The comparative method in ministerial adviser research

Despite the rapid growth in research on ministerial advisers over the past 20 years, few methodological texts exist to guide researchers on how to study and compare ministerial advisers. In an effort to advance the comparative discussion, this chapter explores the utility of the comparative method for ministerial adviser research. Specifically, we draw attention to the opportunities and challenges facing researchers wanting to examine ministerial advisers across countries. In doing so, we present an overview on the types of comparative studies, the value of comparison, and the issues related to measurement and data: throughout, we also suggest novel approaches that could be explored in future research. We argue that the comparative method can help us climb the scholarly ladder towards more robust classifications and sophisticated explanatory analyses, and help us predict consequences of institutional transfer. This methodological development is particularly necessary for ministerial adviser research, which has historically been dominated by single country descriptive studies but which is increasingly engaging in explanatory analyses. In short, the development of comparative frameworks is important for the more ambitious goals of building and testing theories that help us understand - and perhaps predict the performance of - policy advisory structures.