comparison essay ideas

comparison essay ideas

Exploring the Art of Comparison: A Comparative Analysis of Key Concepts

1. Introduction to Comparative Analysis

An art of so much importance that no field of academic study is complete without it, the art of comparison is also the indispensable basis of many respected areas of professional specialization, including diplomacy, journalism, corporate intelligence, anti-terrorism, the formation of a cohesive national identity, and many others. The purpose of the present study is both to disambiguate the fundamental concepts entering in the composition of the art of comparison and to pinpoint some of the crucial issues for the aspiring comparatist.

The fundamental concepts in question concern those of What, Why, and How?, in other words: What is a comparison?; Why do we compare?; How do we compare? These are the concepts that will be present, discussed, and detailed throughout the sectional offering of this essay, which is thus structured according to the broad headings themselves: I) A Definition of Comparative Analysis; II) Reasons for Comparison; III) The Procedure of Comparison. Although barely primary, these fundamentals are able to form the backbone of what may well turn out — from where we stand — to be a viable technique for sustaining the aspiring comparatist in his adventures at comparison: widespread, multifaceted, and polyphonic though it may be.

It is most certainly the case that Comparative Analysis may be pursued under specific headings, such as film, literature, mythology, sociology, religion, history, and anthropology amongst others. Authors from diverse fields and territories have ventured to delineate the principles of “différences” to expatriate our minds, and “commonalities” to conceptually connect our thoughts, in multiple arenas of knowledge. Nonetheless, there is no unified, monolithic theory of comparison in which the principles common to, say, religion and film are set forth.

2. Methodologies for Effective Comparison

Comparative analysis is the practical dimension of comparison: moving from the abstract intellectual understanding of comparison developed by metaphors and models, it focuses on actual practices. As a structured approach, comparative analysis tries to follow and control what goes with comparison and what its limits are. The part devoted to the “object of comparison” will draw due attention to the problem of comparison’s “need” signaled here. As a first step towards an answer, let us track down common methodologies and tools in comparative research through reference to applied sciences where comparison and classification play a valuable part.

Comparison – obtaining knowledge through similarities and differences between particular objects, symbols, language systems, theories, etc. – must follow a certain method. But how useful is it to formulate a comparative method? In the opinion of Geoffrey Hawthorn, all efforts to invent such a method overlook the roots of true comparison: individual insight and desire. The methodologies used in comparative research can be reduced to a simple method of determination. In concrete practice, however, there are a lot of obstacles to be avoided when using the method of determination. The second commonly used methodology in comparative research is through the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

In discussing the types of data by Iffert, we noted that each of the three principal types related to the data involved in our example: crime statistics, court dispositions, and the prisoners themselves – required a unique method of analysis. This raises another problem of more theoretical interest: Are there any general principles for the selection of the method? The comparative study, then, uses a method of determination to draw an inference from controlled observations in a defined universe. The possibility of interesting the student in such a powerful method is obvious. It is a common observation that the success of comparative research closely depends on the precise definition used for comparison, the criteria of the selection of the “comparing” units, place, time, etc. Such stipulations are often referred to as a methodology of definition geared to the comparative approach. Past experiences and recent attempts, however, suggest that such an approach is rather counterproductive. That is why the contemporary period has increasingly been marked by doubts about a method that is exclusively based on definition as the outcome of a pure methodological choice.

3. Case Studies and Applications

Considering the great utility it provides for scholars and decision-makers, we expected to find a wealth of case studies demonstrating the diverse applications of comparative analysis. Although Koger, Rahn, and Miller suggest that comparisons occur to some extent “virtually in any practical scientific endeavor,” only a few comparative analyses included in our sample inhabit the world of peer-reviewed literature. However, a rich comparative literature across disciplines, or including primarily qualitative or non-peer-reviewed studies likely exists. Here, we present intriguing examples from fields as diverse as entomology, political science, and internet search analysis with the aim of building an intuition for comparative analysis.

Diamond ants facilitate diversity through selective herbivory: though scary, leafcutter ants contribute positively to ecosystem health when compared to specialist herbivores of the same genera. Selective herbivory by invasive and native herbivores shapes the development of a colony-level mutualism and abiotic tolerance in the leafcutter ant-fungus system. Leafcutter ant fungal symbionts are threatened by infection from an entomopathogenic fungus. Eavesdropping elephants partition native alarm signals contingent on roaring lions. Female elephants tuned their alarm calls in response to the presence of different predator types – a hospital scale, in which one side is parasites and the other side our immune systems. Social insects are “superorganisms” in which the collective survival of all cells is linked to “actions” taken at higher systemic levels (e.g., “swarming” or “infrastructure repair”). Although interconnected at the level of equations, comparisons show that the dynamics of the pieces are poorly correlated among populations of western honeybees.

4. Key Findings and Conclusions

In conclusion, based on the comparative analysis of selected key concepts that revolve around the art of comparison, varied patterns of methodological and epistemological research designs and applications were discovered, suggesting a larger variety of degrees of research and practice that house these and additional elements. Several disciplines contributed to key concept formations, which were globalizing, diversity, time preference, and dynamic process and relationship. These patterns shed light on key findings that pave the way for the generation of further research questions, namely that specific levels of complexity appear; and that degrees of comparison have not yet developed, which has an impact on research and practice aiming at improving the facility with which comparative analyses can be undertaken, as well as the credibility of their outcomes. Given the limited scope of this paper, the identified patterns and key findings provide a preliminary understanding for a comparative analysis of key concepts and may serve as a foundation for addressing research questions in subsequent papers. Drawing on situated ideas and concepts from a cross-disciplinary perspective that have the potential to contribute to an expansion of knowledge, a first-ever comparative analysis of four key concepts revolving around the art and practice of comparison has been accomplished.

A clearly articulated and alternative conceptual frame and methodological coherent approach were followed. The application occurs as a dynamic process over a specific space and a specific time frame through the explicating actions and behaviors of multiple subjects. It necessitates conversation to generate social practices and relationships where the different drivers of comparison join in and come to bear on practical questions of an extended present and imagined future worlds. The findings illuminate the need to look at particular aspects and levels of comparison that serve the effectiveness of our research and practice in various fields. Regulatory and legal translation specialists would benefit from a robust understanding of regulatory comparison processes, as it generates physical objects (medical devices) and practices. The findings further suggest a number of additional research questions that could be worth investigating and further developing for a more comprehensive comparison of key concepts, as a basis for future publications. There is more than one way to conduct comparison and translation, and the diversity of findings is welcome. Critical analysis and ongoing examination of our own research process is our strength. Thank you Meadows and Reimeres.