TheComparative Method

Conclusion
How , then, should one cope with this complexity in the search for
methodological explanations? One meigt begin with basic questions about the
motivations underlying comparisons, the content chosen for comparative purposes ,
and the modesof differentiation. Do comparisons change depending on the purpose
one has in making them? How does the purpose affect the choice of the content to be
compsred? By what standard of diffferentiation is the contrast to be measured? Are
differentiation standards als affected by the underlying motivation? Throungh these
questions and the answers they generate, the ability to compare ( and distinguish)
comparisons might emerge; and as comparisons are distinguished, methodological
rationales for accepting or rejecting a comparison might be developed.
It is true that the mere juxtaposition of two phenomena constrains the comparison
but does not by itself predertermine the purpose, choice of variable, or test of
differentiation. Criticism of a well-articulated, thounghtful, and self-described
postmodern perspective illustrates this point. Andrew Huxley argued that “ while a
comparison of chalk with cheese must necessarily highlight the question of edibility, a
comparison of chalk with marker pens will focus on legibility.”156 further reflection
will demonstrate that these comparisons may constrain but do not necessarily dictate
the discovery of any specific contrast or similarity. The choice of comparative feature
and test for differentiation depends upon the context and the motivations of the person
making the comparison. For example, a two-year-old might reasonably prefer to draw
on the kitchen table with cheese rather than chalk. The child might focus on legibility
( instead of edibility ) based on her justifiable view that cheese is more legible than
chalk on the table’s surface. In another context, a parent concerned about ink
poisoning might prefer to put a piece of chalk, rather than a marking pen, in the hands
of a two-year-old who is prone to taste inedible objects. In this case, the parent’s
focus, with good reason, is on (in) edibility rather than legibility and leads the parent
to the conclusion that the chalk is less inedible than the ink pen.
As an these comparisons of cheese and chalk or chalk and ink pens, many varied
purposes may motivate different comparisons. Inconsistent comparisons. Inconsistent
comparative content may reflect inconsistent comparative motivations.
 In comparing apples and oranges, for example, the farmer may be interested in the
climate conducive to cultivating apples and oranges, the greengrocer may be concerned
with shelf life, the botanist with origins, or the baker with water/solid ratios.

Moreover, even when the comparatist has identified purpose and chosen variables in
pursuit of her purpose, she must still apply the differentiating criteria to the phenomena
under comparative consideration. These criteria are applicable either in absolute or
relative terms. Absolute differentiations characterize the comparison in terms of
complete difference ( dichotomy ) or similarity ( aquivalence ). The distinction between
two sides of a coin provides an illustrative example of a nonrelative demarcation; heads
or tails is a matter of kind, not degree. In contrast, relative distinctions express degrees of
similarity and difference. The measurement of degree is based on an either explicit or
implicit test or standard, a threshold that rests somewhere along a continuum between
two extremes. The identification of this threshold itself represents a comparative choice,
which, like the selection of content, will depend on comparison’s purpose.

Each of these considerations____ purpose, content, and mode of differentiation____

plays a significant role in many comparisons. Insufficient consideration of the complex
interaction of these three features of comparison is likely to render poor results. In order
to distinguish comparisons qualitatively, a framework for comparison is required.
Chapter 3 takes a first step in that direction.