Consensus and dissensus in comparative politics: Do comparativists agree on the goals, methods, and results of the field?
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
| Author | Andrew Roberts |
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0192512119858370 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512119858370
International Political Science Review
2020, Vol. 41(4) 490 –506
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0192512119858370
journals.sagepub.com/home/ips
Consensus and dissensus
in comparative politics: Do
comparativists agree on the goals,
methods, and results of the field?
Andrew Roberts
Northwestern University, USA
Abstract
Are comparative political scientists divided over the goals, methods, and results of their field? This article
attempts to answer this question, drawing on an original survey of US-based political scientists. The
main conclusion is that there is relative consensus on the goals of research—comparativists favor broad
generalizations and causal inference—but there is also acceptance of a variety of methodological approaches,
both qualitative and quantitative, in pursuing this goal. Comparativists, however, show less agreement on
substantive findings in the areas of democracy and democratic politics, economy and society, and political
institutions. Interestingly, generational differences are relatively infrequent, but gender differences on issues
such as rational choice and causal inference are more prominent, possibly contributing to gendered citation
bias. The findings suggest that comparative politics may not have accumulated a large amount of agreed-upon
knowledge, but that there is substantial agreement on the path forward.
Keywords
Comparative politics, expert survey, methodology, political scientists
Introduction
Comparative politics is widely regarded as a field divided. In its starkest terms, one side sees com-
parative politics as a scientific discipline whose goal is building parsimonious models of politics
that are subject to rigorous, quantitative testing. The other conceives the field as part of area studies
and favors a holistic understanding of the histories and cultures of individual polities. These poles
overlap with other more specific debates: the existence of a single logic of causal inference or
multiple logics (Goertz and Mahoney, 2012; King et al., 1992), the usefulness of rational choice
modeling in understanding politics (Friedman, 1995; Green and Shapiro, 1994), and the relative
Corresponding author:
Andrew Roberts, Department of Political Science, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, USA.
Email: aroberts@northwestern.edu
858370IPS0010.1177/0192512119858370International Political Science ReviewRoberts
research-article2019
Article
Roberts 491
importance of methodological sophistication versus deep knowledge of places (Bates, 1997;
Geddes, 2003; Johnson, 1997).
Yet, the widespread belief in these divisions has rarely been subjected to empirical confirma-
tion. Are there really two such poles and how far apart are they? Though these debates received
heavy airplay in the 1990s, the battle seems far less intense in the new millennium and especially
among younger scholars. But again this impression is an anecdotal one, and it is not clear if current
collegiality is due to one side winning the battle, a synthesis of the two poles, or simply increasing
civility.
A similar problem applies to the substantive results of comparative politics. Some have sug-
gested that political science has produced little well-confirmed and useful knowledge of politics
(Mead, 2009). Is this true? Does the field have good answers to questions like how democracy
emerges, the causes of conflict, or the institutions that produce growth, to name just a few central
issues in comparative politics? Substantive agreement is important because many comparativists
are committed to improving public policy and advocacy of policy changes should be based on
theories that receive broad support.
The aim of this article is therefore twofold. First, it attempts to assess whether comparativists
are divided on the goals and methods of the field, particularly between those who embrace a scien-
tific worldview and quantitative testing and those who advocate area studies and qualitative meth-
ods. Second, it looks at whether comparative politics has produced consensus knowledge about
how politics actually functions. This means major propositions such as the natural resource curse,
consociationalism as a solution to ethnic conflict, or the perils of presidentialism. Little existing
work has taken on either of these questions.
The article attempts to answer both of these questions using an expert survey of professors of
comparative politics at US universities. Such surveys have become increasingly common as a way
of assessing academic consensus (Maliniak et al., 2011).
The headline finding of this survey is that there is a good degree of consensus about the goals
and approach of comparative politics, at least among US-based comparativists, but that much of
the consensus comes from an acceptance that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Thus, while
large majorities agree with the scientific turn in comparative politics and see its goal as producing
generalizations about politics, area studies and culture are likewise seen as important. The same
can be said about quantitative and qualitative methods. Backlash only emerges when a particular
approach is raised as the one, true way. Comparativists are united both in their scientism and in
their methodological eclecticism.
Turning to substantive results about how politics actually works, consensus moderates consider-
ably. This part of the article focuses on 37 research results drawn from the areas of democracy and
democratic politics, the economy and society, and political institutions. With some exceptions—in
particular, the relationship between development and democracy, the importance of collective
action problems, and veto players—there is much less agreement on prominent theories. This may
be due to the fact that the theories mentioned in the survey are too general and abstract. It may also
be because politics works in different ways in different places. In fact, there appeared to be more
consensus on the functioning of politics in advanced industrial societies which have been the object
of more research than the developing world and are arguably less diverse.
Finally, the article considers group differences in these opinions. While one might expect diver-
gence between older and younger comparativists due to differences in training, in fact, the survey
revealed larger differences between male and female comparativists, a finding which has important
implications for gender biases in publication and citation. In sum, comparative politics may not be
a field divided, but it is a field with some divisions.
To continue reading
Request your trial