Causal Vs. Contextual Analysis: a Case Study of Brazilian Local Political Participation
| DOI | 10.1177/106591297402700107 |
| Date | 01 March 1974 |
| Published date | 01 March 1974 |
| Author | Judith Lynch Lamare |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
117
CAUSAL
VS.
CONTEXTUAL
ANALYSIS:
A
CASE
STUDY
OF
BRAZILIAN
LOCAL
POLITICAL
PARTICIPATION
JUDITH
LYNCH
LAMARE
University
of
Washington
OT
LONG
ago
Robert
Alford
undertook
the
arduous
task
of
providing
an
analytic
scheme
&dquo;to
be
used
as
part
of
the
strategy
of
attack
upon
com-
JL ~
parative
empirical
studies
of
urban
administration
and
politics,
since
we
have
not
yet
broken
through
the
problem
of
vacillation
between
case
studies
of
unique
systems
and
abstract
comparisons
of
variables
torn
from
their
context.&dquo;’
1
Alford’s
concern
was
with
developing
&dquo;conceptual
links
between
the
qualitative
data
which
are
frequently
all
that
are
available
and
a
quasi-quantitative
analytic
framework.&dquo;2
In
large
measure
what
Alford
did
was
to
show
how
the
findings
at
one
level
of
analysis
(from
case
studies)
might
be
utilized
to
generate
fairly
reliable
and
relevant
hypotheses
about
political
relationships
that
can
only
be
tested
rigor-
ously
at
another
level
of
analysis (quantitative,
comparative
studies).
As
such,
he
was
particularly
concerned
about
the
limitations
and
dangers
in
the
case
study
approach,
and
he
tended
to
equate
that
approach
with
the
mode
of
explanation
which
focuses
on
&dquo;situational&dquo;
variables,
which
&dquo;constitute
the
elements
of
the
random,
contingent,
accidental,
which
influences
any
particular
series
of
events.&dquo;
8
While
Alford’s
admonition
that
&dquo;whether
or
not
a
factor
is
situational ...
cannot
be
known
from
the
study
of
a
single
case,
but
only
by
comparison
with
a
number
of
cases ...&dquo;
4
represents
a
formidable
claim
for
the
quantitative
approach,
it
does
not
support
the
argument
that
case
studies
are
limited
to
the
understanding
of
the
interplay
of
&dquo;situational
variables.&dquo;
Nor,
when
we
talk
about
the
case
study
ap-
proach,
are
we
comparing
the
contribution
of
a
single
case
study
to
the
contribution
of
a
quantitative
study
in
the
understanding
of
urban
politics;
the
contributions
cannot
be
compared
because
they
are
often
complementary
rather
than
competing
NOTE :
I
would
like
to
thank
the
students
in
my
undergraduate
comparative
urban
politics
seminar
(Winter,
1973),
at
the
University
of
Washington,
whose
interest,
hard
work,
warmness,
and
sense
of
responsibility
toward
each
other
and
toward
the
class
motivated
me
to
revise
and
elaborate
on
a
study
made
while
I
was
a
graduate
student
at
UCLA:
Karen
Hill
(Social
Welfare),
Herb
Drosdat
(Engineering,
Urban
Transportation),
George
McKeever,
Bruce
Bothell
(Far
Eastern
Studies),
Steve
Lansing,
Jeanna
Roderick,
Ray
Cummings,
Greg
Norbut,
Sergio
Armijo,
Ken
Ristine,
Lee
Chapman,
Cecil
Collins,
Ted
Steen,
Rick
Stitiler,
and
Dave
Ricketts
(Political
Science).
The
original
study
was
undertaken
with
Bolivar
Lamounier;
his
various
contributions
to
that
project
were
invaluable
to
its
development
and
to
the
report
of
the
findings
presented
here.
The
project
was
supported
in
a
number
of
ways
by
the
UCLA
Political
Science
Department,
the
UCLA
Computer
Network,
the
Statistical
Laboratory
of
the
Political
Science
De-
partment
(Dwaine
Marvick,
Director),
and
by
Senhora
Lamounier,
Belo
Horizonte,
MG;
Brazil.
1
Robert
R.
Alford,
"Explanatory
Variables
in
the
Comparative
Study
of
Urban
Politics
and
Administration,"
in
Robert
Daland,
Comparative
Urban
Research
(Beverly
Hills:
Sage
Publications,
1969),
p.
275.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.,
p.
273.
4
Ibid.
118
modes
of
analysis.
Thus,
Alford’s
attempt
to
use
the
findings
of
one
level
of
analy-
sis
to
create
knowledge
attainable
through
a
different
level
of
analysis
led
to
a
rather
distorted
view
of
case
studies
and
qualitative
data.
It
has
been
the
frustration
of
those
involved
in
the
comparative
study
of
urban
politics
to
face
an
overabundance
of
case
study
material
and
a
paucity
of
quantita-
tive
studies,
and
thus
the
emphasis
upon
increasing
the
latter
store
of
knowledge
can
be
expected.
This
paper
contrasts
with
Alford’s
&dquo;strategy
of
attack
upon
compara-
tive
empirical
studies
of
urban
administration
and
politics&dquo;
because
it
focuses
on
the
shortcomings
of
the
quantitative,
causal
approach
and
argues
for
a
greater
empha-
sis
upon
qualitative,
contextual
studies
in
comparative
urban
politics.
The
argument
will
proceed
as
follows.
First
the
major
distinctions
between
the
two
levels
of
analysis
will
be
drawn.
Then,
using
local
political
participation
in
Brazil
as
an
example,
the
application
of
the
quantitative,
causal
approach
will
be
described.
The
contextual
approach
will
then
be
used
to
demonstrate
the
ways
in
which
such
analysis
can
enrich
understanding
of
the
causal
findings
and
can
gen-
erate
new
models
whose
causal
linkages
might
be
investigated
with
quantitative
methods.
To
demonstrate
that
the
relativism
of
the
contextual
approach
does
not
preclude
addressing
questions
of
broad-range
interest,
the
implications
of
the
models
drawn
from
the
Brazilian
case
are
linked
with
some
of
the
literature
in
the
com-
parative
urban
field.
At
that
point
some
remarks
about
the
substantive
directions
in
which
the
field
ought
to
be
moving
are
made.
Finally,
some
suggestions
about
the
more
systematic
use
of
contextual
analysis
in
the
field
of
comparative
urban
politics
will
be
offered.
CAUSAL
VS.
CONTEXTUAL
ANALYSIS
To
establish
the
particular
domain
of
each
of
these
levels
of
analysis,
one
can
start
with
Alford’s
distinction
between
&dquo;systems&dquo;
and
&dquo;variables&dquo;
approaches.
He
links
the
case
study
with
the
systems
approach
and
the
quantitative
study
with
the
variables
approach.
He
notes:
&dquo;A
concern
with
systems
leads
to
a
focus
upon
the
unique
interdependencies
of
the
phenomenon
being
studied;
a
concern
with
varia-
bles
usually
assumes
implicitly
that
the
framework
or
context
is
a
constant.&dquo;
5 In
this
paper
the
distinction
is
drawn
as
one
between
causal
analysis
and
contextual
analysis;
in
the
essentials,
however,
the
same
dichotomy
is
assumed.
The
explanation
of
variation
in
a
dependent
variable,
through
the
use
of
a
statistical
model,
is
the
common
expression
of
causal
analysis
in
the
social
sciences,
and
it
requires
the
comparison
of
large
numbers
of
cases.
The
assumption
is
that
the
presence
or
absence
or
variation
in
amounts
of
some
phenomena
(independent
variables)
are
necessary
and
sufficient
conditions
for
the
presence
or
absence
or
variation
in
amount
of
some
other
phenomenon
(the
dependent
variable).
The
dependency
of
one
phenomenon
on
others
is
the
key
element
of
this
mode
of
analysis.6
In
contrast,
contextual
analysis
focuses
upon
the
interdependencies
(or
5
Ibid.,
p.
275.
6
See,
for
example,
Hubert
M.
Blalock,
Jr.,
Causal
Inferences
in
Non-experimental
Research
(New
York:
Norton,
1961),
pp.
9-11.
To continue reading
Request your trial