Critical Junctures: Juxtaposing Methods, Triangulating among Divergent Findings

Session Submission Type: Full Paper Panel

Session Description

Research on critical junctures and historical legacies, which arose out of the classic study of Lipset and Rokkan (1967), builds on key analytic agendas in contemporary social science. As this literature has expanded and evolved, two key themes have now come into focus.

First, this literature juxtaposes a longer tradition of comparative-historical research (also referred to as “historical sociology”) with new methodological priorities. Thus, in asking whether hypothesized critical junctures do indeed leave an important historical legacy, scholars must wrestle with establishing analytic equivalence in concepts and measurement. They must also abide by high standards for causal inference. The challenges of methodological juxtaposition also involve the task of integrating qualitative-historical work and a growing body of research that systematically applies quantitative tools to studying critical junctures.

Secondly, this literature triangulates among what are sometimes contrasting substantive findings. With the accumulation of more studies on closely related topics, scholars must sharpen their skills for sorting out findings that may well be partially convergent, yet sometimes point to distinct conclusions about critical junctures.

The papers for this panel directly address these two analytic agendas. Regarding the first theme, Simmons and Slater explore issues of establishing analytic equivalence and “controlled comparison”; and Munck maps out an extensive body of quantitative research (with which many qualitative historical researchers are unfamiliar) that has made key substantive contributions to understanding critical junctures.

Regarding the second theme, Handlin reflects on the relationship of his own book (2017) to earlier works, such as Roberts (2014; see also Boas 2017). In parallel, Fishman addresses the much debated question of whether modes of democratic transition do or do not have a profound effect on substantive outcomes in terms of regimes and political economy.

Sub Unit

• DIVISION 11: Comparative Politics

Cosponsor

• DIVISION 46: Qualitative and Multi-Method Research

Individual Presentations

• Quantification and Critical Junctures: Evaluating New Quantitative Studies - Gerardo L. Munck, University of Southern California

• A New Critical Juncture? Party System Transformation in South American Politics - Samuel Handlin, Swarthmore College

• Do Types of Regime Transitions Matter? Enduring Legacies of Paths to Democracy - Robert M. Fishman, Carlos III University, Madrid

Chair

• Robert R. Kaufman Rutgers University, New Brunswick

Discussants

• Taylor C. Boas Boston University

• Kenneth M. Roberts Cornell University