Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
vw r,
icotemporary
SOCIETIES
Methods of Discovery
Heuristics for the Social Sciences
\Ietbeds nf Discevenj is organized around strategies
or deef cuing arguments in order to find the best
w ys to study social phenomena. Abbott helps social
su nec students discover what questions to ask. This
exciting book is not about the mechanics of doing
social science research but about habits of thinking that
noble students to usc those mechanics in new ways, by
ot un up with new ideas and combining them more
effectively with old ones.
\bhott organizes Metbeds of Discovery around general
methodological moves and uses examples from
throughout the social sciences to show how these moves
can pe new line of thinking In each chapter, he
cc vets several moves and their reverses (if these exist),
discussing particular examples of each move as well as
ts logical and theoretical structure. Often he
goes on to
propose applications of the move in a wide variety of
empirical settings. The basic aim of Methods of Discovenj
tc ffer readers a new wm y of thinking ibout directions
for I cii resc arch and new ways to imagIne information
relevant to their research problems.
ANDREW ABBOTT is a professor in the Department of
Ssiologv at the Univenity ol (hicago He is the authot
iost re ntly, of Chaos of Dzscip I i s and 1)rne Matters:
On
The,
fJIetl,icEIs c
Discovery
Pndrevv Abbott
o
.
5.
,.
03
(j
03
:ss o-t9tuc-
90000
www.wwnorton
corn
LONDON
fl
JEFFPEV
ALEXANDEfl
iuIIh1hIiO1) S
I
U
dL
10
0.
I
I
iR
tit
iui Uw
i&4i
.)HIII1
\iiU
IU
(
.
---
____i.__..
--
0.
---.
--
,,fr
II
C.
L
-\
k \
tail
a
1.4.
lbS
lIs.,iuvh
114.
caaaa
I
,1
Iii
I.
Itd.IathAi 1.44
lI L
t,.
I
xl
.t
Lb\
.
..
I.
ft
IdjflAr..
n4.a
iai..
Jail
I.
al
a
1.1
Ll.aa:.c
%LIIaIlasia.V
lilt)
(l
CONTENTS
AcKNowLEDGMENTs
To THE READER
xi
Explanation
I. Explanation
II, Methods
III. Explanatory Programs
CHAPTER ONE
CHAPTEI Two
I, Basic Debates
H. Methods and Debates
tf 3
53
60
75
CHAPTER THREE
Introduction to Heuristics
110
I. Search Heuristics
113
120
H PfER
I ivii
General
Narration
scip
Ii
SticS
146
fracal Heuristics
162
and
Positivum
Interpretivism
11
al s and N r Oitio I
III. B havi rum
(ultuca1isrn
l\ Individualism and Emergenrism
V Realism and Cc nstructaonism
VI
fitextualiso
II
Cc
ii
nd Noncontcxtc alism
out
VIII
It
tS
1 Ri
uP Puzsles
168
171
179
183
187
192
198
201
206
211
of It eas
213
221
IV,
231
V
\d
(ji
Si
138
Hcu s ro
in
IIc
iste
U
nudity
I ussies
SsSIIY
N
Rs IRF\(E
ACKNOWLEDGMENTh
137
226
234
242
249
255
259
265
Titis
LiTTLE TEXT
AcKNo
I 5DoM1\ [
chi iy thes ide is, I hope that this book will capture some
hint ot the excitement of our conversations. I also thank uni
v i it cii en as at Sar )ugo, Harvard, Oxford, and Oslo, as
well as a conference group at the Social Science History Associ
ati in, II of whom heard and commented on Chapter One.
b ok vas designed, and large parts of it
drafted, during a stay at Nuffield College, Oxford, during
h ik the Warden and Fellows of Nuffleld
Hi cry err 21 1
ut their support. One chapter (Chapter Sixtypically, the first
to he imagined was the ast to be completed) was written dur
i
a or vis t, it 200 to th Department of Sociology at
Fiarsard, hose kind hospitality I acknowledge. Erin York was
assista it I o chased down various sources and
ri r ax
,
HE READ1ik
f1
ti
resources
To
tEADILi
iii
cry is not
1t;
theinsus,
et:
I ittle more bluntly in Pride and Prqadrc: We all love to in
struct, though we can teaeli only what is not worth knowing.
Nonetheless, by teaching some basic tricks for produc
ing ideas. I hope to give the reader tools for social scientific
discosery, And I will show how these tools for invention and
discovery relate to the methods that arewith good reason
thought to he our chief ways of prodLicing competent work.
I have assumed undergraduate students as my basic audi
ertec. But much of what I have to say can be useful to graduate
students or even the occasional colleague.
Writing
this book
ci
I a e tried
s
i
to
C. ci
type r
it
is not necessary to
sc minimize I
M E T HO D S
OF
Disco v E R
XPLANAT1 ON
I.
11.
ExPLANATIoN
METHODS
A.
ETHN0GRAPHY
B.
HISTORICAL NARRATION
C.
D, SMALL-N
E.
ill.
COMPARISON
FORMALIZATION
EXPLANATORY PROGRAMS
SCIENCE IS A CONVERSATION
Sir
no
)s ut
I) s
0 lois
in
to pn
beCaSiSc
examples I use in the book come trom mcielogy. But
all of the s
the social sciences are all mixed up together. riot
SUDje
amples will be socioiogkal. The social ScienCeS .1sare
dology
matters, theories, and a surprising amount of metho
law K
They are not organized into a clearly defined system
their orientations from various historical accidents. Loosely
the
speaking, economics is organized by a theoretical cocicepi
idea of choice under constraint), political science by an aspect
h
of social organization (power), anthropology by a mechu
ast
(erhnography), history by an aspect of temporality (the r
Citf
and sociology by a list of subject matters (inequality, the
le ctiterw f u
5
th family, and so on). Thus. there is n sin
an
distinctions among disciplines. As a result, when one cu
mel
other discipline becomes too much of a bore, the othecs
use else
fun of it and steal its best ideas to put them to bcrter
rsn,
where. All of this flux means that a heuristics book can
widely, as this one will.
\I
ho sri
Di
ii
Mt 111005
iii
ExPLaNarLrn
sing
us.
ourit
nyc
Sia
i c
Th)Vemflc
I mod
its,
of revolutions, and,
as
itt rn ci
has
duced
it e
at
the beginningwith
xplanat ion.
I
vei iss
it
needs no explanation
becausc
ins
to cxp a
ocia life II etc are three things
Li iii hr i social scieiirist ay that a particular argument is an
explanation. First, we sai something is an explanation when it
ac
a n
Se.ond.
looking
timla
ix d
ma)
lie
a narrow neck
LxPL i<N t ON
c c
reseic
rtai
for example.
ltwevcr
c,i
Ia
aLlcsu
ft
hi
lt
it
1 nat or wi re an explanation is
to It king f r further accounts,
r d I xpIanation works by trans
tXI n i 1 o ii a world that is less
ch
mo c comprehensible. The at
i ill 1 ira activit es without any reference to
a nFL ifie utiLtar:an philoso
e
it
slov h
ternack pursuit of self-interest by
I
lvdtia
t io iwn ) i npeated many times)
i fitC t d
suit in the social world that was
ia
cal
usc in additive total of individ
Ii
I re I sc
phenc r ena, like the (to them
I
a 1
peop e getting along without ob
1 let oiiicno
duo ci iii
ex lair d as the result of some
o I
k i idual bch t ots
5
d i w o txp at at on in which we think expla
i
c
n r
ncj tua wc ild to anotherds not
ia
t
ad er it i tic view. It defines explanation as
t
a hc
lent) 1 cm one spheic of analysis to ani al r aim
reached with which we are intu
it s it -i Sc th uti
arians <explain prosocial behavior
it.
i I id
s ifishness because they feel the
hat I idi dual selfish acfivityis more real,
ho ny cut i
doe, nt need to be explained
i Ft.
Si
a r fiat explanation
i r
cil
11,
gere or enzyme,
it.
fa
tt
)flt<
11
12
forma
a explar at on
o lo with the properties of an
if
r in
its logical tructurc. In the most fa
sos art ft on expi marion
the tw c nrieth century, the
tihilosuplier Crh Hempel argueu that to explain is to demon
strate that th starting condiric us in the case that we want
r xplai n it tire hiyp thesis con I buns of some general cover
1), lot c amp!
r law
ye might have the covering
1 i
h
ft u ft n y has a substantial majority
a pal isa cot. i
11 he at I o have a large effect on the
couritri Then we demonstrate io a particular case (say, Great
tam in I c)9, after the Labour landslide) that one party
nl sLich susrantjal maiority We can then say we have cx
ii icJ
he Labou arty I
had a str ng effect on British
i
cc
ret 1 997
he co i icti m of our cover
lass
1 enevr a party
strong najority, it has a
org cffech u ith our empirical premise Labour in 1997 got
a strung majurirv!ogicall entails the empirical conclu
sion that Labour had a Iarie effect on the country. By
m binii
c general law with a demonstration that our par
ast F
ft condi o I that law, we can use the con
ion
i
F law o xplain 1 c particular outcome in our
part Ic Liler case
I vie
account,
inn v
ft a
HuLl
Disc
Lx )5,
in
on,.
S (ceilsuses, accounts,
ii. b tour rast. s beg mu with hots one analyzes data, we might
has e three met buds:
i/i
If
i
ste
tc L r
is
f r
:i t-nn/i anaiulj;
h )ds
studying a unique example in great
scili
\ a,
.1
or other
will simply give
OL)CIOLIS
list
ui
cacegoiiaatiou of fltLtltOCL,
macin
plc
di t i I
Because there is no
publications,
and so on
N,i1Oi
working
16
lHO x,
observation to going
One partie ipation can range from mere
ck immer
<<atne from xcasional afternoons to round-the-clo
participation with interviews,
ii au n etit 6
)
s U
and rview of official records.
infcrmani
im
uier
not very detailed be
An uthnographcrs questions are often
the researcher will have
the i Id res arch begins ilrhough
obi un s an ethnographer proceeds, he
icr I p a
notes, records of events, interUI she g ierates a mass of hr ci
reactions, as
obsers ations, and reflections about personal
rhati ix ret ds of conversations and interac
wc as e hess
of the field situa
t o ,taphe Ho t into and ut
jew even while developing
tion, irving w keep an outsiders
rereading field
an iisidrrs one as well. Continually reading and
and
tl t )graphci th iks up iew questions to ask
ti
it
and
s t xplot flu, onstant reflection is difficult,
ave
i c
as is evident in
as result the held experience is disorienting,
Bronislaw Mali
the i ilnous field diaries of the anthropologist
i
iXiLu5AL iO<
Discon
8<
returns home
Wh n the lie d.ork s d it, tl e ethnographer
notes. Questions
and contemplates thesc hundreds of pages of
surface as
enie clearer Connections and themes begin to
thought and
c i a e a a te class lied aid reclassified,
some sort,
bought. Il e result is m st olten a monograph of
now clear question, set the ethno
\ itli chapters that pose the
in the
cue resent xrensi\ e data from the field, and
tphi
de t icorct cal is gh
P
Magic among
A n example. considcj xi itrncnir. Oaclu, awl
rd made sev
:1. ;L.mnc/ by P. E. Lians-Pritchard. E\ans-Prltcha
1 926 arid
lee so;outns am rig the Azande between
I cx
to study what he
910. i r t ugly h dir tic t go to 6 e field
to
B. 1-lictorical Narration
Historical narration is another methodological tradition. Much
f
of historical work is descriptive, examining the question 0
what really was the state of affairs in a particular place and time
But historians often pose a specific narrative question. mos
commonly, why did such and such an event take placer Histo
rians apply many methods to such questions. Much of histori
cal work consists of amassing published or archival materials
from the time and place studied, so-called primary materials
Strange as it may seem, historical data are often embariassirigl;
rich; we often know too much about the details of the past. A
a result, historical method often takes the form of trolling these
seas of old data for important materials.
The heart of historical method is the reading of documencs
themselves. An informed historical reading of primary materials
presupposes extensiveindeed overwhelmingknowledge o
Sic i
the ci
i g
,
zing Ii osror i and rrgional varieties both of
ccii ri
lriages and or the mans idrics behind the survival of the doc
uniuiits read The liistorum lot any social scientist employing
n hOe butsieen overinterpreting
1
st rca methods ii alles i th
our c N source hould he read out of
d un I r crprc I
1 Its ow r iften lies in figuring
r
c ii
that context wcre wrong. Thus,
i cprion.
c inus
it lit
cumt an mv eas but ci difficult.
toe ethnographcr. the historian carries out many tasks
sOC uitancousiV. oust seekin documents, now reading them,
tot mon now a mhling oreliminary arguments
1) 1
tat r As with ethnography,
itt
an
ig t d pamsiaki g process by which a researcher
crc
asscniblcs svnrhctic view ol something that is first perceived
o;i through a is elter of particular detail. But it has long been
ustotO or historkms to hide their arduous research process
ithout question, history is
t
X
)SC 5
ide of
eganr n
mod
etc ices perhaps the only social
hr so i
en o
t v
cit
s r ad wic1ei It pleasurc by nonspecialists. As a
hit historical narrative seem at
csult F ist rs an in part
ti it hcsn to be simple and effortless. That simplicity, however,
lv k
is
I..
ltct
Onc
c
W,s
that
cxamp
it
asked
the reo
this
iik,TH()DS
.10
l)isi i ) iiiv
>1
lii
cc
cl
othe
ii
o i.nu,
type
D 5ma//-N Comparison
Partway between the derailed analysis of tl1 imuLurical oC
rent reality of a single case and the statisticai analysis of man
cases lies a method wc can call small-N comparison. lypm allj,
small-N comparison mom esriates a handful of cases, from chtee
to perhaps a dozen. The cases can be
cnail}
different vmnds A
Mi
I HODS 01
Dist
m LRY
u
ii jugs: hi ca ic aces, nattu is, social scrv ice agencies, cornm
tics r a w 01 e fo rn of soc at organization.
1 hr paiticutlar form of data gathering employed in smallN
ring several
noah si can vary Ihere ate e thnogi aphies compa
dif
d fr ii field s tes as writ as histories comparing several
I re r ra ct wi of iations C r classes SmallN analysis rypi
gi w th n th iograpluic and his oiical traditions and
generalizations by invok
1
0. Ua ly see n s a way or i n roving
ung mote (and different) cases. It occasionally arises from the
r si si process in which a p tantitauve analyst focuses on a
the
s m ii umb r I cases to i nprove his or her reading of
Ily
ie
au h s
maIn U io iparison attempts to combine the advantages of
single-i ase uialysis vu i tilt se if multucase analysis, at the
antages of each. On the
S one nov trying to avoid the disadv
or hand it ueta ns in t h inffirmation about each case. On
ai e the rh cut ut cases to test arguments in
it 01 ct it C
ith a single case By making these
of
lerailid vi pai ist ns, it tries to avoid hr standard criticism
sing Ic cise iIlctlySlS -that one can t generalize from a single
multicase analysis
as veil as the standard criticism of
vavs that ate u
nj
ossibie
OV
rs
ft
au
as
s. lit
i h av
di uuc
in studies of kinship,
rotcmlsm, or
China, Japan, and india. Germany and Russia ate also coiisid
ered, bLut not in depth. Moores sources includeo hundreds or
histories of this or that aspect of each country. After endless
reading, comparison, and reflection, Moore theorized three ba
sic routes to modernity, all of them depending oil hew the tia
di tional ag ic ultural classcslords and peasantsdeait with
the coming of commercial agriculture and the rise of dir bour
geoisie. In the first route, that of England, France, and the
United States, a powerful commercial middle class overthrew
the landed classes or forced them to accept muddle-class tcrms.
The restult was democracy in Germany and Japan, the bour
geois revolution failed, and the landed classes determined the
shape and dynamics of capitalism as it emerged, leading to fas
cism. In China and Russia, an enormous peasant class provided
the main force behind revolution, thus undercutting the drive
to capitalism and leading to a standoff between the revolution
aries in the advanced capitalist sector (the Communists) and
the peasants. Moores book provided the stimulus for much of
comparative politics and historical sociology in the 1970s,
l980s, and 1990s.
E. [orma/izarjo,
a
s
EXPLANAriON
ssc v
iin r
t
i
I n ake i sar
s W havei r pa hue
c I it h details in
sic
vi
01
LXPL
t I 11005 01 l)lsCOvi K
iuLS
narra
ss dir airs discip1ine although ethnography and
history,
ire somewhat associated with anthr(polog Sand
do not
rcSpeti\el I also want to reterate that these methods
nut
itegorization of methods. As I
alys s, some are ways of gather
rrr arc methods J
thought of as
it d so on They a c if anything, best
a cys of Ion s it ci se ence As such, they are prorun cs I tes rchcrs who practice them, teach
h y are living traditions, not ab
a I clop tlier
tr m a single modc of
ft
t
i
it
if
ANA1UWI
PRoc,R
t.x
meth
ou may hc r ondering when ion would use one of these
od as opposed to another. Are there hypotheses or empirical
problems particularly well suited to particular methods? The
usoal answer to this question is en and the usual procedure
would he to present here a list of what method is good for what
uestion of suitability
1
knd t problem. but my answer to the c
is n
more concrete and some versions that are more abstract With
three explanatory programs, each having concrete and abstract
concrete
explanatory program
2. Historical narration is a concrete
version
ci
tin- iii
c/a
explanatory program.
Note that there are two missing possibilities. I shall say ser\
little about one of them: the concrete version of the pragmalic
lilt I 1101)5
.1
(11
FL
Discoytiri
ci
is
OcilOC,
IC
10
Ihis
ihi h
e icli ut
e
ci
I cii nec
the law.
Modehrig
Formalization
SYNTACTIL
PROGR,-sai
C 0 ii
in
IS
Arson
01
e.
it
Jail in.
s are
imp
s canons or
ca/ho
Historicas
Narrat on
Comm )nSense
U nderr randin
PRAQIAT1C
2:
Erhnography
Pattern Sear
SEMAcTIC PAOGR-sai
Experimentation
semantic
Lxe
to
)tht
st oL
vote
r attdnti
AiTk N
dc
ciptioi
no ski, in
c f a in
great A
sent,
I icily s
santi
gonaat
i/a
St
satisfactory
way of
running my
tfla I
found
this
as
Me incus
iii
tactic ones.
Ut cc
ci
I)iscei
EXPLANAriON
ERi
s he au e of
pineipalli a
senianti
prograic.
o i
if evo utiom
me Narratio
Marxian social analysis). and the like. But these are for scholars.
\1
I HOD
,,,j
s at
,erioi
the co
i fete
at nporal
n cc.
Ii cc
lNXPLANsTiOf
into a
the
reduced elescriptioli that a reasonable reader can grasp with
Fhus techmques like cluster
S cry cy cxl niaCin
/X
I i i s o a cu ng talc data of enormous
ci t u it nit sinipi categoties and pictures. Pierre
I iai
tot evample, xpLned consumption patterns in
in ins book I) au;ichci by showing that those patterns
1 1 s hsri i t otis From the readers
u i
a
is a nattet of common sense
c e. lmnaru
iew
tnt
ince linurdicu has s isuallv presented the geometry of the
insumptilin patterns by using a scaling technique that turns
i.
Ic
in
an
tO
tcfer
tie
no
co
ic
cs
01)
for os
I
Sc n
works. Only
bout i jkyir
p
i sna
it
net
cacti
ii
cm
toe
,fle
tf
gram.
the
durational modeL
ai rocm
enSpr
c
Because the SCA program is so dornnanr iii 1
science, we need to look at it in some detail,
The SCA paradigm arose out of a ranionahmtior m ci
uses,
xiL tioo
political
SCICflCC
[W. i)
)ist )VRY
Chapter TWO
ASC DEBATES AND
IETi1ODOLOGCAJ PRACTCS
I.
BASIC DEBASES
A. ETHNOGRAPHY
B. HisToRiCAL NARRATION
C. STANDARD CAUSAL ANALYSIS
D. SMALL-N COMPARISON
F. FORMALIZATiON
Ill.
CYCLES OF CRITIQUE
A.
B.
C.
D.
F.
IV.
ETI-INOGRAPHY
HISTORICAL NARRATION
STANDARD CAUSAL ANYSIS
FORMALIZATION
SMALL-N ANALYSIS
Mi iuo
hAt
BAsic DEBAteS
meth
l)tiiiS ih. o
z uses tlw Print
I
ocates the mi rhod
debates.
ho
( laptet (
Ii is here that t he a i,
rt
vt
he sta idard path The
v te t ss mild r tins
go on to a chapter_length
analysis or the d-taJ
5 of each inc iod Many
excellent texts do
so, Instead, I s iii show that
on Closer iflSpection, the
usual,
simplc iC tare or the method
5 comes apart in our hands.
In the
tlrst place. nh method ol}Crs
a profound critique of iar/3
of the
others ritlques that are aligned
along quite different dimen
SiOfl, As a rL suit,
the VariQU methodological
critiques can be
arraiigecj in ran-chasing
circles. They do not offer the
single
chub e that they are usuald
said to e nhody (quantitatj\e
Versus
({Ualitatn
SCiefl
ersus interpretation or
something like
rhat. This circular quality
guarantees an openness, a
heuristic
richness to mutl
methodological critiques. And
in
the sec
ond pi t. tlw great
debates themsels es prove to
have a fractal
charat ret, they repeat
thcmsei es again and
again at finer and
hnei les cs wit hi
0 die methods As
a result, they
too function
as lixud Positions
than is mcthodologicaj
resources, as
5 of ins ent and
gambit
discovcz Later iii the hook
(Chapter
Six), I will show that
thtsc lebat at ii
lac
Our
richest re
u UiC5 Wi
.
new aleas
P eacnces
ICR loca
,ia ss direct d
It
AND ISIETH000LOG1CAL
I BAsic DEBArES
it
5 couLrsc
people, and comparable for accuracl and Validt. B
another strand of social science holds that measurement or sc
cial life
is
in
-ci
dl
oi
Disc
i,x
et n ig hpper s in
S vi w, is rot to tell a story
about it hut rather to list the various
effects iii/il ic/i/al forces
have n it
f ther thin
: w iii is th eliect of race on in
i C
if
c
i
oc upati i at d sc on. This second
y
against an//)
ll ese ns u debatespositis ism iliterpretivjsm and
narracioni
a ul
tat I. Bt
i
ould hc hard to overestj
iat C lit mpo tancc Fhe are utterly pervasive in the
social
sciem es. Piobably the majority of methodological reflection
1dm s s tI rr, i me wry o not r
I t.
t
dc I ites c rice
issues of method proper.
debatc pits 1a/rcr
BAsic Diiarts
aND METHOOOLJGiCi.
FRAJiiCS
Bc/j
tin
ien
ii i,IL ), .inj
nt
Co//iin/is,,
hr
BASIC DEBAS kS
hack to
eej
tin
con
Iii
are
ui
nr
ii
cia
St
(c/Il
Hic
iii
iii
hi y a e horn
yr r one ligate it
n all r lion I icily true ian
ui
1 tv sri th
Wi it
Paac ricts
in any
thinking noncontexiwa/Ji. In the contextual mode of approaching social life, a social statement or action has no meaning un
less we know the context in which it appeared. II I say I air a
political liberal, my statement has no real content until you
know with whom 1 am comparing myself 1 could be a middlc
of-the-road Republican speaking no a member ot the new
Christian right, or I could be a left-wing Democrat companup
s
myself with all Republicans. Or again. if I say a community
Viry
H ucc
lini.
all
ie b
oem
1a1it
e
Parsom to
vri
rs
iki
the
Th
on lict position, ss ith a gerieak>g.reaching back
it
p1 \lr
R iss t i, i p ciscly he teveise. Why, con
lint tlicornft af, n there so i,fi conflict The
v lit pe it
ili ret ily p o the r 1 yes
answer is
that
are clouded by op
that make them act in socially destructive
avs. ConfljL t eurisu also seek hidden norms and rules,
but
i ii
ht a tI Ct inca ed mice if conflict, nor the vis
ihh holy arks against it. Confin thinkers always begin
with
illi
fi k ck at 1 lb
c iUScS, since they be
ncs e i new do n it li iii hurnaii oat
ore Consensus theorists
on tr ii n H
for w ire!
conscout nccs believing as
it V
t mt conflict does arise iii human
nature,
In the area of prc blematics, then we have two
important
ii
5
i
us i H. an
flirt to l5efl5U It should be
U )Vi00
5 t iat the conflict and
consensus positions have distinct
it
ii
r y athi s t ml it wi Ii left liberal thinking and
.Oi1sC isUs
rh conservative thinking. (Constraint and choice
ftCji foP my the s nm div he
TI se pohtical positions them
s ye a ft ii linked t a furthei debate, one on the
nature of
knowLd e
ye
1.
,i mit
,tt
ci
c C mc
MEl HODOLOGICAL
PEAL rices
and hence that only the participants can correctly define what
is happening in their own place and time. They have pris ilegen
access to their own reality. (This is cerralnil a position thaL
even quite a few survey analysts would accept.
The political sympathies of these positions are by rio meums
consistent. The universalist, or transcendent, position is usually
portrayed as politically conservative, while the left is identified
with situated knowledge that accepts the limits of place and
time. Ar tile same time, much of left-liberal social science con
sists of applying universal moral positions (for example op
pression is bad) to places and times that would by no means
have accepted them. The connection is thus not consistent.
is a usetcil
place to complete this short survey of profound debates in so
cial science. As we have seen, these begin with purely meth
Paa. ltces
Ni) MiTHODOLO6iCAi
It is always local
10 ji the aDstr,itt.
StUriLs
Ut
cdfi
ithout
usaljtt.
duced
Ut tJi ttLiCtLite I it., [ULltjfle
)t
00
s stcrn)
Sc,
5.
i.
H uini intlis ilial .nd their acts are the only real
i nti lit analysi
sicIci eDa-rdents exist, atC
irreducible to individuals, and
uiccts (t social scientihe
analysis.
Ut ial
1.0
sna
pitmi
A)SD L)Em-cfLS
i
etilUtis
itia
die
Ut 0L i.U
.
Ii. MesunuS
..
oi particular.
5.
sill
explain.
piccsc
times.
aiia]vsis
should
focus on
hat reproduction
A.
Ei/iI/u,paph)
well
Jennect
tO
ill
acetic
c,t
iriteepreril
us i,il phenomena
it
C
i
5 (]t t
i
115
of
0cm on wI
tI ost cbs us
ho ild
for us o
s sr
earlier inca
5
on
art
it
iii
the la
Mi
i 1on, ot Disc
tin
meaning.
Sin HODS OF
Disc nax
b1 ii ci
t ry lit. St 11 r sual y posed narrativelywhy
d A ha per sd not B
and socia reality s still understood
laraell as a wus en eb of stories. nor as a s sternaric social or
cultural structure
An
on
ccl
I bare
Olit) n
ci narration has
lilly
di
ss c of contextualism, a!
insisting on the embedding of am historical Inquiry in a
ceiieral kiioss lcdce Uf its time and place. Again. thert has been
mc i
xatn
hut h tune ci narra on remains tar r iore concx ci
cl
car
any ti n
a! sc entific method. On
he issuc ol be avior s rucrurc and culture, historical narration
has s cried, ernphasizicg now one, now the other. This has been
tim
usc with nd ividuals and merg nts as well, although the
CI
1)1
0511
r P
1 ic ml
iii t
ally
sheer
informational chaos
in
history
than culture. For the most part, SCA denies context, because
contextualism is a major inconvenience to the statistical meth
ods it uses. The whole idea of variables is to remove paiticular
a ilx t i r
con ida fi i o conflicts (as in much
v cit ng ibouc c id it veinc nts),
Finacll, historical narration, like ethnegraphy, always em
pliasiacs situated knoss ledge. The last time historians seriously
Basic
Ii iiioi
able. In a
model
mall sch
erl
ho v
tly
k s ) iologist network
de SCA a
i 1 101 s but stud
1 con
i
onfl it co s ns
is ue, by contrast,
ii
setho
I), c
ic, Fir i y t ic st indard causal po
uvers Iii mi
universalist tideed, this is one of the
foundations t its appeal. Its whole aim n to achieve knowl
edge transcendi i i 1 ucali tx.
I).
.s u/i-A Ccctcz:
y ls s nail-N comparison
s I thc J
s
1 i ihy and narration. It em
ethno
aeither ci
i
1
lual nor r gr p, neither behavior
t1UC ore nor .ulturc, and has operated on both realist and con
strucnioiiisn assumptions, although like ethnograpby and narra
tion it leans ioward the latter, Like them. too, it is highly
contextualized. indeed, the central point of small-N analysis,
s hen compard w ith standard causal analysis, is precisely to re
tu
i
context ua i nination that standard causal analysis
its n 1 cc Ics of cases
ly
cii
1
all-N inalysis c pes to p oduce knowl
1, tl a
ho
i it ed ii I univ r al Ot the one hand, the
it
of dctail i
ase siudie rodues situated, contex
,
it
DEBATeS AND
Mi FHODO LOC IC SL
PRACT1CL.,
ef different
tualized knowledge; on thu other hand, the use
aspects of par
cases allows the analyst to separate the particular
what a takes
ticular cases from more general processes. As for
naI 515 has no strong
to be problematic in social life, small-N
neichet
identity, emphasizing neither choice nut onstndnt
comparison is
conflict nor consensus, By contrast, small-N
the aims of knowledge In
uniquely identified by its stand on
combining
basic aim is to square the methodological circle by
situated and transcendent knowledge
E. Formalizatiuli
most extreme or
As in many other ways, formalization is the
) positivistic
1
the methods discussed here. It is almost absolute
measurement.
although curiously so in that it involves no real
and indeed i
The practice of measurement is unnecessary to it,
concern with
economics, the stronghold of formal analysis,
anywheie
measurement of social facts is probably lower than
-
presumption
else in the social sciences. At the same time, the
an absolute foi
that accurate and valid measurement is possible is
formalization.
formalization is
It might seem to go without saying that
theorywhich i
analytic rather than narrative, but game
of an
certainly formalisticContains at least the beginnings
was aim
abstract approach to narration. Narrative formalization
196Us
characteristic of the literary structuralism of the 1950s,
Levi-Strauss.
arid 1970s and entered the social sciences through
But it has not endured as a standard method
both indi
Ontologically, formalization has generally been
conccrned
vidualistic and realist. It has been overwhelmingly
and has hcen
with behavior/structure rather than culture
Mu
ii
aeofteXtttal
limp
01 Dus 05 U
ii Li
As Mr v
sit
II
ri
thus
those stances hr ips make the methods more clear and compre
I obe aa
mphiasi
th svay in ss. hich they disagree with
at these I tyreen cnts we might con
er m s Is
in i g tid sweep from cthnography
small N analys s hen SQl then formaliza
o At
tot
iii
hitstot
urand
to abstract. Indeed, it is
n inmon to run 01(1st (if the debates discussed in the first part
lie ch1Mte into oft tinge tiling art apparent gradient from
stet
i
rrat ye riergenti t conrextuaIizedsituared
non
v lcd
rsa k
I his
nsoe from
concrete
untiatiun is a
I dir
N ci
I rho ts and som
B or t Lie deeper pm lit
i
a cot
mal izat 1011.
ii ati
iii
lus u o numerical
matrices,
Mrm000ioGlCaL 1aCiiCiiS
make
scnrucic
programs
0
rather than specific contents or methods. Ahstrction 5 t ma
nitudea distance away from concrete reaht, But o e carl he
come abstract in several different ways and one can rake a Ocu
direction an time, anywhere. That is what the idea ot oxpiana
We
ha e a
1ll(
S 01 Dix
SSR
ilk ibou
nodi
Ut dercu
am d otherwise
nian ulare the cc roii social su uctul e that is the es cry day realire of clan ife. NatLlrallv, ss e would
to discuss this data
v m hc 511 1 i
f nydi
m mr ng our theories with
St
want
thens,
.f e
i,
0 aud cype of contact with
hb
world. Ilns bums ledge would reduce our Bella
(a ila study to ( flu example of a ph norncnon we iww under
st id
x se
t Ii
ti
e p ut ral nalysis
the \\
estetfi
fact,
of contact between
primitive
societies
contact
with
the
slnch
Basic
nearly all of these trumpings have been tried and have led cad
methodological community to forms of revisionism that try it
deal with the shortcomings other communities have pointec
out. These, too, complicate the methodological landscape.
Even worse, each method offers a metacritiquc of the ctht
That is, each method can be used to analyze the practitioners o
the others; one can do an ethnography of historians or an SCA
of formalists, for example.
It is useful to run through all of these critiques arid trump
ings and revisions, just to put them all down in one place in
part, I do this so that the reader will not take therr too set
ously. When we see them all together, it is hard to believe that
these little round-robins amount to much. But I also provide
this list to emphasize again that there is no inherent gradient or or
der to ,nethods. Each method privileges some aspects of analysis
over others, and as a consequence each is more or less importa U
as we attend to this or that criterion for our analyses. I have
gathered all of these comments in Table 2.3, showing both the
metacritiques and the directed critiques. I also show examples
of responses (implicit or explicit) to the directed critiques
A. Ethnography
Ethnography argues that historical narration overlools the e
ttaordinary variety of human life in its attempt to find the
trends and general principles of an age. Responding to nis
critique, historians throughout the 1960s, 1970s, and 19Us
moved toward history from the bottom up, studying the
people without history, often employing an oral history that
looks no different from ethnography. Although all of these
studies were in part inspired by a political impulse to study the
c
Li
rote
ntis
a
r
of as typ s of ana y
of itself
g s ct
harg A meaning. Ia k
is tat
nt I
into h sonvan I
ftc apln,Sidnc
historical sociology
etliiognagliy
to, cfwtnkn r
lacks theory
lacL theory
Small-N Comparisos
SP
Margaret Weir
sip
to Is
Root,
Ems
lacks thetir
Charles Regin
unfalsifi able
multiplc sitc
Historical Narration
(implicit only)
lacks theory
Others methodological
allcgiances can be explained
Ethnograpli)
Formalization
Formalization
Small-N Comparison
Historical Narratioi
Ethnographs
SCA
ysis
assumes that underlying model does not changc evolutionar) algorithms
F tsr ograpl
(tEens 1 ck
tssnhi or
sag
AR
_________________
a
a
C,
C
C
C
a
C
C
-I
at
5,
a
a
A
Msiiious c
68
me dt
I rg
ii
14
ir
itt
ci
nd
put
st
bAsk 1JEBA1iS
I)IR ovtitv
ii
a ml si ii ci cc I
t at
al z
I iii
ugi
St
ellmnegi 4 IIV into SCA hecausc of this critique, there has been
at e ii n u i a as 1 the us of oc is groups and other
-e hi my a
n aLe it nsa
thaim tit1iiy
4 a ices
tic
with ics
eel
coming from
to
to
rn
SnT
Sc
and so on Ii 6
realirl fot large or small political reasons,
way, ethnography can claim that methodological discusscai
metal, political.
()d 1 n u, , eti
8
hn
it
V.
statit ing
rr tiC
ot ci in gt mjfi
it
noyrapl
t it
ft
Cr)
1 lexiti
n
of facts and
events.
u nin
s it a
it is a complexic of formal
g micive an
s and as is
hiop logy in the 6
19
0
Cs
B. I-Iiitorzcal Narratioo
tflc
The historians have a different metacritique. For them
great problem of social science is that it does not historteize- i
self, That is, methodological communities iaJ-t a sense of thei:
cm
history and hence a sense of the transitorl nature of the
-
ci
ternittiologies with which they debate central merliodotogi
arid theoretical issues. Until social scientists understand theirj
selves as working in cultural communities that interact
highly structured and even ritualized ways, they will be forced
Basic Dsnairs
)y
In i
h or
S3
9 s Is
ot set mit ink s e Ii id an
crest ii
g variety. Histori
a! anlysis ritir ires ethnography tot being static. By going to
a trig e t mc an crit ograpl it loses the ability
p cc
to list nguish things that are changing from things that are
.
y ii
ott ste lool<s
1
it
lot
cs as
etutiograpilic en
pert
e
tur treatin the tiecring moments ot rIte last stages of colonial
so is I tt w vr-r St ble 11oindnts
tr di norial societies.
Agaost small-N ailal)slsusuallv, comparatie historical
it
ii Ork
luisrom y
ically d in t
tvplcall) knov. tar less than do sperialists on one case. Histori
in. th ik iia 1-N analysts simply d vs t know their cases. By
contrast, the historical case against SCA is much more vague.
ii
ct
Is c 1 s b ci a se hs ria1 ovc to marry SCA meth
ods to sist ricil q mestiuns, in the large and amorphous move
t
hi so ial
it cc history. (N t all of the participants in
this isa e beets historians: there has e been many historical de
1 t
e
v ii s nu sir gist involved as well.)
iUb ra
I he deepet instorcal case against S(,A is that reality happens
ii
sot us so! ed cv
c uurir
reaction, choice and constraint. SCA really has rio
metnod lo
action and reaction wh.risoever its only standard
nifferenc vriabic:
analyzing action is to estimate the effects of
occur thu
on the waiting time till some dependent event
chat SCA
hardly history. Finally, historicd narration argues
ania
variables have hisiories, which arc alwa) s ignorcd. One
relanonsisiP bL
really do over-time models of changes in the
categorie
tween occupation and education because the very
the names anti
the names and contents of occupations and
over any time f cr100
contents of types of
t
worth analyzing.
iii
Against formalization the chief argument of Itistori
model char
analysis is that it always presupposes a formal
Ot rnicro
doesnt change, whether that model is game theoretic
presupposit ofl
ecoivsmiC or structuralist. But it is the cardinal
very rules of the
of historical analysis that anything, even the
universal rules
game, can change. To the extent that there are
do what
the) are contentleSS, definitional truisms_pe0P
interestingly, thei
they want to do and that sort of thing.
history, gcneraii:
have been occasional outbreaks of formalist
Nicolas RashevsK
coming from outside history as a discipline
hiirup tbiusy
once wrote an amusing book called Luokiit tO
var ou
Mathemaliec, and niore recently there have been
Oric
rational-choice models applied to historical events. But no
of making fornul
has ever seriously attempted the central task
rules of cli
models themselves fully historical (by making thc
questioC
gaines completely internal, a part of the game). This
theory at c
belongs to the computer science held of recursive
will no doubt he addressed soon enough.
h idUi)s
UI DiscosI:Rs
PRACTICES
Mt Nc i ic DiscoveRY
ci ai
c pl us. to
rg mnic, s, Ine implicatinns bin e not
I cc i v cli cc rk d )U So t se first fcw pages if an SCA analys
is
f why pople stay at jobs might ontain two or three hypoth
e
ses, which would basically be stories about plausible behavi
ors
ci c rtaiIi hi id
w nket under cr cit k nds of conditions.
cc so iis C )uld essi y write r rncy pages of calculus to jus
0 ft cc ) jist on c f t ose st sties fhe same applies
only
r sore
It r ethnoeraphy. historical anal) sis, and small
N
aigumeists I or cite ormalist these methods are simply
not
I lot yl t our N n only a e t te rgumer
ts i each study undevel
ope i ii lorry al ter fls but there is also no broader, purely theo
to
METHODOLOGICAL PaACTICES
ti
IV.
the first section, 1 discussed some basic debates in the social sci
ences. In the second, I pointed out how the methods of the pre
ceding chapter are defined in terms of these basic debates. At
this point, it was noted, a standard methodology text svoctlci
the details of each basic method, leaving the pro
found differences of assumptions as simply something to take
launch into
inferences.
Instead, 1 showed that the usual way of relating these meth
Mti iiit
Scovtiii
or p r
in
en
t
to
tttir g
p t iIe ci it iqro S
sic Erase in mans cases figured out new
rilings to sar in our research ut that the new things are nec
essarily better in any global sense They may be better locally,
but userall the cyJ
al character of methodological critique
5
lac
r 1 s, probEr
i
rilEy
eg
I
that
to si cv
ritiques
Ic
row
ome
the hands of
rearive.
It
some
is by mak
ays
id
C
c
normal
Mi i u
in, (>1
Disem
ERS
I n e ii (log ii c Nip
au SC i xrended by a further
anals sis ot the basic debates with which I began this chapter.
\l ch t rh powcr of nutoal Cr tique corn N from a peculiar
hty
t
t i is c it ti it thcy arc fractals, That
tics
I
iii
is, tilt V
ois,
)t
an
s
not
ii
simple
linear
stales
from
pOsitis
is tO
mterpre
1e
e at
x Si isi
ociologists like to do sur
eys, aid inrerpri twist sociologists like to do ethoography. But
am ig tflow xs in Jo sors ey s sun art very worrit d about cx
n Ici so iii a question, bile others
i I iii
trt st random error to take cat ot interpretive problems. Once
ago/li, ste h S a ititarpretis ists and positivistsonly within
v 1
v tl p1 v as gr rj o positivists This happens on
the interpretive side as well ihere we will have, on the one
ho 10 El C iisdexer-t cider rpes, who careful1 index their held
j
i
iy
hcs s I sd in the patterns of odes
tileS See, oflti, Oil tile other hand, the deep interpretivists, who
want t
consider the wal part it ular words ss era used in par
i
ii
it
( cIdi
i mgI
he random-error surveyors
positis St pOsitit ists) in some was s base more in common with
the indeser-coder ethnopraphers (positisist interpretivists)
it
I
lit U I bias SL i eyots (interpretivist posi
0
ti\ ist
1 ould
lot i is
is some.
them the same way in all contexts and at all rnonicnrs. Chapie
Six shows how this complex and fractal character of te baso
debates makes them jOLO a crucial heuristic resource for SOCsOi
science just as the trumping critiques of he last section pro
vide bases for whole new literatures. so too do the fracul ja
hates at the heart of social science provide endless trays cc cuine
up with new ideas and even new ways to imagine
tions. That is exactly what we mean by heuristic.
Ott qu s
INTROOUCTION TO 1-1CLUsriCs
Chapter Three
1\TRODI.CT1ON TO HELRIsTIcs
P T
mi
Ill [opics
A.
uc Ill
(
KL)
s
1
K
Ii
iRk
u (
I
)i
c R\A
St
LNCL
0\Ic)NPLACLS
Ii
D. Moaho
I S
CAL
LS
t 1AX)RI S
K Ys u I
HRLL
MoDe
sI
01
I eM
Laonsnc
l{tutjsi
R1sii(
lid
CIcISSI(
51k
101
01
)iS
StR
INTRODUCIION 10 Flsurusric.
die
is and what the answer ought to look like often happen lii par
allel with finding the answer itself. This is why many if no
most writers of social science dissertations and books write the
introductions to their dissertations and booKs last, after alt tIc
substantive chapters have been written. Their original rescaicli
proposals usually turn out to have just been hunting liCeflSCS.,
o li rs md he Pr bEen
\i hat
is
the unknoss a
uui
v a I
cii
utc
\\ hat
are
In
dec u rub,c
00
L1, ,i.
Ii us. has
a
at
oslo
e ths piobler
iti
solution, how
can
you
it
e h y
ii
0 iccr
it
Look Back:
(at
you ase
Can
00 Oss
tic Itsu
rise result
( an
to soi me
00
another problens
(195W
a dictionary
xvixvii)
heuristic really a
topi s ic esa it to discovery. Some
Ct thisc topics are strategies tor problem solving:
auxiliary
iii
IY
c )i
i g md re omb ni ig, mathematical in
Variai iOfl ot the problem, working backward.
Others
t 1
rue
it
ito
led
is
of
01 vati U
tom ys
the ues
oi s
But
e
to
ii
most often licenses to hunt animals very different from the one
that have ended up in the undergraduate thesis or the doctoral
dissertation.
This difference between mathematics and the social scienicm
means that I do not necessarily assume here that the reader is
someone at the beginning of a research project, looking for new
ideas. Most teaching on methods assumes that the student still
start a research project with a general question, then narrow
that to a focused question, which will dictate the kind of data
needed, which will in turn support an analysis designed to an
swor the focused question. Nothing could be further from
reality. Most research projectsfrom first-year undergraduate
papers to midcareer mulriyear, multi-investigator projects start out as general interests in an area tied up with hazy no
tions about some possible data, a preference for this or thn
kind of method, and as often as not a preference for certain
kinds of results. Most research projects advance on all of thes
fronts at once, the data getting better as the question gets more
focused, the methods more firmly decided, and the results more
precise. At some pointthe dissertation-proposal hearing fot
j\lI I
l.)is ti4
iNTRODUCTiON IC)
or
rgraduat e
ic
ad rug
ii
nd inc cc
ions
cct
lli
t i
it
it
v ason
to
em
s
I s
inxi
a, t won
what remains to be
Ia
Ia
ii 0
0
it,So
list [C
oirig
h s
sy
SC v s
f )U5
to suggest that
the beginning
ci I is usefu hci e about thc stages ot an inteli
w ginal
(new) to saY is for the most part a problem that arises hecuso
you. the student, are doing social science fdr rise flrst time. 3u
you find the huge variety of things that LtlflO bc said almost as
overwhelming as the huge diversity of things
said.
in this common
01
that
.ane
Ocea
you rules for separating good things that could be said from
bad ones, as we shall see in Chapter Secen.
Having a hard time deciding what to say is
to
Some
eXtefii
I of is h
r ans that I am eo/ assuming that the reader is
cading this book in hopes or getting an idea, s hich will then
Icd to toc used questions, and data, and so on. The gambits I
diseciss oan be useful at any tirnc in a project, because data,
iioetlods uid tflc on s ill all be tecast again sod again through
c our
I
tese r di I ject.
Hauaisiics
of
raised, people with such political interests have a Stance Ofl it, a
way of thinking about it. Often they esen have stock questions
and puzzles about
it (as
queStiofls
ishat about
ways less
1I [HOI)S 01 DIsCOVERY
is
lii
ii
I is
pit
iso
ohi
vi
has
a vi vpoit
an
ci
suit waist
rohit
vii
ii,i
tcS
so
stances
to
question
Oi,e
dir
to some
for
1 writing music ft
Giovanni, he defined diffrent characters b
them in different styles. The arias for Donna Eivirarke must
traditional of the five women Don Gtovanni hustles in nw
opera are written in a rigid Baroque style that v ouR havc
struck any listener at the time as cornpIenei uid-iashiotwd, cS
right for the old-fashioned woman Donna Elvira is meant to
be Don Giovannis music is much more current, befitting hw
i
0
energetic hut sleazy sell, while the music ot his servant-fn
man, the scamp Leporeilo, iS writtOn iii the rnythms of the
ISICS
11005 eli
wa at d r
a problem DLIC
DisCos tRy
iNTRODUCTION TO HeuRiscies
c n ii
1.
ber
evel
tossing in
srodr big
t
II.
at
iiii
is
lo
ii
the rest of
i
hOc JIM-
H-t
RIsIl( sOt
RMAI, SCJLM F
rl mc n
son
vtr I lOt S (I
Duct
VtRY
IiSTRODUCTI0N 10 HbLR1ST1(S
laborers. (/as this also true in areas where artisans were fes
Was it true in Catholic as well as Protestant regions? east of risc
Elbe? and so on.
Finally, addition sometimes takes the form of aduing a new
model or methodological wrinkle or theoretical twist. For aO
science, tills might be taking a more careful
look at the exact language that was used in interviews, to sec
whether the order in which scientists said certain things re
vealed new aspects of their assumptions. For a rational-choice
ethnographer
of
them.
ii
Ic
f de
1 1.
VU
a no s
lirRoDucrioN 10 Heuiisiics
it
inil
1
iL
Lovent rut
i
in
1 d
al
in
it n,
ii
SNL) fosl\to.\PaA U
I erc s,
ri
is o
u t s fo
icvenrn n
is
sailie toot
i
in u-na
o d
ie
ati i ss
/ cud,.
sources
argument.
opcs.
running
ti go in
nis
the
list and
on must
hrt
Ds
hat it
get some
1 IC
to
050
times (that
pl t ik t h
too e iousl and 0 c lists got very hot
iug. 55 e are out going to be part iculailv worried about whether
)ur lists art the right lists or the rue lists. it doesnt matter
4
1 y
I d r log
i
ly t pstcmologically or
wha ci.
istie
leas vo w
of g aduatc school trying
Ut) dci ide on th right abstract concepts and came to no
con
i
ists
n ancient
is
clusion
that
is is
twct
F&,ii Ca/1w
1 start with Aristotles font causes.
A.
Ar/ito//eS
its
a simple list:
mateual cause
formal, or structurai. cause
effective cause
final cause
When sse say, The Republicans lost the election because they
lost the womens vote, we invoke material Cause. In this case.
something happens because of the social materials that went
into makin or unmaking it Demography is pa excellence
social science of material cause, It concerns numbers of peopic
of varying types arid the ways in which those differing numbers
shape social life.
By contrast, we might say with Georg Simmel (1950) tfac
all social groups with three members are inherently unbal
anced, because two of the three always ally against th thicd
(something those of us who were only children in two-parent
homes know very well). Here we are saying something no
about social material but about social structure. Is is the shapc
of the triad that gives it its peculiar properties. This is i/c/t
tiical
cause.
INTRODIJCT1ONTO HEL1USTICS
inn
nothc r
a pis can
1 o
how usu
he ihur-cause list
w I t
to isa ( 1
sider uremploy
iii
I of ut ci 4 1 yme U in tcrins of its material.
unenlyl y I Who art
hey 5 X7h r are they like? What
finds of dualities do they share I )ues unemployment concern a
find
at person
many
different kinds of
it
are
Ii
tin
urnc
lot
or ch os ng unemployment?
drivir p lowered employment?
tives
s
uneni ployment
ii
in
it
ci
bee
neth
p 1
ip usc
fir some
is by lowcr i p wages
t rarc ned wi ii unemployment if
y can
Mi i iii
Dis ovi,as
iNTRODUCTION TO 1uJRisTiCs
ihi
kelatitu
SuOstan c a
dUs.ilit\ d:pi
ikicic
ecipioLiL,
1t)diLlt
Ice
uf
it
ifl
tiic ticiiie
ie Kant i
ty are
ds
unit bat
1W )cWitOtS
1
wit
a liry
at
u D
cc
icr
it
ii
tioiis
51
I1TRODUCTION TO kiitURiSTICS
)iscs s
to think about
toriet
it
a r
ii
too
new!
ri
is
liii we
y to set I routs
00
it
ut
I a P
ni-st
It
is
liii
al values
stance of sociology, and other thingspeoples politic
comi:
types of employment, sociological ideas i-rid conceptsbe
a
accidents. But I could just as easily dhne sociology
define
who hold certain kinds of jobs, in which case the jobs
concepts
substance, and political values, sociological ideas and
kind ot
and education itself become accidents. Note that this
n of sub
analysis begins to suggest char the whole distinctio
, large
stance and accidents is probably a mistake (as, indeed
ing oo
body of social theory believes). At the very least, reflect
or seeing
substance and accidents can help you change your way
something.
/depen
The second of me relationai categoties is causality
heuristic
dence. Causal questions are obviously central to any
ted list of causes. I woo t
as we have seen in Aristotles celebra
hack
consider causality further here but simply refer the reader
to that discussion
pro
The third relational category is reciprocit>. This, too,
ns. Often
vides a helpful way to rethink social scientific questio
of ew
we find ourselves in a cul-de-sac, trying to decide which
educ
things causes the other. We know that higher jevels of
causes
tion are associated with higher income, but which
over
which? Higher levels of education lead to higher income
allows
the course of life, but availability of higher income
generations
the transmission of educational advantage across
educa
There is a kind of reciprocity here between income and
whose in
tion that forces us to be much more specific about
nvolsed
come, whose educatIon, and what temporal orders- re
er such
The category of reciprocity reminds us to consid
social dir
chicken-and-egg models. Many, many systems in
can h
take this circular format of reciprocal causality. They
Ic i rinDs Ui Discos
e r
ui
a
s
cxs
vsrcrns ci r
sm ilize hcmselves, or they can
ys ems tlia blow t
(Loosely speaking, one arises
e back th o 1 r io r negativc.) The reciproc
i is us to hink e epl abc t
suth systems.
anrian Ca
)r
ci i x dality are possibility!
eXist em
c;n
DCXI
n cc
and
necessiry!contim
sihiliry reminds us ci
it is easy to come up with
social scicflce aryumcnrs that arc impossible and
that, theretore, s c Iced to check our ideas constantly for
possibility. This
is particularly true because much social science is
motivated by
a desire to improve society, But certain kinds of
improvements
are IoicalI impossible It is impossible, for
example, for
eer one to be successful if being successful entails
some form
of suyeriL rity to others. Ar least it s impossible
unless we de
line 1
1 success as bein
1 absolutely idiosyncratic, Yet
sc
filled with argot nts that implicitly believe
uccessful o v tr ust always reflect on the
0 t
I ty in (01 strueti
our arguments
1 e a
xisrtr cc iai es iciest ions much like those of
ins. I
n iiauy types of social actors:
dc
andecl people the sam, md so on. hieh
of
tiles
ualiy have existcn t s groups rather than as sim
i
ple tvpc Inth ed, siiat does it mean to say
have existence as
groups 1 here are many famous examples of this
set of heuris
tic problcms It is easy, for exampiL, to talk
about class. But do
classes exisr And llrLt does it mean to say
that classes exist?
Are we talking about self-consciousness
of ciass about coordi
nated action about simple common
experience? Or take occu
parions, Are they simple categories
of people? bodies of work?
Organize assoclatior-is of workers
liat does it mean to say
7
that a
occupation exiSts
Clearly ci
involve
n ost ta
u,
gender nd tcL
p c
f
ci
In what sense? The hcuristic luesticrs
by the category of existence are thus like c1iee of thc cc r
10
category. They lie in questiomn nouns we couirnooly 1
denote social groups and asking what kinds of ch rig chm
women a group?
ii
norms actually
label.
opportunity
tingency,
it.
it
ii
Dnr
ov
Kant iriade separate spae and nine, Both of these are them
selve i setbi licur she reminders, lways ask yourself what the
spatial n I emp ral scr
ings
t
f ye ur problem are, How can
tiny he eharied?
idh aspects ci the Ti art necessary or bOth
It flt
t( de te mine
Iariu s
whit Ii airs
n our qu st or
ii
[05
1Nli{ODLCTION TO HEURiSTICS
iry
if
spate
aniondriving a
C, Bi
vi ig
at
1i
Ke
,,
d n
it
t ra
If yr u
i( e
ut n iobiic acidents involving alcohol, If peo
A u se
he pet irunk when riley can walk home (as in
the pub in
I ngland), they are nit ci kss likely to drive
drunk
1K hit I F s ii liter m
ne c ay
analysis ot ale ohol
based ac id ii s i i terms of Burke five keys
ofdramatjsni: Are
a (iclents be
r understood as a matter of
5
question.)
Ia
Another excellent example of Burkean thinking is the
intro
mous paper of Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson that
dui9a
duced the so-called routine-activities theory of crime (I
p s
Prior theorists of crime had emphasized criminals (that is,
and Felson noted char
itive actors) as the key to crime. Cohen
of
crime takes three things: an actor (this had been the focus
can
prior research), a target, and an absence of guardians. We
in
think of an unguarded target as a certain kind of scene
argoBurkean terms. The central thrust of Cohen and Felsons
after
merit is that changes in scene caused the crime increase
were
1960. More consumer goods were in the home they
le),
lighter in proportion to their value (and hence more portab
people
and the entry of women into the labor force meant fewer
\i. rum
Were
at
t )
)f pai
d lx
aloes o
o ic
er nh
ii
it
liars
he Ii
st
ir
is
13 irk
as
e 09 n ia
ai
Waft
p1 r ol
ii
es
II
Over
ci
iy
cii misc
i si
sr or
zen, o
\ve[1
as ii e percentages of
homes with
p
ci us taket rail d in 1960 and
ith r ip u I Iv uc jOLts Factors paralleled
prity rir e tom 1)50 to I 9 5. Once
aised a si haL new theory in this case
of cr
really , ust
is
INTKOOUCiiON iO
it
Burki s list
i po iii
Disc o ian
ii
us.
ility,
aliotlier s
\\ ho
see in
it
of Aristo
ember that the utility of all of these lists
es icss in their nm city than ii their heuristic
power Re
port rs ist the who what-w hi a ist to
remind themselves to
touch a1
1 the bases We ire more interested in using
lists tt) re
n inc us that ou 5
thcor often foe its excessively on one or an
atiler ispeci of wh t We st u ly. \V1 cn
we iced to think anew,
it s usually a p tic stioi ut
figuring a it what aspect of our analy
siS u old La hang 1
ode cc a 1
w Pen.
iii
1)
)i
ii
ft
lx
se
tio
is ht
Pr
gi ati
re ii
ci
harles
Ti
u
iS
is
sysrc
in I ii
nu xi
cm a
1 Oil ny
1
?/L
p
M rriss three aspects of symbolic
si ma i ic and )ragm itic
This list was of
u, eel ii Lb prer One Syntactic relations are
relations
n
U i ci ts h lie a ter 5 mantic relations are
rela
en
Un/ti
ii
f.
tii ient
Hi.exisro,n
hi.
tion are the only real ones. I used the Morris trici to start a
thinking about explanation more broadly than is cusiomaic
That is, I used the Morris argument heuristically.
It can of course be used in other contexts. There is no rheces
sary reason, for example, to chink that it applies only to
bolic systems. You could think about the S) ntax of markets
th semaneics ut
r C\ls
1
th
tile connections between groups n tile market and
tence outside it. And you could go on to think about \vlidi am
tots in niarkets are doing (saying) and what the actions th
pragmatic context) of those market assertions are One way 0
stating Marxs analysis of work is to say that there was a FUji
damental error in the belief of liberal economic theory iii tlic
(internal
market
stir
set of topical lists. Social scientists use many sucH lists tiltougn
their careers. I have often used knowledge, feeling, action (from
Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and any number of others) as a use
ful commonplace list. Many of us have used various lists of Se
cial functions-Talcott Parsonss adaptation goal attainment
1,ITRODUCTIOLi TO BEUSIST1cS
uitegcauon
and
pattern maintenantL.
t tcsarieattindei Soevcrythirigfrom
109
taken. Take the time to s ork out the details of a majot hcuris
tic move. As we shall see in the next chapter, most brilliaa at-
ticks and books are built on one panicidar hon. Thc. aathor
made a big move, then spent a lot of time workzn ota the
details.
ur
F
o
Chapter 1
(i\ER i, HEuRIsTICS
I Sca
I-Icr
AN
)RRU\\ 1L
lAk NC
B. B
11
11
Fr
Mriiio
H C Sil s
NC
is aa
C
\L(
I oar i FMATJZ1\H
1vlim
iu ,iit
FElL
Oh\ mr
Assr
MPTIHN
Ii c
Nt
DLSC Ru
Cu i
not dcfniitivc ihc ieader should not get the idea that a
ai x ipi lius tate one a ci only one heuristic, In fact,
I end c p rc usi
ig
h b
(Urpi et
Li IL iiii
11 us
long r i
)1
Cu tses
i i
orne
,
d n tl
IL
t
:1 ii ct ual
11
hr ned
9, B
l.v Ra
sic
lleUKuncs
ii
)iscos I RI
is
SOILI1CE
to
I i y sou
si i y age remember well
vi ci v
s d ed r rultiple regression in
c hi be d
r nanoseconds by eleven
v
wed for i
action we always repooled
riances No suc care exists today I here are. howeer, neuer
rules about whats OK.
0 heuristics in this book wcll sometimes take you clean
lb
out of a hatever standard world youre currentl in. Thats the
ufl (it it, us tar
I m cunerned, But on should be advised
lit oi a e too c
utside the usual methodological communi
icre arc
things thu
ak strange noises in the so
iit if
I haPs w i
rethodological communities
b
a
at
t
i c i cc cvi
s you wont have to deal
w
hose tI i
s cgular I s s if yr u dont want to,
ii this chap
i ci the next
I discuss general heuristics.
L nlike those in Chapter Six, these do not derive directly from
tiie fractal debates 01 Chapter Two, Thet are tested ways of
broadening aliat you are doing, aas to come up with new
idcs, ncs methods, or new data, ways to get unstuck. Re
niber that the, are not spec in all aimed at any particular
w aspe
I i
search p ess I hey are useful at van1 d
[lit
u. s w k ids of c,
i
arch h
HELRISTICs
I I
U ct
ccii
Id/
he hi
is
of the general
sti 15 iuki hg au analogy so ung that an X IS really a G.
I ri s yc
Cc
yon w c pet ring Y. That would have
nc.xt
(hoc
f i is etc usine the n/Jiiiis heuristic.) Examples
ii ci
mans
wass mo t
important
lieu
iii
in
ii
creat
aHab
iki
p a i
ft
arc t.h
l curl
mci
tion
cis
Ii lip
aiian zing
oh
rp
it
11
ia
lot
writing
bu
hr
Ml
this hinged on a simple, di
b v cen pm e inc money,
pa
a yn
hat analogy are brilliant but
t )HOIT r
1
i
t
bizarr
I hey
c 1
Hau uscrics
think about power iii a completely nosy way They tie bizaiie
because Parsons never med the analogy co quescuxi mc din
bution of power to iodiduals. fec this is rh base LOpC ,r
politicswho gets what where, hew, and ishscitnaugo
that of economics (other than iyiarxian economics) This exam
pie teaches another useful lesson: in analogy, somethiiig cats
traliy important can be lostin adehcion to the SoiTiethiny
gainedunless ise are yen, careful.
fo
of
,in,F
iii
much, you may need to restrain it. But to use analogy ode
tively, you must have not only the character but also the means
I IS
o ceo
it
ifs
yti
ii
is,)
th ori
iot
it is
1 y thos vi c usc t i
1 mdv iii tatting point fr at
be carefulli elaborated and critically worked out on its own.
but the overall fcr is that many an intluential paper has its
1 simple nalogy that is carefiully worked out.
t ui a dod
i
te evident in famous titles
of i kg is
t ivas
U
01101 1
f Livors, vocabularies of
lik
ich i a
s of kn v edge. a i i so on, each one of which
yr. jx 1
ii
daunts the andogv invols ed Analogy is the queen of heuristics.
13 b
ing myself. In the early 1980s, I realized that one could rlun
of occupational careersone of the most basic things to be ex
plained in all of sociologyas simple sequences of events.
cli
ice
ci
ihrt
her
mean for
r ow
Its
ii
i.
a steal
ii
arch
six
hing
ptrs
do
all
horro
relati
1 gene
heavily from the textual-analysis methods developed b
ations of literary critics.
Often, however, the borrowings are more specinc ctnh CsL
ach borrou
on contested analogies. I am responsible for Ofle 5
reasoned that
1
i
protein
y not apply
(
h
databases. 7
I 20
set
mc
am I
auci ii u
stiC,
mu
anal p. bi
d
wi n
i2 I
more
so on. You
as
t ci
prevent education. List all the ways college life suppresses edo
cation: scheduling boring classes, providing differing individu
als with uniform, uncustomized learning. There are dozens of
waysthe nucleus of a good, contentious paper. Reversals arc
>t
.lem
ci
it
iu
Ii
it
ia.
ua
VI
is i i phi t I t 1 H ccl is there any tea
son a I y cull c inpht lie cxi ecu to has e ally purpose? Think
of all dir alternat\ e reasons (other than education) tor the exis
tence of elk es, and make
i decert case
of
truisms,
however,
although that
always a useful place to start. You can also just reverse phrases
and ideas. I look at my bookshelf and see a copy of Edward
Launaann and David Knokes book The Organizational Stare. As
I know well, the book tells how state actors (bureaucracies
boards, legislatures) are embedded in and surrounded by net
works of organizations that seek to influence policies in vaniour
ways. But suppose I turned the title around and made stare the
adjective and organization the noun: Statist Organization( .m).
What would such a book be about? Perhaps the ways in whicl
organizations take on the properties of statesmonopoly 0
force? e
1
ll, not real force, but perhaps economic force? ho
reaucracy taxation? How can an organization be said to ham
Ii
1)
(YR
state
Nt w l
Lens- se that I haVe a topic.
It it ii t tt e hid off na
thc r worh ri-lath oship does en
ii
ci
(I
ii
1 Id
(it 5dHzaliOfl
at
es
iii
iiat
c ipl
n 1
ilizata us?
sn
ti
iii
ii
that
he d
at all.
Perhaps the most famous recent example of this heuristw
is lime on thi Cros.c by Robert Fogel and Stanley Engermars
Fogel and Engerman attacked several widely accepted facts
(1) southern slavery was dying as an economic system imrrie
diately before the Civil Wdr, (2) slave agriculture was eco
nomically inefficient (and, consequently, defense of it waS
economically irrational), and (3) the southern economy as a
whole was actually retarded by the existence of slavety. ogel
and Engerman rejected all of those propositions, which had
been mainstays of the scholarly literature for many years when
they wrote their book. In the process of that rejection, they
demonstrated dozens of counterintuitive results: the money
Li
o a
u c
I tv
or
in
Div
Rs
ScH
g abo
as highe t than what it would
c b i ha
they (c i Ira shaiecroppcrs (1974:1:239,
1 no n an I rgu pIdntatir us I ad black
nianagemenr 1:212,
I : and so on Fot,cI aud Eniermans twovolume work
aasai a alot upoit publication and fox man
y years thereafter.
F gel ax d Engernxan wcte quite clear abou
t pioblematizing
i obv o i
1 i a t ti ry devo e nan pages to expl
aining how
v s A J
it nxx i s if lay
that uas so etroneous became
standard They also reveal I : appendix A) that
they were not
roe hat prohlematizers or these ohs jous facts
and point to
tnioi dii aa difhc ohs sOt
h a heuristic sometimes faces.
uo
xooip
is
iauue
p ii e ma y a
ii
,todt ox tiles
i
act
id
it
xi r s
AHO ARGutLNT
HEURIs1iCS
SEAm
tiivias
It icalized that
er
we
tug things that are said oi taken for granted Its like a
t cm
uniling in the background on your computer. Every
arctlmL or, very ceneral izat ion. es ry background assumption
that ou run into, should be scanned with this simple check: Is
thaL rrallr
OP
it
13
is
to
which I now
\ lazn a Rn
e n
11
i )i p
real crisc
1 Se spell
I undiries, 11
t
ii
V 1
ii AND ARGUMENT
Haui is in s
that
ot
not
authors who use thus trick, whether the data fotced it on the n
things of boundaries
or it came to them in a flash, like
idea. But the best reversal papers combine data and interpre
my
Mt
Stren
iios ci ttr
ii
n.
i iagr ut s r u
on tt s
ri t in g
II
Ir
n pi mt
lsf ip
pc p
e as pc ints and
onnc C t a
i in ix
H IC Cti( H
\ n
It
so
C Ni it t i ) IS C H Set tI 115
k Wii.
ii
tIn e
ran us ttt r
null degrct of
i
ji
Ittasr if at
iotn
the
art
ed w
Strong type
that if
as well
is
sum,
e wit
iii
a eli
of net-
tin nk about
that has several
we
of
hnkc aaroa
gaps he
tSVf en tI Cr5
I IC ft ft icjUt tiCS (50-tCi led xvea ties) actuall
3 do
r a u il thc cotictin because they WLrC bridges between
tin ne
e dl c n tctit is fell rapidly if they were taken away.
tt iii,
nt
filL
disappeared, it didnt
Cr, nt
In
Vt Li
uh r
is
ian hiouj4 ai
s as
friend Many
to
em-
best
of
marion ss t lan
Iccause
are tied to
t e sat it ptoj IC wi ate Er is tliiougls their ft iends rn/sit/c the
J cjne that lieu i itt rrnat on comes iii
ii
t wy
vll fa
Anothir example is Paul DiMaggio and Qaltei bc
built on a
mous papet The Iron Cage Revisited, which wa
fcQ
direct challenge to the Hannan and Freeman papei I tCfltiO
a)
earliet (the one that borrowed ecology to study organizatloii
va
The central question of the Hannan and Freeman paper
answei
why are there so many types of organizations? Tiseir
gio and
was that ecological forces produced differences. DiMag
asked,
Powell simply turned that question on its head They
iri
why do all organizations look alike? Obviously, on the emp
extent at
cal side, the two pairs of authois were looking to some
s ha:
different aspects of organizations But the fact remain
different
they used their different questions to make very
and
things out of what they did see in common. DiMaggio
or
Powell argued that only at the beginning of their lives were
ntia
ganizations subject to the ecological pressures tbr differe
they were
tion that Hannan and Freeinan had seen. Afterward,
pushed toward each other by forces of isomorphism.
gio
My interest here is not with the content of the DiMag
heuris
and Powell paper but with the now familiar namre of its
paper on
tic gambit. The paper turns the argument of another
that
its head, seeks a way to allow both to be right tb
zation
ecological differentiation comes early in the lives of organi
l theo
and isomorphism comes late), and then lays our a genera
u ith ex
retical argument about isomorphism and illustrates it
arid
amples. Reduced to its barest form, its just like Becker
certain
Granovetter: Theyve told you that X is true, but under
ons,
conditions X is false. Let me tell you about those conditi
the
This is the siniple reversal heuristic, and it producedin
three
Becker, Granovetter, and DiMaggio and Powell papers
of the most widely cited works in modern sociology.
saying
v np
y liii
I or
\t
olves n ak
be data it
a
oi 31/h tio a ph1 sicist turned sociologist,
noticed
tflat thea ire some inobiliG systems in sx bali holes, rather
0
v
it
n
t v (
1) No a an become
side t f larva d u nil the corrat resident resigns. Then
cii v S uV
11
ai I to b
c pit dci t This merely
t he liok ci
(Ocant yrnu\ to some other place. Then
H) i i)
ii
se to ill I
i lace lea iH a I ole somewhere else.
I. nm ills the v ones chain gets to th edge of the ss stem.
aid 5
onhod elirers acadenne administration from outside to
ii
Ii
HH
clv
as
li_i
pm t
ia
tF
3 Lod
si
a
a vsicrsal
i s If i abolished, ending
sotem. /,e/ have initiative.
I )le opei
it
I(
or
a SvSte vs
ii ss
ip.
bil
ts
ii
h L
ass
Hi
li
rys al
not a.,
hi!
liiJi
is
ti
is
Inch
it
Sf
ii
cdi al
0 e
aw Ir
iat
in
i o
w i
In.
Ia
on
haigc So \\ hi te
in v bali lit les Ia ed an
it
un
mist rol
Perhaps the
1.31
tlOHN
0f
iie sex.
01
assuming
ii ti igui
us
up a 1 iation
anal s
An exeJlrnt example of st cli an assumption
comes in
ihan aid Dunans
iuie;i Ouiipaiii led! .
1i/fC;uh, already
5
tO ()
L it
iptei
)i
eNT 1-iCt
f14s
dc
SFARC1i AND
the
simplest of
Fiuis
LEst
15 HIS
ChapLer Eivp
(ENEkAL Hiisi
DscRrnoi
I.
is
NAATiUiti
A.
AM)
CHANGiNG CONTEXT
B. Ci-jANGING LEVELS
C. SETTING CONDITIONS:
11.
NARRAYIVE HEURISTiCS
A STOPPING AND PLTTING iN MOTiON
ENCY
B. TAKING AND LEAVING CONTING
C. ANALYZING LATENT FUNCTIONS
D. ANALYZING COUNTERFACTUALS
chapter were largely Coil
Ti-IF GENERAL HEURISTICS of the last
and our general conceptions a
cerned with the methods sse use
1 will focus on how we ac
objects of study. In this chapter,
the
s I
iprion
ii
a suniptioiis I
in
gi Ic
social
orocess Every de
d challenging those
av o r i cc ncw deas
I ii r i descrt
v on alsv.vs i is a foreywund and a back
1
around. a tocl area anda conteXt. So is hen we srudy industrial
nrms, for example. ii take the economic conditions they face
at
15%
cuss is
text
tad us
a,
There S n
ntext
t
t icr t
lctc
mple
it
ays an etfe ru
Iii
if
ii it
reason
to
make some-
it we St
, we makc
1
id
some
d and others I.
d c
ic
it
a leve1, in the
sense
that
thete arc things we imagine that are bigger than our object of
study, things of
hich it
is a part
I tie
[alt
the s
it
at a
e thought
it
did. Consider
if success in
ii
is
He ORiSliCS
at taletit) Wi i
takes place within individuals (differences
and values), or withu
families (differences in family resources
for teaching) Ii
school systems (differences in school resources
determining level of
this literature, the explicit question is the
causality
eve ywherC
Finally, a description doesnt necessarily apply
description, to sa it
Perhaps we want to limit the range of a
this rafle
applies in some places but not others Changing
one that raises iru
application is another important heuristic,
for cxampia
portant and novel questions for analysis. Suppose,
in various public media
we argueas is commonly stated
Americans are frightem
that illegitimacy rates among African
up this queshoit
ingly high. An obvious heuristic for opening
description might appiy.
to analysis is to ask where else that
and so on (ii
among whites? Hispanics? the highly educated?
throughout the pop
turns out that illegitimacy rates are rising
ulation as a whole.)
the question o
More generally, condition-setting concerns
Chow big the phenomenon of interest is. Qe might be study
for example. hue
ing the rise of professions in modern history,
occupations are sot
perhaps the rise and structuring of expert
but are part of a
really phenomena that happen in isolation
formalizing all sort
much larger movement regularizing and
accounting), la ins
of behaviors: investment (formalized in
the creation of the
codification of laws), and even music tin
he study tag
even-tempered scale). in that case, we really should
(This was Mac
a broader phenomenon called rationalization.
ehers argument.)
1
j
5
( J
)J
C on
ci l)ism
ei
p sc
tention and wha
ii
ci
level rearrangi i
15
what
is iii our
focus of at
outside.
. But on dont
5
smdc studs ins inftrescs nd se cli parteoi
bud m ucli Sm lents -em to apply to a strange variety of
schools, i in x of four-i cai colleges and u iiscrsities, urban and
rural, tamou
5 and not C irnous Moreox er, students seem to
ins ly in ins i ci ftei once s between schools. How
shout changing the sontext* (mild it he that applying to and
cc isideri ig olkge ate rcalhc, at first, about staking out a po
Ce sjx
id
i >
tic
at
iI1uiusrics
Mr i in ms
i2
or
LihP1u ai)
1)i os I RI
LriJ
sonw
m I so in
cci,
o s, n Ii
i
tit
iii
StE CS
jI
.n iglit
ad!
he that
sassen s 1ij C/s/cd Cip, which holds that the structure of cer
tain primate i ies Thea Yr. rk I ondon Tbkyois deter
n ii d
It ir ia u c- as cent rs for producer seices (law,
ix nking, insurancr. and othc r services businesses
need) in the global tcotio n I his centrality generates a de
1 ci 1 01 It 0 in kinds U emok vees, a ho in turn have certain
C OUflt
055
thu
in rnai Lets
at
d kinds
it
ii
in a glob ii teoiiomv,
Ii this argument, explaiucn
(JutS
in iy
he
hr.. ni
k me nistaku Tb
lower-level phenomenon
real phenomenon of interest
NAt
A1h5,
LdTieS
C )Uise I
it plai s in th larger one. The same acgume it can Of
ucive iPx
made in reverse. In a famous article on The Cuniui
precie1
tore of Local Urban Culture, Gerald SLctdes -argud
time
the opposite of Sassen. Ant city. lie said, acquires over
Wa
cain political habits acid rigidities. These will be in rthifly
f ur
unique, and they will overdetermire the fate or all Sorts
o with
ban change: political, cultural, even industrial. Chicag
al rn
its relatively cohesive elite closely tied to an aging politic
mu v
chine, is qU1LC different from multi-elite New Ydrk and
-
i -u
open and freexvheeling Los Angeles. To see a sflgle paetea
d
city poliocs is to look at too genetal a level, Thor. only Aou
re
one not see particular cities as determineci by global structu
politics
one should also riot oclieve in general patterns of city
0
but only in a genera! process (aging) thai produces unique p
each city,
What matters is uut that one or the other of these argu
works
ments is right or wrong hut rather that both of these
further
have become cecebrated and fruitful foundations for
research
studies of Lirban life. Both led to extensive bodies or
levels.
because both ins oke the important heuristic of changing
t
Perhaps the most extraordinary example of sucf contex
glob
changing in recent social sciencethe grandfather of all
seucf
alization argumentsis Fernand Braudel s monumental
of the
The Aiedderranican, Braudel argued that the events
hoc
Mediterranean in the sixteenth century were just so much
of dVefltS
sam and jetsam on the surface of toe sea. The nature
leve
was dictated b rvhaL he called utiJuncture, a middle
chan les
historical reality that included flue tuauiorla in prices,
pments ni uiaval practice ama
in trade patterns, and develo
war. But
puss er, in types of governments, and in torins of
terils
ill
Yet
l1
it a )t
)ISCOVLR
us
ii cs
s s
ic vent hch w.
the 1
(.Stthir C Oilt/I.
(011
1 1101J11fl),
a/I]
S/2ll!Ifl2g
to
01
ethe
T ins a iothiet way to cli oh of svhar Sasseri did in The Global
o a t at tl e book cit a a distinction between the
,
and Lois
great producer-services citiesNew York, lokyo,
tion was
donand all other urban places. Of course, the distinc
Lei
overdrawn, Many other cities partook of this or- that ch1ara
le
istic of the global triumvirate. But precisely what made
drawio
book powerful and attractive heuristically was that
d Sassen c
such a tight line around the phenomenon allowe
allowed dci
write about an extreme version of it. This in turn
depth tba
to explore the phenomenon of globalization at a
larger class o
might not have been allowed had she analyzed a
push an ar
cities. Making a strong distinction allowed her to
gument to the limit
distcnctio
One could, by contrast, choose nor ro make a
pheriome
but to lump things together as instances or a single
this in social
non. Among the most celebrated examples of
s. Elias took
science is Norbert Eliass The Civilizing Proces
manners,
dozens of subjects that used to be separatetable
on-and as
nose blowing, spitting, bedroom behavior, and so
which ne
sembled them into an image of private civilization,
ion of
then even more audaciously connected to the format
, cons i
modern states. All of these things together, he argued
ls structure
tuted a grand civilizing process. Like Braude
here rha
Eliass civilizing process was a huge conception. But
ining
idea was not Braudels of changing our idea of the determ
we had
level of a system but rather an argument that things
g and the
thought utterly separate-the history of nose blowin
one largc
history of the absolute statewere in fact part of
process.
oLis 01
Again, there is flO need for the student to he so audaci
together
grandiose. But it is often a useful heuristic to lump
such a
things that others have left separate. Merely to propos
iV t i it us )i I
I (
mr
sSiWs
inv stigatiun
yr
H,
His
oar
ce
scn
trstr
se
are
to
many
move
act
iii
ru
smal
ers
ii. Nsiii
Ucs
Jetome
iawyels
from
vist
riptu c
x
1 list
:5051
heuristics
I \ iriat
c e ts
Pintss
ic
RisIU
it
rivilia
prop(
its
is
mose
ip
nuivibee of separate
a ci st r (TI is u id rscoies an important
C k
d n ii t mattLr whit we ia/i tile WdS in s hiLh we
Pu c nec ideas I Fh mc are fi)ur
ideas iut m ung as si
desk c
ptl\
Ofle
It
WCiv es
it
new
h 1
n mratioi
entrr
ur
pretations be
extremely diverse. Conversely, many static inter
Consider cond
come quite different when seen dynamically.
managers of
tuons in high-tech industries today, The senior
tess statically
these companies view the situation more or
and stock
within the narrow time frame of quarterly returns
experience their
market value. But the workers themselves
their
longer, dynamic
work within
-
time
the
Depending
to
freeze
or
on
our
research
interest,
we
frame
are
careers.
of
going
to
want
time
flow.
A second
narrative
are
same
we
can
of
come
aren
con
as
impor
life indeed
sometimes thats the best way to understand social
characteriza
much of history works this way. Grand-narrative
le, most histo
tions come apart on close inspection. For examp
jazz Age, bm uc
ries of America speak of the l920s as the
ways
generate
i ant nartat or
seem crazy
contingencies.
point:
ieuristics to disCuss.
fas
science
narratives
focus on contingency.
that has been
An obvious first move is to take something
sely, to mIt
viewed statically and put it unto motion or, conver
it Static
something that has been seen narratively and make
who are
usual, there is no great issue of faith here. To those
one), it may
cinated by the processual nature of social life J m
ic But
to treat freeze framing as a legitimate heurist
ot
rather
tingencies
of
this
comes
from
the
on
interesting
DiiSCR1PIiON
11
alit
ur itd ou to be irrelevant.
ega ye
hc mctines conringenev matter hei th n we think.
5 centrally
)o lie P at hand so ietii cs contingency i
arc n Whit v ic chat model, mentioned
ot i n
i
articr. Is an eXalilpie Ut a completely contingent model, at least
he
t c
it
cc
ih
nic
ci
uJivil lOis
ireI s. Fl
A uhrd rarr,cct\ e
it
heuristic i in
that these latent functions bein mu ceo portent ii ran acki uwledged functions hen I
ii n th (>1 V US I used an implicit exam
C
lu (it latent tunctions: th alternative purposes ot college.
Lmc
IL
1aeht
fe is
not
case
tot educatic
it
)ur
C)
education
1.
NnacieviiUs Haissice
Ia
0
a useful heuristic
My final narrative IteutiStic is the coantcrracrjal. kiict Li
have happened if, Some disciplines arc perucuhcrly vs it set
for counterfactual analysis. Economics has a particular advantag
here, because of its ability to Impute prices to ucipeiced rhinn
.
to havL
by estimating the costs of the ocher things people forego
r
the unpriced ones. But counterfactuals are aho widely used
history. For example, thit implicit counrerfactual itt A. J P. T
lors Oiigins ojthc Second Udiuld \ldi (dtscussed in Chapter Unef
that if Hitler had not invaded the Soviet Union and gratuitously
gotten aua
declared war on the United States, he might have
ent cu
with most of his gains up to that point. The counterargum
-
more d
Let us now examine these narrative gambits with
tailed examples.
A. Stopping and Puttin, in Motion
If your pies
The first narrative heuristic involves history itself.
it d nanhicl it
ent analytic strategy is static, how about making
DOiUtOuN
its
it
rNi)
NAk(Rrc15O HiR5LS
I I
a
ociety itt t se
out of northeri Burma, visiting nearly every
in eacniy utiob, aflh lie
Most of Iis field liOteS SCCEC destroyed
y, his tewS eLtA it my
wrote his reat book nom memor
and what published materials he could bud,
impi ed ii tile
Leach s central point was that the stability
In his fiaai ctiSit
classic community studies svas a mirage.
cally blunt
prose, he
The generation
wrote:
of Brililli
amlsropuioisLr
UI
iich I
has
and the mali, pr blenis Wit hi comper tors aid so on. But then
stores new loca
1 a new des elopment spi mgs up around the
i
ealizt bar n fact your flivorite store
I yr u s ay s ddcnl
1-ad bcn it arc 1 n the riginal ma] 1 only temporarily, while
be static
ts new quarters were bring built. What seemed to
turns out t has e oceil in motion, hut because you first got to
is also in
equilibrium analysis in British social anthropology
analysis. f ci
ads ocatc of the use or history in anthropological
hrwe tie
1
h has-IiOt yet explaused host rh 1,ICufl5jlEciILt5
two positions can be resolved (I 61:282i
hr s w
a
the 1
ii hs intc the work when the Second World
i w u tone Shortly afterward, Leach
flu ii a n
War itt r
the next five years drifting in and
ed the army and
oirmuntx
was onli a Ic v r i
sIngle
EvaiisPrircliarJ,
1 1)
ml
dc
an
eseLts isas
tI
i,C
it
f Histrirj
is he he irudc. Leach
Up Vi ith the issue of
really there,
hether
it
did or
is
art
Ia
SeC
mi
it
i.
rIte dow or
Iri lliatt(
boil
dii
is bather
)5i1i
wha -r il imio
utility of invoking
Stan
as
es
well
as
to
ed
hut ii usr
wit
stop
tI s motion
i o
hi
Ilij
idur
y
ma
ti
l hr
In
ourse of modern
01 S I ither France had been
the last representatives of the
h
itt
thit
ft
resul lad
i&u t
mcii
tel
give
tir S
0)
iiss ft s th
p. a
its i
t soppressu
[south -rti I
Cl 1(0.
an iniportant
uc, cnn
not only in
areas
of scruccurc-
112
J/iu
It/Jf.aa,ili.ii;J,
he writes
ur
aria
iti moos Ot
Discos FOS
an I carlnh ( ft lfi C
( ontinycili y also produces an important heuristic. One can
cii ratc fliany ness s icis s of a theory ot a regularity by arguing
tInt it s ontinge it on so se hi g Conversely, one can some
1 disregarding contin
in s sri cluce cx raordni my results b
id ed one I me standard moves made in
ency UI ian r i
4
13, La
fr1
tiomi u
IirS,
mmvii
old
for industrial policy Sccond, it suggested tethinking the
tif Was the role of artisanal
nam rats e 01 in iustriaioatiom
HFaJRUS 1C5
DeSCRIPTION AND NARRKHON
kuSS1L
DCSCRLPTUS aD iARRAIiua t1.t
S I. L
ii
Li.
it
se fights c
C
U
i
it
,cl
in
il
)fl
at
U
Iii
lat
or
cc
ia
cc
cc into a
SCV
i tIe
lath i1uii
I in uL
fl.
lid!).
irc as
ii
ss nih, ss c
a[
11 1
nit L
the
ate
ci
oust
au
st
classu
irnpetati e lunction
ii
tnins
ui)
ri
alsvavs
it
Rust
argument
that
structures
t 10
ii
I)
e ViAL
1111 S
e and nacerug
ten we look at a social institution or struccu
abs inns pupoic o
theory of it based on what seem to us the
do
mar tflcic src
functions that t serves. But it may well be
Oi OtI1\ i5 k.
forces keeping it in place richer putpaSiet
LILCSC mc ices V
flcctrng on latent functions can take us to
we can then analyze as we
Set
fit.
s is Kid ard E
An example of latent functional analys
its fairly strong po
wardss book Contested Teriain. Divested of
with a distinct p0 nt
litical overlay (Edwards was a radical
that the usual hiscor ci
view), the books basic argument is
got h all wr my
employment relations in the United Sratm
efficienct filu\efOcflt
The traditional argument was that an
rh ear y yet rs of th
dominated American labor relations for
management, WItflILS
twentieth cenwry This was scientific
on the
piece mates, stringent work rods and so
StOP watches,
n in the film disc/na
world of work skesvered by Charlie Chapli
scientific manapemer t
limes. On the traditional interpretation
ion; rh attempt in
was driven by the engineering profess
grown out of rationalizad
ronahze labor on the shop floor had
management was then
production itself. In this story, scientific
war by thc human rc a
replaced in the 1930s arid after the
much broader focus ufl
dons school of management, with its
capitalism, and similar
workers Ides and happiness, welfare
policies
although nbc humar
What Edwards pointed out sas that
, gentler form of
relations school looked like a kinder
ous expansIon Of
management, in fact a concealed an enorm
vas fly extended limes
bureaucratic rules and regulations that
quite persuasiVely
control over workers lives. He argued
of neanagement was t
that the teal purpose of both schools
Dssc IPTION
I)cocFin
abo I rc c
1 yn
lay
tiungs indeed.
ill
aneial situation,
1
employment. our hr
UI
the socoeconociQ
ta
yecieral itaeresc in in
tus of our children. There is thus little
. aitlic ugh th c
vesrigating counterfactual might have bens
met
may be considerable personal inteiest in
impiur.
vicaily
Often, however, counterfacruars are
m melmaiii xeaL
5
\XJould there have been something like a fksc
heroine the major n
out Adult Hitler? Would Chicago have
had become a rnajoi tail hub
of the Midwest if St. Louis
dif& rent ii
Would American history look fundamencaily
noticed that cln
watchman in the Watergate complex haetnc
latch was taped on a basement door in 19PP
uctive. We often
Posing counrerfactuals can be very prod
g our case agains
do it merely for the purpose of improvin
what aid h p
themthat is, to improve the argument for
s and i%7Os
pen. But sometimesparticularly in the 196u
rately developed
counter-factual analysis nas been an elabo
mode of analysis.
ctual heurist
One of the most brilliant uses of counterfa
mi: 6cou,in, Fewas Robert Fogels Railroads and zIeieri ca/, Em;zu
railroaus were eirnn
gel problematized the obvious fact that
ld have liappene.
to American economic growth. What wou
ad? Obviously. thor
he wondered, if there had been no railro
of the actual
would have been a lot of canals. But what
to a considerable
nomic consequences? As Fogel pointed out,
ut; () percent ni
extent the railroads were gite;i their role flat-o
and state gox cit
their total capitalization came from federal
merits
as
gifts.
Indeed, Fogel s
mtroductoty
chapter is kil I
DESCRIP HON
igu
lu I
t C
log
etc
r o
1
r
s
1
e
i
1
C
i
it
a c
s if
a e
1 a
a
va
I
ill
I
C
jx
bu
t
r an
av thi te
ity and energy fogel has
iIC
lisp a eve his .areer, But coun
i alv iys usefu
Reti rn to the example of
lit Liii ippy wth any one of hun
t
k y n
ders anding marriage and
1
-l ta lcd ly ii in of dating and house
u i the aige b it icr that shape pools of
inc ogeth r barriers like college atten
ieo u w an put the issue of partner
s veryt ne knows the number of plausi
1 tble n thi ma I et declines rapidly at cer
i
out for t ample at the end of ones
xx 1 y us 11 s makes us think about an
hoi w uk
p Ic o about finding and
Ii 1
ii ig as college
1 (That
t e lat
one m 11 facilitating the mar
t r r t err
i ura1 experiment of sorts
c i ih i
p pulatuon doesnt go to
4NL) NARRATiON
I Lu ins tic.
S BRING
1
COCNTERFACICA
quickly.
final 01 even the inos
These general heuristics are not the
science. That honor
powerful set of heuristic tools for social
on the basic debates of
goes to the fractal heuristics founded
Chapter Two. 1 now turn to them.
FRACThL Haciusrics
Chapter Sax
F1 iti.u llEtRIsrrIcs
I Pu
ii, Ax.sc
111, hi
I\
ININS ID
NI)
VII (
EL tl Ii VNF
taR STION
SlissI AND
SlistI AND
1 icaui.x FISM
L
CONS CRL(1IO\ISM
)N lxi A1 155
Nl) NONCON[LXTDALISM
IX. FR
\X/
IN
V R
\ 111
DsL)
,1\r,v
ii
ol heuristics. The
ciddjtje rules or creating minor variations iii
o l.ti
simpl(t are
IC.
Mr ii
)LV, )i
15 [1 V
1)is
FRACTAL HJ1GR1STICS
uc cig
Ann rica
ot
so
pobl
oct
in the I
life, and
1)5()
few (Vents n
er
s(
In e was als
ii
r i p
or
n vi
w ha
it
the issue By itself, that is just a curious fact. But this cu irus
fact means that we can use the basic debates as heuristic too
Wherever we find ourselves with respect to the compiev
arrangement of forms of knowledge that is social science, xc
can always use these fractal heuristics to produce new questim
and new problems.
re on
A simple example of this comes from the literatu
anxiety and stress. How are we to explain stress? Who suffers
investi
most? hat can stop it or mediate it? The literature
w
gating these questions from the 1960s through the 1980s
an outsider
strongly positivist. But what is most noticeable to
positivis.
reading the stress literature is that whenever the
develop
searchers came up against a blank wall, they would
open new re
narratives and reinterpretations of data that would
re lookm
search vistas for them. Thus, the original literatu
events) and
only at the correlation between stressors (unusual
proved to Dc
distress (unhappiness). When those correlations
defined a
weak, researchers scatted to think about coping,
ii
sti
n non on
it
(ISA
into a symptom?
strategy
l95 5nd. Now the answer to this last question has been the
sLibjeCt
Btaah/u/
is
iua
of
XV/,n jiji Rued, which show well that there is nothing like an
objectu e answer to it. But JUSt thinking about it gave the
strc5S positivists something new to do. They werent stuck any
longer in their cuhde-sac with the lousy correlations. They had
ness questions to investigate.
That is ss liar I mean
iou
tt
tat
v ew
Is
at
i
i
v
c
ii
1St
i
gut
taL
ELtiS
sCOiLR\
die lilac
histocnJ
its an interestitig pssik day in the
arguru
i t
holds
arid
uus is
not
.saluate n-UCi
.lc5
cii Ocl
scielicC,
In
sunilna.
debases or
I Lhc picas central
sji.d wit
mt
OScUc I
widcl (if i nplicidy) used iU a fleurStmC
1
In ts glint. tl alt
open up new questions and possibilities.
of the uthurs 1 haS u C mi11
as common a heuristjc as any
ca etuicO. wo
othur hiticS, Lne can he greacis
themselves
Like
uken Cu bt
ocher heuristics. they dtould not be
p:obn
nature o things. Tnas has been the
the
with
ufu
ti
a.
itcaC.i
USCIU
55 it flu
them as great debates. But treated well, fle
ar whute Lti,L1mO,
part of your heuristic armamentalium. yuud
to the nine basic de
1 shall organize this chapter according
nebate. I silali cisc
bates discussed in Chapter Two. For eaLh
one an be used
few examples. trying o shoss how each
flat die curfeut deflhl
matter what the method, no matter ss
examples fur horn hnmces
tions or the research. 1 do not give
traciitoflS. That wuuid h
for each of my five methodological
methods x 9 debates, aiw CuLl
90 exampleS (2 choiceS x 5
than I viart cc pci iookifl
dont want to read them all any more
enough pusscbiiinies a. giv
for them all But I shall try to offer
heuristics And I shall ciii
you a sense of the tichness of ftactal
the grain: deep nterpretiViw
phasize moves that went against
who cry our ndividuahsri
who turn positivist. emergentiSts
to seltct papers that have 1 ac
and so on. As bef( re, 1 have tried
social science. aithougl S
a stiong influence on subsequent
av lo
favorite ecenc work
some cases, Ive been seduced by
bewildeling liversity of me
advance fdr the almost
gize in
cc tsed
fractal heuristics
but that is part of the point;
v
a ewtldeting vat Lety of
throughout the social sciences in
amples,
OS
duat
1 fu
III )L) 01
11 \IN\i AN 0
lu
IRACTAL HEUiiS1CS
Dt.( lvi 05
1\iERPREI\ Isal
tat i bate is b
wee i
posit vism
and inter
iv
tI
ir
kin
y in
a i
s C I h gi ci t ad t or I ie two no engaged in
y
an icsa t dial nue So in etllno5raph\, sometimes our irn
hyre counted bowling
pLilse is tO 0Unt Lhings tds cilliam F. T
in omen ne our impulse is to
S t
A
H
U
lois into von son interpretis detail (as M itchc 11 Duneier
does .n disc ussing police busts in iaku jfk). In SCA-type analy
in is i sand positivism ate too numerous to count,
is,
s the other way as I just
i at
tic
ii
t.
ii iv
outed in my disLussion of the stress literature.
A partu LLiaily elegant example ul an interpretivist move in
I Saral Fenstermaker Berks
ha d huh
I.
s
intlu nital article tin models for thi household division of labor
I 1d8c hand and Beth are attempting to evaluate the new
the household as a produc
s ith ts booty
1011 c
c 1 iii
employ an ext c ssely elaborate positivist de
Sit i F
101
sign: a two-stage least squares operationalization of a structural
respondents ii
production, and they provide quotations from
metal tUP
lustraring three different models for this sharing:
definiiciuiss of
port, assistance, antI supeiwised help. Thes
subsumi on o if
sharing have different implications for the
Ion rise projecL
husbands effort for the u ives effort and hence
Beck gnu Boric
of analyzing the famil as a production ssmm.
of the exa c
leave the reader wondering about the question
In short f
trade-off between husbands and wives housework.
are run, he
ter all the rules are followed and all the regressions
form of relntOr
way out of a quantitative dilemma takes the
story
preting a variable by anchoring it in a more complicated
blind alley
with more ambiguous meanings. Thus, a positivist
is
in a
It is equally important to note moves coward positivism
One ex
place like historical analysis, where we least expect it.
ample is the paper by V. 0. Key on critical elections (I95)
in
one of the single most influential papers in political science
the
the twentieth century. Keys paper removes elections from
one-by-one tell-a-story approach that had been common before
his time. By analyzing detailed counts of votes in particulan
constituencies over many national elections in a row, he showed
that in certain elections there were sudden realignments tflat
1i iHor,s oc
u Ii
ci su
nineteentl -cc ntury theories ot pus crty that had nes er yet been
:onceiv d
Ii short,
of such Inns es
I lieu
could
see in
dl
ti
RttCThL hc hiSTaS
I)tst en c
arid indec
Lion of whether critical elections really do exist.
just mar. One
there is a large literature since Key that has done
election resaics
can also imagine making the move to counting
did, but thi
and to examining longer runs of elections, as Ke
of the results
insisting on a more interpretive form of analysis
original papet
Keys own rendition of the phenomenon, in the
ies the phenome
is completely demographic. He simply identif
t to lntelprt.
non in the voting patterns but makes no attemp
of new party organ
it. Was it a result of new party ideologies?
izationi of legal changes in registration? Was it a downstream
a new
result of the changed immigration laws of 1.924? of
soro
voting coalition in subgroups? of a change of heart by
iately
major subgroup? The possibilities are many and immed
did
encourage a large interpretive, historical literature, which
had ur
in fact emerge to try to explain the phenomenon Key
covered.
pre
In short, nor only is the pairing of positivist with inrer
it aism
twist a heuristic pairing useful across all methods, hut
trul) a
applies at any level in those methods. This pairing is
one way
fractal heuristic. If your current thinking is blocked,
to move ahead is to use it to sidestep the blockage and open UI)
new research problems and opportunities
II.
of analysis -sod
Like positivism and interpretivism, the pairing
a fractal heuristic.
narration is used throughout social science as
h as a story, sum
Sometimes we riced to follow a story throug
compare the bits, but
times we treed to break it into bits and
level, the switch between
no matter what the method or the
and often used.
narration and analysis is always available
-
i-a
In
die
t F)
FIIAC1AL HLURIaiiCS
ins
in motion, discussed in
tin i e e
c h t r. F
e\arn
in one of the most influen
a
cu c I
rs I
i der
icratu t (dsce West and
D& turn erman argued that gender is not a set of traits, nor
1 vailaule. nor a rote, bLit the product of social doings of some
sort I hs I 2(g That is gender a performance, a process of
a cc
c r at d nv
g certain symbols in cer
La
conic s wit i the
tent
pointing to oneself as gen
dered. l he insistence that gender is nor a fixed thing but an
unguin a pc rfhrmancc challenges gender research whatever the
is]
d
ira
n
h twans hrgerting about
si i
tnt
olc, a id ss i ung how topic mark gen
p
her distiuctiom, us cr time. In SCA analysis like the Berk and
beth pupel Just mcntioned, it means ins esrigating tradeoffs in
ii i ss ut
in t
tad i thai r sun ing that there are stable
hi
c
of ci at d w mc
in,
rid
nclrrative heuristic of freezing
or setting
untie
ul
ulture
ss
xb
ot
Fsi
M rjc>ii, ot DIStOVERS
d ci
ii ii
als,
cia.
n cci vi w
t t
01 seek
fat it
cia
fldi\tk
compar!sons.
tint
1h
dog cal mc bl
1
elenlenc in the StrUt tural s iew taken by the Blau and Duncan
u o nid most laccr sociological study of mobility. But the
I )cg
e
iid R si parer accomplished this by assuming
hat cli c V c c i Ii irgm in th natu e of occupations themSc v b nut t U 15 i id 196 Cot assumption was necessary,
.
oum
if
wc u r
t i
rating
the pres
the
same
parts to analysis.
sis/narration Ce
Before leaving the icactal heuristic of analy
that move with the
should consider some examples of studies
already highly an
grain rather than against it studies that are
move to become esen more so or
e further narracis e
studies that are already narrative but mak
agaInst the gram
moves. The reader should nor tnine thac
the only possibility.
ens itselt by niov
An example of narrative ana1sis that deep
level iS Goraii Them
ing to an even more complex narrative
tal and the Rise m
borns influential paper on The Rule of Capi
of the classic nar
Democracy Therborn s paper considers one
by comparing
rative problemsthe rise of democracy
modern democracies.
capsule form) the histories of two dozen
al Oiig.ni /
[us argument starts where Barrington Mooras Soci
the tiotion that the
Dictatorship and Democraci leaves off, with
ingent process, ior tlic
rise of democracy is a complex and cont
constellation of variables, as t
result of a single variable or
work of Seymour Ma
peared to be in the mLcch more analytic
ts that prior narrative
tin Lipsur and others But Therborn insis
essentially related to
analyses have left our another narrative
in or threat of foreign
that of democratizarun: participation
or its threat was central
war. He makes a strong case that war
er and au
s to spread access to pow
in forcing bourgeois state
populations. He thus
thority more broadly throughouc their
alytic
but make
a decisive
It a ly a c m a
thcr vei i
u
v
Ii i
i
du
vasiio
I
c Ii r n i
r to look. s
ii s
i
5 1I die liistc c
o)
vhar
.1
c )mplex historical
cc complex (Note that his
a s ii le vat iable of war but
s differen wars played in
ison
I
rat spl bu s he othet direction)
i
An Vill mon
x w ta iss cnd tIc Theory of Price
s John Moth s Rat o I
decade, until
ot ccc or
i
Movemi nts, a papi r t sa 1
rot its kernel a theory that
Robert Lucas and others tasl oc e
transformed our s iew of governn i t inte vention in the econ
omv, Much, an in onomist makes i t onglx analytic move in a
tradition of research that is alreaux highly analytic; not only are
economic actors rational maximizers at the first level, he says,
nut thin in iact act the way tefloni 6 would. The paper starts
with a pureR rorinal analysis of an economy in which produc
ers are predicting the prices thin will be able to get for their
goods in turure rime intervals. Ti specifically attacks Herbert
inioris Iivporlwsis of bounded rationality (discussed in
C
11151 IC
is
suflietiflies
cu.)numies leads
982.>:
1961
not assume
enuligli rational
T
i
I there a re a substan
argunient I
ce I firms expectations and
e b
ciii and predictable di I
ice vould have been able to
sin
lii hcILi\ iot of rl c ii 1
s cu an a tal ng advantage of it. On the
,itc i tirm ii
/p wh Ji
differe
one takes narrative or analytic turns makes a big
Taking a narrative turn after an analytic one does not get you t
the same place as taking an analytic turn after a narrative o se
10
4(1.
ii
oc
this
vi cSNI) CULTURALISM
vioiusii
1
Bi
III. s
inecho Is.
Bc cot ipa is ii i u. hen wa srtid v otkei s v make the an
tc turn rirsc, we inevitably think of individual episodes of
pat tu ilar w rha P winy c itpl w 1 (0 (10 partiL ular things at a
an moment This in turn leads to thinking in terms of labor
m i bats wit re th e yorker-jul units are riansacted. If we
than wake a iarrat1se mose and start to ask abotit the chang
ulat labot market, we are seeing
am
m
I
joy, i ti e
dirrecnt sat of rhmy,s
than
arc
visible using
the
methods
hut rather
cOntinuotEs set of transactions. The questions of interest arent
Ic c i wr h t ther the historical develop
IN tL H
hir
Ott 01 a geitetal labor market. changes in likelihood of
limy, s it types of individuals
ii hi my, hi r s
ii ,, ( la c,
ha ci
in
We
lii d, an I so
ha
m
OIi
mit it
He
s ti
is
is
ha
cc t
ti
niterestnlg It is not
r gilt set an I one the wrong. Rather, theyre
sum s hut lot diffterit rcan I ii pot at t q
ft
em
of
ju
15
FaACTkI. rlLuimTIes
Mt LFIODS Oi I)IScOVERY
JJtSIJL
r se
ill
home,
hut retrial perform inCc. Hence, the dependent variables are the
ds re
is ifhs in mal is srk outside the I ome and the husban
on households
I irtid Ii viii it housess oiL Most earlier isork
wa h rse 1 it e hi ogra hic or interview-based research that
gave ltss at ention to behavior th i to attitudes. Indeed, it was
slear from it cat 11cr reseat ch that those attitudes took the
It r Ia iv resou es and subcultural by pothe
s. \ hat was not known ivas is he tlic r behavior did as well.
I )td upn i and middle-class IloLiselIolds just talk a good line,
ri car I c it Li va easy to suspect that couples might
o
it t
ii d
tIJCTA
I ii
D st
ic
there are fo mal, mathematical methods for many heurist
techniques reach far more
is ov s St itisti al cod mathematical
rho ot rn us- --or a course on sociolog
I ua Ily at a plane
ic al statisbcs- m p1 t make yot think.)
is less interesting for
or (c r puiposCs If srhacghes paper
culture. this is clear from
i s lula pi p lu cc for its move toscard
t
uc ip ni
ip
so
ite
icc s:
LjisiIi
) [tY
1 oi e, hc tel
not
es to do it!
nic
u
1
i, chat wcthiu a pirieulae taa,ni iu of aschJ
1
\Ve see, th
that is widely undecscood as sctougly behaviui sc I i nil in
SttO1as
eitht ditectton. Farkas iTme
ward behavior that can be measured Leerfia ghc a is to -vaid u
individualism ha. Cd Lit 1 lea
cultural construct cche rise of 1
sibie to
move in
main of
ci us
t the
In making this move, Lesthaep te moved ver much agains
in
train of demography as a social science Demography is
s. Its
nanv w s m 0 the i sost behaviorist of the social science
entral variables arc ra es of Ii. Lt unmistakably explicit behav
-
of
iors. birch marriage, death and migration. The apparatus
lite-tahlc a salysi through which rates of these four behav
age and marriage
it
ten piod ii:e estimates of populations
social science. Yet
ti cturc s, is one of the glories of fotmal
to
Lestheeglue s whole enrerplist ii this influential article is
,
isake
is
FItACTAI htLRiSfia,
I Ivi
ries and
is loch was largeli built on life histo
I
anthropology has
lifmhisn iv docuincuts Th hisu ri al turn f
i md viduals, as in Sahlinss
t c 5 1 f sun a locus
r
it
orical
A. r ( ta m C iok i i rh 11 iwamian Islands Hist
des between
anal ysi 1 s 01 1 urse seesasveci br m my desa
ry. \ithmn
great man biogrephical history and corporate histo
tis 0 bus els of analysis are often
pirricular historical isorks, thu
comnpletel\ triter iss used.
actal duality in action is to
Apai i a pro I wa ri sec ci is I
is major nethod tradition,
i m pa e s wthi
a
t a
s in so
is a It ris li. m Am mg the most famous book
ive
lence isrr rhc lasr half century is The Lugh f Colltct
to show why
or iii \lannur olson. Jr. Olson s basic aim is
activities; he starts
uopie )oin groups and participate in group
misc. he wants to question
ft om a resolutely individualist pit
use of the benefits they
t a t n t peopir joi s pioup beca
tI a
H mote that pro ps often provide benefits for
t sir
i
r
ribute or not.
all h i is mb r. whether the members cont
they are called,
\Vhei it comes to these collective goods, as
tive to take
rhine who can cut assay ss tab it have every incen
do so are the
ilium is ithout contributing anything. (I hose who
larized the con
Etc e ii dee s 0) son s was nit analysis that popu
is the
I u sit Is ta tt s- mf ftc t iding.) But if this
1
ide collective
cxpiain why p ups that prov
is
i v
s
lflswt r to this question was inge
et i ist Olson
p )c I
incentis esvarious
Co is ins okimip Wlhtt lie called selective
ii r
contribute (giving
ways the t.roup has of taretin&r those is ho
t (giving them pun
thrum posit is e tess ards) and those who don
there were further problems (who was to
islinmeimnA. Of cOUtsC,
s c mm c
a time
ia
t
1
ctive aCtiOO uo
book ignited a debate on the nature of colle
ed in the classr toe
continues to this day. Al of this was argu
senraniuns ul
mal style of economics, using fairly simple repre
all of it scam ted
supply, demand, contribution, and so on. And
iduais.
in the traditional manner, with isolated indiv
logist Hath
An the same time Olson was writing, the socio
r direction. Whue
son White was moving in precisely the othe
ly time ceerse
employed similarly formal methods to ask near
similar mineresis
question: not how is it that individuals with
define individuals
get together in groups but rather should we
positrons in all of
as similar when they are located in similar
individual interests
their social groups For Olson, similarity of
aim of coliaborac
came first, and location in groups (svich the
nd. For White, it
ing on producing collective goods) came seco
in groups came
was exactly the other way around. Location
g similar (in in
first, and we could understand people as bein
of social location
terests or in anything else) if their patterns
were similar.
ctural Equiva
Francois Lorrain and Harrison White s Srru
s not from the no
lence of Individuals in Social Networks start
rather, from the
hon that there are individuals and groups but,
relations between
notion that there are individuals and types of
papers, many
them. As is often the case with such original
exposition char
levels of complexity were included in this
complexity and
have since been forgotten. But hidden in the
of category thco
couched in the impenetrable mathematics
study of networks:
was a concept that would revolutionize the
ely speaking, struc
the concept of structural equivalence. Loos
actors all of whose
turally equivalent actors are defined as those
network ties are the same:
IRACTAL 1-icUitisTiCs
vrav
ci
at
suci
aid \\
asr
hit
I.
elaborate the
\yhitc and hi cullabort to 5 in I lol O\ ers would
into a Corflpre
inutpr at sit mi oral equivalelkc. making it
structures.
tr undcrstandin roics and social
I ci sty ii de
come hrst; in
Similarity became network similarity. Relations
divdcab sCC( 1k
individual cots
in t a, Li cli i, ss 5cC that toves toward
ate possible despite the usual associ
C ptions or emerfcni ones
methodological individualism. The
ctit H of iotmilitation with
re
rk analysis is cxt tamely instructive in this
1 ic
his 01
tthose opposed to
at 1 Tha intl s idualist network analysts
of networks
Whitc- -j m s Coleman, for cxc rnpie) conceived
lity in nethugeli n ret ms I cliques and iseasured ccntra
y called
vh t t ie emergcntisrs like Xhne (usuall
Vt P
structural equiva
suructuralists ii t us Inc aturc) focused on
widely cited paper
lence [ he strucruralist Ronald Burt wrote a
Not sur
he as a I the two against each other (1983).
i v it
lence won.
orisingly gis en Burts allegiancc, structural equiva
eventually devel
But th indi id ualiscs went metrily on and
has ig a lo c I network ties was a kind of
i d P i one t at
and James
or it dividuals, Baptised by Pieire Bourdieu
r sac;
notion has become
Ci leman with the name social apital, this
now virtually a
or of tht great grt kth oncept I the 1990s,
analyses of field after
u iidar I variable in traditional SCA-type
,
s probably the
The interplay of realism and constructionism
spent the last thirty
most familiar of these debates. We have
applied to nearly
years hearing the phrase social construction
class, nationality,
everything in the social world: race, gender,
edgewhate er.
ethnicity, aesthetic judgment, scientific know1
is relatively
Because of this huge amount of material, there
. Readers re no
little need to illustrate constructionist moves
are some particu
doubt already familiar with them. But there
and it is useful cc
larly interesting versions of construcrionism,
because tney hava
look at those. Among the most exciting,
research, are the
such a big potential impact on social science
very census figures
analyses of social statistics showing that our
ately questionable
embody dozens of arnitrary and often deliber
ieres, Simon Szteter
coding decisions. Writers like Alain Desros
1LACiAi H u1s1iu
Ia u,
ts H
aVC
Wic
at
lit
h
5
nets
an I
mow
ii
las
ass inbling
n image
When
you
make
a constructionist moVe,
dwayc
gi. in
rlth consc uc
a realist turn. Once youve opened things up
real cotrs nenacs in tint
tionism, it is time to ngnrc- out inc
-
construction.
it Ove the
Still, one wonders whether tile heurstc tin Hilt
papers that ci
other way, against constructionism. Are there
push uS o
liherarely undercut social construction papers roar
an ry
ward realismb One is Daniel Chambliss s c1ssic Mund
scudirig Dmpeucise
Excellence. Clianibliss spent fie years
local to thi national leve a
SWimflllng. He coached from the
c
5
with the b
interviewed dozens of swimmins and rraieied
to disco
teams in th country. His core research problem x as
ing. His cell
the nature of talent and excellence in swimm
tion, a
tral conclusion was that talent was a complete tabrica
romanticize
meaningless construction designed to cover and
what he called the mundaniry of excellence
he fact that
together.
pro
ann fliane
Great champions are people who work on the detuis
motivatiot s
sure they do all of them right all of the time Their
Olympics as
were also mundane. They didnt aim to win the
e their
much as to polish up their backstroke next week, improv
Ii
sleep habits over the next month, arid eat more careful1>.
, Chambliss
short, their goals were nearby, not fat off Indeed
FxicTA1 Hiajiusrics
191
he h g meets into
a big meet,
asi in l making every single day
meant
rvery s n Ic rat c a prier c Th big ones then
h
a uc i
u id ni
t ci ci
piut s
)rIicrS
wimil ic
ii
rr b sss m rs
s n
ry
to t
rgue rha
particular social
that it
umirrucrion (talent) is simply a label hr the success
all Differsupposcills explains. It does not relcr to anything at
xplan u ccss in swimming.
tt ct ces
a s i s a I ii.
of the in
n set tins muse as a behaviorist (tie, because
es. i3ur the opposite of a
sisrcrice on looku g at si iab practic
culturali t me, and talent (as
e cv 0 is r w e ss old he
better or
ins d rc rh routine whas mis ot doing a turn
thing as it
sleeping well) i lilt 50 11 tCll a cultural or subjective
have
s iT pl it if c n a, at unreal ty (So tills move could
Believing in
L e 1 sri iic ldrcd P One of my commonplace lists.)
SOtfle one thing that
ci iit rne tis Pc hiving ti it thrt must he
although
tiialccs for COIlslstt lit succcss in swimming and that,
u ly what t s, w should give it a single
w
d i
1 cc nsrrnerion that gets
na,flc: talent. It u a ralier inlIC oca
the real sources of consistent
ill nit way of our u lderstandinf
\ C
11 11111
from more
N on surprisingly, (Tamlib us s p1cc drew fire
him for
trnngIy cOnstructionist ss tints Ira DeNota chided
had of
i nany othc r he ds (Chambliss
ha
it ii
of Winning
ter d ccn tat is c reneraliz.a ions) even ilic standards
wmr S in I audiences (for exam
sic r ticgc dated betwcei p rI
ated an
Ii in hi Ss s arg ir icnt, she felt, cultiv
ii Ii arts
imagery of excellence and rank
r pirar ly tic in ncr
i
for treating
dig (192.102). T ta I she a tackcd Chat ibliss
Chambliss
ss inning itscli not as soc tally c onsuucted hut as real.
..
d herue
1
UICC arbitrary r
1
admitted, in response, that ii WaS L.
times
cially constructed) that we rated swimmers by their
al
stead of their beauty (the way we rate diversj or the cehnic
precision of their strokes. But once that decision ii manu,
supecu
still can define excellence provisionally as consistent
m Ot
ority in meeting that standard (1992:105). In tile Wccc
are real
W I. Thomas, (l)f men define situations as reai, they
in their consequences (Thomas and Thomas 192S:572).
the
Chamblisss paper and the debate it inspired show well
ic
fluid power of the heuristic that flows from the reallst!consrrc
ied,
tionist debate. Everyone involved in the debate was idenrtf
ds and
at least by the majority of the discipline, with metho
committed
subfields that are considered to be overwhelmingly
fairly con
to constructiomsm. But even within tills small and
ed an
sistent group of scholars, Chamblisss realist turn produc
extraordinarily heated debate.
that
The realist/constructionist debate and the heuristic
debate
flows from it are probably the most familiar of the
ic use of
heuristics I discuss. It is esscntial to realize that heurist
two
such a debate does not aim at debunking or demo1ishug
moves,
common reasons for making constructionist and realist
topics to
respectively. The idea of heuristics is to open up new
invoke con
find new things. To do that, sometimes we need to
prestige.
structionism, as have the students of occupational
given by
Sometimes we need a little realism, such as we are
heuristics
Chambliss. in both casesindeed, with all of the
they arc
discussed herethe idea is to open things up. Once
trashinc
open, the excitement lies in following new leads, i or
our opponents.
i.
(orc LXTt
J[
)L
ic1s\1 AD
tn&AzT/ L 14CURLSTICS
)Vk CV
1NO\cQ [lxi
ALISM
n o r in di e me r o see ho v it is embedded
ii the I rgtr ,o(, iIl norid, Th nonee litexi ualizing strategy is to
ii by finding comparable
01 ei of en g scu 1
te r
urn ts or problems elsewhere.
r e soci sciences i oncontextualiz
e I u y
1 r
ing S rice program of most of the scientizers, Contextualizing
is cit t c Ce he n lie pr gram ) those resisting scientiza
tiors But when one looks at research, it is clear that the moves
ft og so ig he on ext o ofexpi citly choosing to ignore an
important context occur throughout social science heuristics.
As I etoti, sh 11 in has at ssoves syainst the grain, since they
illustrate tin puss er of such a heuristic particularly well.
I heein cv Is he move of en extuaIizin. SCA analyses
hi
sri
else, riot his Ii iends types of emploc ment nor Ins extended so
cial netnoiks is is \lark Grenoetters Cetrinl a Jof model)
FRACTAL IILLRIST1CS
i9
11(105 01 I)iscovuty
or us
\hai
is is
this
clt wa
works and on the household division of labor. Her reear
London
done under the auspices of the Tavistock institute in
csciga
research center dedicated largely to psychological ins
and
tions. Her original aim was to further the sociological
h de
psychological understanding of families, and her researc
s to that
signintensive study ot twenty familiesbore witnes
interest in depth of analysis.
sion.
The research itself resulted in an extraordinary conclu
to the
the family division of labor was very closely related not
both but
psychological qualities of the husband or the wlfe or
s social
rather to the degree of connectedness of the family
pattern
network. Bott did not find the strong subcuiture
Ai
mentioned in my discussion of George Farkass paper.
ss and
though professional families tended to have more jointne
status,
sharing of household tasks than families of lower social
What
there were plenty of exceptions and counterexamples,
s with
did turn up as an absolute regularity was that familie
net
strong role separation had tight, fuil connccted Social
works around them. Again, context mattered.
her
Bott did not specify which way causality ran, although
mined
argument leans toward saying that the networks deter
What is
the household divisions of labor rather than vice versa.
bent
important for us is that rather than following Tavistocks
turned
for psychological or psychodynamic explanation, Bott
ncr attempt
outward, to social connectionssocial contextin
It is
to discover the origins of the household division of labor.
uandtarive paper mote
1
instructive that when Farkas did his c
been
than twenty years later, this move toward context had
forgotten.
Ho
I)ist
:HIOL s ii
Faac IAL
sri v
loin of g
lit
It
Id
p
An cxrcl cut teceUt example of tins is Amanda Vickerys ex
traordinary CL /1/ maui I )axgIiltr V ckery wanted to know what
ally a pent d to ge nicel women in thc eighteenth century.
C ii ma! a c ii sts t w mcn in this period have emphasized the
1
t U
U Tic it
val
if
so ft
S a
d thi r
tip urnents
usually
-nineteenth-century system
ut absolutely separate spheres scholars deduced this transition
and then in pi se I it on dCta Indeed, Vickery ilso attacks the
nit tlmdoi g c 1 i o s of these accounts, which are usually based
p
i.
cud
porn
of the
Lit
t jilt
SQtitQa,
HtUR1S KS
o i to tILL
ments use a wide variety of heuristic nsoes in dditi
contextualizing one
nil:
Vickery sets aside contextual phenomena SUCh as rha
mnmJO an cia
.
consumption, the transformation of th 1
story o
making of social life. She also sets aside the larget Is
1e tile Pita
England iii the eighteenth century. Robert WaIpo
nucrscc. 050
the Seven \ears War, the American War of indcpe
Rather she
industrial revolutionthese, too, are nearly absert.
sand f
starts with the immediate situation itself, with thou
one hundrcu
pages of diaries and letters written by more than
And Proc 1
omen (and a few men) in the north of England.
pictuta of thc
these myriad details, she builds up a complex
gcnriiii.
everyday world of these women, under the headings
dent Cat>H
love and duty, fortitude and resignation, pru
ty. C I
omy, elegance, civility and vulgarity and proprie
contextual de
course, the women are seen in extraordinary lOcal
it. e see
tail. But we see the larger context only as heF Saw
events
only what the documents discuss. That eliding of larger
of charac
is indeed part of the books empirical message part
terizirig the world of experience these women knew.
.
ge one set
In some ways, then, what the book does is eachan
sts) fos a
of Contexts (the larger social processes seen by tHeori
neighbornooa.
other (the experiential contexts of eseryday life:
this sense, his
friends, correspondents, retailers, and so on). in
What results is a book o
torians never fully decontextualize.
portrait oi
extraordinary strength of detail, a book whose
assembled into larger argu
women s lives utterly resists being
way betwec i
ments. Again and again, Vickery finds a middle
marriaga faa
the poles of prominent theoretical debates. On
example, she concludes:
NI
l)is
ion
fiaLiaL hacaisi ii
sins
ti
d
asserted,
argued
ol
no Ic
fan
inc
t cCCsSivc stages in
s
am
narr age we
onat
ini
pm
it
id
of
it
d I
tl
iagc a a p
ci i
t c
VII.
CRUiCL
Vi
ii
subje ts s mewhc r
an
i
C0STRX1\T
tt
we
mc
me opposition of
rcuiir
1.. a)
cescea COL
against many
debate, too, as a fruitful sourc of heuristic if Ovus
disc usn
I shall illustrate the powet of this hee ristie by
anoice cod
some particularly extrauidinary work dnc n
is the
constraint in recent social science. vise setch example
of add ic
tempt of economists to develop an econom c model
iw it seem
non. Addiction is a coimundrurn for economics bca
negatit c ic
to involve the choice of a behavior Rnowfl to flas C
setting higr
wards. Economists have tried co account foe it by
am ad
discount rate for rewards, so that the near-term pleasures
11overwhclm the far-off tand
4
y
dictioneven if they me 51
in value
possibly large) costs because those costs are discounted
pfesCing rh
the further off they are. Such a model, although
held as addiction
concept of choice even in so unpromising a
addicts often try i:
does riot effectively explain the fact that
limit their future behavior.
Lleueg inslie
In a brilliant argument, the psychologise
addictive bChaViO 5 an I
has shown that we can account for
if we are willing to
other kinds of temporary preferences
2 a mim
inside the individual u99
create a picoeconomics
economics in two ways
economics differing from standard
choice rules and dis
First, in is governed not by the standard
.\1F iHODi OF
FKaCTL HeuRisTiCs
DiscovERs
r nis
[>dlmav
shov
se pow
ad
e
Os
mt
omn
ng even
choice into
tad to choice as a model of
more
course tried
to suggest
of b
VIII.
CONFLICT AND
CONSENSUS
v en im v
haiateristic
I stratification literature as
our ti
( t
di
s
reward
2 large 1
maE y
n b
atd tunstiaint is
I ci
in
ri
se ki
in thi ha dlv
fi iak
institutions When we
contrast seems extreme, hut the pieces of
s s woe cx unpies will
u I
5
Ii a
it
nit
tt
ig is of ti
it
strong.
I eat.
Ii
ii
n sr
iii
otis xai
is
on
This
was an absolute
its It ii I
But
ill lam I.
hyte s bri [ham Srmvet C ornr Sudetj showed
nw B )st ins Nc n Ii id s fear (I by city leadeis, was in fact a
3 orderly corn munmnv s ith Its own elaborate rules and in
Iuyhl
151
st
at
in hv
Mi
a toys
IRACTAL
Dur o tin
A liflkr or
ii
(IL ib ratio r, rid civil ihcrties are nn en dry tO keep those likes
and dislikr fron exteasrvc a RI do, tructive cxpression. Kuklin
or
tv
mmui is s
rot
ov to
o a
answer,
some
were told
t(
Ct let
Si Ot
Hut
RISSICS
usually took firms for granted. Coase did not But the way it
which he proceeded fit the conflict,consensus heuristic qulic
mcelI.
Classical microeconomics in some ways squares the confirm,
consensus circle On ifle one Iiand, it assumes people at
greedy, as in consensus theory. On the other, it aigues with
mal
1
conflict theory, that this (greedy) nature produces an opt
kio,cme HLLRLSTkCS
a.
wa
is a.
i bin fir
fl
(He ilso
aretully includes an
of
drurneEIt tot wiis a.e dont organze evcryihing this way,
ourscd
p c t iech Iso as the absolute pun
iple tor resou u e a] location y savi ig that people sometimes
boost on pr ee p oi rids nor t USC the rict mechanism. What
appeais to be a violatit is of the univ sality of price logicsthe
rhc cC ntrarv the clearest evidence of
is o
f lirni
it
x a.
11
I a.
ie
itS operatloil at a
SoIling.
it i
is
ti
IX. Ic
a
derstandinh of how the political vcisio a operates in tcii s
heuristics
The logic of much of contemporary social scieii research
begins with the recogmrioll that X is true has onen meant
in soci1 science X is tine for white men of the mi Idle class
(or, worse yet X is Ctm.IC for a few collegc students i ikd
Thousards ot rescar tiers have inSisted 00 iO /eStigtola
whether this or that truth holds up in other groups, be they
women, blacks Vietnamese immigrants old people, working
class Latina mothers, or whomever. The heuristic moves of such
work are fairly stiaightforward. The first step is to sa char
to).
Di
LY
shaped peoples uses, It was obvious trom this work that for
any one of these life events, the psychological signiticance and
aried s leiy wi Is the a iem (l96:2 16). But the
siotit
task (how important is
at
i
i
a I
v
is es
I I (in a
tl
h c ph
1 (JO
e of
rctc
mdc o he
ad sa
(>
iten
a large
betis
Ic cv nts unde
ly that tr inscends
class,
is enor
MOLIS,
ignored
transcendence is
that
it
st
it
WITH MV DIaCUSSION
t 1.1 II
S .1
151 it I itS
Sat ic
dl a
tot Is Y
ci
51000 01
Ctiapieu Seii
UEAS ANI) PUZZL
itt ic
________
I.
__
TESTS OF IDEAS
lL OTHER PEOPLE
Ill. LITERATURE
IV.
TASTE
V. PERSONAliTY
VI. PUZZLES
\iTO)D OF
i
cci
he
tlic
wen.
(J
fRY
t ai
ictiur
oUl
1)m
us and ot
wc
c Inc
C
s h a
nt rn m
bad abc
st 0 i
YOL
I OWi
topic. I
tam
at
ci iii
lop
ut
rat
c v
It
Yw
if
sea,
uttcatir g puzafemer
/IJI
CI
ing concern.
I TFTS Of IDLtsS
Obviously, rhe brst test of an idea is to rd it OUL. CO lull pm
o
some data. In practice, most ideas come from ioolmn at data 1
the first place. Only when one is using formal methods do diem
modernity and you notice that in America and France the old
rural aristocracy was undercut completely but ILl German. it
survived and even dominated politics, you start lookir for
other cases and see if you can predict wheteser a govcrnmcn
ii IS
tLifl
idea
It
th
plus!
mor e
C s
Ic
in,
it
Ily i nyc
way
c
I ii or mci easy, These
an
.111CC
c toph s,
rnodcrnizati on.
Its not just a matter of looking for other cases of a phenoir
mien or a relationship youve identified. Its also a quesciol
looking for other implications that your idea kas fec data. Sup
OSC youre a survey analyst studying married womens jabor
force participation and you suddenly get the idea that
ir
1UES \u
nina
nellie
id
)tC
it
all
ik
Gould n ,iS
1
e young
an
rei lways e uh
2H
SlEllioDs ci
tDiiAs AND
01
viess
Sr
d
ion
t titt 1 irk
ster ting Everything is so
iall\ constructed in some sense, and probably even in a rela
nv is st aug case Thi inn-i stiec questions invoke how
ii uc
n
nit
it
constructed nature
ut
u ed
of accounting
u Jai he conseqnences of
experts are. Watch out for
r to
sa
s t
.ciia
pa
so
it
on
loesti
work. Thinking
hi
t miii
Is
org
i t
ot
sr
I-u ZeES
which often tests ideas against things char are caked, all coo 1it
erally, null hypotheses. The majority of published quanriratie C
articles do not have two real alternatives that are boih dcci a
the writer. Most of the time, the writer s sympatisies are cleat
well ahead of time, and the suspense is purely rhetorical. The
writers ideas are tesred against random chance, even though
nobody really thinks pure randomness occurs much in social
life. All of this is wrong. An idea always does its best lf it has a
real alternative. Always maintain tuo basic ideas about your
project, and try to be equally attached to both.
of divorce is marriage.
To
make
this
meaningful,
and we have
the very interesting hypothesis that formalizing a love relation
ship decreases some aspect of its quality and hence makes it
more likely to dissolve. This, too, is a platitude (not only in the
nontechnical literature on romance but also in Webers formal
version of it as routinization of charisma), but it is nor defi
nitionally true and could be empirically right or wrong. its a
much better idea than the bald statement that marriage is the
leading cause of divorce, if a little less amusing
Not being able to be rong is rhtis a sign of a bad idea. It
goes without saying that having no empirical referent am all is
also a sign of a bad idea. An idea of the form The populationecology theory of organizations is really just a version of con
flict theory is not very interesting. One could for various
reasons want to write a polemical paper about it, but its not a
2iS
Maiitoo,ot Discossai
a cx
ii
IDEaS aND
Puzz.a
219
then it will turn out to be the same old stuff with ncw nanaco
Much of sociology fell in love with Pierre Bourdieus wo d rut
1kv, for example, but most of the time when the term is usea b)
others in sociology, it simply means regular benas iot Its )U5L
a new word flit something we have talked about fbi a lonb
time. To the extent that it is new, it involves the assertion that.
the behavior involved is in some way self-perpetuating, that
doing it regularly creates the possibility and me likelihood
that we will do it even more That is a stronger assertionon
that must be considered empiricallybut of course it too, i
s mechanism
1
quite old and kmilist (Stincncombe called th
historicist explanation, for example (L968]i
Ideas that reclassify something are also usually pretty unia
teresting. Social work is ieally a profession ia an intercst
ing topic polemically, but as a research idea it is going to be
interesting only if by seeing social work as a profession, we
can understand something profoundly puzzling about it. Pot
example, we might think that demonstrating that social work
was really a profession might explain why its practitionets
work for so little money. But then the strong form of the idea
would be some more general statement, such as People are al
ways willing to exchange prestige for salary, and being thought
professional confers high prestige. This is quite different from
Social work is really a profession. By themselves, then, classi
ficatory ideas arent interesting, but they often conceal an
interesting question. So the proper cballenge to present to t
classificatory idea is Why do I think this classification matters
What is really at issue? Note, too, that in the largest scale, re
classifications are often analogies, which are among the most
powerful of heuristic gambits. Saying that the family was really
-
ii
s(
liwas iso Pu
,
in
bt Let
iit
kc
og
ii
it ri
(a
mr got
ss en got
tic
Fur
to
The
cr
ii
\i
trr m ii
w
gt n
else tar
en ugi
bvi nis Lu t
t r
piactice va often
forget
it.
that no good
v
t
i
.i sinek
i ig he uractice of genera
ma s or colt ye students dncluding me) notwithstand
ing. If
it
In ii
a ft r m in
a really ai away from it, so
that von e t1rgotteil iniportant sarrs of ityou cant come
al
is
\ en
it I
hethc
whsmm
xxi
est ha ti
ii
In the Ii
ni
corollary
it
Iurside
good idea
I e piniosopliem Tm e Lakatos thirty
yeats ago I 9U). A good idea s one that is nondegenerating.
i
n dir is I dyes i sc to in t deas, to more puzzles, to
ti e
nt
n.
I I
Ic
55 ant it to
La
and
to u
I s(
to a
works
aes
docsn
t work when
we
is
hen
La
I
Ca
know why you are doing them. That gives you the uflfl.i I
and endurance you otherwise teen. v hen aL uoU
guiding idea, you feel despeiaLe you hoya roar sonecriuw
ill emerge magically from the next pae of coetfciaritt
the next incomprehensible docuirient or conversant to Indee
students often throw themselves into the detail work to hica
from their feeling that there isnt a big idea. Don t. \ork c
idea
the idea, and the grunt work wd become much rrmolc beatabi
11. OrHER Propi,L
Once an idea has passed our
OWi prelsminary
screening,
it
way you hear them yourself. Its not jLLSt that they disagree
something like that. Rather, inside our own heads, our ideas
are sustained by a lot of assumptions and things taken mo
granted that we are unaware of. Ii s like singing. An intra
ment but the voice is heard by performer arid listener ni cli
same way: through the ear. But your voice caches your ea
much through the inner passages of the head s through
tOe
pi oksio
sO\ inc that coo ssill ads ays find yourself leaving out
rue l aspt ts of our k s hen y ni talk to other people In
(
ly t or p t wha
he people say in re
ponsc to coot idea ts hat the add, what they want clarified,
s hat rid niistuiderstand-- that coo will he able to figure out
(S Ott
id
ssc tiol r s ci he ea So listu carefilly
Ot C S C
lieu iot arifi tioti
At th stunt t tine, however, it is tru that an idea that re
tire i oa an nit f ox lanat n is orobably nt t a good
t at of
a V st
ely
jt
ho
1k, n t e teed for expla
nation u telling too that. ote that these two arguments push
in ditieront direc tiolis. The first says you should figure
out from
o
Ii
u i d
CXf La 1
t add or to nove in order to
naPe votti dmi
rL )n tl at argument, the more problems
others Ilevi with c our idea, the more you can figure out about
Tb ott
so
hai I v
liv
o cl
oo
inch explaining,
iii
1000
wttli
to
tht r
tn
hal
it,
p
iso
ooe
lit
urree tic
kite
i or
first
t
is
ot
if nl
s a s
nit
ia
the
No matter how
people eat r under-
two,
you tells
to
believe someone who says your idea is junk, you should assume
that the reason this smart person tnought your idea- vas wrong
was that you didnt say it right, not that the idea itself is bad
That enables you to use others comments to improve youi
idea, to raise it to its highest possible level. It may turn out in
he much better than you thinle.
The things you learn from this process of clearing up others
presumed misunderstandings are fairly specific. You learn first
about intermediate steps that you left out of your arganient:
these are hidden stages you may not have noticed and may in
volve real difficulties. You also learn about the background as
sumptions that you makeoften as part of your general way of
thinking about the world-that others do not necessarily share
If you are careful, you will also learn a great deal about th Spe
cific (and often contradictory) meanings that people give to
words. For example, I called my book about professions Tin
5steni of Profeisioiis,
more or
o s
Discui sin
IDiLAS
The first hint that you are past the stage of first reacrio
comes when you yourself feel confident that you cai state youi
idea clearly effectively, and bricfi, The trucial moment conies
when other people are able to repeat your idea to you in such a
1D5A5 A 10 1 uazau
Ideu assumptiot ) a id
i diiig a group of pmople
H your luslopii p iJeas
ik
1 ultimately get
can do It
Is
who
S
di
iIost
inipor
a Lere
present
tc
Lr is
hat son
Jr let
our
talking about
aiC
the person
iii
the
is
adjacent
hi
ii
iuklao
cx
aircraft
SCat
can understand
or
undersi
end
it
isi
if
a Ii
mis idea
tins
u
i i
i
it
10 fltCi
alize is
1 r
tel
1
w
I
i
dcl ha
r
irid
ti
I mu is lilu y to be think
pr vent lieu
themselves f om saying
id again
it
i w ways with new
ments of
LilS
Oilcx anal5 ses ot other dot gs. Thats the nature of the
its
osol I to do o
si. renctby any method
ho
ph ying assumptions They
tare
h N
5 rt tiring
pie tro bogging down in
oL
about how
to behavior, and etluoraphers make assump
ons about ion informants do and do not twist the truth. And
I issui
is iOu I go wel
)
mid the methodological
r i
t
y
t P c try cc 1 f t c substance,
assumptions
actituuu rcLire
tht
it
it
at
set. in
t.onvct
d an
mc ut 1 in substancc, and
tr art typi oh reactions to
t ntr
r i ai 1
an
o c that
a.
hs
nc
conrrihute
to
if
is tin n I
ec rh
Wii
s job prestige
soon av agt of )
the literature precist ls by opening up one of its
ti
3_-t. i
scores, for example fon the assumptioil tnac the CAi acccoj.s
measures prior achievement and schooling irare than u
sures sciioohng-independent talent), This would res
in s
it
is
in
cslstsjmar\
inOhe sl
inO
th1aL
stiatefli
-lii
\tei
non., oi 1)is
SWS
of
mea
rh
nt
ng
h
sc i on
a
d
dami
ed
if
you
ont hing
y
w iatevr r else ii does, the best work
s
tie c
set
)fl5
r rhi same rim
be
mv
io
I
s t vay it I t ii a iei a, wnich is, after all, the
dilemma of creativity in social science writ small. It is impor
tant, nonetheless, to know aoout th problem of consentions,
It atrs
o u
-tsr ndi
ho v the professionals
in
giVei uc,
your worldmeaiiing people whu
than you do. be they aider students or rPcair, v,H va
ci
uncealisLic
ci
id
on
St
CRY
So,
tc o
in
,li he 1
ion kern many things from sudi broad reading. You learn
hi ,o s f r wa Ii
ii disci
1 or You learn the conven
t
tu us
ir
icli
fins is also
rej idices
and troth
Judge a talk or a
i us I tri ig to do. This hard,
it. you will gain a much surer sense of both
tO
stt ng us nd rut we knesses of our own preferences.
You xi ill bcct ie ahit to yatF er useful ideas, theories, facts,
P
c
but by is orkint at
r
you nothing.
vIi:i no
no p
c us
paL u
lop
rd judgi
ib o
Ia s is a crucial step
iv n all n c n nrs scattered
i
iv s Fvc
()ugliOut this I p ter u Igir
V i w s ideas s the hardest
sk of all, The
v i
be im skilled at it is to acquire
genera] taste and i he
ueful y at d painfully t irn that taste on
your os ii thinkiny, Th kll of
rn ng to find good and bad
things in the work of otlu r i
h I cc h Ip in finding the
ood and bad things in s oui owi von
i
V Pcxsux.
c; Ti
5
vi
et
Ui
Li
ii
CC
SC
IDIOk NL)
Fl
sot icd wh
1)
it
St
ri
Ctt hg
hi igs
th
spet
Pci
to
levc things
unresolved
is absolutely neces
tu
Ii t he
1 bus iirdcrli ness is a i
uah lv char can cut both ways. So.
1
t 10
s I al
p rice Ear, loyalt to ideas. On he one hand,
ceitain 101 alce to clcas is a gleat strength. Often a good idea
ciusflt show its colors Or a svl ile
t
Ic c sists r evades. Loyalty
i \ U ide s ii the face of various kinds of
criticisms is a
streiich \t the same note it can hecc me
a liahihnv. You have
k wv vi
gi e t p on idras, wE en to set them aside and
riot c on, Most of us have a little museum of cherished notion
s
at to
I
e ed fo his or that reason, much
agait si cur viii Ins OK no keep these ideas in a personal mu
try
u v
d
1
b
4
l
tiire
A itnhc r Ibit i ty that cuts built w igs is habit. There are
in
h
ii
Ha a v t t sd i
is useful to have the habit
1 out unicicoily vs rib ing the log Cai structure of ones ideas
u
Paees
of
the need
ts
such diverse 3
interest
;
because only
thaL
can
deal with
Will
it
is worth reflecting o
i imaginatioi
Out iS flOl
easy.
it
to
is all too
rime
sustai
nindeed
Ineas
1.1501
/ Cs
flimsy
it
S Cusses
it\
idm
so
an I D
(ditre rences)
alits
engineers
lilicrence
at issue
tbr
th in can intersect
ris a
ch orl r hut
to doughnuts or coffee
) Hi
c u
C C
ooi
;1\
tilt
feterence
tram tl
habit
p
isioi
ry
a
5c
otlic
Ds
arounc
II
tool
imar
on. To be an S person in
iat youa treated
as a vi
in a group of Ss can de
be
tei on
cal Ii
ou
as
l)o
is
b n
up
hxh I
ni
ci
tis d
ir si
in
s t m ti
keci
antics
11 he de uls straight? As
ost of the
1
self-confident. If you do ir
talking in most of your classes or in groups of itiends, you arc
probably too self-confident, if ou don t have to rewrite mon P
your papers three or four times, you are pobb[y too sd;
well, you are probably
tOo
confident. if you cant rake cniLiciSisl, you are probably iGO selt
confident. Generaill, overconfident students ate unaware of
their overconfidence, If they do recognize tneir tendency to
domineer, they may put it down to other things: educational
advantage, prior study, desire to help others, and so on. By con
trast, students who tack selt-cunndence are usually quite awace
of their timidity, but the often do riot see ic a their problem
so much as that of other students, who (they chtnie domineer
in an odd way, people who have too much self confidence
have much the same problem as people who havc too ittle
the person you fall in love with seems to fit perfectly with vou
interests and desires. Feelings can be just as sriong for otne
Neitl
I eoi
vi
c c
i
certaif
hnd jobs .m their own, without all the weak tiesyou can
do it, but it takes a long time. The short-run reward for such
to
ople is aiwas s being right. But the long-run costs are great.
1 hey deny thcmselves the help others can give. Only truly out
standing talent can make mLich headway with such a handicap,
and even then only at the price of incredible labor.
People who lack self-confidence also iuse what others have
to tel them, but not because they dont listen. Rather, they lis
ten too rnuLh, never risking their own ideas independently. As
cli v often end up following the lead of something outci
I rs
I
a
ii
I
be
i i
)
ci
i
it
Dicovzit
.HL I i1( Os Ot
iht
iOiAS ANC
ii
ip ni
oh
CsIi
n
whatever
or
I
st
say
hich
id
i
iings
or
is very usurul.)
va
skDws
h(wfart
lUt I
ant y
toll
ntion not
ci clung
part
fit.
l1
o[ tl
tSriiiLs Us to
PLzzs
M1:riioos ol Dis&.os em
Ia
\V
ua
est
price
s
e r
ii
Sn
ss
and
it
L he en sting
est and d it
,\ n i
rcsts on what
essivc
gra I in it
gm s
(ought to) I ye general examinations. You
have to know the background before von can see that something doesnt it itlto it. Note that this explains why people
itt
c e al heo v ne ret rue up w th much. If you
don snov mvii sg ab ur dii woild, it s hard to see what
one always sees the same puzzle The result is what one ol misy
female colleagues dismisses as reseaich of the loins add
puts
women and
of
cause
t 1
r zzlcs
s r
seat s
it tog
a
vii
it i
it
Stit.
Such research is
SOUCCC of
lioL
puzzles h that
terrible :rmncresing be
1111 if o e
JIoc
etc
liit
ial v ilc
puplcxing because they are
p< Icxed V i lie it oss posit on n it fhe most common form
of thIs attirudt mdcx mcinteststself iii what xe usually call
It n t r
arc I This
it scareh
soti ated by and focused on
n pu 1 lai
cnn 01 tril utc o the researcher: gender,
ethnieitv, race. or whatever. Often identity research takes the
thin of Is there ri sorrow like my sorrow H n which case we
tr
)s
to s
c\priumll
ia y c t r i
ol ov vas
,ht when lit said that all
fan
dies art alike, hut an tnihappm family is unhappy at
haN
its own Isllioii. To tidgr h
1 social science practice. there is
iiii
I iN
ut
join crest
al
t pc sitive experiences
Lit-
re
and
econol nics
The most important weakness of these personal mot1vatiol
is not one from which students suffer. It is, rather, a piuDleni
for middle-aged faculty. if we hgure our our basic pm ale. w
dont have a new source for problems. Perhaps r is this that e
plains the surprising number of social scientists who undertake
passionate research as oung professionals and then go to sleep
intellectually in middle age, as their personal problems loot
smaller in a life filled with marriage, children, stunents, ho
hies, prolessiunal and Institutional eminence, and so on
There are, then, personal sources for puzzles as well as social
ones. All of these various sources can be dangerous because the
give us particular desires for particular kinds of resulis, becausc
they can get mindlessly routine, and because they are good
only as long as the personal and social concerns last. But they
also can provide an energy and passion that drixe our need to
understand a puzzling world. These are the driving forces b
hind most great social scientists.
There are those, finally, who simply find the social world in
trinsically interesting and puzzling, just as some of us wanted
Lack
it) know all about snakes or tadpoles as little kids
people. And to he blunt, very rare people. Foi eveiy petson
xshose passion for social science comes from irub disinterested
curiosity, there are dozens whose passion arose onigunaliy from
personal and social concerns. Faculty who are deeply puzzled
about the social world xx ithout hc ing a personal or social
agenda are often the hardest to come to know. Theic passion
ately disinterested curiosity seems strange to the majority ot
03
In I
ci.
concerns
IiL
atCS,
sot
sit Discotgi
inn
ye
socia
undergradu
0ficlcLatC stticnt, or sent If protessors. hatever its
h s UUZ/ enienc hcc mes compulsion to ligure our the
I W et y i I I fac I y ho have it, learn
St
(1
vs whet
arc wgn ni
th
ig
tOoT 031cc
1i
SOC I
ie rc
1 HI
Ott C
is
to
oat it
ii
si
it
fl
iv 11 cc
in
ho
it
cT
c)ifiy
mu in a
00cc icsl:.
usc
as
ol
V men
logical
on
mo a
i.
i Op or Jenti rig mdi eal assuiri p:ians .nd rca oneefo ual ran
behaviorism. The position that air cani-ot measure (or s.iIy) tiic nicaiiiii
that
patrons,
orab
un
r
5
mi iheir causesl It a
,fitiS
neasciranic
in action
brands (macanal,
fl
comp
shibboleth f standa
ci
sun
analysis.
cluster
iiW
nssips
a/cs
base I
uacareoct u
techniques.
mcsultc in a dimidc
conictJconsensus. The debate user whether ui,ordcr in social I
lent
cedniatu0 ii 00
suIh,
rri,in
or
theory
icunboc
institutions
and oppressive
contextuabsm.
eras
cii in
1
csl-en ahstrnreo ir
it
cu
ne
us
winy 01
rir
15
euhuralism, Thc
i
1
Us
a,,,
sosition
5lLO5S
of cimicorm
uSO
n I rio
id
ft
c, behas ionstn,
ulteirir, I he
si
their lives
nod i
cc s:enr
Ii
sue
al
,ce 0.-.-
iUcr
.0 e
ane.
i a
Oataredation
irf
Pt
c ctpt
qctea.
it
0
.,
[l,
ta
P a
tea
hetitt..r.c
inLar
at e the r
0.sei Ott
tap..
l.a.p..
.x
hits
ate
\tS
1inpi
or
ces
attic
t1atii ag the
con
We
aol split
a
1
i
i i
Ic
ii
is d
ti
The cxia
of
s A a.,
plaitat tim
splanatort
a
eq lanattsin
pregi at it
,5i.ti
tacit,,.
,it
tat antic.
ac
lie,..
I.
tacttit snalmata. A
cci,.
.rc
tm tta,iJA
Ba
te.tttmqeti.
o
a
aS,.
.
atrateps or
depimtes met
t icmls
.;
(it ttt.
tip
mt
,t.
je,mt
](m,it
ct.m.mSe acat
a
it .t iii
nartlaocl
it t
l,ut,t
ta s c
cIt
wft
mt m ic m.
.,..omt.t
a.
cue,.
their meaning, usually far a particular actor, riinc, atad place. OppUieul to posisivis
mat
tt
(it.mtm\c dat.,.
tot cite
lie
tta ic-
att,ta.est
di
ilii .iantuaotaetra
Im. hniqctea
tall
1
t
a
tio a
imgctact
It)
ia,,
i ttie ..lttat.Ltat
dot
cx
lat,aric,t,
1
max
a.
ft..
1cm
pragmarn
ij
sjalanat on
t isac [to e
eattaplr.
t,,a
as
p ft
it
..r
mm.
,tt. 5, t
In otate
if a
irlrerprocivism. The position tlaat socia facts cannot be measured a ichouc caking accoui
of
tar to
o urvilinear mtfet ts. arid so on. They create serious problems for nearlu all rypes of c
inatiott and inierpretatior of coefficients. Opposed to mulct cf/or
she effects o otd
primary documents.
clii I sm
et
di
Oi to simpler
.t,.l_i,ta,citoOal
isa
at oi at
11 Sn
ii ..te r in.
cc
ii,ta
It vi
,.itp
tore
tot
p.
rf..ssc
at
so.
i a
p rot
at
cd faets
atctlaod c
tt isa i
ot
iaertv
tttg
methodologis al india
tnt and last orm
them, face mulscm
iduahsrn.
relits
emergent;
Tlae
mtapa
tact on,.l that of rltr incus idc.atS sIio afe held to eenie..,te
reduction.
methodology The dtscipline of invi.stigariog naethmads. lhe word is also often used as
equivalent of ,ntihsd, as in the phrase \\hat is your merhodoltigy a oaeamng WI ac
naethod did you use?
microeconomics, The branch of economics concerned with the behas jot of multitudes o
identical actors in simple markets under simple constraints founded ott concepts o
roe
at
model. In quantitative social science, the mathematiral form relating variables to onc ao
ta
a..
e instil.
It,.
ci
it
an mc theta
,a,mtte
a atiah
...
It fr ot
tat
air
P.
patti
adam
On
0.
tit,
ts o
it
11 a
sr
tat
I
tOe
s,
1.1
acti
I cii
at
adci
etit
n at
a art sul
heat [tat. d
.
m
iii (it
Ii
ram,cici
c S
s.ott.
cOO
,e,.
t:tt
l.tep0irttt
tim
Ic sot
rcj
at
10
(ti
setettu
itatist
5
a.
the patcmro a
A t
tp
caner. fypicalls, the relatiunsh,ps tnvolse scalar coefficients usho known as psranae
I ,eo,.r,.i ttmatliet.,
tat,. t,tmh tO
oat
tlmar taaojm.
)lcmna.m, Ill
a.,.. a
ott
pertaca a
c tint
so
cc di
a estttaaatcd The
t titia
ci c
criods, usit
ota.
t
sect
if
w fat a and
two or three dimensionst, reramning in rite map as much cit rIte original distance
nsation
as
ittaoi
multiple regression. An alternative name for the standard linear model for indepcoclc a,
atad dependent variables, nor to be cortfused with sirdinary least squares (OLS peter
aliecd least sqciares (GLS), naaximuna-likelihoud cstimatioia (MLEI, arid so on whicf
are nantes for different sets of assulnptioos (aiad the algorithms associated wici tla as
asseimprions) that arc used ro estiniare the parameters of these (aiacl other) mcdels.
nan ative heuristic. Ilw heuristic move that works by changing ths wa we usc
sro
and events to describe the a cual lanooms. The important iaarrative heciristics atc p
cs
till
ds:
0
ny
5.
Ii Owl
ir
it
al esn
sat
Si
Is
ns
( la
iiOi flJ t
st
051
cli
a.
III
1
doan
SS
strue i
S_i
cquai ohs
thc ha
>Vs.h
Ills.
stylr ad
tVdll
suro
ts.\IS)UtlHL.
inis ow.
5
iCiSS
;VVS:
S.
Ii
15
hi
1
115
sO I I
Is
ci
.s
sJw
to
win
rrserlt
in
a.
h measure
i sti
ij
Lit
tact
It
interpre
nit
uid
4110,0
hence
s.j
1
Tls
SIVIOC
tnnatc
It a.
ti
went
to
s. t 1 5
VlI.h
loll
HISS
a. ntactn. explanation. An
or
srI
ill
TI
ISW
ivtsIae
e15
arm
I dat
Ut as.
o.
(.105411
.55
55
s.s
.
5
.. isascpens.ler
ip
550
dl
I5 Ls
Un
a. U Us
tI
thico
5
sl
a.! I
I 1)
t I 1)
.1 Inca
C. tiC aoOS
VS
sidLCsV_Ie IL
5iCS
5.
a.
is ,.ss.is
eLnO
iSa.
s.IU4OSSSCVs..\
HiS
..t
iL
da.
S_jtlitShi
Ii,
ariables
45
.5)
ii
noethou
.0
oUCS
model
ival method. A
td
.nn
will ii alive
tincti
dit cc
VIV
iseai,iy, generalit
seciucncc
fl
5
5
u
at
r s it
ii
150001) eel
tL Crc
iarnii
55
.ns.
her is
iii
a.
ms..L
.15..
at
ia.
ii
CVI
VVII1a..S0
VVI
es
S. C
s_f
VS
is
nil)
VS.)
metts
55
nlfs,rnllr
ours
sails
eros in a i ariahie
llIC
.0.1
ariable, tIependeOl:
Ia tIll S
adigiti
is.tV)UIVVS
11)1)5
a
id
i n inc
j ott iso
1(1
d
ii i
I th
1111w
i.e
linear nsnidel:
aiim
II
is) tn
teo.
si
5551555
tIC
enS
Vtflt.d
.Vp!_HLs.ta.ss
OUSt
ifl 5115511
s11ec AcsilIsSci
in
tile
sis.yis.
lie. 1
ossio.la
i.e
tICtI
_Us,_
is..
VVa.
550/I
models of so
:s0s.
VS
1)
sin
solve
VS
:a.ph
s
siz
A 5
I
Ss.
ii
a ai aba.
U
SC (15
COO
I ml
III
VSSSH
V5
,S
,tstiltd.
s.a.h 1
I
ch
.ilisIlLii
Cs.-
sS
.SSVISVVVVIV__.
.05501
VV
SL1VilSi
VII
ii:m
t:Vs.
VS_S
VII
tb. t 1
5/
tote
us. i wi
t
tOlUtits
ol
s.irs.d
h tLii.
5.-us.
rs.1
its ti
d I y
al
Ii
lOsil
tealitc
oa.1li
Sn
scislItLi It)
p1 c
h
I in 1
f5
5
so
.U
s.ioinrs
IV
Sit!
SlUt
janatiisn.
SV
Ao
U H
a.
tiiLssft..s
sit
5055551
S.
Ussni
5.5,
5555
St
.5
P11tH
,.VH
dl
IVV
ss
V5d51C
Si
intttas.tisjfl.
Iowcr
(1 lieisi I
by rig irded as a
ii
IV
Is
Oils
I
ll
uual olluctiS
LV
teal
IS
Vii
Sd
pi:iL 1
iieullstf_s
s.tnrs
.1
I
a. sa.n,
1 s/s
It
)iseUilflitli.l
si
ill
i iAs.r
iy S
y ti
LOIS
ut
Ida.s
lormalization.
f ones.
5 pis.siiiy
001015
nttlIIidS.
SIC
0/))
s
5.1
VVV
1051001
atlas
h
5
oar
si.isncJ
1
inro
S nit
1
i
1 W
1
he
IViOC
fi,l di
55
th
I 1,01
tas..
nVSI ,,SUiny
,f
)s
il
VU
b.,t ss
srk
5
he!iavn t
is.
V.Ss.1IFSCsifVU
sib
nisi
t s. t
IS
VS
15051551
.111
.1 S:CLs.rai I
VS
Vs.
51)11 1551
.1 rs.prs-ss.-SStIII
1
is.w
551
V.
If
OslO
UCOF 15551)51
0
SVs
I H
LI
St
001,100
SVIS5F
5
C
SSS
si
H C
51555
s.flsil1O
s.tISVVs.ie
so
St
tic
extcnt
_.SsJ. LH.sts.)
1551 1 seilontUn.).
SC A
5)55
treat
nil] udes
.Ss.s.
mL
standard
variables, independent.
in
UsiLsJ
causal
55511
CII
1115
..S_SVltsm_
st
n
4
mnaiysms. sli
dar Causal 5
S5SiS
)555
SIVI
I.
s5
analysis.
iVarVahie.
/ss,
se,
SsiCSds.s.t,
Noms
C1IPTER
1
As
5
tg
0
oorkmn
of tn Oiitinfl ti
In the
mow
remarked,
is not a complete d
o can do titIis orE, atsd L me
5
morIg
Oflec
nt-vs
peopw
se
idea.
(170:2-Is)
icai phraseology
5
thcore
of
pow
1 to keep producing
er, their ahilir
OCo
Sw
Chandrasei-iar ii 99.
s,
-t
2 li
tw:s explanation
vorsis
is
an
rsgorm civ
stems,
of,sii
chamsgmiig. Properly
spcdPmmg.
(Ii recalls
a mk-noe
sS
c.
I ms-sos -us
Sc OSSIOiS
iv in
loi m
ie/, w h
1
met/sari; they use ,x, !.su,Is/sm
SIte!
1
the lhmiliar seminar question, Whats your method
nOsy
ow
the ad e
cli
e
8
t
(or
5. Scimetimes qoant tacise analysts do undertake dctailrd study of several case, For an c
ample see Paige (1975).
Li,
55
,ici_at,,i
ls
--
_ti
S_i
ii
ci
ti
iSIS
itt c.
si
-1
hi
5 it
dii
k and
0
Soft
Sc is. it n, moos-is
tn
i i is
mujt
rln,r.ir d
resorne ii
is
torn,
ta to beyond
at
i1
1
clue Hiss I
ot
iii
hi
i
cit
is
s C
as i
an ods of
shr has- bccu
bcii,
se
ii i
tiznc
i,
15
cii
iii c-i
if
(5
itoil
001
it
iC..C
is ii
hLis
5
a.
die
aitCk ft
its
at
r r
Si
i,
SiS
it_k
.,
rS
c Lsi,tntn
itt
isO
-i
Os-
s,-c,, st
c,
,
555
i5s
mc and of
Of i
Hut
ii
attic
ass
ii
to
<nit
tIc
b
h
inn
d,st,
to
sc
-sto
tJ
icc
si
no
c t
tic
is
i,,
,hes
to
cn mu
si
Hi
its
eta Ic
sic riot n
r aLl s. at cc
si I
rh SEA pog a
tat v ci oils
ft-ins tiers To h
- s
5
aC
einbsdocd tn
tint ii ft
it
is
ins
is
-
ccii
1 a
ii
is
sos
it.,, c
iw
Js
sat a
hs
iii
c Li ins m
its
ti
iiaurcd it
ci
tiutincliac iii mi
,.
u.s the
cvsni,
,s SC,lt(
c ial
ii
0
cvi
an,ss
,,s
Di
PRM
ii
Al
copi
cut, that
is
B
)(
I am
ac r
uus
as i
Cc
1)5
ii c
ci
general tevtnsl
of
it
ci iLs
0
horrus
tn
is as .0
_Dhuft
ai0.ihCCiSE
FRAC
HEDR1STICL
waikit
doss
ri
suer about a
to
he SeeS
arwoids
)Ss it Soro
no
ti
s ,
t,i
ii
Is
art
itc
d in
,as.
fiat
0 ii itO sic
ti
is
is, ,cis
Dan
Di c
.11
loft
is
it
.1
it
,t,tsis
IL
stti iitict
i,
ii
,.
U) ){
Os
, S
it
ift
it,
sa
II )N
1.,,
Ott
.55
i
too frames
sO
kt,,st iVi,ctlicr
and sic
c tud
ii
tr
t ii
ii
\Ian
,,ci ns
1k
at
i btli
woe ch, e
lOLAs
-cND PLZZLES
techniCal
Was
toSOfl,tsOtsS,
tUft
5i
sit
iii
ft
tIlt
.1
I C)i Kit
ci
In cc s
mi
so
cHing to
LI-
ss
is mdc
caL
ci
I.
a a nut
ott
slot .00
5th
i tot
shc
1 h s is lie
1 IC
lint liii
isir
.5 1
lit tnt
is .a
classi
gi.
0
oj,iituits
Ha in I
i c
no
an 1 isa
1550
cit real 1
i
ii.
It us
dis, riOt
ii
maLe o
tO sOcial icc_h
a fiartusu
at h
cots
I lntputer Sc Otis C.
5
stmt
r
ities
l.
peetoti ,.S
is elf. So he sale
tCC
I is-
IICS
cUr sn rtt a
is
S-uI,is
ii
Iiit
(1
tnt
at
tili
ccis r
55,10
is
sos
c-s,,0
Ca
tot,,
11 i-i
--
aUS-
t is aaamned. If
orisist sacs. You dinuld have vocsr e
005
some abstract tisue utsul t-sao, years laser. In this sardt,ular ,ase, he saw she
Ni as
ChAPTER 6
CHAPTER 7
the iititbsc
5
it,
code
hAULS ND
cwftit
urtsniCus
5
V i_it h
i
0
Utit speaKs ft L
i
a d in 5
intl nsctiI
Ill ES
Ic
,aU
cit
jLt\Litor HEERISLCS: oA
C -o i ii 2
Mi T l( 11 01.
Its
and
rifle
p.,troular
we
fiji
5 smsdard usace
rh
lciWI th
stoats a
CHAPTLIC 4
slocal
Ic 1
hut
tie,
tins
it
c Ic though
00(
Oct
s5o
stirs taisi
of himself a
Chl
ti)
Prc
U,ii Zit,
2:857t2.
Things of Boundaries Soial Roiarch 6
1995
7 u,nal J
Social
Scqucnccs
Aoncriro
Slew/or 06.14485
Psay.
and A
0 \iet!rods
2000. Sequence Analvss and Optirn 1 Matchin
IS, Sna.
l P 108
Ab
l
0
So
,,
,.;t
ii
Pn.,.
1:256bA
iv.
b,c.
iii a
hnol Cc anon
/.i
Becker, H S. 191 F
ni
o P c
0
bit s
Press.
Berk R A
Ilouschoid L,rhui
lilan. P
90
ilr
ris.cr,.,,i,
Uo..niioorw/
Pres.
butt. F.
t55.
Lrh,i Iamdie.
Hi,m,,s
/C/,irzo,,. 11:
n,.
1. 5!.. 1, oilt,ijIIc,o 0
./00
nr\crsrrl
Press
0 rroeo,, 1!
0 I ,,/:r
:t
,,/..
nA
IUIF8RENCES
Ic iL
I I
u,,iI
1. 8
c cc
cn
ii
Fleck, L. [1935] 1979. The (Anon and Dccclopment ofa S.icniiJcc far,. Chicago: Universi y
P coo
Basis lo
cc 4
Bc
Ii ccc
ii
Chicago Press.
Fogcl R. W 19b4. Railroads anti American Icconomic Urouth, Baltimore. Johns Hopiti
University Press.
13cm,
o no ty Pnc
l,,. I,
cc,
I
I.
S..:.
ccc, 4.
66
P/,.
Fogel, R. W, and S Engerruan. I 9 s. lime on dcc Croci. 2 voL. Boston. Lttlc, Brov n
1..,!.,
Gallie, /1. B I 968 Phils.cciph and .icc Hoeo;ical Understanding. New York; Schocken Books.
K.
:1
4..
0,
I.
I,;..
,.l l.c,
c;:
v P 1
i.
,..,
it c.c..d:c.
,..
,,,,c Isa..:
,am Cccr,,,ea.i,
Goffrnan, E. 1959 Tb. Pn,,niai,on sf5.1/in EiciyL, Lid. Garden Cirs. iN C; Doublca.
Granosetrer. M.
c.:,,,,
cc
1 (
cc.,,
.5.. 1
i,.
:.,,..
ii.,,..,
1Wi. Gdcccn.i
c,, P....
c;.,
Guslield.
S :
i,
Id
rf
Ss:icloD
J.
.eJe.
P;.ss.
.,s,r,ccs
c.,,
,.
51
19*3.
4 1 .60--hI)
,5,,,
Basic Books.
ho
....,,,
5., 54 i .,.c
a,
M.d. CM!
1 Ii Mi
11,5
Lx
cl
11 c c
.,
1 c,,c/
ix..,
Pu s E,l,,,,,rcs Ia
39;35 48.
Hirschi, 1., and M. Gottfrcdson, [983. Age and the Explanation of Crimc.
xl
i/t
Sc
cc
Acne ice n
St i
I.
st
.;.,
..
ediLed b
5 R. Bendix md
u,sers;d\
4,c,.ss
cc
Holmes, T. H. and R. 11. RaM. 19W. The Social Readjustment Racing Scale. )osrcla/ I
.1
.5.
.4
.
Runt,, I
cc
5.,! c
N, c Sn.. in n:,
,..
V..
1;,,,
Ic
.0 ,
c 15,,
cc,
iv
1 ,,nk 0,.,.
l,,.r, I: Jcpc.
P.,
c,
0
t,
6)xrdnd
..
I I
\
:;,
I,
,,,.,
Ii:
1)0.
a:,
..,.
.,,.
5
0,1....,.
1..,.
....,
1,.,
1.00.0.
.1,,
1, !,c,di
or
1)
I I
,,
b c
Ilccsbaccd
1 Scientejic R.islatisio.
i;
318.
Press.
Kt.klinski.J. H
,.c 14..,
1
cc 7.
1{u Ut! s
13
4;...
1 a;
13
Ui
I ;/srazory I
487
anil I
s,,
S \Viuiga
l..iu
Ci,o U.
ia
C.,niboNe. (
Sage Publications.
(a f
cal S at
13 1
I
ft
ii
e s
a!
ii
I; am.
n,l I
oct
c A L 95
A
sty of Densohi phii ira Cuiect ii
pr. Paost.,ose .,;J /), ;Lmmi Rn s,ic 9.4 [hI
C.
erauss,
41
01
5 I .155
L,.rrai
k
Si,
ii Si ad of Ml i
hange in Western Eu
Rorhmn. D.
5.1;s/ II
)8
e e
as; o
mdi
25
I I
WI; e
..
sj
New e
1. P. Duteon.
It
191.
tosSing
e, Mass
0
at h)L;tori throagh !liathosc_r ii , Cam ucld
ls
1cm. Boston.
Little,
c,,
oil : Basic
1311, 5 a
Brown.
0
Sahlins, 51. 1985 iC,,nI, vHi
W. 1981. 13 Liking Da,,gLrer, j
J.
Tiueg
ft
lit,.;
\e err
e s
hOi ,,.i,;
Press.
498)
is
t/r St
11,0/
Rashevsky. N. 1968
Salatl.
5 I. C a_n
llact
a 2 Il (
Polya, C.
N Y. Duableday
Garde,; (iCe,
la_DC
Piore H.
L srliae
I rS
i5;ii 00;
5 icr
196713. Some keheceio;is on the Place of Force us 30cC Frocca.,. lu 3o;,oc_
Free
Pems.
York:
2134
2heerf end Mod cit 3oaei,
96. New
Pccrcc_, C, 198 1. 8,,
Li a
hi
Be.eeii HilIt
J
1
311 2
cs
51,it
B 1,
,)
P A Clarke,
iieO,
a;;,.
I/s. / b/
)5
C
Flint.
md B. b.usv ar
a_.-lU
3,1
is[nis,
Mo
id
I i;n.is
iJc_rsa
2? 18.
ma nan
)scril.i/
ij
,Swi,s/ I
World.
S
as New V
gl
uq
se
Ii,, .5
a Or
1/
V us Nostrand,
New To
,S
lie
it
C.
So;itne
Mi
I 9 lnse;eae;onaliecd ()raanizarions
t s lii, 1o,inei
I 989
(an
Viku
Press.
mg/nD
he Duality A C
7 and Soil
Them
ac; talc
21:679712.
Sorrles, G 1968. The Ssera/ Order if the S/a,;i. Chicago Uis;vers;t o Chicago Press
I 98-s. rhe (,umc;Litive learcire of Lual Urban Culture. Air erican Jo sinai ;y or
i,
ii
\l,,rr1s, (
Ii
s5,
1,,saiarr
y,
in
Jv;ii,l/ 0
SYriSi;.,)
5:5224C..
Slorl, ,j F liwi Raeion,,i Expectations and the Theor if Price Mosemenes. E;snsmriri;a
Oa
i
ns o 5/a; SnooP W r/P Am. Loi;dea: Hanaiiwo.
3. P 1961. 7L 3
Therhorn, G. I9. The Role of Capital and eh Rue of Dcmacr,ns. \n, C,.! 1<
tv,iJci I
Eavior. A.
103:3-42.
,
1
(c.0
Nate
3 1
)ls s
9 fhc
5
,ii
a New Ys k Grossina.i.
F; hilt
t/
1 ect
Xe z
1
i
5
I rid
\kass
[farvaicl Uruversity
Shomac, W I
1151
5 Prc.,.i.
mid Pragrcss. Camnridge, Mass.: Harvard U;;iversk
Knopf.
Thomas, \\ I., and F Znan;cck
,3 a
Page
Pa 13 A
tars Nev Y ik
(l,ieag; PresS.
ito
Pee,-,
I 1325 3m C,
;ine!
An oizra 7
,.ets.
A.
4se
yaruer, W 1,
(,,a/,,as
INoix
Rcseat i
,iri.cr, A C. j
14
,s,
(1
1 ,o, P
,,,
Lu
rut C
iit.
)u,,ns
(If).
Abridged d Ha
(ha/C,
is
ar.u C. Sc.lt
(,rvts
Don g (cndt
(a
nluidg
I as
(a
agO;
U nv
and narrarne,
09. Q9-
44-i,
51, 171
action, 104 6, l0
addiction, 199200
additive heuristic, 6, 13892, 112, 11.4,
162, 207, 230, 243
anthropology,
arid basic debates, 45
agent, 10 46
Allrnbrook, W. j., 88
alternatives to ideas, 21617
methods of 13, 26
organization of, 5
anal) us.
and cycles 01 1
critic
u
e, 63, 65
of
data,
-,
13. 1-4
Archimedes, 80, 81
4-4,
59, 1719
and descriptive heuristics, 13839
34 155
36
and ethnography, 53
and formalization, 59
levels
s8 A)
10i
5658
36
36
INDOX
horrt,asun H, iii.
iUo.
i-S
li.1
6
nJ
iOiI,Ili,
hIS
1-s s, 1
200
b:audei I-rnand,
laxtat
to
is
it
15 WIly
S.
III
g,
so
hI
1U- a. iS-i
a S0I.
si
1.
LS La
a ins
,,t.i 1: 4
104
of, 9-i 2
aiud 2
15
aIrS,
..
ties
91 9597,
201
and ethnography. 55
and formalization, 60
and narrative, 56
and narrative, 56
Cicero, 92, 93
Clarke,R., 13435
md ut
and narrative, 56
ellesti
9))
Cole, D., 63
-1
exFi.oatiUim. 9 0, 2829
and
traamizarmu,
and cunIm,n
Lt as
n.e
odel of s urn. V
,H -s,) 1
50585
etls
1)-
constructionism.
debate about, 4647, 48, 5051, 56
58, 18791
and fractal heuristics, 163 66, 18- 91
and narrative. 56
rakt
rOll
a 43
04
)t
and fOrmalization, 60
46
uar
and formalization, oO
fin
characteristic of, HI
and ethnoraphy, 55
Collmngwood, R. C., 33
t5ok Sand Ft
cluster analysis, 36
of triuquc
Hi
mild
Ia, .1 Iuu a a,
talnri. 196
a
and 1
,nt uoc,,
and ethnography, 55
e,
50
59.60 20kb
sin
a.
2). So,
1 methods. 28
classification o
and
i-H
on aose
41,
Uc, IiuSsaid
aurc,
auod
F
H heursti, i85 86
ia
Kant s
ia
Arscutr
anu
97
.lcisjcIc
ladruk
and formalization 66
U ut
structural 9597
.1
I ike, F
and crhnograpbl 5
choice,
M lout 1
gs
necessary, 97
Chaikm, 1., 63
l-i5. 1 555-i
4.-s.
suthcieiit
1 1 6 2
master, 9597
materod, 95_97
18791
and small-N comparisons 58
and statistics 12788
contested analogous, 119
ii)
n a
o is 58
0 )4
d soc al
1 >l9Y 79-89
a S or ida I ausal na is, 9 7
i
)3, 56, 5
ily
8,
uI
1 y, S
ap
al zatro fib.
al
ii
ii
d
Ii
IIL000(
so
ltX
95
ieua1iiaiLt\
oo
about narratorS
58, 59, 1 1
43l4, 51
59 57, 58,
about behavior,
euv a
-1-145,
10)
l.
(Ii
1,
(14, od.
cumplexits of,
.11,0 Leneia, .0.
cod
clt
110
01,11
ideas.
il..:is
tliu.,,
ana
0,
6S. lii
lst,or,
narratise,
r, ow
I I)
60-60
ai,,ut
0515101,04
nd sti,all-i\
0 s,
4.
soIhil
99
.1.,ailsb, 09,
st4,t0rc,
Id
our:
tv,
4,
,)
515
t,,
01
tIll
)i
57
2. 90. is:
109,
22 6.. (
c
4
1
1st
1 0
1.,
,)
Iii
--
5 . 5
disciplines.
analysis
-1,,
ii
4 44h
nd
05. b, 6) 1,
0, 0-1
65
,oo,1
aOd
-:55! to,,,
89
0,
auto, 4 ne
cc;,
(19,
eueu,,
73 55
19298
basic, 4953
7171
ao,l t0tfl1aa,..
4 51,
59, 17179
2 (56s, 65,
ly 6(
(91
cv:
debate
liii,
,l1d
about analysis,
5859, 60 2(16
no
8
i9
b c
,6
59 1838
about ioterprctivism, 4
a, -14, 45 11
46 48
-I
tation 4 1
I
0)
si
$9,
38
8,6)
1,
57, 18387
about ethnography,
5S9
about foimalization, 59 60
fractal nature of 42 78 79, 111, 162
210
141 166
distini
tioris,
making, 96,
38
and generalization, 55
importance of 166
1045, 134
21
IrsOliX
and innu
I-),
)ly
and
nl
ss 2
so ifli
69
characteristics oI 139,
oisc
overview of, 8
1,111
s6 18
and oltu
Its
tique. 00 02 63-64,
oS. 6o n9 01. 2, 3,
a,
n, S
di
cr,nil,
I))
3,
I
5,
it
rormalization,
and abstraction, 2
and analysis, 59
and behavior, Sy
and causality 74
definition ol 5
arid choicc, 60
and conflict, 60
)4
ann Rascal
nd
IS
00
cOos 55
7
let
tir,000.I
,i
and jots
as
3
5
method.
0s5,
69,
.15
as. N
-0
and positis
rgil
56
aid ,mall
so
ctur,
ai I stat dat
and test o
.rinaii
evalUation,
Esans-Piitsha.
C,
pragmatIc. 814. 2
39, 40
syntactic 9 1113, 27, 28, 2930,
31, 32, 33 34, 3537, 38, 39, 40
.0J
aOl
,.ii
as. S
arOirn.
silas
hoi
Os-iirl\tics.
1 as 2 3 dl 6
38
F F., 10--I, 31 42.
and universalizing, 28
measuiemeni, 59
metacritiqus. ol
cxpcrinientaisic-sgns. t19
and positivism, 59
explanat on,
and realism. 59
final causality. 95 9
as
So modality
at mci 5
oa,
and ,ausalit
UXiStlOct.
68
and explanation, 4
15).
C-ill,,
04.
23_74
.3 55
S
HI) ..i
and culture, 59
and iealisrr
5,
hhrid, 38
16s
iT
and ctinstraiot, 60
and hcuristics, 27
liu,,1)
11000
39
4. ,-i, 26
and consensus, 60
90 91
sin 168
and mcta,.r-c
8, 8
andi di 6 a sri
aild Loon Ic
and octs
lOs
follsiwahility, 3n
lS(
I
description or, 14
5 5
8-
Ira,
74
.lso,sru abo t.
tiSnOirs ,,i,ai,,Oics.
focus groups, 68
yi
and s,
Fisher, Irving, 33
Fisher, Ronald, 3 38
13
13
senses of 27
and
115
,f .0
011 sileOct, 5
28 29
121
INDEX
loS, 170,
it ii
In,
u turaiss is 1,56
,icc
rrat,ds. .scnnttion
f4LiaI 5
RUiI.i
,nd
,,s
52
dame
ul
geise
58
caccalss
sarect
isti
1 2
206
as a
161
a
at
rib ilcUriSt 4.
14(
gaticti
n
1
cOd
18
tsx,ca
TI4c[ILJt,l
and Icidis
-i
55,64,72
1)2
24
gtogra
Idncl4n, ih
Goftnran. hi
sing, 50, ll
sri
14.17
Ocoule
,0
7
rr,
r,sr
21
15
histocy
definition of, 79
a a:lvc.
16s 1
rai
P .irJ prncc
?8 129 192
I 7-
14,51
IS
8-4
cpn,
Se a/is narrative
Hobbes, Thomas, 9
and inrcrprecivists, 78
and modeling 91
ideas,
of
language,
acid rules,
i.ci
urn,
It
I lcggct
re.strrpretau
rcs crsch,
..
2-I
78, 100
classificatory, 21920
Hannar Nlrcnaci,
-
c
hccir sti
c-i. 115,
(art, I
)iiisU
hIs. 1
us fls
51
,29. 10s
077
and narrative,
nruuj, tIeurv. 5
(Pfic1
9-i, 106
hisror. Ilc-i
rrct m,rs
ii
,.
description of, 1
81 s8 P
6.
of,
192 Sb
2
ciii
iristics
at
to ct
S
1,
ls
s s ant
i_ic
)6 55
s-s
c-ru -4.
tO
Irifils r. 20; -0
118
Get-rca, ( isrtbrd.
ass
sf hsurirtic
9-i, 959
historical narratson. Se Narracis e
naly
(call
j-
tnt, A
tcnc
of topics, 77 92109
88, 92
05
519.
of,
1 (s.
aS,
u-dc
heuristics,
6, 77,
INDEY
11 rlanut
Kant
stIr
ic
,t,,a
Ii
L,
0 C
p a
s,olc, )
1 2
--
id 1_I
21
fIL
,iz
ai
1.,3(
I,
i1i
i
1,
itcio
ast
is
0--
islosm. 16
trot
ti
and
o,J,,>117,
d I
SS
nO
,,-,
1 3 .nO6
or ,,Iic, 711
.1
iL
art
14
so
oi.
0 cc ,,.1,1
l&
I,
111,0,1 ori
61 s
0,
It
,(
0,
I-
(Lt
ti s
Koh s.
i1
pL1[
ad Cc,
Lacat
d so>,,
ni-a i(5
ii
11
1CC-OS,
01i, II,
S
Ii,
a,
[Oc
ilV
Ii
tol
2, ,i,,,,ISSi.
(Sf0,.
I a
1,ii
1 C
a,.,c
1,,,
S (51
1,115
>2
11
15
,,1i15
di oci 1
Lain no
so
ii
IS
7
(I s
iii
logic, 215
Mills. C- Wright, 99
Mirowski, P., 131
Lucas Robert, i6
171,
53
mathematics, 8183
Mayhew, P. 134 35
measurement, social, 43, K, 59.
Mandecille, Bernard 15
of 94, 1067
2
Meeker. M., 13
metacrltique, 65, 6970, 73-75, 75
,ltcilt 701,
is
Old
iJIc
55
1 arc, 2so1
la,,
a
5
,,ot - 51, ri is
ii
I r
ca
iaitcllc iCy
mcthod
motivation,
experience, 2-,6-7
II
nO 11-,riso!
,,1
,s.
IL. 1,1
s8eciju
market research, 36
list,
anaI us, 58
2c0
212, 22631
So- 57)
dcas, 2 I S
ol
I is>
Kwa
Sos a1o
of.
types of, 5
See
IlnSparlsons.
lard
si
IS
if--IN
a d
17 LII,
a
it,
I 26
Lions, 15
suir
b
5
iiiry
its
arid i-
0(0
social function, 10 8
I Ii ,rna1izatisn, 0>
an
npical, 92109, l3
..
11
of
1a,s It
12
s.
,See
,Oic
3)
os 515
17
rO
N9, 1
hoist
,.
(l,,,l7
tOO
V (1
7,
1g
dcl,
C., ItO
icLSs,ti
I st of categoties of 94,
10, lii, 1
27
Sb
[isol
1 -47,
49
LasSaid,
121
151
27
--
IlnIl 150 2
1,11
methods,
nO
1c- 5014 c Ri
il
lb
(Ia id
multicase analysis, 22
categorization Lit, [5
HI
s2. 59 01 -01,
critique ot, 6
narrativc
cycles
1ir rali,c
s,i ado
([OSI ty
46, 4
classification of, 28
of
arid behavior. Sn
and choice, 56
ri c
1 rttiv
I4
101
isuzzlcs 2121,,
1 15
StiFle lOt
s6
4-)
P1st,: 107
st,iti
,,-t
,,rr,,o -uI.. K
F,
1 .01-
1-,,
01,
4, 1,)
ICII ,:titui:,
it,
as
Sf,
n,udaiur
5:,
lb
,)
13587 192-
IS
not not
I
unsiics,
t,.,ri is
s bitt
quasi-expeiirnentch
dirs:gns, 11)
tiestiOOS.
1
c
and .vrisrncle s foot causes,
positivism,
So 5
,98 92,26
and fornialisanon, 5)
gambits b
iJIson Mar u
oin,tI
otner
a d
I S-u--OS
Teas 1,
COl
12
aol des
210
anlp:r
rs,
15
ass sI ,,ii,,b,ci
)I.,
PatTeR 1.
P.:rs,:it, Pc,
Ic
1.)
rd cuus,d
random-error surveyors,
randomness, 21
range of appiicctinn. I 0
Rashevsky Nicutas. 71
rational-choice models,
17
4 I
wrstuila ui
1
24, 225, 25
rational-expectations hypothesis 1(
pragmatic rolaitons,
realism/reality,
17
16366. 18701
clehare about, 464, 4),
St.
prnblematics, 19899
and e.nnugraphy,
anti fornsalizarion, 39
ddliS SO
Perras, I as c
-5
)i,,
tan ic
narratise, 2,
S. 51) hrS 1
(.
.0,11 Sc
due
S)
-15
i
.,,,,
1 1, 11,1(0Cc,
tt,
,ctru::ruJI\ os,
dl
It.8 1
,tv,,,u,.
1
,,,
5, 59
iv.ti!ri
4ooss.
44, -4), 51
tahuhi
rot:.
Si,.
f ccor,.
1) 98
flSUt,t,
anaJsus. 1
riuli
i,v,i
St e
ci
1C-t
..,etr
1,
i)
aica Ste
of c,aeg
quan:ltctve
ii
Ii
itn ci
rissa ii ti 9
SC. CSarV e
01- ISSltV
9- ii)
tC)fl.
104
3( 24
oh,io, 1 01
iii.
Sf58
keys f don
,oid
5-i
and nasrativa 56
48 5
INDI
ii
id
I
I
r,
5 a
r fi
5)
hniquss i6
Schclli
fh imas 2
and contcxtualism 58
6 60 2 s
is
heuristic cc
and culture 58
aid tycles of criciquc 68,
7, 4
n ccl )1 88 8)
$
3
88 9,)5
0
0
saner
s
eaadg ichsngi
cial Sc Ic cc
Ci 5/
dies
1
ay
ii
SOC
cc
ill shn s
1 35- 6
1,6)
0 2s5
planatory progrin 8 9, 10
29 ,i ,i, 3,
5 )6
10
I at
11
nodcls )5
sIt cent
c
Ot
c,as
,8)
atic
83), 10, 61
15
qici
t
gc
cii
S
a
fI
Pau
ii i
i.
tat i
and formalization 74
sociology
as hybrid method, )8
comparativc historic, 1
and intcrprctmvism 58
of come 16
ai d echnof,sap
meracritique of 75
and forinalizatio i 25
and rcahim 58
interpietivist,
73, 74
organization of, 5
positise, 78 100
1, 1 6 200
ye hcur s ics, 90
al
>chiv
tichi
11
1
a
if
rai dat
i a
ratcgy /5
uid cii s
idc
usc
sits 5
iS
I cit r uctionisrs 58
ID
social ontology
22
Spencer, Herbert, 12 5
Spderman, Seymour, 201
59, 17983
and formalization, 59
sphicing, 144 46
and methodology, 4
and abstraction 27
and narrative, 56
at d behavior 5
and chcocc, 5
aisd cunfl,cc 58
5)
t I
of
,i
5$
16
social scienci,
122 1
t-g
Ii, 125
64
and strucruic, 58
dcbace about
sis
a cI ad)
8(
I,
i},
csert
n 1 9
244
vi
0, 7
wet)
ingle ca c a lalys
I a5 2)8
if,,
nuato
i ilirit
Ii
4
if,
nachineiy of 34
rid uricginstloi
12
coinmonaliues in, 5
and contextualism, 5
md coltu,c, 57
as conversation 3 248
(9 70,
-)
73, 7i
IN bE)
,1:,aIs,
ISa
.1.,
hy
),nac,,ii
ar
Canon
:0
S -
at
,rn
an
ii at
and
o9
4
9)i
aS
,ir.d .iareatnc.
051
5, 5)
it,
Idistoc, Lou, 2 n
and nariatise,
ILL
icy
surv
it S
Gi
Ii
OVeieW
2i)2
14
1 lanaray program,
ex
5
C
5. 1113.
1 u6
West, Candace, 1 2
derini000 a. 106
a flindri at
Ca
universalizing. 2$
universal predicarts,
Woicnaan,C B. 166
Satcrrr-r. Sianui,
iids
244--I
lavisrock lnsr1tute,
:asirus en
1 to
I
10,
Ott, in ni
on l,eur,sr.c
1
ii
5 nan
-i)
nato
inn.
stli
iS,
xtu 6
ans
it.
lb
ut
511
,-
c I
(as,
1), 09
0,
1W
s
I.
anal
3,12
values, social, 49 50
119
a mithods,
,,.cP lltiusros,
N-i,
pure
ci
15
s,84 91
,2
ale 107,
IS, 2-i.;
,nd card
leon
woilcl-syat
Phtrhoril.
C
and iron
,
IlcdnstiSs,
h
5
ain mdci 24, 1
a)) e.
146,
156
and
or
.6
IJ
and argument
ii S
j07,,L0
sacali
,..,Lisa.)
Ic
93
220
ren
2069
9,4(161
t nns
ssnchesis,
variables; standaid
causal analysIs
9295, 109
01,
38
tel
Ot,
01
rcporter6 list
:ira,onc
C 155
162
diP 071
Li.
anaLy
il4,22$
nioL
5. U. 2,
it
65
n6 More
ill
lie;
2i24
on
Synlu St
Lr. 07 (1
2u
tupiCs.
Sr
Ic. 1
Suu.itrnan. 6107k, 20
N)
)U,
burnt
:1
intervening, 2)
idci.in,m
l,nta_r,C,c,L.e
timc,
urlm)cis. o. OS.
,laoatnr progcamr, a
1
and c
. h, :5
7
Ihucvdidcs, 30
S
5
c
L-s or
interuependrncc of.
urcy
a: 0
iSa St 190
10;
055 iSOpt.
,0j,z
anek sis.
iOU
Thomas W I
i,,
lzcd act
,,j ,iijs
paris Ins, CS
taosal
i[id, f
and
150mb. D. S
its,
11
07
(Si a,i, 1 i
fhcrnsrrom, Scephon. 1
-i
ariahles,
Zimmerman, Don, 12
Znaniecki, Ilorian, 18384