Comparison in Sociology

The relationship between comparison and sociology is a fundamental motive when deepening the forms of sociological research. This paper aims to contribute to the analysis of the importance of comparison, in several possible forms, in the creation and consolidation of sociological knowledge. To accomplish this goal, a documental collection and analysis of manuscripts deemed essential was carried out based on the snowball system, in which the reading of manuscripts referred to other manuscripts that, by their mobilization, seemed crucial on this topic. It is concluded that comparison is a process that is always present and it is essential in sociology, although sometimes in a more explicit way, and other times in a more implicit way.


Introduction
The process of comparison in sociology is a fundamental reason when deepening the forms of sociological research. According to Derivry (1990), "The comparison is a fortiori the universal stance of all scientific knowledge" (p. 45).
Sociology can be considered, for the purposes of this text, as "a scientific discipline that perceives in its specific way the social reality, producing plural theoretical topics, formulating research problems within the context of these topics, and developing methodical strategies that guide empirical research" (Ferreira & Serpa, 2017, p. 1), based on the key classical rule defined by Émile Durkheim in 1895-to www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr Education, Language andSociology Research Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 2 Published by SCHOLINK INC. explain the social by the social (Durkheim, 1982;Aron, 1994;Cruz, 1989;Paiva, 2014). As an example of the importance of this founding rule of sociology, Charles Wright Mills (2000) sustains that "abstracted empiricists are systematically a-historical and non-comparative; they deal with small-scale areas and they incline to psychologism" (p. 138), as "the attempt to explain social phenomena in terms of facts and theories about the make-up of individuals" (p. 67).
This paper aims to contribute to the analysis of the importance of comparison, in various possible forms, in the creation of sociological knowledge. To accomplish this goal, a documental collection and analysis of manuscripts deemed essential was carried out based on the snowball system, in which the reading of manuscripts referred to other manuscripts that, by their mobilization, seemed crucial on this topic.

Comparison in Sociological Research
For Derivry (1990), comparison as a method results from a cognitive process through which one seeks to understand a phenomenon by analyzing and confronting different situations where it is recorded, and Sociology, like the other social sciences, has a comparative dimension, both at a theoretical and an empirical level (Mills, 2000). Durkheim (1982) maintained that when the production of facts that are generated spontaneously is alien to the observer's intervention, we are faced with the use of the direct experimentation method or the comparative method, as opposed to situations in which phenomena are artificially produced by the observer. In this case, we are dealing with the experimentation method. The author also mentions that Sociology seeks to explain phenomena through the effects of causality, and since social phenomena eliminate any form of control by the researcher, the comparative method remains the most appropriate method for Sociology (Durkheim, 1982).
According to Derivry (1990), the comparison in sociological research can take on two forms: a) comparison of concrete situations in different spaces and/or times; and b) comparison with a theoretical model. These two possibilities will be analyzed below.

Comparison of Concrete Situations in Different Spaces and/or Times
Malcolm (2015), analyzing the role of comparison in sociological analysis of sports history, offers an excellent synthesis of the potential of this comparison of concrete situations in different spaces and/or times. Building on Durkheim's proposal, the author argues that the comparison could take on three types: intra-societal, inter-societal or cross-species, emphasizing the importance that, whenever possible, this comparison should cover a wider scale to enhance its heuristic capacity. Malcolm (2015) concludes that Sociology seeks to explain phenomena through the effects of causality, and since social phenomena eliminate any form of control by the researcher, the comparative method remains the most appropriate for Sociology. However, it is essential for Sociology not to lose a historical orientation (Charrad, 2006;Ferreira & Serpa, 2019), as well as a fruitful relationship of dialogue between scientific disciplines. Serpa, Ferreira, and Santos (2017)  should be the synthesis of understanding of higher and lower levels of generality and fundamental to this is the extensive use of comparison" (p. 1811).
Specifically regarding the relationship between Sociology and History, the sociological analysis seeks to point out the uniformities and repetitions of social phenomena, as well as the verified correlations, whereas historical analysis aims to gather relevant information that enables the understanding of a specific event that is unique and unrepeatable. Ferrarotti (1986, cit. in Ferreira & Serpa, 2019 contends that: The sociological analysis would aim, through the verification of the hypotheses, to identify in social phenomena what is uniform and repeatable, to identify the existence of certain correlations between two series of phenomena. In turn, the historical analysis would aim to accrue, by examining sources and document reconstruction, significant data that allows the understanding of a specific, unique and unrepeatable event (p. 113).
In a synthesis, Mills (2000) claims that "we must study the available range of social structures, including the historical as well as the contemporary. If we do not take into account the range, which does not of course mean all existing cases, our statements cannot be empirically adequate. […] Comparative study and historical study are very deeply involved with each other" (p. 147, p. 150).

Comparison to a Theoretical Model
The comparison can also be made through the confrontation with a theoretical model, such as the ideal type proposed by Max Weber in 1904 (Serpa, 2018;Swedberg, 2017) that is still mobilized today in social sciences, although sometimes not in a systematic way (Oliverio, 2020;Swedberg, 2017).
About the ideal-type as research strategy (Paiva, 2014;Aron, 1989;Bhambra, 2016), as a specific type of comparison (for an excellent discussion, see Swedberg, 2017), Schnapper (2000)  to extract the fundamental characteristics or to elaborate an abstract model with which the ducts can be compared" (p. 35). According to Oliverio (2020), the use of the ideal type, "Conceived as a non-normative form of conceptualization finalized to simplify and reduce external social world complexity, […] allows the organization of an increasing knowledge acquaintance" (p. 1). The author further argues that "Ideal types are in practice pure constructs of causal relations that the researcher conceives as objectively probable and causally adequate on the strength of his/her nomological knowledge, while assuming an 'active' role in the rational interpretative process" (Oliverio, 2020, p. 3).
As indicated by Swedberg (2017), it is necessary to make a comparison between the ideal type and the phenomenon under analysis. This means putting the ideal type and reality face to face. If the differences between the two are significant, the ideal type must be adjusted or, as Weber reiterates, these differences must be explained. In summary, in this situation, the comparison is made between the ideal type as an ideal construction through the delimitation of a set of extreme characteristics and the empirical information obtained from the reality actually observed (Oliverio, 2020), taking into consideration that "there is the need to select some specific dimensions of the object, with relevance and rigorous justification, being careful to neither over-simplify reality, nor bring complexity to it, to the point that this concept becomes unintelligible and without heuristic ability" (Serpa, 2018, p. 1).

Conclusion
Considering what has been put forth in this article, the comparison is, then, crucial to sociological knowledge (Budiana, Otsuka, & Yoshihara, 2019;Guclu, 2019;Spohn, 2017). Following Durkheim (1982), "Comparative sociology is not a special branch of sociology; it is sociology itself, in so far as it ceases to be purely descriptive and aspires to account for facts" (p. 158).
In conclusion, the comparison is a process that is continuously present in Sociology, even if in Sociology it is not possible to bring about situations to be compared. Furthermore, this process is essential, although sometimes in a more explicit way and other times in a more implicit way. This is the only way to shape the sociological imagination: "The sociological imagination enables its possessor to understand the larger historical scene in terms of its meaning for the inner life and the external career of a variety of individuals. It enables him to take into account how individuals, in the welter of their daily experience, often become falsely conscious of their social positions" (Mills, 2000, p. 5).

Funding
University of the Azores, Interdisciplinary Centre of Social Sciences-CICS.UAc/CICS.NOVA.UAc, UID/SOC/04647/2019, with the financial support of FCT/MEC through national funds and, when applicable, co-financed by FEDER under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement.