Consensus on Occupational Prestige: A Reassessment of the Evidence

Abstract

The paper reviews the debate on dissensus versus consensus in occupational prestige scales. Varieties of dissensus are distinguished, and it is argued that dissensus related to the characteristics of is the important form. Previous evidence of dissensus thus understood has tended to involve data bases restricted to small numbers of or occupation titles. The present study attempts to fill gap by a reanalysis of national prestige surveys collected by NORC. The most striking finding is that dissensus within groups is particularly high among low SES strata and among blacks. The role of random error in pattern is discussed. The interpretation of how much agreement among occurs in studies of occupational prestige has provoked controversy since the early days of survey research. Some sociologists, perhaps the majority, interpret the evidence as demonstrating that consensus is high. Thus, Kraus et al. concluded that the prestige hierarchy is firmly lodged in the collective conscience (915). Svalastoga held that this comprehensive prestige research has permitted the discovery of certain empirical invariants. Among the most generally validated one has to do with the consensus of prestige raters (23). Treiman saw prestige scales as social facts so pervasive that consensus is high across as well as within societies (59) (see also, Hodge et al., b; Inkeles and Rossi; cf. Haller and Bills; Haller et al.). Others, however, have stressed evidence of important exceptions to