Paper , Order, or Assignment Requirements

IV.Contrast Explanation Key Features

One methodological solution for those seeking to develop causal explanations in open system contexts is basically to seek to explain why two outcomes were not the same as each other when we had good reason to expect that they would be.
Put differently it is to ask in respect of one of the outcomes not why did x occur but why did x happen rather than y, where y occurred elsewhere in circumstances regarded as similar. The starting point of the exercise is a surprise that two outcomes are not the same, or that x rather than y happened. The object then is to explain the difference.
Two conditions are clearly required for such an explanatory approach.
The first is just that over some region the contrast space we had good reason to expect outcomes of a certain kind to have a similar causal history and so to be much the same.
The second condition is that a posteriori we are surprised (concerned or otherwise interested) to find that things do not turn out as expected.
Notice that not just any old contrast will do the differences in outcomes need, from the point of view of existing understandings, to be surprising, noteworthy, inconsistent, doubt inducing.
Different people will find different things interesting/ surprising. Contrast explanation recognises the situated nature of the researcher but interprets this situatedness not as a constraint but as a resource. Interested standpoints are not only unavoidable but actually indispensable aids to the explanatory process.
Individuals occupying marginalised positions may be able to facilitate significant insights as they may be better placed to recognise contrasts of significance.
In terms of directing the explanatory process a key aspect of contrast explanation is the recognition that the aim is not to explain everything but is rather to identify the causal factor that makes the crucial difference and accounts for the unexpected outcomes.
In terms of adjudicating between different causal explanations that might be forwarded to account for the difference contrast explanation recommends bringing a range of contrastive phenomena to bear on the hypothesis.

V.Explaining the relative performance of Silicon Valley and Bostons Route 128

Saxenian account of the superior performance of Silicon Valley during the 1980s and early 1990s as an exercise in contrast explanation.

Common features of the two regions
-Both had early links to the defence sector
-Both had access to a highly skilled labour force
-Both had access to venture capital
-Both close to world class research universities

Despite the similarities divergence in performance

Accounting for differing performance in the 1980s and early 1990s
a) Labour Market behaviour and attitudes
b) Social Networks
c) Decentralised versus vertically integrated industrial structures
d) Supplier Infrastructures

The Resurgence of Route 128