66 MEANING AND METHODOLOGY
- This second image of convergence embodied a specific, modernist conception of “theory” that be-
came widespread in post–World War II social science. On this conception, see the chapter on “empirical
theory” in Bernstein (1976). - As represented, for example, in Rabinow and Sullivan (1979). For recent reflections on some of the
variety of forms of this broad endeavor, see Scott and Keates (2001). - My characterization of comparative historical analysis in the next few pages is based on Skocpol
(1979, 33–40), Skocpol and Somers (1980), Skocpol (1984), Collier (1998), and Mahoney and Rueschemeyer
(2003b). - I have spoken of “factors” rather than “variables” in an effort to present modernist epistemology in a
way that encompasses a range of scholars—qualitative as well as quantitative—not all of whom specifically
favor “variables” talk. If we also recognize flexibility in the manner in which these scholars construct rela-
tionships between factors—by focusing, for example, on “configurational” groupings of factors rather than
on individual factors considered one by one—both the “case-oriented” qualitative and the “variable-
oriented” quantitative approaches contrasted by Ragin (1987) can be recognized as variations upon the
modernist standpoint I am sketching. - Boolean algebra forms the basis for the specific computational technique of “qualitative comparative
analysis” (QCA). QCA has recently been adapted to also incorporate the use of fuzzy set logic (fsQCA). On
QCA and fsQCA, see Ragin (2000b) and the Web site http://www.fsqca.com. - In treating Bendix and Geertz together as exemplars of a shared approach, I am following a grouping
initially made not by these scholars themselves, but by comparative historical analysts. As such, it does skate
over some issues within interpretivism—such as the role of documentary sources versus ethnographic obser-
vation in the understanding of particular viewpoints—that might in other contexts lead interpretivists to
contrast Bendix and Geertz. My main purpose here, however, is to explicate how interpretive social scien-
tists construct and employ “general” perspectives, and for this purpose, the grouping seems productive, as I
hope my discussion illustrates.