Munck, G. and
Snyder, R. (2007). “Debating the Direction of Comparative Politics: An Analysis
of Leading Journals,” Comparative
Political Studies 40(1): 5-31.
Munck
and Snyder premise this article on the assumption that comparative politics, as
a subfield, is too broad to be amenable to qualitative analysis. In this, they
recapitulate the methodological argument within the subfield at a meta-level,
as both Blyth and Mahoney note. Arguing
that most comparative politics choices, whether theoretical, methodological, or
substantive, are appropriately framed as “both-and” choices rather than
“either-or” choices, they present data from three leading subfield-specific
journals and argue that this data disconfirms the conventional wisdom about
methodological evolution in comparative politics. Instead, they argue that
comparative politics still tends toward qualitative methods, inductive models,
and focuses on the state. They conclude by urging a greater turn toward
quantitative and formal approaches, to avoid the small-N and data-mining
problems, and greater focus on sub-national actors.
This
article draws its data from three leading comparative-specific journals, but
because it limits its analysis to descriptive statistics, it lacks an
identifiable dependent and independent variable and has no causal explanations.
Using the descriptive statistics, Munck and Snyder analyze the subfield to
determine if the worrisome criticisms of some scholars have merit, and conclude
that their five recommendations for increased methodological sophistication are
merited, and no other.
Unfortunately
for this review, the most salient
critique of Munck and Snyder was quickly snapped up by James Mahoney in the
journal pages immediately following their article. By cherry-picking their
journal choices, they’ve engaged in precisely the sort of data-mining they
criticize; when Mahoney considered the most prestigious discipline-wide
journals, he found that the turn from qualitative and inductive research was
real. This argument – that the subfield’s most prestigious research is not
being published in the subfield-specific journals that Munck and Snyder analyze
– is tremendous, and scatters much of their argument. Lake’s suggestion that any conglomeration of
people constitutes an institution with behavioral consequences gives this
argument additional force: since comparative politics is part of political
science, the broader disciplinary expectations shape how comparativists think
and train.