Abstract
The classic 1965 article by the Canadian-American demographer Norman Burston Ryder on the cohort concept has inspired generations of social scientists to examine the nature and extent of social change in a wide range of contexts. However, while there have been numerous attempts to develop new methods for analyzing temporally structured data, there have been strikingly few attempts to elaborate on Ryder’s core theoretical insights. Drawing on his 1965 article as well as a collection of unpublished documents, this article fills this gap by developing a new, general Ryderian theory of social change. I first discuss the main features of the overall theoretical framework, focusing on the sociocultural system, the cohort concept, and the problem of persistence. Next, I outline a “processual” account of social change, introducing the key distinction between structure, process, and transformation as well as revealing how a Ryderian approach, using insights from demography, can be generalized to encompass a diverse array of structural changes. I conclude with a discussion on promising directions for additional research based on Ryder’s ideas.
Résumé
Depuis sa publication en 1965, larticle désormais classique du démographe canadien−américan Norman Burston Ryder relatif au concept de cohorte publié en 1965 continue dencourager des générations de chercheurs en sciences sociales à examiner la nature et létendue des changements sociaux dans une vaste gamme de contextes. Et pourtant, alors que de nombreux efforts ont été déployés pour développer de nouvelles méthodes danal−yse des données structurées dans le temps, peu de chercheurs ont essayé dapprofondir les principes fondamentaux de Ryder. En nous fondant sur cet article de 1965, ainsi que sur dautres travaux non publiés, nous visons ici à combler ce manque en développant une nouvelle théorie ń Rydérienne ż générale du changement social. Dans cet article, nous com-mençons dabord par discuter des caractéristiques principales du cadre théorique général en mettant laccent sur le système socioculturel, le concept de cohorte et le problème de la persistance. Nous développons ensuite la dimension ń processuelle ż du changement social en introduisant des distinctions fondamentales entre structure, processus et transforma-tion, mais aussi en révélant la façon dont une approche ń Rydérienne ż, appuyée par les connaissances démographiques, peut être généralisée de façon à intégrer un large éventail de changements structurels. Nous concluons en discutant des orientations prometteuses pour de nouvelles recherches fondées sur les idées de Ryder.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Not applicable.
Notes
I use the term “theory” advisedly. Ryder's ideas form not just a theory of social change but also an overall theoretical framework, namely, a general perspective for how to conceptualize and measure social change. For the remainder of the article I use the terms “theory” and “theoretical framework” interchangeably.
All archival materials are from the Norman Ryder Papers (NRP) collection at Princeton University. The NRP include Ryder's research notes, drafts, and unpublished manuscripts, as well as personal correspondence and administrative documents.
Additionally, I discuss the core aspects of a Ryderian “methodological cohortism” (as distinct from methodological individualism) in the online supplement, showing how his cohort-centric approach not only preserves the temporality of events but also recognizes the distinct distributional properties of the cohort as an aggregate.
As the founder of the Center for Demography and Ecology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1962, Ryder’s conceptualization of the sociocultural system outlined here can be viewed as clarifying how demography and ecology are related to sociology. More specifically, both ecologists and demographers, in Ryder’s view, focus on a “concrete population” with “a spatiotemporal referent” (NRP, Box 3, c.
1990). The difference is that the “ecologist specializes in space,” focusing on analyzing “the spatial community minimally defined by spatial co-occupancy,” while the “demographer specializes in time,” focusing on studying “the temporal community” that is “minimally defined by temporal co-occupancy” (NRP, Box 3, c. 1990; see also NRP, Box 4, January 5–7, 1987).
Specifically, following Lotka (1907), Ryder defined a population as “a denumerable aggregate of individuals within a particular category — corresponding to some clear definition — with established processes of entry and exit from membership, and persistence within the population for some finite time between entry and exit” (NRP, Box 5, November 29, 1972; see also Ryder 1964a).
Note that, although predating the work by at least a decade, Ryder’s tripartite framework is similar to that outlined by Daniel Bell (1976).
As I discuss later, Ryder viewed the cohort concept as encompassing a much wider class of events and social processes than commonly acknowledged.
