Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative Methods in Family Research

  • Chapter
Book cover Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods

Abstract

Comparative research involves the study of two or more societies, for one of two purposes: (1) for establishing the generality of theories, hypotheses, or empirical generalizations already well established for one nation, or (2) for understanding the impact societal properties have on specific social phenomena. Because of problems of inference from samples of social systems that are inherently nonrandom and nonrepresentative, comparative research is not well suited for purely descriptive purposes. Instead, comparative research as a method of studying family life should be used to investigate the utility of explanatory theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Bachofen, J. J. (1861). Das Mutterrecht. Basel: Benno Schwabe. (Republished in 1948)

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, H. III, & Schlegel, A. (1980). Cross-cultural samples and codes. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boas, F. (1896). The limitations of the comparative method in anthropology. Science, 4, 901–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boomsma, A. (1983). On the robustness of LISREL (maximum likelihood estimation) against small sample size and non-normality. Amsterdam: Sociometric Research Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breault, K. D., & Kposowa, A. J. (1987). Explaining divorce in the United States: A study of 3,111 counties, 1980. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 549–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comte, A. (1896). The positive philosophy of Auguste Comte (Harriet Martineau, Trans.). London: Bell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornell, L. L. (1989). Gender differences in remarriage after divorce in Japan and the United States. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 457–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T., Frey, R. S., & Kalof, L. (1987). Estimation with cross-national data: Robust and nonparametric methods. American Sociological Review, 52, 380–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide. Paris: Alcan. (Original work published 1897)

    Google Scholar 

  • Elder, J. W. (1976). Comparative cross-national methodology. In Alex Inkeles (Ed.), Annual review of sociology (Vol. 2, pp. 209–230). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiala, R., & LaFree, G. (1988). Cross-national determinants of child homicide. American Sociological Review, 53, 432–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, F. W. (1970). Cross-cultural survey research in political science. In R. T. Holt & J. E. Turner (Eds.), The methodology of comparative research (pp. 175–294). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guttentag, M., & Secord, P. F. (1983). Too many women? The sex ratio question. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, L. (1986). Wives’ orientation toward breadwinning: Sweden and the United States. Journal of Family Issues, 7, 358–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1986). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohn, M. L. (1977). Class and conformity: A study in values (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohn, M. L. (1987). Cross-national research as an analytic strategy. American Sociological Review, 52, 713–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohn, M. L., Slomczynski, K. M., & Schoenbach, C. (1986). Social stratification and the transmission of values in the family: A cross-national assessment. Sociological Forum, 1, 73—102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, G. R. (1982). Family structure and interaction: A comparative analysis (2nd ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, G. R. (1984). The utility of cross-cultural data: Potentials and limitations for family sociology. Journal of Family Issues, 5, 519–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • London, B. (1988). Dependence, distorted development, and fertility trends in noncore nations: A structural analysis of cross-national data. American Sociological Review, 53, 606–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maine, H. S. (1861). Ancient law. London: Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malinowski, B. (1929). The sexual life of savages in North-western Melanesia. New York: Harvest Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, R. M. (1967). Comparative sociology. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J., Slomczynski, K M., & Schoenberg, R. J. (1981). Assessing comparability of measurement in cross-national research: Authoritarian-conservatism in different sociocultural settings. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 178–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J., Slomczynski, K. M.,& Kohn, M. L. (1985). Continuity in learning-generalization: The effect of job on men’s intellective process in the United States and Poland. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 593–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, L. H. (1877). Ancient society. Chicago: Kerr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdock, G. P. (1967). Ethnographic atlas: A summary. Ethnology, 6, 109–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murdock, G. P., & White, D. R. (1969). Standard cross-cultural sample. Ethnology, 8, 329–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naoi, A., & Schooler, C. (1985). Occupational conditions and psychological functioning in Japan. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 729–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearlin, L. I. (1971). Class context and family relations: A cross-national study. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Population Reference Bureau. (1981). Fertility and the status of women data sheet. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Population Reference Bureau. (1983). World population data sheet. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, S. J., & McKenry, P. C. (1988). Divorce. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, I. L., & Lee, G. R. (1988). Family systems in America (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rokkan, S. (1964). Comparative cross-national research: The context of current efforts. In R. L. Merritt & S. Rokkan (Eds), Comparing nations: The use of quantitative data in cross-national research (pp. 3–25). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slomczynski, K. M., Miller, J., & Kohn, M. L. (1981). Stratification, work, and values: A Polish-United States comparison. American Sociological Review, 46, 720–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smelser, N. (1976). Comparative methods in the social sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • South, S. J. (1988). Sex ratios, economic power, and women’s roles: A theoretical extension and empirical test. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • South, S. J., & Trent, K. (1988). Sex ratios and women’s roles: A cross-national analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 1096–1115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, G., & Schoen, R. (1988). Linguistic intermarriage in the United States. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 267–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A. (1969). Phenomenal identity and conceptual equivalence of measurement in comparative cross-national research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31, 233–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, G. (1971). Frameworks for comparative research: Structural anthropology and the theory of action. In I. Vallier (Ed.), Comparative methods in sociology: Essays on trends and applications (pp. 149–202). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trent, K., & South, S. J. (1989). Structural determinants of the divorce rate: A cross-societal analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 391–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (1982). Demographic yearbook, 1982. New York: United Nations Publishing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warwick, D. P., & Osherson, S. (Eds.) (1973). Comparative research methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westermarck, E. (1922). The history of human marriage (5th ed.). New York: Allerton. (Original work published in 1891)

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiting, J. W. M. (1961). The cross-cultural method. In F. Moore (Ed), Readings in cross-cultural methodology (pp. 283–291). New Haven, CT: HRAF Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zelditch, M, Jr. (1971). Intelligible comparisons. In I. Vallier (Ed.), Comparative methods in sociology: Essays on trends and applications (pp. 267–307). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32611

    Gary R. Lee

  2. Department of Sociology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46202

    Linda Haas

Authors
  1. Gary R. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Linda Haas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Family Social Science, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA

    Pauline Boss  & William J. Doherty  & 

  2. Department of Sociology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, 30302, USA

    Ralph LaRossa

  3. School of Family Studies and Human Services, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA

    Walter R. Schumm

  4. Department of Sociology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA

    Suzanne K. Steinmetz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lee, G.R., Haas, L. (2009). Comparative Methods in Family Research. In: Boss, P., Doherty, W.J., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W.R., Steinmetz, S.K. (eds) Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-85764-0_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-85764-0_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-306-44264-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-85764-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation