http://iss.sagepub.com/International Sociologyhttp://iss.sagepub.com/content/18/4/643The online version of this article can be found at:DOI: 10.1177/0268580903184001 2003 18: 643 International SociologyNeil J. SmelserSociologyOn Comparative Analysis, Interdisciplinarity and Internationalization inPublished by:http://www.sagepublications.comOn behalf of:International Sociological Association can be found at: International Sociology Additional services and information for http://iss.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts: http://iss.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions: http://iss.sagepub.com/content/18/4/643.refs.html Citations: What is This?- Dec 1, 2003 Version of Record>> at Frontier Lib on December 4, 2012 iss.sagepub.com Downloaded from On Comparative Analysis,Interdisciplinarity andInternationalization in SociologyNeil J. SmelserUniversity of California, Berkeleyabstract: Inthisarticlesomelinksbetweencomparativemethods,interdisciplinarystudiesandtheinternationaliza-tionofsociologicalknowledgeareexplored.Themostfruitfulcomparativeapproach,itisargued,isneitherposi-tivistic nor relativistic, but should involve systematic incor-porationofcontextualanalysisinselectingindicesandexplanatoryvariables.Itisdemonstratedthatinordertocarry out such contextual analysis effectively, the researcherisimpelledtowardbothaninterdisciplinaryapproachandinternational collaboration.keywords: comparative methods interdisciplinarity internationalization of knowledge research strategies MayIrstrecordmyfeelingsofhonor,gratitudeandhumilityatbeingawardedtherstMatteiDoganFoundationprizeoftheInternationalSociologicalAssociation.Thehonorcomesfromtheimportanceandprestigeofthisprize.Thegratitudeisforthejudgmentofmydistin-guished colleagues in the ISAwho have deemed me worthy of the prize.And the humility comes from my certain knowledge that dozens of othercolleagues in the world have a clear claim to the honor on account of theirscientic and scholarly labors.It is only tting that the remarks that follow should resonate with thetermsoftheprizeitself,whichspeciescomparative orinterdisciplinarywork in the social sciences. I intend to focus on these and to include inter-national work as well. Thus the title of my presentation: On ComparativeAnalysis,InterdisciplinarityandInternationalizationinSociology.Irealizethatthisisaverysweeping,perhapsimpossibletitleforasingleInternational Sociology December 2003 Vol 18(4): 643657SAGE (London, Thousand Oaks, CAand New Delhi)[0268-5809(200312)18:4;643657;038808]643XVINTERNATIONAL CONGRESS, JULY2002, BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA01 Smelser (bc/t)27/10/031:15 pmPage 643 at Frontier Lib on December 4, 2012 iss.sagepub.com Downloaded from presentation, so my humility includes doubts about my ability to under-take the task.Inonesense,tochoosethesethreeaspectsofthesocialscienceenter-priseisauspicious. Allthreehaveagenerallypositiveconnotation.Idonotknowofany coherentargumentsthathavebeenmadeagainstcomparative, interdisciplinary, or international study. All three terms aregenerallyloved,reveredandexaltedinourranks.Inmycountryoneoccasionally gains more research money by arguing that ones research isinterdisciplinary, because granting agencies have a glow about that termaswell.(Thesamedoesnotapplyforcomparativeorinternationalresearch, for reasons I develop later.)Unhappily, our good feelings about these three aspects of our work arenot matched by our understanding of what each one of them is or means.Each has multiple meanings, many of them vague, and much sorting outhas to be done. Even more, we know almost nothing about the interrela-tions among them. These remain almost a complete mystery, even thoughthetermsareoftenmentionedtogether.InthisarticleIexplorethisuncharted land, hoping to make an initial inroad on our ignorance.Some Clarifying DenitionsTo commence, it is necessary to put forward some relatively precise de-nitionsofthetermsunderconsideration,giventhemultiplicityandvagueness of meanings I mentioned.Comparativeanalysis:Thistermpresentsspecialdifculties,becauseitisdifculttothinkofanyanalysisinthesocialsciencesthatisnotcomparative.DurkheimrecognizedthismorethanacenturyagowhenheannouncedthatComparativesociologyisnotaparticularbranchofsociology; it is sociology itself, in so far as it ceases to be purely descrip-tive and aspires to account for facts (Durkheim, 1949: 139). The meaningIgivetothisremarkablestatementisthatallsocialscienceinvolvesaccountingforvariation amonghumanbeingsandsocialarrangements.Consider the simplest classical laboratory experiment: two groups, experi-mentalandcontrol,arecontrivedsothatthetwogroupsresemble oneanotherinallknownrespects,anddiffer fromoneanotheronlywithregardtotheirexposuretoone,hopefullydecisivestimulus.Theaimoftheexperimentistodeterminewhetherthisonedifferenceleadstoavariation inbehaviorbetweenthetwogroups.Thisisthusatypeofcomparative analysis.I would go beyond Durkheim and assert that even description entailscomparison.Ifwedescribeasingleindividualastall,fair,opinionated,neurotic,orwelladjusted,wesimplycannotapplysuchwordswithoutreferringtoanimaginedorcomparativeuniverseofpeoplewhovaryInternational Sociology Vol. 18 No. 464401 Smelser (bc/t)27/10/031:15 pmPage 644 at Frontier Lib on December 4, 2012 iss.sagepub.com Downloaded from according to height, complexion, pig-headedness, neuroticism, or adjust-ment. So, all language is comparative and all description and explanationis comparative, no matter how much we might want to ennoble unique-ness, individuality, or idiosyncrasy.This general truth does not help us very much because it is too general.Comparative analysis has come to mean the description and explanationof similarities and differences (mainly differences) of conditions or outcomesamonglarge-scalesocialunits,usuallyregions,nations,societiesandcultures. This is the particular denition I am using. It reects the under-standingwehaveoftraditionsthathaveevolvedinthedisciplinesofanthropology (cross-cultural analysis), sociology (cross-societal), politicalscience(cross-national),history(comparativehistory)andpsychology(comparative psychology).Interdisciplinarity: This term also has many meanings and connotations,and perhaps worse, is frequently voiced without specifying any of them.It can refer to institutional embodiments (such as a research center madeup of persons from different academic disciplines); to cooperation of peoplefrom different social sciences working with one another; to the use of thesameconcept,assumption,orframework(e.g.rationalchoice)inmorethan one discipline; to the development of hybrid subelds such as childdevelopment; and to theoretical efforts such as seeking conceptual analo-gies, cross-disciplinary generalizations or principles (transdisciplinarity).Forthepurposesofthispresentation,Iamgoingtoselectamongthesemanypossibilities,andrefertointerdisciplinarityasbringingdifferentdisciplinary variables, concepts, frameworks and perspectives to bear onthe understanding and explanation of some empirical phenomenon, suchas rates of voting, social movements, democratic institutions, or economicdevelopment.Eventhisrelativelystraightforwarddenitionimpliesacommonunderstandingofwhatdisciplines andtheirdistinctivesub-stances, logics and methodologies are. That is another huge and ensnarledproblem in itself, but for the moment I lay it aside.Internationalization:Thisterm,too,hasaplethoraofmeanings,fromwhich we must choose. It can refer to the diffusion of knowledge acrossnational lines, to institutional infrastructures designed to accomplish thatdiffusion(forexample,universitieseducationabroadprograms;inter-national organizations and associations dedicated to research, such as ourown International Sociological Association); and independent interactionand networking of scholars across national lines. I bypass all these conno-tations, however, and focus on the quality of knowledge that would go underthat heading. Internationalization means that knowledge is broadly appli-cablewithoutreferencetonationalandotherboundaries.(Thereisanadditionalconnotation,thattherebeconsensus thatitsoapplies,andIreturntothislater.)IalsoleaveopenforthemomentthequestionofSmelser On Comparative Analysis in Sociology64501 Smelser (bc/t)27/10/031:15 pmPage 645 at Frontier Lib on December 4, 2012 iss.sagepub.com Downloaded from whether this knowledge takes the form of universal, general principles ofknowledgethatareeverywhereapplicable,orwhetherittakestheformofgeneralvariables thatapplyacrossboundariesbutmustbespeciedand particularized with respect to different national-cultural settings anddifferent historical periods.So, my selected denitions for comparative analysis, interdisciplinarityand internationalization apply to the character of knowledge produced. I haveadenitepurposeinchoosingthisfocus.Mytaskistoarguethatthesethreefeaturesofknowledgearticulatewith,complementand,indeed,imply one another. I do not know that this argument has been made before,but I hope to convince you that it has merit.The Nature of Comparative AnalysisWemustbeginbyknowingwhatcomparativeanalysisis,andonthisscore I will take a denite methodological stand. In the history of this artit is possible to identify two extreme approaches: radical positivism andradical relativism.Radical positivism begins with the Durkheimian assumption that therearerealsocialfactsthathaveobjectivemanifestationsorindices.Durkheim focused on different kinds of solidarity, and regarded differenttypesoflawastheirindicators(Durkheim,1949).Inmorerecenttimes,comparativistsinvariousdisciplineshaveselectedphenomenasuchasincome and wealth, democratic institutions and participation, educationallevel,developmentofcommunicationsandmodernpsychologicaloutlooks (Inkeles and Smith, 1974). As indices they have chosen economicindicators,electoralarrangementsandvotingrates,yearsofschooling,radioandtelevisionownership,andresponsestoquestionnairesaboutattitudes,respectively.Thesemeasuresarethenidentiedfordifferentnations, recorded and arrayed in comparative tables. In line with the posi-tivistmethodology,thesephenomenaarerealthings,comparablewithoneanother,andthemeasuresemployedareindicatorsofthem.Thereare few comparativists today, however, who would confess such a simple-mindedmethodology,andsophisticatedvariationsonitareavailable(King et al., 1994) but many comparative investigators proceed as thoughthey believe in it.Thefrequentlyvoicedobjectiontothishard-scienceapproachisthatthe things being compared are not comparable and the indicators are un-realisticbecausethecomparativecontextsinwhichtheyareembeddedaresodifferent.Forexample,yearsofschoolingasanindicatorofeducationallevelisanotoriouslyinaccuratemeasure,evenforOECDcountries for which comparisons are made, to say nothing of countries inAsiaand Africa,becauseofthegreatvariationsineducationalsystems,International Sociology Vol. 18 No. 464601 Smelser (bc/t)27/10/031:15 pmPage 646 at Frontier Lib on December 4, 2012 iss.sagepub.com Downloaded from theireducationalphilosophies,theirstructuringbylevels,andtheircurriculaandmethodsofinstruction.Inaword,variationsincontextdestroy both the reliability and validity of common comparative measures.Ifpressed,thisargumentaboutcontextendsattheextremeofradicalrelativism,atwhichnothingcanbecompared.Oneexpressionofthispositionwasarticulatedby Americananthropologistsinthersthalfofthe20thcentury(Benedict[1934]ismostcommonlycited)undertheheadingofculturalrelativism.Itsanimuswasanassaultonthemoralethnocentrismofthosewhodescribedandevaluatedthevalueandcultural systems of other societies through western eyes. Their preferredalternativetothiswasanappreciativemethodology.Theyinsistedthatotherculturesmoralvalueswerelodgedinqualitativelydifferentcontexts, and that they had their own internal integrity. More recently, amoreradicalrelativismhasmadeitsappearanceinconnectionwiththegeneral postmodernist drift. The anthropological cultural relativists nevermountedanassaultagainstempiricalinquiry,butthepostmodernistimpulse,withitsfocusontheintegrityoftheotheranditsassaultonessentialismhasintroducedanepistemological relativismandananti-scienticassaultonthepossibilityofobjectiveempiricalunderstandingand explanation.Historically, there have been swings between the positivistic and rela-tivisticmodes.Intheoptimisticsocialscienceatmosphereofthe1950sand into the 1960s, positivism reasserted itself in the cross-national studiesofeconomic,politicalandsocialdevelopment,manyofwhichseemsomewhatnaiveinretrospect.Thepasttwodecadeshavewitnessedadenitedrifttowardtherelativistic.CharlesRaginhasrecentlyarguedthat in the last third of the 20th century there was a decline of interest inmacrosociologicaltheoryinsociology;acorrespondingdeclineincomparativeresearchbasedonthesearchforthebigpicture;anincreased emphasis on historical case studies (he calls it a historical turn);andanincreaseinemphasisoncapturingthemeaningsandunder-standingoftheactorsbeingstudied(aculturalturn).Thismakesforagreater salience of clinical theory and methods, and a more personal andless collective approach to theory and understanding. Armed with thesediagnoses, Ragin sees the need to integrate and synthesize the results ofcasestudyresearch,andtoexploremoredeeplyintowhatmakesforagood case study. (Ragin, 2000).If we accept Ragins diagnosis, which I am inclined to do, we must alsonotethatthesedevelopmentshavegeneratedsomemethodologicalmischiefforcomparativeanalysis.Iacknowledgethevalueofthecaseas a way of achieving descriptive depth, richness of analysis and contex-tualizationofexplanations.Atthesametimetostaywithcasesalsoconstitutesatemptationtomoveinananti-scienticdirection.IarguedSmelser On Comparative Analysis in Sociology64701 Smelser (bc/t)27/10/031:15 pmPage 647 at Frontier Lib on December 4, 2012 iss.sagepub.com Downloaded from earlierthatdescription,includingthatofanindividualcase,without(atleastimplicit)comparisonisanimpossibility.Byeschewingtheoryandennoblingthecase,theinvestigatortendstosweepunderthecarpetorotherwise obscure a number of salient issues in comparative social scienceanalysis.Theculturalturninstructsustofocusonthemeaningsandunder-standings that shape the actions of those we study. Such advice is unob-jectionable.However,insofarasthisinvitesustoturnawayfrompreviouslyprivilegedemphasesonstructuralrealitiesandquantitativeindices,italsotendstoeliminateordowngradevaluableresourcesforcomparative study. I believe that at this stage of our thinking, most socialscientistshavecometoendorsethevalidviewthatthebestmethodo-logicalstrategyincomparativestudyistogainafootholdwhereverwecan.Thismeansrelyingonmultiplekindsofdataandmethodsquan-titative and qualitative, hard and soft, objective and intuitive and usingand weighing all of them in an effort to improve our understandings andexplanations.Asshouldbeclear,IdonotshareRaginsstrategyofexploitingandelaborating cases as a preferred methodological resolution of the tensionbetween the positivistic and relativistic poles. I outline my own methodo-logicalpositionpresently.Beforedoingso,however,Imustmakeonemore point. In the history of comparative study emanating from the 19thcentury,socialscientistshavenotbeengenerousorappreciativetothenon-westernworldintermsoftheirchoiceofcomparativecategories.Irefer to the use of terms such as primitive, savage, barbaric, the termi-nology of 19th-century anthropologists. The subsequent terms of simple,traditional,custom-bound,underdeveloped,lessdeveloped,evendeveloping and new are not much better. They suffer from two faults.Therstismoralethnocentrism,bothbecauseallthesetermscontrastother societies with something better to be found in the West. The secondisthefaultofoversimplication,becausetheycompressrichworldsofvariability and complexity into gross and unappreciative categories. Evenmore recent and precise comparative terms such as bureaucracy (inher-ited from Weber), differentiation (inherited from Spencer and Durkheim)andcivilsociety(inheritedfromHegelandTocqueville)havethewestern experience as their point of origin and reference.Itmightbeargued,infact,thatcomparativeanalysis,rightuptothepresent,isakindofimpositionofwesterncategoriesonnon-westernsocieties.Thevastpredominanceofcomparativesocialsciencethinkingcontinues to be generated in the West, and brought to the rest of the worldbyourownscholarlyworkandbythementalitiesofthosefrom thosesocietieswhohavelearnedwesternsocialscience.IdonotnecessarilyinterpretthisastheresultofadeliberatehegemonicorimperialistInternational Sociology Vol. 18 No. 464801 Smelser (bc/t)27/10/031:15 pmPage 648 at Frontier Lib on December 4, 2012 iss.sagepub.com Downloaded from program. However, I do regard it as an objective historical fact, to be takenintoaccountinourprogrammaticthinkingaboutcomparativesocialscience.Now to turn to my own view on proper comparative analysis and theproperstrategiestopursueit. Asmightbesuspected,Itakeleavefromboth the positivist and the relativist extremes, the rst because it is a mis-guidedmethodologyforcomparisons,thesecondbecauseitisamisguidedextensionofavalidcritiquetoapointofanti-scientismandmethodologicalparalysis.Tocarveapathbetweentheseextremesis,however,notamatterofennoblingcasestudies,asRaginargued,norasimple compromise between two principles. The strategy I would offer istosystematizethecontext ofcomparisons,bothwithrespecttoselectingcomparative indices (measurements) and with respect to explaining compara-tivesimilaritiesanddifferences.Theconnotationsofsystematizingthecontext are not self-evident, so I must make them more specic.Withrespecttoindices,thisisthefamiliarproblemofequivalence,orcomparabilityofmeasuresindifferentnational,societalandculturalsettings.Ithasbeentheproblemthathasplaguedeconomistseffortstogeneratecomparativemeasuresofworldwideincomelevels,politicalscientists efforts to nd indices such as voting rates to or political opinionstomeasurepoliticalparticipation.Idonotwishtosuggestthatsocialscientists have been altogether naive about the problem of equivalence ofmeasures.Comparativepsychologists,forexample,havemadeimagin-ative use of what they believe to be relatively culture-free projective tests,andhavedevisedelaborateschemesofback-translatingsurveyques-tionstoachievecommonmeaning.Someeconomistsandothershavemade efforts to develop estimates of non-monetized aspects of work andvalue,and,inparticular,havetakenaninterestinincludingnon-paidfamily work into international comparisons.The effort to reduce problems of equivalence of measures rests on twomethodologicalprinciples.Therstisthatveryseldomshouldsocialscientists select and use the same apparent measure in multiple compara-tive settings. This is a great blow to the positivist enterprise, though notnecessarily a fatal one. The cases in which the same measure can be used for example, voting rates as an index of political participation are thosein which the countries involved in the comparisons are near cases, thatishavelegalarrangements,electoralsystems,partystructuresandpoliticalculturesthatarethemselvessimilartooneanother,sothatvoting means more or less the same thing in them. Correspondingly, thesensitivecomparativeanalystmightdowelltocomparevotingturnoutamong regions of a single constitutional system to maximize comparability.Similarly, years of schooling as level of educational attainment are appro-priateorapproximatelysoinsocietieswithsimilarsystemsofmassSmelser On Comparative Analysis in Sociology64901 Smelser (bc/t)27/10/031:15 pmPage 649 at Frontier Lib on December 4, 2012 iss.sagepub.com Downloaded from education.Theoccasionsonwhichthislogicholds,however,arefew.Takingthevastvariationofalmosteverythinginthepanoplyofworldcultures and societies, there are few near cases, and those units thoughtto be near are not really all that near. So the comparative rule of thumbshould usually be multiple measures for the same thing (see Przeworskiand Tuene, 1970).The second principle is that the search for equivalent indices ought itselftobeanindependentprocessofcomparativeresearch.Measuresofpoliticalparticipation, for example, are themselves products generated by complexpoliticalprocesses,andtheseprocessesdiffergreatlybycontext.So,thetaskistodetermineinitiallywhatwemean,conceptuallyandtheoreti-cally, by political participation, then to determine what various manifes-tations this participation can take voting, civic inuence in political life,patterns of informal inuence, to name a few according to our determi-nation,andthen toconductasystematicsurveysothatproper,usuallycomposite measures of the many-faceted phenomenon of political partici-pationcanbedevised.Theparadoxisthatequivalence ofindicesisbestachieved by seeking different indices for the same phenomenon in differentsettings.Iamafraidthattoadvisepainstakingcomparativeresearchtoestab-lishequivalentmeasureswillnotbewelcomenewstothearmyofcomparativesocialscientistsoftheworld.Accordingtoourpreferredways of thinking and our established systems of academic rewards itisnotaresoundingvictorytopublishajournalarticleannouncingthatanequivalentcomparativemeasurehasbeeninventedandestablished.We and our audiences are too hungry for results in the form of substan-tive ndings more revealing than this. Never mind, I will give the adviceanyway,becausethecostofignoringitistoproduceinadequateandpossibly misleading results of comparative research.Once trustworthy comparative indices have been established, compara-tiveanalysisthenmovestothecomplextaskofgeneratingaccountsorexplanations of comparative differences. Staying with the political partici-pationexample,differencesmaybefoundtotracetodifferencesinpoliticaltoleranceorrepressionbyaregime,differencesintraditionsofandattitudestowardauthority,levelsofculturaloptimism,culturalpessimismandculturalcynicism.Determiningandmeasuringsuchcauses, I might add, raise all the same issues of establishing the equival-ence of these explanatory variables as determining the explananda of levelsof political participation in the rst place.ThisiswhatImeanbysystematizingthecontextofcomparativeanalysis.Itcallsformorepainstakinglaborthanwehavebeenaccus-tomed to exerting. One nal point: in carrying forward such a program,it would seem the best policy is not to adhere to the positivist exhortationInternational Sociology Vol. 18 No. 465001 Smelser (bc/t)27/10/031:15 pmPage 650 at Frontier Lib on December 4, 2012 iss.sagepub.com Downloaded from by Durkheim that in social life a single effect has a single, correspondingcause.YouwillrecallthatinenunciatingthisprincipleDurkheimwastakingissuewithJohnStuartMillsdictumthatasingle,commoneffectmayhavemultiple,differentcauses.Incomparativeanalysisweshouldexpect, for example, different complexes of causes for similar and differentrates and patterns of political participation and any other social phenom-enon we are investigating. This follows from my insistence on systemati-cally taking into account contexts in generating indices and explanations.These contexts are evidently so varied from case to case that they lead usto expect different combinations and permutations of causes as they workout comparatively.To conclude this section, I venture a few tentative remarks on the issueofclassication ofsocialtypesincomparativecontext.Itisanissueonwhich both Durkheim (typology by cause, as in the case of egoistic, altru-isticandanomicsuicide)andWeber(idealtypes,orselectivehighlight-ingofsalientandrecurringcharacteristicsofempiricalphenomena)addressed.Contextual classicationsmayalsobeidentied.Sometypologiesremainasinstancesderivedfromcrudeandundifferentiatedidenti-cationofbroadnationalcontextsforexample,theAmerican,French,Russian,Chinese,Mexicanandotherrevolutions;ortheclassicationofprecolonial,colonialandpostcolonialnationalism.Othersidentifythemainagentsinvolved,asinmilitary,bourgeois,proletarian,orpeasantrevolution.My suggestion is that the kind of painstaking and disciplined identi-cation of the context of both outcomes and determinants might yield moreadequate comparative classications than those with which we now work.Tostaywiththerunningexampleofpoliticalparticipation,onelineofclassifying would be to produce a multidimensional grid of types accord-ing to:(1) thelevelofrepressivenessofpoliticalregimesinthecontextofwhichpoliticalparticipationoccursrangingfromextremelytotalitariantoextremely democratic, with a variety of intermediate types;(2) stability of political regime; and(3) organizational context of participation elections, institutionalized parties,informalparties,opensocialmovements,clandestinesocialmovements,informal inuence, underground cells.Suchagridmightalsoincludeadynamicelementaswell,onethatspeciesrecentdirectionofchangesinlevelofopennessorrepression,suddennessofchange,andpriororganizationalformsofpoliticalpar-ticipation.Suchsuggestionsonmypartareonlypreliminary,buttheyillustratethatsuchdistinctionsnotonlypointthewaytowardwhattoSmelser On Comparative Analysis in Sociology65101 Smelser (bc/t)27/10/031:15 pmPage 651 at Frontier Lib on December 4, 2012 iss.sagepub.com Downloaded from measure as political participation but also to produce a schema of its prin-cipal types.InterdisciplinarityThirty-ve years ago Paul Lazarsfeld ask me to write an opening chaptertitledSociologyandtheOtherSocialSciencesforhispresidentialbookontheusesofsociology(Smelser,1967).A coupleofyearslaterIwasaskedtowriteanessayoutliningthefundamentalcoreandboundariesof sociology as a discipline. In the boldness and optimism to say nothingoftherecklessnessofyouth,Iundertookbothtasks.IntheformerIoutlinedthebasicvariablesandparameters,fundamentalassumptions,theoreticalstructureandmethodologiesofanthropology,economics,politicalscience,psychologyandsociologyanddevisedaninterdisci-plinary concept of complementary articulation among them. In the latteressay (Smelser, 1969) I went into greater depth with respect to sociology,outlining its core dependent and explanatory variables around my under-standings of demography, social psychology, groups, social structure andculture.Iwassufcientlyintouchwithreality,however,toknowthatIwas not dealing with a neat world. I described sociology, for example, asbeing soft in the center and fuzzy around the edges (Smelser, 1969: 5).Theexercisewasandisnotwithoutvalue,andIamgladIdidit.However,IcantestifythatifIwereaskedtoundertakethattasknow,Iwoulddoitverydifferentlyandcertainlywithlesscondence.Partofthis change in my outlook stems, no doubt, with a mellowing of my ownpersonal outlook over 35 years of life. The major change, however, has todowiththedisciplinesthemselves.Ifmycharacterizationswereimpre-ciseinthe1960s,theywouldbeimmeasurablymoresotoday.Allthesocialandbehavioralsciences,noneexcepted,haveloststructureonaccountoftheirincreasedinternaldifferentiationofsubelds;theirdiversicationoftheoreticalandsubparadigms;theirimportationandexportationofconcepts,modelsandmethods;andtheirhybridization,which melds elements from several disciplines and creates a new branchofinquiry.Wholenewmultidisciplinaryelds,ifnotdisciplines,havearisenandcrystallizedurbanstudiesandplanning,evolutionarystudies,organizationandmanagementstudies,mediaandcommuni-cationstudies,environmentalscience,andgenderstudies,tonamethemost obvious. Many of these are byproducts of the march of knowledge,butfundamentalconictwithinthedisciplinessociologythemostconspicuous example has played its role as well.In the mid-1990s, Donald Levine (1994) surveyed this scene and threwhishandsupindespair.Heregardedthedisciplinesasbeinginastateofsiege.HecitedallthedevelopmentsIjustmentioned,andalsoInternational Sociology Vol. 18 No. 465201 Smelser (bc/t)27/10/031:15 pmPage 652 at Frontier Lib on December 4, 2012 iss.sagepub.com Downloaded from proclaimed the collapse of the familiar narratives positivist, pluralistic,syntheticandhumanistic. Asawayoutofthechaos,hecalledfornewprinciplesformappingourintellectualuniverse(Levine,1994:293).Hearguedthat[thedisciplines]willprobablyremainsourcesofmalaiseunlesswemanagetoformulatemoreappropriatebasesfor[theircharters], including a reconstructed narrative that afrms the identity ofthose who follow them (Levine, 1994: 294).I do not accept Levines extremism. Certain distinctive disciplinary fociremain, and most practitioners do not have any trouble identifying them-selves by disciplinary names, even though the intellectual ground undertheirfeetyearlybecomessofterandlesssteady.Furthermore,theforcesof organizational and budgetary inertia of our departments, universities,research units and academies are such that I cannot witness many recon-structivenarrativeswithpossibilitiesforanewidentityemergingfromthem.Iamafraidthescenarioofsomewhattiredrecitationsoftheoldnarratives is more likely.Be all this as it may, it is true that the more shapeless disciplines become,thelesscertainwebecomeaboutwhatinterdisciplinarymeansandentails. My idea of complementary articulation of separate, organized anddistinct disciplinary entities seems to have lost much of the force it mightonce have had. The boundaries of most disciplines have become so perme-ableandindistinct,andsomuchexportationandimportationhasoccurred that if one ranges widely in his or her discipline, one is being ineffectinterdisciplinary.Economicsmaycomeclosesttobeingtheexcep-tion to this, but the degree to which it has opened up to ideas from law,psychologyandorganizationaltheorymeansthatithaslostmuchofitsneoclassical core.Let me now return to the main theme, and to the link between compara-tivestudyandinterdisciplinarywork.Ifweacceptmydiagnosisandrecommendations for comparative study as systematizing the contexts ofbothdescriptiveindicesandexplanatoryvariables,theanswerseemsabundantlyclear.Thestructuresofsocietiesdonotcomeinneatdisci-plinarypackages. Almostallconcretesocialevents,situationsandinsti-tutions are constituted in a seamless web of economic, political, social andcultural aspects. If we are to understand context, we are forced to be inter-disciplinary.Toreturntomyrunningexampleofpoliticalparticipation:if one is to construct a proper measure of this, one has to become a studentnotonlyofpoliticaldecision-making,butalsoofsocialclass,voluntaryorganizations,socialmovements,familystructureandperhapsreligiousorganization. If one next turns to the job of explaining differences in theserates,theinterdisciplinarytaskisevenmoreformidable.Iwouldgosofarastosaythatifweconductcomparativeanalysisproperly,oneisforced,bynecessity,tobeinterdisciplinary.IapologizeformakingmySmelser On Comparative Analysis in