Informally intra- and inter-cohort sequences of events (that is, trends) can be obtained by stratifying on cohort and comparing summaries (e.g., means) of some characteristic or status across and within levels of age. Alternatively, and more formally, an analyst can specify one or more functions indexed by age and cohort (Ryder 1968; NRP, Box 4, June 1979). Note that there is no assumption that the formal model only includes age and cohort parameters: period parameters can be included as long as they are re-indexed by age and cohort.
Ryder, however, steadfastly eschewed the term “generation.” The reason is that, in his judgment, the “word has so many meanings that it may very frequently be misconstrued” (NRP, Box 2, January 1962). As he elaborated: “It is a biological term signifying the process of procreation, it is a length of time, it is an approximate identification of an era, and it is an identification of the parent-child relationship” (NRP, Box 2, January 1962; see also Ryder 1968: pp. 546–547). For the sake of analytical clarity, he suggested that the term “generation” be limited to refer to parent–child relationships, “in which it has an important role to play without competitors” (NRP, Box 2, January 1962; see also Ryder 1965: p. 853). By contrast, for the “identification or location of a group in time,” he argued that “the term ‘cohort’ is clearly preferable” (NRP, Box 2, January 1962).
As Ryder noted, each individual element in a population has “an ultimate survival probability of zero” (NRP, Box 3, c. 1990). As a result, the “aggregate survival of the population requires a process of creating new members,” namely, cohorts (NRP, box 3, c. 1990). The “exchange of members” from one population to another partly solves this problem, and it is in principle possible that “some populations may survive entirely through the acceptance of members created by other populations” (NRP, Box 3, c. 1990). However, in such instances a “sensible research strategy to consider” the two populations “as a single population” (NRP, Box 3, n.d.). Ultimately, regardless of migration patterns between subpopulations, “some source of creation is required” to ensure the long-term survival of an overall population (NRP, Box 3, c. 1990).
The fact that a society offers various solutions to the problems of persistence and order is, of course, no guarantee that these solutions will be adequate to avoid societal collapse in the future, or that these solutions will be beneficial to the majority of a society’s members.
Ryder additionally believed that, in contrast to the political and religious institutions, which provide solutions to problems of order, those institutions dealing with problems of persistence would converge over time, reflecting the diffusion of practicable solutions given common threats from the population and environment.
For example, although sustained fertility (absent migration) is necessary for a society to survive, a larger population size leads to “greater organizational requirements,” which in turn presents additional complications to achieving societal coordination (NRP, Box 1, n.d.). As well, besides replenishment of its members, societal survival also requires “economic and political vitality,” the latter of which “helps to determine the resources over which a particular social system has domain” (NRP, Box 1, n.d.). This again necessitates further structural “differentiation,” accompanied by additional difficulties in coordinating various subsystems (NRP, Box 1, n.d.; NRP, Box 4, October 1961).
Ryder additionally noted that there would need to be a focus on “survival strategy, as distinct from maximization of success in one particular direction” (NRP, Box 1, n.d.). This would suggest, for example, that an overarching emphasis on just economic growth or biological reproduction would be problematic for a society’s survival.
Given his criticisms of quantitative modeling, it is doubtful that Ryder meant that any structural transformation necessarily entails a change in the parameters of a mathematical model (NRP, Box 1, n.d.). Rather, Ryder’s point is that, in light of a structural shift, the conventional input-output flow of the system is altered, not by a change in the inputs, but by a change in the system itself.
Note that for Ryder social processes and transformations occur at every level of society, not just at the most macroscopic level.
More generally, the social structure can be conceived as a “map of locations” in which individuals (and cohorts) are embedded, while a social process is “the aggregate version of movements from one location to another” (NRP, Box 3, c. 1990; see also NRP, Box 3, September 1975). The implications of these ideas for developing a more formal sociological theory of change are not fully explored by Ryder.
