





































Microsoft Word - ELSR-V1N1-p1.docx


Education, Language and Sociology Research 
ISSN 2690-3644 (Print) ISSN 2690-3652 (Online) 

Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr 

1 
 

Short Paper 

Comparison in Sociology 

Sandro Serpa1,2,3* & Daniela Soares4 
1 Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, University of the Azores, Portugal 
2 Interdisciplinary Centre of Social Sciences, CICS.UAc/CICS.NOVA.UAc 
3 Interdisciplinary Centre for Childhood and Adolescence, NICA-UAc 
4 Interdisciplinary Centre of Social Sciences, CICS.NOVA 
* Sandro Serpa, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, University of the 

Azores, Portugal 

 

Received: February 7, 2020    Accepted: February 15, 2020   Online Published: February 22, 2020 

doi:10.22158/elsr.v1n1p1       URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elsr.v1n1p1 

 

Abstract 

The relationship between comparison and sociology is a fundamental motive when deepening the forms 

of sociological research. This paper aims to contribute to the analysis of the importance of comparison, 

in several possible forms, in the creation and consolidation of sociological knowledge. To accomplish 

this goal, a documental collection and analysis of manuscripts deemed essential was carried out based 

on the snowball system, in which the reading of manuscripts referred to other manuscripts that, by their 

mobilization, seemed crucial on this topic. It is concluded that comparison is a process that is always 

present and it is essential in sociology, although sometimes in a more explicit way, and other times in a 

more implicit way. 

Keywords 

sociology, comparison, sociological analysis, comparative sociology, social sciences, scientific 

knowledge 

 

1. Introduction 

The process of comparison in sociology is a fundamental reason when deepening the forms of 

sociological research. According to Derivry (1990), “The comparison is a fortiori the universal stance 

of all scientific knowledge” (p. 45). 

Sociology can be considered, for the purposes of this text, as “a scientific discipline that perceives in its 

specific way the social reality, producing plural theoretical topics, formulating research problems 

within the context of these topics, and developing methodical strategies that guide empirical research” 

(Ferreira & Serpa, 2017, p. 1), based on the key classical rule defined by Émile Durkheim in 1895—to 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

2 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

explain the social by the social (Durkheim, 1982; Aron, 1994; Cruz, 1989; Paiva, 2014). As an example 

of the importance of this founding rule of sociology, Charles Wright Mills (2000) sustains that 

“abstracted empiricists are systematically a-historical and non-comparative; they deal with small-scale 

areas and they incline to psychologism” (p. 138), as “the attempt to explain social phenomena in terms 

of facts and theories about the make-up of individuals” (p. 67). 

This paper aims to contribute to the analysis of the importance of comparison, in various possible 

forms, in the creation of sociological knowledge. To accomplish this goal, a documental collection and 

analysis of manuscripts deemed essential was carried out based on the snowball system, in which the 

reading of manuscripts referred to other manuscripts that, by their mobilization, seemed crucial on this 

topic. 

 

2. Comparison in Sociological Research 

For Derivry (1990), comparison as a method results from a cognitive process through which one seeks 

to understand a phenomenon by analyzing and confronting different situations where it is recorded, and 

Sociology, like the other social sciences, has a comparative dimension, both at a theoretical and an 

empirical level (Mills, 2000). 

Durkheim (1982) maintained that when the production of facts that are generated spontaneously is alien 

to the observer’s intervention, we are faced with the use of the direct experimentation method or the 

comparative method, as opposed to situations in which phenomena are artificially produced by the 

observer. In this case, we are dealing with the experimentation method. The author also mentions that 

Sociology seeks to explain phenomena through the effects of causality, and since social phenomena 

eliminate any form of control by the researcher, the comparative method remains the most appropriate 

method for Sociology (Durkheim, 1982). 

According to Derivry (1990), the comparison in sociological research can take on two forms: a) 

comparison of concrete situations in different spaces and/or times; and b) comparison with a theoretical 

model. These two possibilities will be analyzed below. 

2.1 Comparison of Concrete Situations in Different Spaces and/or Times 

Malcolm (2015), analyzing the role of comparison in sociological analysis of sports history, offers an 

excellent synthesis of the potential of this comparison of concrete situations in different spaces and/or 

times. Building on Durkheim’s proposal, the author argues that the comparison could take on three 

types: intra-societal, inter-societal or cross-species, emphasizing the importance that, whenever 

possible, this comparison should cover a wider scale to enhance its heuristic capacity. 

