Ryan Schram's Anthrocyclopaedia

Anthropology presentations and learning resources

User Tools

Site Tools

You are here: start » mills-methods
mills-methods

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
mills-methods [2022/08/29 23:19] – [Comparative analysis: Mill’s methods of difference and agreement] Ryan Schram (admin)mills-methods [2022/09/01 16:37] (current) – Ryan Schram (admin)
Line 1: Line 1:
-====== Comparative analysis: Mill’s methods of difference and agreement ======+====== Mill’s methods of difference and agreement ======
  
 Societies of the world, whether large or small, are different in many ways and similar in many ways. Societies of the world, whether large or small, are different in many ways and similar in many ways.
Line 21: Line 21:
 Other social sciences would say that the method of difference is more powerful. With the method of agreement, you can’t ever be sure that you won’t eventually find a case with //P//, //X//, //Q//, //T//, //Z// and which also has //m//. They would argue that social scientists should emulate natural scientists, and conduct comparisons as much as they can like laboratory experiments. In other words, because the method of difference is a controlled comparison, then it is a stronger basis for a causal claim. Other social sciences would say that the method of difference is more powerful. With the method of agreement, you can’t ever be sure that you won’t eventually find a case with //P//, //X//, //Q//, //T//, //Z// and which also has //m//. They would argue that social scientists should emulate natural scientists, and conduct comparisons as much as they can like laboratory experiments. In other words, because the method of difference is a controlled comparison, then it is a stronger basis for a causal claim.
  
-Mill offers a partial response to anthropology’s preference for the method of agreement (Mill [1843] 1882, 283): We live in the real world, not a laboratory. The real world is made up of a lot of stuff that is different in many, many ways, often just for no reason at all because of random chance. Hence, we cannot always be sure that we are comparing a “control group” and a “treatment group” which are the same in absolutely every way except for the one factor we want to investigate as a cause. So we have to rely on the assumption that the cases we compare are mostly different and different in many ways we may not even see. We can at least improve our understanding by looking for a common factor among many cases.+Mill offers a partial defense of anthropology’s preference for the method of agreement (Mill [1843] 1882, 283): We live in the real world, not a laboratory. The real world is made up of a lot of stuff that is different in many, many ways, often just for no reason at all because of random chance. Hence, we cannot always be sure that we are comparing a “control group” and a “treatment group” which are the same in absolutely every way except for the one factor we want to investigate as a cause. So we have to rely on the assumption that the cases we compare are mostly different and different in many ways we may not even see. We can at least improve our understanding by looking for a common factor among many cases.
  
 ===== References ===== ===== References =====
mills-methods.1661840360.txt.gz · Last modified: 2022/08/29 23:19 by Ryan Schram (admin)