Sociology65301 Smelser (bc/t)27/10/031:15 pmPage 653 at Frontier Lib on December 4, 2012 iss.sagepub.com Downloaded from casesoneatandbrief,butthelogicofinvestigationforcesmetothatconclusion.InternationalizationLetmenowturntothethirdpillarofmyanalysis,internationalization.YouwillrememberthatItookformydenitionknowledgethathasgeneral validity across national and regional lines. I intend to make refer-ence to the notions of comparative analysis and interdisciplinarity devel-oped in the preceding sections, but I also make some references to currentobstacles to creating such knowledge.Please recall my earlier, focused denition of the internationalization ofknowledge:social-scienticknowledgethatisbroadlyvalidandappli-cablewithoutreferencetonationalorotherboundaries.Itismorethancomparative explanations of similarities and differences. It is the develop-mentofcategories,insights,frameworks,propositions,modelsandtheoriesthatencompass andexplain individualbehaviorandsocialprocessesthesubjectmatterwithwhichwedealonageneralbasis.Youwillexcusemeifthisformulationsoundsold-fashionedandharksback to models of social science now regarded as naive and discredited.But that kind of knowledge is the aspiration for the social sciences, evenif it is probably not fully attainable.Such knowledge is attainable, it seems to me, mainly through collabora-tiveinternationalworkthatisinformedbybothrigoroustheoreticalformulationsandsystematicempiricalwork.Itpresupposesbothvalidcomparative study and interdisciplinary work, for the reasons developedearlier in these remarks. Given the limitations of current social science, itpresupposes a process of selectively replacing, modifying and extendingour current models of understanding and explanation. It also presupposesamutuality,parityandequalityamongscholarsfromdifferentnations,and a derived inclusiveness and integrity of different subject matters, nomatter where these societies are situated in the system of the internationaldivision of labor, power hierarchy, or system of prestige. All variations ofhumanlifeandsocietymust countequallybecausetheyare variations,andcannotbetreatedaslessdevelopedversionsofsomethingelseorotherwise distorted or implicitly value laden.Thesepresuppositionsnoted,itshouldalsobenotedthattheprocessbywhichinterdisciplinaryknowledgeisattainedisnotbyseekinganinclusive common denominator, or some kind of averaging, or by a demo-craticallyarrivedatconsensuswithallpartieshavinganequalvoteorvoice.Itisarrivedatbyrigorouswork,preferablycollaborativeacrossnational,regionalandculturallinesandguidedbythecanonsandmethodology of the social-scientic enterprise. Some may argue that theInternational Sociology Vol. 18 No. 465401 Smelser (bc/t)27/10/031:15 pmPage 654 at Frontier Lib on December 4, 2012 iss.sagepub.com Downloaded from canonsofthesocial-scienticenterprisearethemselvesbiasedinsomewayandthatothertypesofknowledgemustbeattained.Iamopentosuch an argument but do not embrace it, and suspect that those who dowill experience difculty in producing reliable international knowledge.Suchisthemodelforproducinginternationallyvalidknowledge.Iregarditassimultaneouslycorrectandutopian.Becauseofthelatter,Icannotconcludewithoutenumeratingseveralcontemporarybarrierstothe pursuit of internationally valid knowledge.Therstobstacleisaderivativeofethnocentrism.Itreferstothefactthat there is no known society that does not develop a theory perhapsbetter, a story about its origin, its distinctive features, its place in natureanditspeopleandtheirgroupornationalcharacter. Allsocietiesinventtheirownfolkeconomics,politicalscience,sociologyandpsychologyaboutthemselves.Throughoutmostofhistorysuchaccountshavenotbeenverysystematicandhaveconsistedofcomplexcongeriesofmyth,superstition, religious belief and common sense. The development of thebehavioral and social sciences has replaced much of this, but behavioralandsocialscientiststhroughouttheworldfocusontheirownsocieties.Furthermore,asoftenasnottheytakeacharacteristicprideinthiskindofknowledgeandconferspecialprivilegeonit.Thisfactwaspainfullyunderscored in my own experience as co-editor-in-chief of the new Inter-nationalEncyclopediaoftheSocialandBehavioralSciences.PaulBaltes,myco-editor,andIwerecommittedabovealltomakethisaninternationalenterprise,anddideverythingwecouldtomaximizetheinternationalrepresentation of authors. But in reality, the success we had in this effortwas offset by a corresponding struggle to avoid parochial accounts on thepart of authors from all nations and regions represented.The second obstacle refers to certain cultural and cognitive limitationsofinvestigators.Thispointhastwofacets,mutuallycontradictory.Therst is that those who have been socialized into a given culture and societyaretheonlyoneswhocantrulyunderstandit.Thispositionhashadanumber of different formulations, the most recent of which is standpointtheory. The contrary aspect of the point is that those who have been thussocialized are blind to the understanding of their own, because so muchofitisunconscious,taken-for-grantedornot-to-be-discussedthelastcreature to