Clarifying Comparative Historical Methodology

Abstract

Bernard Kittel discusses “three contentious issues which seem to be regarded as uncontroversial in the American debate.” These issues are: (a) knowledge accumulation, (b) generalization, and (c) probabilistic causation. Kittel argues that qualitative analysts–and comparative-historical researchers in particular–“unnecessarily weaken their case. . . by accepting the quantitative template in these respects.” His overall argument is presented in a provocative manner; it is an effort to move the discussion forward in the ongoing debate about methodology in the United States. In this reply, I agree with many of Kittel’s reservations about the mainstream statistical template, but I argue that he mischaracterizes the degree to which comparative-historical analysis actually follows this template. In addition, I express reservations about certain conclusions and directions that Kittel offers for future macro-comparative work.