The quantitative study of comparative politics is often described as a data-driven enterprise. Employing an original dataset of comparative politics articles published in leading academic journals between 1989 and 2007, this article offers the first empirical analysis of data usage in comparative research. Tracing potential biases induced by data dependence, it assesses the structure of quantitative comparative research (by year, research design, geographic focus, and subject area), the use of country-specific and region-specific datasets, the introduction of original data, and the degree of concentration in data usage. Its empirical findings question cherished assumptions about the structure of the discipline.
Ahram, Ariel I.2009. The challenge of conceptual stretching in mixed method research. Political Concepts 31, IPSA Committee on Concepts and Methods, Working Paper Series. www.concepts-methods.org.
2.
Bartels, Larry M., and Henry E. Brady .1993. The state of quantitative political methodology. In The state of the discipline II, ed. Ada W. Finifter, 121-59. Washington, DC : APSA.
3.
Benoit, Kenneth R.2005. How qualitative research really counts. Qualitative Methods3 (1): 9-12.
4.
Budge, Ian, Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara, and Eric Tanenbaum.2001. Mapping policy preferences: Estimates for parties, electors, and governments 1945-1998. With Richard C. Fording, Derek J. Hearl, Hee Min Kim, Michael McDonald, and Silvia Mendez. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5.
Byrman, Alan.2004. Social research methods. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
6.
Cox, Robert Henry.2001. The social construction of an imperative: Why welfare reform happened in Denmark and the Netherlands but not in Germany. World Politics53:463-98.
7.
Diehl, Paul F.1992. What are they fighting for? The importance of issues in international conflict research. Journal of Peace Research29 (3): 333-44.
8.
Gerring, John.2001. Social science methodology: A criterial framework. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba.1994. Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.
Levitsky, Steven.2001. Organization and labor-based party adaptation: The transformation of Argentine Peronism in comparative perspective. World Politics54:27-56.
11.
Lewis-Beck, Michael S.2008. Is comparative politics methodologically exceptional?APSA-CP Newsletter19 (1): 11-12.
12.
Lijphart, Arend.1971. Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review65 (3): 682-93.
13.
Mackie, Thomas T., and Richard Rose.1991. The international almanac of electoral history. 3rd ed. London: Macmillan.
14.
Mahoney, James.2007. Debating the state of comparative politics: Views from qualitative research. Comparative Political Studies40 (1): 32-38.
15.
Morrison, Minion K.C.2004. Political parties in Ghana through four republics: A path to democratic consolidation. Comparative Politics36 (4): 421-42.
16.
Munck, Gerardo L., and Richard Snyder.2007. Debating the direction of comparative politics: An analysis of leading journals. Comparative Political Studies40 (1): 5-31.
Peters, B. Guy.1998. Comparative politics: Theory and methods. New York: New York University Press.
19.
Shapiro, Ian, Rogers M. Smith, and Tarek Masoud.2004. Problems and methods in the study of politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Staton, Jeffrey K.2004. Judicial policy implementation in Mexico City and Mérida . Comparative Politics37 (1): 41-60.
21.
Steinmo, Sven.1989. Political institutions and tax policy in the United States, Sweden, and Britain. World Politics41:500-535.
22.
Wampler, Brian, and Leonardo Avritzer .2004. Participatory publics: Civil society and new institutions in democratic Brazil. Comparative Politics36 (3): 291-312.