discover water is the sh. In keeping with this version, it tookan outsider, de Tocqueville, to develop such insights about America, andingeneral,foreignerscanunderstandthingsthatnativescannot.Ontheotherhand,foreigners,beingforeign,cannotgetinsideinthewaynativescan,andsomustalwaysexperiencearesidueofignoranceandperplexity. The most striking fact about these points is that both are simul-taneouslyrightandwrong.Thatfact,moreover,constitutestomymindthestrongestargumentforinternationalcollaboration,becauseitisSmelser On Comparative Analysis in Sociology65501 Smelser (bc/t)27/10/031:15 pmPage 655 at Frontier Lib on December 4, 2012 iss.sagepub.com Downloaded from throughthatavenuethatthestrengthsofbothprinciplescanbemaxi-mized and the weaknesses minimized through constant exploration andenlightenment.Theweightofourowninfrastructureofscienticknowledge,bothinherited and contemporary, is skewed. I mentioned earlier the western-centrichistoricaldevelopmentofsocialscience,includingcomparativeanalysis, and despite a good deal of enlightenment, this remains the case.The vast bulk of social science still continues to be done in North AmericaandEurope,andmanyofthosewhobecomeleadingscientistsinotherparts of the world have come and will come to North America and Europeto gain their training and ways of thinking, and not the other way around.Theforcescurrentlyworkingtoreinforceandevenintensifythisasym-metry are inordinately stronger than any counter-tendencies.Similarly and nally, current organizational and political infrastructureswork mainly to augment the parochialization of knowledge. The pursuitofgeneralsocialscienceisforeversubvertedbynationalprioritiesandneedsforknowledgebythefactthatitismainlylocallyassessedandrewarded, despite the force of international recognition. By virtue of this,thegenerationofbothcomparativeandinternationalknowledgeisinhibited. We must not exempt our own international organizations fromthese tendencies, for, despite the fact that they are committed in principleto internationalization and collaboration, in practice they are hobbled bynationally and regionally based competition and struggles for recognitionandrespectaswellasinternationalcollaboration.Internationalorganiz-ationssuchasours,moreover,are,liketheirnationalcounterparts,discipline based and do not give any special priority to interdisciplinarywork.AConcluding RemarkI regard my remarks in this article to be a mixture of hope and realism. Iam convinced that the articulations among comparative, interdisciplinaryandinternationalworkaresoundandviable,butatthesametimetheintellectual and scientic priorities under which we have come to live andcontinue to live constitute such formidable obstacles to the realization ofthisprogramthatwewillnotwitnesssignicantprogresstowarditinany of our lifetimes.ReferencesBenedict, Ruth (1934) Patterns of Culture. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifin.Durkheim, Emile (1949) The Division of Labor in Society, Book 1, Ch. 2, trans. GeorgeSimpson. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. (Orig. pub. 1891.) International Sociology Vol. 18 No. 465601 Smelser (bc/t)27/10/031:15 pmPage 656 at Frontier Lib on December 4, 2012 iss.sagepub.com Downloaded from Inkeles, AlexandSmith,David(1974)BecomingModern:IndividualChangeinSixDeveloping Countries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O. and Verba, Sidney (1994) Designing Social Inquiry:ScienticEvidenceinQualitativeResearch.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.Levine, Donald N. (1994) Visions of the Sociological Tradition. Chicago, IL: Universityof Chicago Press.Przeworski, Adam and Tuene, Henry (1970) The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry.New York: Wiley.Ragin,Charles(2000)ThePlacesofCase-StudyResearch,ComparativeandHistoricalSociology (NewsletteroftheComparativeandHistoricalSociologysection of the American Sociological Association) 13(1): 12.Smelser, Neil J. (1967) Sociology and the Other Social Sciences, in Paul F. Lazars-feld,WilliamH.SewellandHaroldL.Wilensky(eds)TheUsesofSociology,pp. 344. New York: Basic Books. Smelser, Neil J. (1969) The Optimum Scope of Sociology, in Robert Bierstedt (ed.)ADesign for Sociology: Scope, Objectives and Methods, pp. 121. Philadelphia: TheAmerican Academy of Political and Social Sciences. Biographical Note: Neil J. Smelser is the recipient of the rst Mattei Dogan Prizein2002.HeservedontheSociologyFacultyoftheUniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley from 1958 to 1994 and was director of the Center for Advanced Studyin the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, from 1994 to 2001. He has served as vice-presidentoftheInternationalSociological Association(19904)andpresidentof the American Sociological Association (1997).Address:DepartmentofSociology,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,CA 94720,USA. [email: nsmelser@uclink.berkeley.edu]Smelser On Comparative Analysis in Sociology65701 Smelser (bc/t)27/10/031:15 pmPage 657 at Frontier Lib on December 4, 2012 iss.sagepub.com Downloaded from