International Journal of Comparative Sociology

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smith, D. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
International Journal of Comparative Sociology, Vol. 32, No. 1-2, 39-58 (1991)
DOI: 10.1177/002071529103200103

Method and Theory In Comparative Urban Studies

David A. Smith

Department of Sociology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92717, U.S.A.

There is a sharp methodological division in comparative urban research between quantita tive and qualitative research. This paper explores the relationship between these contrasting research strategies, theoretical assumptions, and empirical results. It begins by defining what is meant by urbanization and reviewing the contending theories of cities and macrostructural change. A section on methods in comparative urban research sketches out the different research generas and provides examples of each. I argue that there has been a paradigm shift in compara tive urban research (mirroring wider theoretical currents in macrosociology) toward a frame work rooted in international political economy. Qualitative case studies of problems of par ticular Third World cities and urban systems were instrumental in debunking the developmentalist assumptions of the old "modernization theory"/ecological approach. If qualitative work helps to develop new theoretical insights, the strength of quantitative studies is that they force scholars to explicitly specify fuzzy concepts in a rigorous "operationalizable" manner. Despite its higher prestige in social science in the United States, some statistical analysis is limited by a tendency to simply "test" competing hypotheses, instead of building more fully elaborated nuanced models. Nevertheless, comparative urban research needs to rec ognize the strengths of both methodological strategies-both are valuable tools to understand cities and urban systems. Real advances in the comparative study of cities will only come if researchers using disparate methods recognize this and work to integrate their findings in an effort to build a synthetic theory of comparative urbanization.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Peace ResearchHome page
J. Auvinen
Political Conflict in Less Developed Countries 1981-89
Journal of Peace Research, May 1, 1997; 34(2): 177 - 195.
[Abstract]