Explore the vast range of titles available.

We examine the comparative strategies of Durkheim and Weber and link them to specific presuppositions. While both are compatible with goals of explanation and generalization in sociological analysis, they use different types of explanation and different degrees of generalization to produce variable-based (Durkheimian) and case-based (Weberian) studies. Several authors (e.g., Kapsis; Smelser, b) suggest that these two strategies converge. We show that these strategies are neither congruent nor convergent in their (1) units of analysis, (2) conception of causality, (3) conception of adequate explanation, or (4) logic of analysis. We examine contemporary comparative studies and trace lines of filiation between them and the strategies of Durkheim and Weber. Finally, we suggest how these strategies can be combined in complementary ways to take advantage of the unique strengths of each.

Comparative history is not new. As long as people have investigated social life, there has been recurrent fascination with juxtaposing historical patterns from two or more times or places. Part of the appeal comes from the general usefulness of looking at historical trajectories in order to study social change. Indeed, practitioners of comparative history from Alexis de Tocqueville and Max Weber to Marc Bloch, Reinhard Bendix, and Barrington Moore, Jr. have typically been concerned with understanding societal dynamics and epochal transformations of cultures and social structures. Attention to historical sequences is indispensable to such understanding. Obviously, though, not all investigations of social change use explicit juxtapositions of distinct histories. We may wonder, therefore: What motivates the use of comparisons as opposed to focussing on single historical trajectories? What purposes are pursued—and how—through the specific modalities of comparative history?

A review of Benjamin Nelson's thoughts & theories on the evolution of civilization, found in his essays on comparative civilization. Discussed is Nelson's civilization-analytic approach, which focuses on particular analytical issues or processes of significance to humanity, & studies them within their own civilization setting, rather than using the global approach propounded by Arnold Toynbee & Oswald Spengler. The impact of Nelson's work on the fields of sociology & history is assessed. W. Adams

The historically dominant and generally accepted view is that males are much more likely than females to commit delinquent acts, and that when females deviate their misconduct is significantly less serious than that of males. This paper examines the recent contention that the delinquent behavior of males and females is more similar than assumed. Self-report questionnaires were administered in 1977 to a sample of 822 male and female adolescents selected from two urban high schools in a large midwestern state. Following Hindelang (1971), we concentrate on the types of delinquent acts most frequently reported, as well as the extent of involvement in these acts. While males tend to commit most offenses more frequently than females, the pattern of delinquency is virtually identical for the two groups. This uniformity holds for race-sex subgroups, although there are more similarities in delinquency within racial groups than within sex groups.