Sociological Publications Research Articles

Social Research and Market Research: A Reply to Harrop and Abrams

I endorse this statement without reservation. My only regret is that what I wrote could be interpreted as an attack on survey research per se , which manifestly must be a valid criticism of my work as both Harrop and Abrams take me to task for this. Quite the reverse was intended. Contrary to appearances, I believe that all three of us are united on three points: first, that survey research is a valuable methodological tool for the sociologist; second, that technical standards of survey research among sociologists are presently poor; and third, that steps need urgently to be taken to improve the quality of sociological survey research. Given such fundamental agreement, how is it that the three of us can be so much at odds? The answer, I think, may be in the origin of my piece. Towards the end of 1975, Cathie Marsh (then at the SSRC Survey Unit) invited my comments on the draft for the revised edition of the SSRC's Guidelines in Commissioning Research from a Research Company. In writing at some length to her, I realized that I had produced the basis for a research note which raised wider issues and which might therefore be of interest to a wider audience as it has proved. It was accepted for publication in Sociology by the summer of 1976, even though it did not appear until three years later. This may explain why it refers to the now defunct SSRC Survey Unit, and why Harrop and particularly Abrams see it as an attack on the Unit and its task of improving survey research. I thought I was writing about a specific technical issue (the use of market research in surveys), and I should make it clear that my target was an SSRC policy, not the Survey Unit, not the Director of the Unit, nor even as I saw it a Unit policy. One problem of commenting on an amorphous organization like SSRC is, as I have found in the past, that the wrong people often feel themselves to be the objects of criticism. I can therefore sympathize with Dr. Abrams' evident sense of personal grievance, but I cannot allow his inaccurate and ad hominem comments to pass unanswered. To start with, he devotes the first part of his note to demolishing my case that there was an SSRC conspiracy to suppress methodological pluralism in favour of survey research. Unfortunately, nowhere in my paper did I actually make that case, and indeed, I argue the exact opposite! I explicitly challenge the complaint that SSRC was only interested in survey research, saying that the criticism was always somewhat unfair, and there have been ample signs of methodological pluralism, most notably in the last few years, (p. 308) Nor did I say that the purpose of the Survey Unit's publications was 'to steer the researcher towards market research'. What I said was that 'the effect of the two publications is to steer the researcher towards market research'. There is a world of difference between the purpose of something and its effect: whatever my personal suspicions, I was not centrally concerned with attributing motive or intention to the staff of the Survey Unit, but rather, in a somewhat Mertonian fashion, I was dealing with the consequences of their actions. Had Dr. Abrams quoted me in full, the meaning would have been clear to the reader (and to himself).

Professional Age and the Reception of Sociological Publications: A Test of the Zuckerman-Merton Hypothesis

They go on to propose an alternative line of investigation: the relationship between age and the reception of scientific publications. It is on the basis of the concept of 'codification' 'the consolidation of empirical knowledge into succinct and interdependent theoretical formulations' that Zuckerman and Merton formulate theoretical expectations concerning the relationship between a scientist's age and the impact or reception of his or her publications. While the 'consolidation of knowledge' confers advantages on the young in the more codified disciplines,

The Social "Genotype" of the East and the Prospects of National States

The recent decades of world history have been marked by the rapid and universal emergence onto the world arena of new national states that have changed from objects of historical activity to very important and active participants in it. Liberating revolutions, supported by the political authority and united economic strength of the socialist community, have torn the lid off the pressure chamber of passivity in which Eastern ethnic units, whose stagnant, static character had become a byword in sociological publications, had been confined. Like a powerful tectonic displacement, they have immediately shifted the political axis of dozens of Asian and African countries and stimulated to the utmost their colossal potential energy.

The diffusion of core publications in american sociology

AbstractCitations to articles published during 1960 in three “core” sociological journals, cited in ten sociological journals (1961‐70), are examined. One‐third of the articles were not cited at all, while only eleven percent of the cited articles were cited in more than one‐half (six or more) of the journals. Articles are more likely to be cited in core journals than in specialized journals. Studies of the reading and citing practices of authors are needed. Finally, it is suggested that the core journals may not play an integrating role within sociology and that greater attention should be focused on the specialty journals.

Language-Switching as an Index of Socialization in the Republic of the Sudan. By Peter F. M. McLoughlin. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press (Publications in Sociology, 1), 1964. Pp. iv, 72, maps. $2.

Language-Switching as an Index of Socialization in the Republic of the Sudan. By Peter F. M. McLoughlin. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press (Publications in Sociology, 1), 1964. Pp. iv, 72, maps. $2.

Method and Substantive Theory in Max Weber

HE WAY IN WHICH most textbooks on the history of sociology classify Max Weber provides a good example of how people tend to affix labels by seizing on trifles: the pigeon hole assigned to him bears the label 'understanding sociology'-'verstehende soziologie'. If we take the word understanding at its usual connotation, we arrive at the conclusion that Max Weber had a monopoly on understanding society. This seems to be a slight exaggeration, although many sociological publications (including those which invoke Weber's name in vain) could very well be classified as 'non-understanding sociology'. Weber's distinction (not very clearly formulated) between 'understanding' and 'explaining' refers to something that has been known to philosophers for a very long time: namely, that we interpret actions of other human beings by attributing to them the feelings and thoughts which we should have if we carried out such actions. As Fichte showed, the validity of this procedure can never be proved; but neither can it be disproved, and nobody can utter its denial without contradicting himself, for the mere intent to communicate presupposes it. This analogy from subjective experience is not nowadays used in interpreting the behaviour of objects other than the higher animals. Its continuous application does distinguish the study of man and society from other branches of learning, but it in no way distinguishes the thought of Max Weber. In fact, dustmen, historians, detectives, pimps, philosophers all have to rely on their subjective experiences in order to be able to explain and predict the actions of others. Even the most astringent behaviourists, who avoid the humans and concentrate on rats, speak of organisms seeking and escaping. Weber, naturally, never claimed that he invented the procedure of 'verstehen', or that it was in any way peculiar to his way of thinking. It was the commentators who committed this folly. Moreover, when dealing with definite sociological problems as distinguished from the discussion of the method of sociology-Weber (as far as I can recall) never

Neglected Areas in the Sociology of Immigrants and Ethnic Groups in North America

As SHILs has pointed out,' the study of the life of immigrants was one of the original justifications for the existence of American sociology.2 The earlier widespread sociological concern with immigrants and ethnic groups is confirmed by the voluminous literature, both analytical and descriptive, produced on these subjects. Since 1935 and particularly after World War II, however, the attention of sociologists to these subjects has continually been declining, as can be evidenced by comparative statistics on the race and ethnic relations specialty of the members of the American Sociological Association (while before 1935, 8.2 per cent had listed this field as their specialty, the percentage declined to 3.4 per cent in 1959); and by a decline in the scope and number of sociological publications on immigrants and ethnic groups.3 In contrast, it should be noted that a comparable decline of interest does not prevail among historians and anthropologists. The historians appear even to have increased their interest in recent years, as we note in the works of Handlin, Bjork, Hoglund, Jones, and Govorchin.4

Voting and the Summation of Preferences: An interpretive Bibliographical Review of Selected Developments During the Last Decade

87 The difficulties of building, operationalizing, and testing mathematical models of political phenomena-particularly the difficulties engendered by lack of relevant data-have been discussed by Duncan MacRae Jr. and R. Duncan Luce. See MacRae's Dimensions of Congressional Voting, University of California Publications in Sociology and Social Institutions, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1958), pp. 354-382. See Luce's Analyzing the Social Process Underlying Group Voting Patterns, in Eugene Burdick and Arthur 6. If, in fact, there actually exists an in. verse relationship between the mathematics content and the political content of this.. literature, political scientists might see this as a challenge rather than as a rationale for re jection. After all, there is little in either th( history of any related discipline or in the literature cited above which would warrant a summary rejection of the application of mathematical reasoning to the study of politics Although the surface has only been scratched those wishing to work in this area will find thai they can ignore the work already done only al their own peril. If the structure is as yet hardly visible, at least some firm foundations have already been built.

Duncan Macraejr. , Dimensions of Congressional Voting. A Statistical Study of the House of Representatives in the Eighty-first Congress. With the collaboration of Fr. H. Goldner. University of California Publications in Sociology and Social Institutions, Vol. 1, n° 3. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1958, vi p. pp. 203 à 390, $ 3.50.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

DUNCAN MACRAE, JR. in collaboration with FRED H. GOLDNER. Dimensions of Con gressional Voting: A Statistical Study of the House of Representatives in the Eighty-First Congress. (University of California Publications in Sociology and Social Institutions, Vol. I, No. 3.) Pp. v, 203-390. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1958. $3.50

DUNCAN MACRAE, JR. in collaboration with FRED H. GOLDNER. Dimensions of Con gressional Voting: A Statistical Study of the House of Representatives in the Eighty-First Congress. (University of California Publications in Sociology and Social Institutions, Vol. I, No. 3.) Pp. v, 203-390. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1958. $3.50

ADULT EDUCATION IN TRAN SITION: A Study of Institutional Insecurity. By Burton R. Clark. Berke ley and Los Angeles: University of California Publications in Sociology and Social Institutions, Volume 1, No. 2, pp. 43-202, 1956

ADULT EDUCATION IN TRAN SITION: A Study of Institutional Insecurity. By Burton R. Clark. Berke ley and Los Angeles: University of California Publications in Sociology and Social Institutions, Volume 1, No. 2, pp. 43-202, 1956

Pressures upon Research and Publication in Sociology

Pressures upon Research and Publication in Sociology

Pressures upon Research and Publication in Sociology

Pressures upon Research and Publication in Sociology

The Social Thought of the Ancient Civilizations

No one would dispute the desirability of the possibility of an examination of the social thought of the ancient civilizations, especially after reading the very able book of Prof. Hertzler. It is not only history, but also sociology and philosophy which can benefit from such an examination. For social forms of civilizations are necessarily an embodiment of the thought and attitude towards life of the various races concerned. The systematic exposition of the social thought of the ancient Egyptians, then of the Babylonians with special emphasis upon the Assyrian and Hittite collections of laws, then of ancient Persia, of early India and of ancient China, and finally of the Hebrews, is illustrated with a wealth of quotations from all available sources. The discussion of the principles involved is based also on the general background of the races concerned. The author has taken great trouble in selecting his material and in classifying it in such a way as to provide an intelligible and interesting study of the subject. The Social Thought of the Ancient Civilizations Prof. Joyce O. Hertzler By. (McGraw-Hill Publications in Sociology.) Pp. xvi+409. (New York and London: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1936.) 24s.

(1) The Development of Sociology (2) Control in Human Societies (3) Ideology and Utopia

CURRENT interest in the co-ordination of views on the social responsibilities of scientific workers gives topical interest to these three volumes. From different angles they are all concerned with the contribution which science could offer to the solution of social problems, and more especially with the conditions and principles of scientific thought in this field. In turn they give us a broad historical survey of the subject, a practical study suggestive of lines of research and a stimulating contribution to original thought on the underlying principles of social theory and discipline. (1) The Development of Sociology By Prof. F. N. House. (McGraw-Hill Publications in Sociology.) Pp. viii + 456. (New York and London: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., 1936.) 24s. (2) Control in Human Societies By Prof. J. Dowd. (The Century Social Science Series.) Pp. xvii + 475. (New York and London: D. Appleton-Century Co. Inc., 1936.) 16s. net. (3) Ideology and Utopia: an Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge. By Karl Mannheim. (International Library of Psychology, Philosophy and Scientific Knowledge.) Pp. xxxi + 318. (London: Kegan Paul and Co., Ltd. ; New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1936.) 15s. net.