Malcolm (2015) concludes that Sociology seeks to explain phenomena through the effects of causality, 

and since social phenomena eliminate any form of control by the researcher, the comparative method 

remains the most appropriate for Sociology. However, it is essential for Sociology not to lose a 

historical orientation (Charrad, 2006; Ferreira & Serpa, 2019), as well as a fruitful relationship of 

dialogue between scientific disciplines. Serpa, Ferreira, and Santos (2017) advocate that “Our goal 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

3 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

should be the synthesis of understanding of higher and lower levels of generality and fundamental to 

this is the extensive use of comparison” (p. 1811). 

Specifically regarding the relationship between Sociology and History, the sociological analysis seeks 

to point out the uniformities and repetitions of social phenomena, as well as the verified correlations, 

whereas historical analysis aims to gather relevant information that enables the understanding of a 

specific event that is unique and unrepeatable. Ferrarotti (1986, cit. in Ferreira & Serpa, 2019) contends 

that: 

The sociological analysis would aim, through the verification of the hypotheses, to identify in 

social phenomena what is uniform and repeatable, to identify the existence of certain 

correlations between two series of phenomena. In turn, the historical analysis would aim to 

accrue, by examining sources and document reconstruction, significant data that allows the 

understanding of a specific, unique and unrepeatable event (p. 113). 

In a synthesis, Mills (2000) claims that “we must study the available range of social structures, 

including the historical as well as the contemporary. If we do not take into account the range, which 

does not of course mean all existing cases, our statements cannot be empirically adequate. […] 

Comparative study and historical study are very deeply involved with each other” (p. 147, p. 150). 

2.2 Comparison to a Theoretical Model 

The comparison can also be made through the confrontation with a theoretical model, such as the ideal 

type proposed by Max Weber in 1904 (Serpa, 2018; Swedberg, 2017) that is still mobilized today in 

social sciences, although sometimes not in a systematic way (Oliverio, 2020; Swedberg, 2017). 

About the ideal-type as research strategy (Paiva, 2014; Aron, 1989; Bhambra, 2016), as a specific type 

of comparison (for an excellent discussion, see Swedberg, 2017), Schnapper (2000) maintains that it is 

“A simplified and schematic framework of the object of research, with which systematic observation of 

the real [...] must be confronted” (p. 30), by a typological analysis through the “stylization or 

accentuation of essential features […], [which] allows for the synthesis of research acquisitions in order 

to extract the fundamental characteristics or to elaborate an abstract model with which the ducts can be 

compared” (p. 35). According to Oliverio (2020), the use of the ideal type, “Conceived as a 

non-normative form of conceptualization finalized to simplify and reduce external social world 

complexity, […] allows the organization of an increasing knowledge acquaintance” (p. 1). The author 

further argues that “Ideal types are in practice pure constructs of causal relations that the researcher 

conceives as objectively probable and causally adequate on the strength of his/her nomological 

knowledge, while assuming an ‘active’ role in the rational interpretative process” (Oliverio, 2020, p. 3). 

As indicated by Swedberg (2017), it is necessary to make a comparison between the ideal type and the 

phenomenon under analysis. This means putting the ideal type and reality face to face. If the 

differences between the two are significant, the ideal type must be adjusted or, as Weber reiterates, 

these differences must be explained. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

4 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

In summary, in this situation, the comparison is made between the ideal type as an ideal construction 

through the delimitation of a set of extreme characteristics and the empirical information obtained from 

the reality actually observed (Oliverio, 2020), taking into consideration that “there is the need to select 

some specific dimensions of the object, with relevance and rigorous justification, being careful to 

neither over-simplify reality, nor bring complexity to it, to the point that this concept becomes 

unintelligible and without heuristic ability” (Serpa, 2018, p. 1). 

 

3. Conclusion 

Considering what has been put forth in this article, the comparison is, then, crucial to sociological 

knowledge (Budiana, Otsuka, & Yoshihara, 2019; Guclu, 2019; Spohn, 2017). Following Durkheim 

(1982), “Comparative sociology is not a special branch of sociology; it is sociology itself, in so far as it 

ceases to be purely descriptive and aspires to account for facts” (p. 158). 

