在社会学的广泛领域中，比较方法可以被定义为与一种与其他意识形态或调查计划相结合的评价类型有关。它有可能被另一种被用来解释同样的共同趋势(Gerring 2008)的人所取代。此外，Keaty(2008)指出，比较方法是现有的主要科学过程，个人可以利用控制理论和分析多个变量之间的相关性，同时保持所有可能改变因素的不变性。在这一研究领域中，比较方法的主要目的是为这些社会普遍存在的全球趋势进行辩护，同时也使研究人员能够分析更复杂的社会趋势(1987年)。因此,它可能会认为,通过使用比较的方法研究能够区分,一个良好的经验说明相关多元化的情况下,但是它仍然提供了研究者的机会识别社会趋势是多方面的,广泛的合理化是一个不完整的合理化。Ragin(1989)进一步声称，比较方法是一种理性的方法，因此它是基于约翰·斯图亚特·米尔斯(1888)的归纳探究原则。John Stuart Mills(1888)在Etzioni和Du Bow(1970)中提到，这三个原则被称为协议法、差分法和间接法。协议的方法可以解释为，被检验的发生的两个或更多的案例有一个相似的条件，假设所有发生的情况都一致，是指定趋势的起源。因此，为了使事件发生，必须在每一种情况下发生(206-208)。此外，可以假定，在这种情况下，比较级将涉及调查情况，在这种情况下，情况可以被确定，因此，在没有记录的情况下，不需要记录的情况就不需要发生。
In the broad field of sociology the comparative approach may be defined as relating to a type of evaluation that contrasts one ideology or investigative plan aligned with others. It may have a possibility of being replaced by another one that can be used to explicate the same others that would explain the same common trend (Gerring 2008). Furthermore, Keaty (2008) stated that the comparative approach is the primary scientific process existing, that an individual can utilise to control theories and analyse the correlations of more than one variable, while maintaining all invariance that can latently alter factors. The main purpose of the comparative approach in this field of study is to construct a justification of worldwide trends that are common to these societies but also allows researchers to analyse the more intricate trends of a society Ragain (1987). Therefore, it may be assumed that through the use of the comparative approach researches are capable of distinguishing that a sound empirical elucidation is pertinent to a diverse number of situations, however it still provides the researcher the opportunity to identify that societal trends are multifaceted and that a broad rationalisation is an incomplete rationalisation. Ragin (1989) further purported that the comparative approach is a rational approach and as a result it is hinged on John Stuart Mills (1888) principles of inductive inquiry. John Stuart Mills (1888) as cited in Etzioni and Du Bow (1970) called these three principles are called method of agreement, method of difference and the indirect method of difference. The method of agreement may be explained as if two or more cases of the occurrence that is being examined have one condition that is similar, it is assumed that this condition in which all the occurrence concur, is the origin of the specified trend. Therefore in order for an occurrence to be necessary it must occur in each situation (206-208). Furthermore, it may be assumed that in this instance the comparativits would be concerned with investigating situations where the condition can be identified and therefore by default conditions that are not recorded would not be necessary for the occurrence(s) to transpire.