Comparative Sociology

Comparative sociology, also known as comparative-historical sociology, is a specialized branch of sociology focused on examining the social processes and phenomena across different societies, cultures, or countries, as well as analyzing changes within a single society over time. This field aims to enhance understanding of how and why cultural differences and similarities emerge and evolve. Researchers often utilize secondary data analysis, employing methods such as comparative and historical research to explore these sociocultural dynamics. Through comparative studies, sociologists can investigate phenomena like age stratification across various cultures, revealing how societies organize individuals by age differently.

The practice of comparative sociology serves not only academic pursuits but also practical applications for businesses and governments engaged with diverse cultural groups. By understanding variances and commonalities among cultures, stakeholders can navigate intercultural interactions more effectively. Furthermore, comparative sociology employs both inductive and deductive reasoning, allowing for the development of theories based on specific observations and the testing of general principles. As globalization shapes interactions across cultures, the insights gained from comparative sociology remain increasingly vital for fostering intercultural understanding and cooperation.

Published in: 2021

By: Wienclaw, Ruth A.

Subject Terms

Comparative Sociology

Comparative sociology (also referred to as comparative-historical sociology) is a branch of sociology that compares the social processes and phenomena of different societies, cultures, or countries or that examines variance within a single society, culture, or country over time. This subspecialty of sociology can help social scientists better understand how and why differences arise between cultures over time. For the most part, comparative sociology depends on secondary analysis to perform its studies, in particular the tools of comparative research and historical research. Although in most cases, first-hand data are preferable to secondary data. If used appropriately, these data can assist the social scientist in both building and testing theories. Comparative-historical sociological studies can be of great benefit not only to scientists trying to better understand the differences between cultures and societies, but also in more pragmatic ways to business people and governments who are trying to deal effectively with individuals and groups from other, dissimilar cultures.

Comparative sociology (sometimes referred to as comparative-historical sociology) is a branch of sociology that compares the social processes and phenomena of different societies, cultures, or countries or examines variance among social processes and phenomena within a single society, culture, or country over time. The major goals of comparative sociology are to gain a better understanding of the differences and similarities of societies across cultures and along history. In addition, the methods of comparative sociology are increasingly being turned to investigations of the impact of globalization on social processes and phenomena.

Although its aims are similar to those of sociology in general, comparative sociology relies heavily on two methods of unobtrusive research: comparative research and historical research. Comparative research is an approach to sociological research in which data from a variety of groups (e.g., different periods in history or different countries) is compared to examine differences in social phenomena or to determine why these differences exist. Comparative research allows social scientists to study phenomena or processes that occur in many different settings. For example, a researcher might be interested in the phenomenon of the age stratification and want to know whether or not this phenomenon occurs in all cultures and if there are any variations in the ways in which societies are stratified according to age. To learn more about this phenomenon, he or she might perform a cross-cultural research study that compares the manifestations of age stratification in societies around the globe. Historical research is an approach to research that uses data (e.g., artifacts, records) from the past to draw conclusions about earlier stages in a society's development. Historical research uses secondary analysis of historical data to get a picture of how social phenomena evolve over time. Historical research can be extremely longitudinal in nature, such as an analysis of the processes associated with the progress of an aboriginal society from being hunters and gatherers to be agrarian in nature, using the various recorded accounts of the tribe over the span of generations. Other historical sociological research can be more recent in nature or use artifacts rather than formal written accounts. For example, a sociologist might examine the formation of gangs in a juvenile detention facility by analyzing the graffiti left on the walls of cells and common rooms.

Sociocultural Evolution

Societal development is typically not revolutionary in nature, but depends on sociocultural evolution over spans of time. Because of this characteristic of social change, in some instances the only way to understand how social processes evolve is to take a comparative-historical approach. However, this approach is not without its drawbacks. First, the use of secondary data means that the researcher is limited to what data are available. It is not always possible to find available data sets that contain the data that one needs to test one's theory or hypothesis. Further, the data necessary to test one's hypothesis or theory simply may not exist. This is particularly true of historical data from periods long past in which even word meanings may have changed. Second, unless one has collected the data oneself, it is virtually impossible to be completely confident in the quality of the data. Particularly when one is using qualitative data, without having trained observers who are all interpreting phenomena in the same way, one may potentially be attempting to compare apples and oranges. For example, in historical situations when conquering soldiers make comments about aboriginal tribes, it may be impossible to filter out the effects of their social prejudice. Similarly, historical observers often find what they expect to find. So, for example, the use of a digging stick or hoe might seem backward to an observer from a society that uses a plow. Depending on how the observer recorded his or her observations, the twenty-first-century researcher might not be able to tell whether the recorded comment says more about the observer or the observed. On the other hand, particularly when attempting to make comparisons of the development or changes in a society over time, it is often impossible to use anything but secondary data. However, information about the historical developments of a society can be of great use when trying to understand why the contemporary society works the way it does. In such situations, there is no choice but to use historical data.

Deductive & Inductive Reasoning

Like other types of sociological research, comparative sociology can apply both deductive and inductive reasoning to draw conclusions about societies. Inductive reasoning is a type of logical reasoning in which inferences and general principles are drawn from specific observations or cases. Inductive reasoning is a foundation of the scientific method and enables the development of testable hypotheses from particular facts and observations. As shown in Figure 1, in inductive reasoning, one reasons from specific observations (e.g., historical data about the way a society develops) to extrapolate general principles (e.g., how societies in general develop). Inductive reasoning is used to build a theory. Deductive reasoning, on the other hand, is a type of logical reasoning in which it is demonstrated that a conclusion must necessarily follow from a sequence of premises, the first of which is a self-evident truth or agreed-upon data point or condition. Deductive reasoning is the foundation upon which predictions are drawn from general laws or theories. Deductive reasoning starts with general principles (e.g., a theory of societal development) and predicts behavior or can be used to test a theoretical model.

Both inductive and deductive reasoning are important for understanding processes and phenomena and advancing the state of a science. However, Kiser and Hechter observe that increasingly, comparative-historical sociology has come to rely on inductive rather than deductive reasoning (1991). Unfortunately, this trend has resulted in inadequate specifications of the underlying causal relationships and mechanisms that result in the observations. Although such information is of interest, without the concomitant information on causality, it is little more than descriptive. Adequate explanations in science must include explanations of causality: why did an observed phenomenon occur? Philosophically, causality cannot be observed, but must be inferred. Without the application of both inductive and deductive reasoning, therefore, comparative-historical sociology can fail both as sociology and as history. The development of general theories that are testable is necessary for the advancement of science. Although inductive reasoning is necessary both in sociology in general and comparative-historical sociology in particular, it is equally important to consider the role of causal mechanisms and to develop general theories that can help social scientists not only describe behavior, but explain and predict it as well.

Applications

First-Hand Data

Social scientists always prefer first-hand data so that they can control how questions are asked or observations are collected and help ensure that the data have high validity vis-à-vis the questions they are investigating. However, as discussed above, collecting first-hand data is not always possible. American anthropologist Ruth Benedict, for example, examined the similarities and differences of Japanese and Dutch culture during the Second World War. Although it might seem curious that one would be interested in comparing the cultures of Japan and the Netherlands, the two countries actually have a 400-year history of interaction and mutual influence. Benedict was unable to collect data first-hand at that time due to the constraints of war, so she used documents and interviews with Japanese and Dutch individuals who had immigrated to the United States.

Hofstede and Soeters were interested in testing her conclusions with "better" data (2002). In general, they found that the quality of her original study was remarkable given the limitations of the data. To test her conclusions, they performed secondary analysis on survey data collected in the 1970s for a study of IBM employees around the world. Using these data, the researchers looked at four aspects of national culture that are often considered to validly differentiate between the natures of different cultures. These are:

Power distance,
Uncertainty avoidance,
Individualism-collectivism, and
Masculinity-femininity.

In addition, the study examined the long-term versus short-term orientation of the two cultures, a factor that is often found to differentiate between Western and Asian cultures.

Power Distance

Power distance is the degree of inequality between individuals that a culture considers to be normal. In Japanese culture, individuals are both not very equal and not very unequal, a situation similar to that found in the Netherlands. Although Japanese society is often thought by outsiders to be very hierarchical in nature, no one element of Japanese society is able (or allowed) to completely dominate others. The consensus society of Japan is characterized by a power equilibrium. In the Netherlands, similar practices and arrangements help achieve a consensus society. Although the Dutch are aware of rank and status, in general the culture of the Netherlands tends to be egalitarian in nature. The elite try to act as "normal" and do not dominate, while the less powerful are protected.

Uncertainty Avoidance

Uncertainty avoidance, the second factor examined in this study, is the degree to which people prefer a structured rather than an unstructured environment. In structured situations, clear rules exist that define how an individual should behave. These rules may be written or unwritten. In cultures with a high uncertainty avoidance factor, individuals tend to exhibit more nervous energy. Such cultures tend to be defined as being rigid. In cultures with low uncertainty avoidance, on the other hand, individuals tend to be more relaxed and easy going. In this study, Japan was found to be quite high on the uncertainty avoidance dimension, with strictly prescribed behavior patterns and more apparent nervousness than exhibited in most other countries. Japanese culture includes mass production of rules, rituals, and language codes regarding the social distance in encounters and in how people treat each other. The concept of shame, respect language, repaying obligations, and clearing of one's name are also important in Japanese culture. The Netherlands, on the other hand, is weak in the area of uncertainty avoidance, tending to be more curious about what is different rather than approaching it with rigidity.

Individualism-Collectivism

The third factor examined in this study was the continuum of individualism-collectivism. Individualism is the degree to which members of a society act as individuals rather than as part of a group. Collectivism is the degree to which members of a society tend to act as part of the group rather than as individuals. In this study, analysis indicated that the Japanese culture tends to be approximately midway on this continuum, whereas the Netherlands tends to be very individualistic. This may be due to differences in traditional structures of family in Japan in the Netherlands. In Japan, families tend to be legal in nature, with grandparents, oldest son, daughter-in-law, and children all living together under one roof. In the Netherlands, on the other hand, people tend to live in nuclear families comprised of father, mother, and children. As a result, the Japanese family structure -- and the society in general -- tends to be more collectivistic than Dutch society.

Masculinity-Femininity

The fourth factor examined in this study was masculinity-femininity. This is the degree to which characteristics that are typically associated with male gender roles (e.g., assertiveness, performance, success, competition) define the culture as opposed to those characteristics more commonly associated with female gender roles (e.g., quality of life, maintaining warm personal relationships, service and caring for the weak, solidarity). The former type of society is typically referred to as a performance society, whereas the latter type of society is a welfare society. The results of this study indicated that Japan is extremely masculine in nature and, in fact, is the most masculine country of all the 53 examined in the original study that produced the data. Japan tends to have a level of self-discipline that is not typically found in Western societies. For example, the Japanese educational system has a strenuous system of examinations, both industry and the military are known for their strict discipline, and literally dying at one's desk is not unknown in Japan. Further, the Japanese culture of masculinity leads to a large difference in roles adopted by men and women. This does not mean, however, that a Japanese man has absolute power. Japanese women typically have power that is exercised within the family, while Japanese men tend to exercise power in public life. In the Netherlands on the other hand, society is much more inclined to protect the inept, poor, and the weak. In fact, subjective health complaints due to stress over work-related problems are included in the Dutch Disability Insurance Act.

Viewpoints

Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation

The final factor examined in this study was long-term versus short-term orientation. A long-term orientation is focused on the future, with attributes such as thrift, saving, and perseverance. Countries scoring high on this dimension tend to be among those with the fastest economic growth in the latter part of the twentieth century. The study found Japan to be high on longterm orientation. This finding is similar to that of other research performed in other Asian countries. The Netherlands, however, like most Western countries, tended to be low on this dimension. In fact, the Dutch tendency to save has been noted for centuries by various observers, and the Netherlands have frequently been referred to as "the Chinese of Europe."

Although the findings of this comparative study are interesting from a purely armchair sociological point of view, they also have pragmatic application. In today's global marketplace, it is extremely important to be able to understand and appropriately interact with other cultures. Understanding how another culture is both similar and different to one's own can help organizations and governments be more successful in their dealings with each other. For example, if an organization is part of a culture in which emphasis is placed on welfare society and feminine characteristics, it would be better off emphasizing the efficiency and mass production capabilities of the organization rather than personal service and the ability for custom-made products when dealing with an organization from a more masculine culture. Comparative sociological studies such as the one performed by Hofstede and Soeters can help promote intercultural understanding in such matters.

Conclusion

Comparative sociology is a branch of sociology that compares the social processes and phenomena of different societies, cultures, or countries or that examines variance within a single society, culture, or country over time. This subspecialty of sociology can help social scientists better understand how and why differences arise between cultures over time. For the most part, comparative sociology depends on secondary analysis to perform its studies. If used appropriately, these data can assist the social scientist in both building and testing theories. The results of comparative-historical sociological studies can be of great benefit not only to scientists trying to better understand the differences between cultures and societies, but also in more pragmatic ways to business people and governments who are trying to deal effectively with individuals and groups from other, dissimilar cultures.

Terms & Concepts

Age Stratification: The hierarchical ranking of groups by age within society. In age stratification, different social roles are ascribed to individuals during different periods in their lives. These roles are not necessarily based on their physical capabilities and constraints at different times in their lives.

Comparative Research: An approach to sociological research in which data from a variety of groups (e.g., periods in history, different countries) is compared to examine differences in social phenomena or to determine why these differences exist.

Comparative Sociology: A branch of sociology that compares the social processes and phenomena of different societies, cultures, or countries or that examines variance within a single society, culture, or country over time (also referred to as comparative-historical sociology).

Cross-Cultural: In the social sciences, cross-cultural refers to any methodological approach or research study that is used to better understand how specific social behaviors are practiced in different cultures.

Culture: A complex system of meaning and behavior that is socially transmitted and that defines a common way of life for a group or society. Culture includes the totality of behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and other products of human work and thought of the society or group.

Globalization: Globalization is the process of businesses or technologies to spread across the world. This creates an interconnected, global marketplace operating outside constraints of time zone or national boundary. Although globalization means an expanded marketplace, products are typically adapted to fit the specific needs of each locality or culture to which they are marketed.

Historical Research: An approach to research that uses data (e.g., artifacts, records) from the past to draw conclusions about earlier stages in a society's development.

Model: A representation of a situation, system, or subsystem. Conceptual models are mental images that describe the situation or system. Mathematical or computer models are mathematical representations of the system or situation being studied.

Qualitative Research: Scientific research in which observations cannot be or are not quantified (i.e., expressed in numerical form).

Secondary Analysis: A further analysis of existing data typically collected by a different researcher. The intent of secondary analysis is to use existing data in order to develop conclusions or knowledge in addition to or different from those resulting from the original analysis of the data. Secondary analysis may be qualitative or quantitative in nature and may be used by itself or combined with other research data to reach conclusions.

Sociocultural Evolution: The process by which a society develops through the growth of its stores of cultural information.

Society: A distinct group of people who live within the same territory, share a common culture and way of life, and are relatively independent from people outside the group. Society includes systems of social interactions that govern both culture and social organization.

Survey: (a) A data collection instrument used to acquire information on the opinions, attitudes, or reactions of people. (b) A research study in which members of a selected sample are asked questions concerning their opinions, attitudes, or reactions, which are gathered using a survey instrument or questionnaire for purposes of scientific analysis; typically the results of this analysis are used to extrapolate the findings from the sample to the underlying population. (c) To conduct a survey on a sample.

Unobtrusive Research: An approach to data collection in which the researcher collects data without directly interfacing with the subjects. Unobtrusive research techniques allow the observation of sensitive situations and events or situations in which the presence of the researcher changes the situation. However, unobtrusive research is often far-removed from normal situations.

Validity: The degree to which a survey or other data collection instrument measures what it purports to measure. A data collection instrument cannot be valid unless it is reliable. Content validity is a measure of how well assessment instrument items reflect the concepts that the instrument developer is trying to assess. Content validation is often performed by experts. Construct validity is a measure of how well an assessment instrument measures what it is intended to measure as defined by another assessment instrument. Face validity is merely the concept that an assessment instrument appears to measure what it is trying to measure. Cross validity is the validation of an assessment instrument with a new sample to determine if the instrument is valid across situations. Predictive validity refers to how well an assessment instrument predicts future events.

Bibliography

Demetriou, C. (2012). Processual comparative sociology: Building on the approach of Charles Tilly. Sociological Theory, 30 (1), 51-65. Retrieved November 5, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=78167670&site=ehost-live

Hofsted, G. & Soeters, J. (2002). Consensus societies with their own character: National cultures in Japan and the Netherlands. Comparative Sociology, 1 (1). Retrieved September 23, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6541671&site=ehost-live.

Kiser, E. & Hechter, M. (1991). The role of general theory in comparative-historical sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 97 (1), 1-30. Retrieved September 23, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9110141558&site=ehost-live.

Lamont, M. (2012). Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology, 38 (1), 201-221. Retrieved November 5, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=77755948&site=ehost-live

Onaka, F. (2013). Aspects of process theories and process-oriented methodologies in historical and comparative sociology: An introduction. Historical Social Research, 38 (2), 161-171. Retrieved November 5, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=88102075&site=ehost-live

Stockard, J. (2000). Sociology: Discovering society (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Yoshino, R. (2005). Trust and national character: Japanese sense of trust, cross-national and longitudinal surveys. Comparative Sociology, 4 (3/4), 417-450. Retrieved September 23, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19031345&site=ehost-live.

Comparative Sociology

On this Page

Subject Terms

Comparative Sociology

Sociocultural Evolution

Deductive & Inductive Reasoning

Applications

First-Hand Data

Power Distance

Uncertainty Avoidance

Individualism-Collectivism

Masculinity-Femininity

Viewpoints

Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation

Conclusion

Terms & Concepts

Bibliography

Suggested Reading