Comparative historical research

Major researchers

Three waves of historical comparative research have been identified. The first wave concerned how societies became modern, with major researchers including Alexis de Tocqueville, Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and W.E.B. Du Bois. The second wave reacted to ahistorical theory and included Reinhard Bendix, Barrington Moore, Jr., Stein Rokkan, Theda Skocpol, Charles Tilly, Michael Mann, and Mark Gould; the Annales school and Pierre Bourdieu are sometimes placed here. The current wave is often post-structural, with influential authors such as Julia Adams, Ann Laura Stoler, Philip Gorski, and James Mahoney. Moore's work influenced Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, who applied comparative methods to economic history; in 2024 Acemoglu, Robinson, and Simon Johnson won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

Methods

Researchers collect historical data through four major methods: archival data (primary sources such as official documents), secondary sources (works of other historians), running records (ongoing statistical series like census data or property deeds), and recollections (autobiographies, memoirs, diaries). Schutt outlined four stages for systematic qualitative comparative historical studies: developing the premise of the investigation; choosing the case or cases to examine; using what Theda Skocpol termed interpretive historical sociology to examine similarities and differences; and proposing a causal explanation based on the gathered information.

Key methodological issues arise from the incomplete nature of historical data, the complexity and scale of social systems, and the nature of the questions asked. Historical data can be biased—diaries and memoirs reflect the writer's worldview and socioeconomic status—and is vulnerable to destruction over time from fragile materials, wars, environmental disasters, or deliberate destruction by special interest groups. The broad and wide-reaching topics often studied, such as the evolution of democracy across regions, make the scale and complexity of the social systems overwhelming.

Identifying features

Comparative historical research centers on three core concerns: causal relationships, how processes unfold over time, and making comparisons. Establishing causality is tricky, though we assume it daily. Schutt outlines five criteria for a causal link, with the first three being essential: association, where a change in one variable connects to a change in another; time order, meaning the cause must come before the effect; and nonspuriousness, ensuring no third variable explains the connection.

The remaining two criteria involve identifying a causal mechanism and the context of the association. A deterministic causal approach demands that every case in a study shows the independent variable affecting the dependent one. John Stuart Mill created five methods for systematic observation and causal analysis: direct agreement, difference, joint agreement and difference, residues, and concomitant variations. These methods work best when a causal relationship is already suspected, helping to rule out other explanations, though some methodologists argue they cannot prove causation.

Difficulties

James Mahoney identified several difficulties facing historical comparative research, including how micro-level studies can be incorporated into the macro-level field, overlooked issues such as law, and the debate over whether the field should be approached as a science or as history. This debate often involves Theda Skocpol, who favors the historical approach, and Kiser and Hechter, proponents of the scientific view seeking general causal principles, who employ rational choice theory. Opponents such as Skocpol and Summers argue that Kiser and Hechter do not suggest many other plausible general theories, making their advocacy appear to be for their preferred theory, and raise other criticisms of using rational choice theory in this research.