Following Ryder’s general usage, I will use the phrase “social transformation” interchangeably with “social change” (e.g., 1968: p. 550; see also NRP, Box 4, January 5–7, 1987). Two clarifications are warranted, however. First, in an unpublished memo, Ryder noted that the comparison of cohort careers will reveal a transformation in the social structure only “on the assumption that there is indeed a distribution of responsiveness to the institutional structure by the individual entities exposed” (NRP, Box 1, n.d.). This suggests that, more precisely, “social transformation” is an alteration of the social structure, whether observed or not, while “social change” is the manifestation of this alteration as observed across cohorts. Second, in a separate unpublished memo entitled “What is Social Change?,” Ryder offered a narrower definition of social change rooted in social norms, which he viewed as crucial for understanding trends in fertility rates, his substantive area of interest (Ryder 1967, 1975a, Ryder 1980a, Ryder 1990, 1997b; Westoff and Ryder 1977a, b; Winsborough 2009; NRP, Box 1, n.d.). As he defined it, (normative) social change occurs the extent to which "the same situation yields a different response'' at two different time points (NRP, Box 1, n.d.). This “response” is a “response pattern to a range of similar situations, and it is normative at both times, i.e., generally expected, generally sanctioned (positively and negatively) and generally happens" (NRP, Box 1, n.d.).
Note that, in a society in which socialization is dominant, social change will primarily reflect shifts in the educational, familial, and religious institutions; by contrast, in a society in which social control is dominant, social change will generally reflect shifts in the control of material resources (and thus the disbursement of rewards and benefits) via the economic, technological, and political institutions (NRP, Box 1, n.d.; NRP, Box 4, October 1961).
However, while privileging the role of processes in shaping structures, he recognized the duality of process and structure. As he noted, there is “feedback in the sense that changes in [a] structure” can “have consequences for processes” (NRP, Box 4, n.d.). For example, Ryder noted that the Malthusian model of population growth posits that population size (a structure) leads to higher mortality rates (a process).
Ryder’s “translation algebra” (NRP, Box 4, June 1979; see also NRP, Box 2, n.d.) offers a way of converting cohort-based summaries into period-based summaries (and vice versa). As Ryder put it, translation algebra is a “procedure for determining cross-sectional [period] structures by tracing their sources through the prism of population [historical] time and personal time into cohort processes” (NRP, Box 4, n.d.). For details, see Ryder (1964b, 1980b).
I will treat a model with a “frozen” or “stationary” structure as subtype of a more general class of models in which the structure is “stable” (NRP, Box 4, October 1961).
Ryder noted that this is not an invariably clear-cut distinction, and depends in large part on the level of analysis. At a higher level of analysis, some set of structural perturbations may appear as “small,” while at a lower level they may manifest as “large” and hence transformative (NRP, Box 4, October 1961).
However, note that, in the stable population model, one can assume a non-zero growth rate, such that the there is a “stable age distribution with a changing population size” (NRP, Box 4, October 1961).
Although Ryder considered equilibrium models as potentially useful heuristically (NRP, Box 4, October 1961; NRP Box 4, c. 1961a, c. 1961b, c. 1961c), he was acutely aware of the limitations of the equilibrium concept. Not only are equilibrium models generally inadequate for examining structural transformations without considerable modification, but, argued Ryder, there lurks the danger that analysts using such models will inadvertently perceive more order than actually exists. As well, besides an order bias, equilibrium models are prone to a “conservative” bias, in which the status quo is implicitly viewed as preferable to any structural transformation, no matter how beneficial for the members of a society (NRP, Box 4, October 1961). As Ryder cautioned, it is “easy” to use an equilibrium model “as a political platform espousing conservatism” (NRP, Box 4, October 1961).
For simplicity of exposition, the discussion in this section is based on a subtype of the stable societal model in which the social structure is not just “stable” but “frozen” (NRP, Box 4, 1961).
This is a slight simplification. If birth cohorts are calculated using 5-year intervals for age and period, as implied by Fig. 2, then individuals may have been born within a range of up to 10 years. For example, the 1955 birth cohort is a midpoint value referring to individuals born between 1950 and 1960.
That is, in “a stable situation” it is “irrelevant whether the measurement” is “made by period or by cohorts” (NRP, Box 3, 1965).
Ryder viewed “stability” and “flexibility” as defining two diametrically opposite societies on a continuum, with the former characterized by “excess rigidity” and the latter by “excess pliancy” (NRP, Box 4, October 1961).
To illustrate the difference between structural stability versus flexibility, