Advertisement

Quality and Quantity

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 37–55 | Cite as

Alternative procedures for macrosociological theorizing

  • Kenneth D. Bailey
Research Paper

Abstract

Forty years ago sociology possessed a plethora of broad theories, some untestable and others merely untested. Merton rightly argued that global theorizing could be premature if the middle-range groundwork were not properly accomplished. At the present time sociology possesses a plethora of middle-range theories, and is close to paralyzing fragmentation. This paper argues that the time has come for a return to classical concerns as a complement (not an alternative) to continuing middle-range theorizing. Three strategies for macrosociological theorizing are presented: the divisive, aggregative, and direct. The divisive strategy is largely nonexistent, and Merton argued strongly against the direct, leaving the aggregative as his method of choice. We argue here that the concept of middle-range theory is vague, and it is exceedingly difficult to distinguish middle-range from non-middle-range theories. Out of 27 cells in our table, only 14 are identifiable as middle-range, and 9 are indeterminable. We argue that the aggregative strategy is probably not feasible at this time, but that all three strategies should be used, with an emphasis on the direct.

Keywords

Unify Theory Alternative Procedure American Sociological Review Sociological Theory Middle Range 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aiken Michael (1981). “Crossing the boundaries and building the bridges: linking sociology to the social sciences”, Sociological Quarterly 22: 447–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey Kenneth D. (1972). “Polythetic reduction of monothetic property space”, pp. 83–111 in Herbert L. Costner (ed.), Sociological Methodology 1972 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Bailey Kenneth D. (1980). “Types of Systems”, Pp. 26–34 in Bela H. Banathy (ed.), Systems Science and Science, Louisville, Ky.: Society for General Systems Research.Google Scholar
  4. Bailey Kenneth D. (1981). “Abstracted versus concrete sociological theory”, Behavioral Science 26: 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bailey Kenneth D. (1984). “Beyond Functionalism” British Journal of Sociology 35: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bierstedt Robert (1960). “Sociology and human learning”, American Sociological Review 25: 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blalock Hubert M.Jr. (1981). “The ASA: on moving the discipline to center stage”, The American Sociologist 16: 110–112.Google Scholar
  8. Butler E. W. and S. N. Adams (1966). “Typologies of delinquent girls: some alternative approaches”, Social Forces 44: 401–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins Randall (1975). Conflict Sociology: Toward an Explanatory Science New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Coser Lewis A. (1975). “Two methods in search of a substance”, American Sociological Review 40: 169–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forrester J. W. (1973). World Dynamics. Second Edition, Cambridge, Mass.: Wright-Allen.Google Scholar
  12. Galle Omer R., Candace Hinson Wiswell, and Jeffrey A. Burr (1985). “Racial mix and industrial productivity”, American Sociological Review 50: 20–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guttman L. (1959). “Introduction to facet design and analysis”, pp. 130–132 in Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Congress of Psychology, Brussels, 1957 Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  14. Kuhn Alfred (1974). The Logic of Social Systems, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  15. Laumann Edward O., David Knoke, and Yong-Hak Kim (1985). “An organizational approach to state policy formation”, American Sociological Review 50: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lingoes James C. (1968). “An IBM 360/67 program for Guttman-Lingoes multidimensional scalogram analysis — III”, Behavioral Science 13: 512–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McCartney James L. (1981). “Diversity in sociology: crisis or challenge?”, The Sociological Quarterly 22: 459–465.Google Scholar
  18. Meadows D. H., D. L. Meadows, J. Randers, and W. W. Behrens (1972). The Limits to Growth New York: Universe Books.Google Scholar
  19. Merton Robert K. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure, New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  20. Miller James Grier (1978) Living Systems, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  21. Moore Wilbert E. (1981). “Can the discipline survive its practitioners?”, The American Sociologist 16: 56–58.Google Scholar
  22. Opp Karl-Dieter (1970). “Theories of the middle range as a strategy for the construction of a general sociological theory: a critique of a sociological dogma”, Quality and Quantity 4: 243–253.Google Scholar
  23. Parsons Talcott (1951). The Social System, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  24. Parsons Talcott (1979). “Concrete systems and ‘abstracted’ systems”, Contemporary Sociology 8: 696–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parsons Talcott and E. A. Shils (eds.) (1951). Toward a General Theory of Action. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  26. Ritzer George (1979). “Toward an integrated sociological paradigm”, Pp. 25–46 in William E. Snizek, Ellsworth R. Fuhrman, and Michael K. Miller (eds.), Contemporary Issues in Theory and Research: A Metasociological Perspective, Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  27. Rossi Peter (1980). “Report of the President: Rossi expresses concern about diversity in sociology”, American Sociological Association Footnotes 8: 1, 7.Google Scholar
  28. Sneath Peter H. A. and Robert R. Sokal (1973). Numerical Taxonomy: The Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  29. Spilerman S. (1972). “Extensions of the mover-stayer model”, American Journal of Sociology 78: 599–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stryker Sheldon (1979). “The profession: comments from an interactionist's perspective”, Sociological Focus 12: 175–186.Google Scholar
  31. Swanson Guy E. (1980). “For general sociology”, pp. 3–16 in Hubert M. BlalockJr. (ed.), Sociological Theory and Research: A Critical Appraisal, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  32. Van den Berghe Pierre L. (1963). “Dialectic and functionalism: toward a theoretical synthesis”, American Sociological Review 28: 695–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wallerstein Immanuel (1974). The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  34. White H. C., S. A. Boorman, and R. L. Breiger (1976). “Social structure from multiple networks. I. Blockmodels of roles and positions”, American Journal of Sociology 81: 730–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth D. Bailey
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations