This document discusses the comparative and historical method of sociology. It defines sociology and comparative sociology. Comparative historical sociology analyzes large-scale societal transformations like revolutions, capitalism, and the development of nation-states and welfare states. The method uses detailed case studies and comparisons to uncover causal patterns in infrequent or long-term societal changes. It compares different cases and analyzes narratives and sequences of events. The method allows interpreting general patterns from specific examples and has the advantage of studying phenomena in context over time, though validity can depend on available sources.

1. The comparative and historical method of sociology

2. Jashore University of Science and Technology,BD
Md Sohel Rana
The comparative and historical method of sociology

3. What we will learn from this presentation?
 Defination of sociology
 Defination of comparative sociology
 Introduction of comparative and historical sociology
 Social Revolutions
 History and Sociology
 Comparative and historical analysis
 Narrative, Event-Structure Analysis
 Adevantages disadvantages of historical methods

4. Defination of sociology
 Sociology, a social science that studies human societies, their
interactions, and the processes that preserve and change them.

5. Comparative sociology
 Comparative sociology is a method, not a subject matter, applying
various techniques to units. It involves the use of multiple, detailed
observations on a modest number of cases, designed to uncover
causal patterns. A case is a detailed understanding of a particular
unit.

6. Introduction of comparative and historical sociology
 Comparative historical sociology is the branch of sociology that analyzes society-
wide transformations, such as social revolutions, the rise of capitalism and the
nation-state, democratization, and the birth and transformation of welfare states. At
the end of the 19th century all of sociology’s European founders turned to historical
explanation to understand the changes that capitalism had brought to their
societies, from Marx’s attempt to explain history as the working out of class
struggle, to Weber’s investigations into the comparative development of economy
and society, to Durkheim’s investigations into the historical development of religion,
law, and the division of labor.
 in the 1960s and 1970s did a large number of scholars once again turn to
comparative historical sociology as the form of sociological explanation most
appropriate to analyzing changes that occur infrequently or over very long periods,
and that affect a society as a whole unit. While the classics of the discipline focus
on European history, contemporary scholars are extending the approach to the rest
of the world.

7. History and Sociology

The key is that historical sociology is not merely a sociological study of the past, but an intrinsic part of a
sociology of the present: in order to explain the structures of contemporary societies, one must investigate
their historical origins and development. It has been remarked that “Sociology is history with the hard work
left out; history is sociology with the brains left out” (Cahnman & Boskoff 1964:1). In any case, history and
sociology have historically developed into two distinct academic disciplines. Though there may be
considerable overlap between both history’s and sociology’s material perspectives (human affairs, interaction,
society), they differ formally in manner of approach, theoretically, methodologically, and, not least of all,
institutionally.
 Theoretically there is no unifying analytical framework. 1) Institutionalism: this challenged the conception
of an over-all deterministic structure, e.g., work on social policy. But still the emphasis remains on the
political economy (and on politics, as in this book). 2) Rational Choice Theory: emphasis on the utilitarian
assumptions of individuals and groups growing out of them.

8. Social Revolutions
Social revolutions are sudden changes in the structure and nature
of society.[1] These revolutions are usually recognized as having transformed
in society, culture, philosophy, and technology much more than political
systems.[2]
A Structural Analysis of Social Revolutions" states that social revolution is a
"combination of thoroughgoing structural transformation and massive class
upheavals".[3] She comes to this definition by combining Samuel P.
Huntington's definition that it "is a rapid, fundamental, and violent domestic
change in the dominant values and myths of society, in its political
institutions, social structure, leadership, and government activities and
policies"[4] and Vladimir Lenin's, which is that revolutions are "the festivals of the
oppressed...[who act] as creators of a new social order".[

9. Comparative and historical
analysish
 Comparative sociology (as any other sociology) is always based on narrative, but a clear structure should also be revealed.
For instance, particular combinations (x, y, f, z) of events can take place: A occurring with or without B, and A not occurring
with or without B.Or various cases (1, 2, 3) can be compared in terms of certain characteristics (A, B,...). Such a structured
presentation is not an explanation, but instead allows for multiple interpretations. Among the strategies of analysis are non-
parametric analysis and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (designed by Charles Ragin) that uses Boolean algebra to
implement principles of comparison.
 The debate on Mill’s methodology relates to the fact that sociological theories are probabilistic, not deterministic. Millean
methododology also assumes that there is only one cause and that there are no interaction effects. How can the study of a
case make sociological sense

10. Narrative, Event-Structure Analysis
Griffin argues that event-structure analysis (ESA) should be used to examine causal relationships
with narratives. Griffin claims that an event can be understood “both as a historically singular
event and as an instance of a class of historically repeated events” and that this analysis can
move from the particular to the general. Griffin points out that narratives are sequences of social
action constructed by the narrator in a particular temporal order for a particular purpose that
include a particular series of actions. Narratives allow for “deep theoretical knowledge about the
mutually constitutive interplay of agency and social structure”, because the events are examined
within their historical context. He does warn, however, that because narratives often blend both
descriptions and interpretations, it is often easy to obscure causality of the events described
within them. Griffin argues that one should consider counterfacts or “what if” questions.

11. Advantage and disadvantage of historical
method
 The unobtrusive nature of historical research is the main advantage of the method: the
research cannot affect its subject matter. Also, several topics can be studied from this
perspective, particularly forms of communication. The main weakness of historical research
is that one can only reveal the past inasmuch as it is still present today: important
documents, for instance, may be lost or destroyed (validity). And because of the often less
rigid nature of this method of inquiry, the researcher can (invalidly) affect his/her picture of
what has happened. Therefore, corroboration is helpful.

12. Conclusion
 Historically infused sociology adopts narrative: First, the data “should consist of,
and closely track, social actions through time”. Second, these data should be
basically sequential in their “very definition and construction because social action
is itself temporally sequential.” Sociologists should think about variables as actions,
motives for action, and as consequences of actions. Third, sociologists should take
advantage of information which conveys and carries action, such as stories,
biographies, and other narratives. For Griffin, most sociological explanations do not
incorporate time into the logic of explanation. Incorporating time into sociological
explanations implies the use of an explanatory mode that is intrinsically temporal.
Thus, narratives can be used to interpret and explain sociologically in order to distill
the “logical from the chronological” and discerns the “theoretically general in the
historically particular.” In sum, to take history seriously is to take time seriously
and to use time as context and as narrative in sociological explanations.

13. Thank you everybody