Abstract

We examine the comparative strategies of Durkeheim and Weber and link them to specific presuppositions. While both are compatible with goals of explanation and generalization in sociological analysis, they use different types of explanation and different degrees of generalization to produce variable-based (Durkheimian) and case-based (Weberian) studies. Several authors (e.g., Kapsis, Smelser, b) suggest that these two strategies converge. We show that these strategies are neither congruent nor convergent in their (1) units of analysis, (2) conception fro causality, (3) conception of adequate explanation, or (4) logic of analysis. We examine contemporary comparative studies and trace lines of filiation between them and the strategies of Durkeheim and Weber. finally, we suggest how these strategies can be combined in complementary ways to take advantage of the unique strengths fro each.

Table of content:

Durkheim, Species and System

Permanent Causes and Correlations

Durkheim and Contemporary Cross-Societal Research

Variable-based and Case-Based Comparative Strategies

Historical Comparison and Ideal Types

Ideal Types and Genetic Explanation

Genetic Explanation and Comparative Analysis

Contemporary Weberian Strategies

Combining Durkheimian and Weberian Strategies

Conclusion