Composite and Loose Concepts, Historical Analogies, and the Logic of Control in Comparative Historical Analysis

Jørgen Møller

Sociological Methods & Research, 2016, vol. 45, issue 4, 651-677

Abstract: The use of controlled comparisons pervades comparative historical analysis. Heated debates have surrounded the methodological purchase of such comparisons. However, the quality and validity of the conceptual building blocks on which the comparisons are based have largely been ignored. This article discusses a particular problem pertaining to these issues, that is, the danger of creating false historical analogies that do not serve to control for relevant explanatory factors. It is argued that this danger increases when we use composite (thick) concepts that are aggregated via a (loose) family resemblance logic. It is demonstrated that this problem seriously affects the way the concept of feudalism has entered comparative historical analysis. On this basis, an alternative conceptual strategy—centered on teasing out the core attributes of thick and loose concepts—is proposed.

Keywords: composite concepts; historical analogies; comparative control; comparative historical analysis; feudalism (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124115578031 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:somere:v:45:y:2016:i:4:p:651-677

DOI: 10.1177/0049124115578031

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Sociological Methods & Research
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().