Answer to Question 1
Comparative politics research is almost never conducted in a laboratory, with controlled conditions that would give us an unimpeachable answer to our question. Today, scholars often employ mixed methods approaches, using both quantitative and qualitative techniques, in an effort to build convincing claims about the relationships between attributes and outcomes. The best we can do is look for cases that are as similar as possible on certain variables and as different as possible on other variables, and then build an argument about the implications of such differences and similarities.
Answer to Question 2
To assess the degree to which hypotheses can be falsified or stand up against the facts, we use the comparative method, a way of examining patterns of facts or events to narrow down what is important in terms of building a convincing comparative politics argument. There are two basic approaches to the comparative method:
1. The method of agreement, which compares and contrasts cases with different attributes but shared outcomes; or
2. The method of difference, which compares and contrasts cases with the same attributes but different outcomes.
A mixed-breed dog
Comparative structure of arteries, capillaries, and veins.
The overlapping relationship among research, evidence-based practice
Inverse Relation Between IQ and Disease. Could this explain the Flynn effect?
Patient Teaching Methods Cont.
A pharmacist can explain to a patient why medication may look different and ensure the correct ...