In conclusion, the comparison is a process that is continuously present in Sociology, even if in 

Sociology it is not possible to bring about situations to be compared. Furthermore, this process is 

essential, although sometimes in a more explicit way and other times in a more implicit way. This is the 

only way to shape the sociological imagination: “The sociological imagination enables its possessor to 

understand the larger historical scene in terms of its meaning for the inner life and the external career of 

a variety of individuals. It enables him to take into account how individuals, in the welter of their daily 

experience, often become falsely conscious of their social positions” (Mills, 2000, p. 5). 

 

Funding 

University of the Azores, Interdisciplinary Centre of Social Sciences—CICS.UAc/CICS.NOVA.UAc, 

UID/SOC/04647/2019, with the financial support of FCT/MEC through national funds and, when 

applicable, co-financed by FEDER under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement. 

 

Acknowledgements 

The authors thank the comments and suggestion by the anonymous reviewers. 

 

References 

Aron, R. (1994). As etapas do pensamento sociológico [The stages of the sociological thought]. Lisboa: 

Publicações Dom Quixote. 

Bhambra, G. K. (2016). Comparative historical sociology and the State: Problems of method. Cultural 

Sociology, 10(3), 335-351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975516639085 

Budiana, I. M., Otsuka, A., & Yoshihara, N. (2019). A preliminary assessment of Chonaikai and Banjar 

from the perspectives of the Comparative Sociology on the community. Udayana Journal of 

Social Sciences and Humanities (UJoSSH), 3(1), 40. 

https://doi.org/10.24843/UJoSSH.2019.v03.i01.p07 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

5 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Charrad, M. M. (2006). Waves of Comparative and Historical Sociology. International Journal of 

Comparative Sociology, 47(5), 351-358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020715206068617 

Cruz, M. B. (1989). Teorias sociológicas. Os fundadores e os clássicos [Sociological theories. The 

founders and the classics]. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian. 

Derivry, D. (1990). Comparativo (método) [Comparative (method)]. In R. Boudon, P. Besnard, & M. 

Cherkaoui (Eds.), Dicionário de Sociologia [Dictionary of Sociology] (pp. 44-46). Lisboa: 

Publicações Dom Quixote.  

Durkheim, É. (1982). The rules of sociological method. New York: Free Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-16939-9 

Ferreira, C. M., & Serpa, S. (2019). Dialogues between Sociology and History. International Journal of 

Higher Education, 8(6), 112. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n6p112 

Ferreira, C., & Serpa, S. (2017). Challenges in the teaching of Sociology in higher education. 

Contributions to a discussion. Societies, 7(4), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc7040030 

Guclu, I. (2019). Social change and development: A critical comparison of classical with contemporary 

sociological theory. Studies in Asian Social Science, 6(2), 66. https://doi.org/10.5430/sass.v6n2p66 

Malcolm, D. (2015). Durkheim and sociological method: Historical Sociology, Sports History, and the 

role of comparison. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 32(15), 1808-1812. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2015.1108968 

Mills, C. W. (2000). The sociological imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Oliverio, A. (2020). The importance of models in Sociology: The example of Max Weber. Advances in 

Applied Sociology, 10(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.4236/aasoci.2020.101001 

Paiva, A. (2014). Pensamento sociológico. Uma introdução didática às teorias clássicas [Sociological 

thought. A didactic introduction to classical theories]. Lisboa: PACTOR—Edições de Ciências 

Sociais, Forenses e da Educação. 

Schnapper, D. (2000). A compreensão sociológica. Como fazer análise tipológica [Sociological 

understanding. How to do typological analysis]. Lisboa: Gradiva. 

Serpa, S. (2018). Ideal type in sociological research. Sociology International Journal, 2(5). 

https://doi.org/10.15406/sij.2018.02.00075 

Serpa, S., Ferreira, C. M., & Santos, A. I. (2017). Fostering interdisciplinarity: Implications for social 

sciences. International Journal of Social Science Studies, 5(12), 44. 

https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v5i12.2775 

Spohn, W. (2017). Historical and Comparative Sociology in a globalizing world. Historická Sociologie, 

1, 9-27. https://doi.org/10.14712/23363525.2017.50 

Swedberg, R. (2017). How to use Max Weber’s ideal type in sociological analysis. Journal of Classical 

Sociology, 18(3), 181-196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X17743643 

 


