Abstract
The paper has a theoretical and methodological content and is focused on the comparative method as Appraisal rational. Even though many scholars have strong prejudices against comparison as a research strategy and hold that it should be substituted by a “more scientific” statistical one, the paper holds that to increase the scientific content of appraisals does not require to change the method of inquiry but to replace the “impressionistic” comparison with “scientific” comparison. Consequently, the paper presents some relevant achievements in comparison theory and illustrates the connected concepts of similarity and classification. Finally, the paper recognizes that even though “scientific” comparisons” are methodologically feasible, at the operational level they are not yet available, this exhorts the appraisers’ community to a deep and thoughtful reflection and further researches.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The paper strictly concerns comparison in Appraisal, whereas comparison in real estate evaluation is not faced.
- 2.
- 3.
All the translations from Italian are by the author.
- 4.
In his Principles of Appraisal Medici (1953) provides an exhaustive presentation of the procedures to construct the price scales according to each of the five economic aspects (market value, cost value, substitution value, transformation value and complementary value) of the object to be appraised.
- 5.
See, e.g. Farinelli (2016) “La razionalità della stima dei beni storico storico-architettonici: le Ville Venete” Tesi di dottorato. Scuola di Dottorato di Ricerca in Ingegneria Gestionale ed Estimo.
- 6.
That is, their capacity of testing rival explanations [note added by the author].
- 7.
That is, the difficulty in acquiring the data needed to employ the method [note added by the author].
- 8.
According to Rubinson and Ragin (2007), the other critiques are epistemological and theoretical.
- 9.
Research methods may be understood as all those methods that are used for conduction of research. Research methods refer to the behavior and instruments used in performing research operations (selecting and constructing research technique).
- 10.
Research techniques refer to the behavior and instruments used in performing research operations such as making observations, recording data, techniques of processing data and the like.
- 11.
It is the case of social sciences like anthropology, sociology, education, and political sciences, but also of astronomy.
- 12.
The paper mainly relies on the theoretical and methodological development of the comparative method and other related concepts produced in social science and especially in political science, psychology, etc. that have been largely and deeply confronted with these problems.
- 13.
As Medici (1953) states, «The prices collected should refer to a fairly uniform area as to make comparison easier and less arbitrary» and that «The prices collected should be recent ones, as their indicative value diminishes with time» and «in any case current prices … are of fundamental importance».
- 14.
Similarity compares two things with the conjunction “like” or “as,” or “such as.” It may refer both to the quality or state of being similar and a comparable aspect.
- 15.
Analogy infers that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others.
- 16.
Juxtaposition places two concepts, characters, ideas, etc., near each other so that the reader makes comparisons between them and perhaps contrasts them as well.
- 17.
Metaphor uses a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them.
- 18.
Allegory is an extended metaphor that represents symbolical (fictional) figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence.
- 19.
The method of agreement is regulated by the following First Canon: «If two or more instances of the phenomenon under investigation have only one circumstance in common, the circumstance in which alone all the instances agree, is the cause (or effect) of the given phenomenon» (Mill 1872).
- 20.
The method of difference is regulated by the following Second Canon: «If an instance in which the phenomenon under investigation occurs, and an instance in which it does not occur, have every circumstance in common save one, that one occurring only in the former; the circumstance in which alone the two instances differ, is the effect, or the cause, or an indispensable part of the cause, of the phenomenon» (Mill 1872).
- 21.
The method of concomitant variations is regulated by the following Fifth Canon: «Whatever phenomenon varies in any manner whenever another phenomenon varies in some particular manner, is either a cause or an effect of that phenomenon, or is connected with it through some fact of causation» (Mill 1872).
- 22.
The commonalities are simply the elements of the matching representational structure (Genter and Markman 1994).
- 23.
The differences may be of two types: “alignable differences” those related to the common structure and “non-alignable differences” those independent of the common structure. In the similarity relationship, as well as in comparison, alignable differences are considered more important than no-nalignable differences because alignable differences are related to commonalities but non-alignable differences are not (Genter and Markman 1994).
- 24.
For example, if θ = 1, and α and β vanish, then S (a, b) = f(A ∩ B) that is, the similarity between objects is the measure of their common features. If α = β = 1 and θ vanishes, \(- {\text{S}}\left( {{\text{a}},{\text{b}}} \right) = {\text{f}}\left( {{\text{A}} - {\text{B}}} \right) + {\text{f}}\left( {{\text{B}} - {\text{A}}} \right)\); then: that is, the dissimilarity between objects is the measure of the symmetric difference between the respective feature sets (Tversky 1977).
- 25.
On this point, we can quote Medici (1953) who says: «there is no limit to the number of groups to be classified as the factors affecting prices are extremely numerous, their importance varies widely, and the combinations to which they lend themselves are many».
- 26.
But, we must also take care that not all categories are created equal in inductive reasoning, not all properties are equal: some properties are more projectable, or more easily projected, than other properties, as a matter of fact, in assessing similarity people reason differently depending on their background knowledge and what property P is actually considered (see Heit 1997).
- 27.
It is key to note that a dynamic interplay between similarity and classification exists. According to Tversky (1977), «It is generally assumed that classifications are determined by similarities among the objects», but it is also possible to support «the converse hypothesis that the similarity of objects is modified by the manner in which they are classified».
- 28.
Genter and others more recently suggest that in similarity besides the commonalities only those differences related to the commonalities (i.e., the alignable differences) should be considered. The idea that alignable differences are more salient in the comparison process has one startling, counterintuitive implication according to which people should list more differences—particularly more alignable differences—for similar pairs than for dissimilar pairs (Genter and Markman 1994).
- 29.
The main kind of statistical sampling are:
· convenience sampling;
· random sampling;
· probabilistic sampling;
· judgmental or purposive sampling;
· etc.
- 30.
- 31.
Allegoric relationship mainly refers to “relational” commonalities as Gentner and Markman (1997) affirm: «In a fundamental sense, similarity is like analogy … The difference between them is that in analogy, only relational predicates are shared, whereas in literal similarity, both relational predicates and object attributes are shared».
References
Bentivegna V (2009) Il metodo comparativo. Unpublished paper
Collier D (1993) The comparative method. Political science: the state of discipline II. In: Finifter AW (ed) American Political Science Association
Encyclopaedia Britannica. (http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e15.htm)
Farinelli V (2016) “La razionalità della stima dei beni storico storico-architettonici: le Ville Venete” Tesi di dottorato. Scuola di Dottorato di Ricerca in Ingegneria Gestionale ed Estimo
Forte C (1968) Elementi di Estimo Urbano. ETAS KOMPASS, Milano
Gentner D, Markman AB (1994) Structural alignment in comparison: no difference without similarity. Psychol Sci 5(3):152–158
Gentner D, Markman AB (1997) Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. Am Psychol 52(1):45
Goldthorpe JH (1997) Current issues in comparative macrosociology: a debate on methodological issues. Comp Soc Res 16:1–26
Heit E (1997) Features of similarity and category-based induction. In: Proceeding of the interdisciplinary workshop on similarity and categorisation (SimCat), University of Edinburgh, pp 115–121
Kothari CR (2004) Research methodology: methods and techniques. New Age International, New Delhi
Lijphart A (1971) Comparative politics and the comparative method. Am Polit Sci Rev 65(03):682–693
Lin D (1998) An information-theoretic definition of similarity. ICML 98:296–304
Lor PJ (2012) International and comparative librarianship: a thematic approach. De Gruyter Saur, Berlin
Medici G (1953) Principles of appraisal. The Iowa State College Press, Ames
Medici G (1972) Principi di Estimo. Quarta edizione (prima edizione 1948). Calderini, Bologna
Merriam-Webster (2006) Merriam-Webster online dictionary
Michieli I, Michieli M (2002) Trattato di Estimo. Edagricole, Bologna
Mill JS (1843) A System of Logic (xiii edition 1872). In Robson JM (1974). The collected works of John Stuart Mill, vol VII e VIII. University of Toronto Press, Toronto
Nielsen RA (2014) Case selection via matching. Sociol Methods Res 45:569. Doi:10.1177/0049124114547054
Peterson RA (2005) Problems in comparative research: the example of omnivorousness. Poetics 33(5):257–282
Polelli M (2008) Nuovo Trattato di Estimo. Maggioli Editore, Santarcangelo di Romagna
Przeworski A, Teune H (1970) The logic of comparative social inquiry. Wiley, New York
Ragin CC (1987) The comparative method: moving beyond qualitative and quantitative methods. University of California, Berkeley
Ragin CC (2000) Fuzzy-set social science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Rubinson C, Ragin CC (2007) New methods for comparative research. Comp Soc Res 24:373–389
Sartori G (1970) Concept misformation in comparative politics. Am Polit Sci Rev 64(04):1033–1053
Sartori G (1991) Comparing and miscomparing. J Theor Polit 3(3):243–257
Seawright J, Gerring J (2008) Case selection techniques in case study research a menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Polit Res Q 61(2):294–308
Simonotti M (2006) Metodi di Stima Immobiliare. Dario Flaccovio editore, Palermo
Sun R (1995) Robust reasoning: integrating rule-based and similarity-based reasoning. Artif Intell 75(2):241–295
Tversky A (1977) Features of similarity. Psychol Rev 84(4):327
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Berni, M. (2017). A Few Considerations on the Comparison Method in Appraisal. In: Stanghellini, S., Morano, P., Bottero, M., Oppio, A. (eds) Appraisal: From Theory to Practice. Green Energy and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49676-4_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49676-4_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-49675-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-49676-4
eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)