Beyond the Case: The Logics and Practices of Comparative Ethnography

How and why do ethnographers engage in comparison? This is the question at the center of Beyond the Case: The Logics and Practices of Comparative Ethnography, edited by Corey Abramson and Neil Gong. Acknowledging that ‘‘ethnography is not a single method’’ (p. 8), the aim of the volume is to answer this question by showing how ethnographers who work in different traditions— from grounded theory and the extended case method to phenomenology and behavioralism, among others—think about and practice comparison, considering, along the way, the sociological discoveries made possible by each approach. The volume is divided into three sections. The first section reviews ‘‘the evolution of classic approaches to comparison,’’ while the second is devoted to ‘‘new and existing critical approaches to comparison.’’ The third section considers how context—whether it be disciplines or nations—shapes how (and whether) comparisons are made. While each of the volume’s ten chapters stands on its own, the biggest payoff for readers comes from reading this book on comparisons comparatively. Indeed, by reading chapters side by side, readers gain a deep appreciation of the different logics that drive ethnographers to compare. For instance, whereas Corey Abramson and Martı́n Sánchez-Jankowski write that comparing across multiple cases helps facilitate their project of identifying causal mechanisms to explain some outcome of interest, Thomas DeGloma and Max Papadantonakis compare across multiple cases to illuminate some generalized social phenomenon or ‘‘theme,’’ such as the use of anonymity in social movements. Reading chapters side by side, readers also get insights into how different ethnographers approach more practical considerations around comparison, such as when in the research process comparisons are established. In some traditions, deciding on a comparative design and justifying the comparative cases occur at the outset, while in others, such decisions are made much later. When designing her study on autism epistemic communities, Claire Decoteau determined that a case comparison between Somalis living in Toronto and Minneapolis would help reveal the ‘‘structural context and conjunctural causal mechanisms’’ related to the community’s formation (p. 171). In contrast, Iddo Tavory and Stefan Timmermans introduce a ‘‘sequential comparison’’ approach. Observing that many comparisons break down because ethnographers do not (and oftentimes cannot) know initially which comparison should be made, they argue that ethnographers should begin by focusing on one case. Only after the fieldwork unfolds and ‘‘emerging themes and theoretical puzzles’’ are discovered can the ethnographer determine whether an additional case will produce ‘‘analytical payoff’’ (p. 199). For these authors, ‘‘the standard for initiating a comparison should be high’’ (p. 199). While an ethnographic tradition orients the ethnographer’s reasons for and approach to comparison, logics and strategies can still vary widely within traditions. This is best exemplified in Ching Kwan Lee’s chapter in which she reflects on the different comparative approaches she has taken across her career all while working within the extended case method tradition. In her first book, Lee conducted fieldwork in two factories owned by the same company, one in Hong Kong and one in Shenzhen, China. By ‘‘controlling’’ for significant variables like technology and ownership type, Lee sought to identify other