Comparing conjuncturally, part II: Comparison unbound

The first installment of this two-part article explored approaches to the conjunctural and conjunctural analysis from a spatial perspective, drawing out implications for conceptualization, research design and strategy, and explanatory framing. Conjunctural analyses tackle questions of complex, multiple, intersecting causation in politically salient and contested situations, probing conditions of existence and reproduction, while problematizing received concepts, categories, and commonsense understandings. As such, they place a premium on reflexive strategies for casing, theorizing, and research practice. This second installment of the article examines conjunctural approaches to comparison. If the hallmarks of orthodox, nomothetic (Millian) methods of comparison include the specification of discrete but commensurable cases, isolating key variables, and controlling for context, conjunctural approaches seek to do something altogether different. To compare conjuncturally is to explore different combinations and configurations of constitutive relations while facilitating ways of seeing and understanding otherwise. Beyond the documentation and diagnosis of contrasting (local) conditions and situations, comparing conjuncturally is also about the exploration of different perspectives and vantage points. And more than a critique of orthodox approaches to comparison, it provides a mandate for the ongoing, reflexive development of experimental research strategies, together with an alternative methodological repertoire, testing the purpose and limits of comparison itself.