Area Studies, Comparative Politics, and the Role of Cross-Regional Small-N Comparison (original) (raw)

Area‐focused scholarship of all varieties – ranging from case studies intended to explore general hypotheses to context‐bound narratives generated through ethnography or discourse analysis – have long contributed to the richness and vibrancy of the field of comparative politics, sometimes generating enduring concepts, sometimes reinforcing or challenging prevailing general theories. The question for comparativists is not whether area studies ought to have a place in the field of comparative politics but rather how to generate productive conversations between area studies and scholars working on general theories and models. Such conversations are not going to be jump‐started by simply noting the value of area‐focused scholarship. This is precisely why I have focused on the mediating role of cross‐regional comparative research in highlighting the connections between different clusters of area‐focused scholarship and general theoretical and methodological debates in the field. Unfortunately, the dynamics of methodological debates are such that those partial to small‐N comparison have typically preferred to go closer to the ground, seeking the cover of area‐specific expertise rather than reaffirming the analytic leverage small‐N analysis is designed to provide. In light of this state of affairs, it is worth applauding the handful of studies that have boldly embarked on cross‐regional comparison, recognizing the limitations of this approach but standing fast in highlighting its distinctive payoffs. But, the broader argument for reviving cross‐ regional small‐N comparison has to do with its distinctive dialogical benefits – that is, the role it can play in "horizontally" connecting diverse area-studies research communities and "vertically" bridging the gulf that continues to separate area‐studies communities from generalists in comparative politics. If this latter gulf is not reduced, area specialists could find themselves further misunderstood and marginalized, and the field of comparative politics will be impoverished as a result.