In considering places in the United States, is it better to study a community in-depth and get at its uniqueness? Or, is it better to look for patterns across places, focusing more on what joins types of communities compared to other types?

The last two posts have introduced this question through an unusual place in western Pennsylvania and all the histories communities across the United States have. And this is a common issue in urban sociology and among others who study cities and places: should we seek to adopt model places that help us understand sets of places – think of the odd quote that “There are only three great cities in the US and everywhere else is just Cleveland” – or focus on all of the particularities of a particular place or region?

I have tried in my own work to do some of both when studying places and buildings. Two examples come to mind. In 2013, I published an article titled “Not All Suburbs are the Same: The Role of Character in in Shaping Growth and Development in Three Chicago Suburbs.” I built off in-depth research on three suburbs to compare how internal understandings of character affected how they responded differently to changes in the Chicago region and changes to suburbs more broadly. On one hand, these suburbs that shared important similarities have different character and on the other hand they still fit within the category of suburbs that sets them apart from different kinds of places.

As a second example, take the book Building Faith I co-authored with Robert Brenneman. We provide case studies of particular religious congregations as they navigate constructing and altering buildings as those physical structures shape their worship and community. These case studies among different religious traditions and in different locations highlight unique patterns in these congregations and places. Yet, we also look across places, considering patterns of religious buildings in suburbs, in Guatemala, and a few other places.

In both works, knowing the particulars and examining the broader patterns are helpful. Different researchers might go other routes; why not investigate even further in these particular cases? What else is there in archives, interviews, ethnographic observation, etc. that could reveal even more details? Or, go the other direction: look at patterns in hundreds or thousands of places to find commonalities and differences across more settings.

But, I find that the particularities of a certain place make more sense in light of broader patterns and those broader patterns make more sense knowing some local or micro patterns. Having a sufficient number of cases or a varied enough set of cases to make these links can be tricky. Yet, I enjoy approaching places this way: digging into both the histories of particular communities and seeking broader patterns that hold across communities.