
  14. Jameson F., 1984, New Left Review, 146, 52
  15. Kant I., 1965, Critique of Pure Reason
  16. 10.2307/j.ctv11smrtk.5 · DOI
  17. Koepping K.-P., 1983, Adolf Bastian and the Psychic Unity of Mankind.
  18. Lagache D., 1961, La Psychanalyse, 6, 5
  19. Laplanche J., 1967, The Language of Psycho-Analysis.
  20. Lawson T., 1998, Critical Realism, Essential Readings, 144
  21. Loth H., 1963, Die Christliche Mission in Sudwestafrika. Zur Destruktiven Rolle der Rheinischen Missionsgesellschaft beim Prozeß der Staatsbildung in Sudwestafrika (1842–1893).
  22. Marx K., 1939, Grundrisse.
  23. 10.2307/j.ctv11smrtk.19 · DOI
  24. Mitchell T., 1988, Colonizing Egypt.
  25. Osborne P., 2002, “On Comparability.” Paper presented at “Problems of Comparability/Possibilities of Comparison in the Human and Social Sciences.”
  26. 10.1037/12962-000 · DOI
  27. Peirce C. S., 1931, Collected Papers.
  28. Said E., 1979, Orientalism.
  29. Sewell W., 1996, The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences, 245
  30. Smelser Neil J., 1986, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 38, 133
  31. Sokolowski W. R., 1997, Prima Philosophia, 10, 77
  32. Steinmetz George, The Politics of Method in the Human Sciences: Positivism and its Epistemological Others
  33. Steinmetz George, The Making and Unmaking of Modernity: Politics and Processes for Historical Sociology
  34. Stinchcombe A., 1996, “Epistemology as an Optimizing Discipline
  35. Strehlow T. G. H., 1947, Aranda Traditions.
  36. White H., 1987, The Content of the Form., 1
  37. Whorf B. L., 1956, Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 320

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Steinmetz, G.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Steinmetz, George
ORCID
Steinmetz, George
Venue
Sociological Theory
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2004-09
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
371-400
ISSN
  • 0735-2751 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9558
DOI
10.1111/j.0735-2751.2004.00225.x
OpenAlex
W2012742125
Cited by
320
References
209
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 4
FWCI
46.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Sociological Theory (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Realism in Sociology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Contemporary Sociological Theory and Practice
Keywords
case studies, incommensurability, critical realism, positivism, social theory, scientificity, epistemology of sociology, comparative analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review