Comparative Research in the Nordic Countries: Overcoming Ethnocentrism? 1

In the beginning of the 1970s comparative politics was still a neglected genre in Nordic political science. During that decade, however, comparative research started to make headway. An examination of articles published in five leading Nordic political science journals during the 1980s indicates that more than one‐tenth of the content was devoted to comparative research. The examination suggests that the Nordic approach to the small‐N problem in comparative research is variegated: binary comparisons constitute just over one‐quarter of the volume, whereas the share of studies exploiting three to five cases is slightly larger, and the share of studies discussing more than five cases is slightly larger still. However, in the selection of cases for study, a more clear‐cut strategy and pattern is revealed. It is clear from the journal data that Nordic comparativists escape ethnocentrism by turning to another ethnocentrism ‐ i. e. they are predominantly preoceupied with the Nordic countries. While this emphasis on Nordic comparisons certainly can be defended on methodological grounds, doubts can be raised about the overall methodological justification of the Nordic orientation. The risks involved are not always recognized. What is known as Galton's problem merits special attention in a Nordic context. The nature of the problem is that empirical relationships may be the result of learning, which means that the cases studied lack independence. Since it is evident that a lot of diffusion occurs in the Nordic countries, the challenges posed by Galton's problem should receive much more attention in Nordic research than is presently the case.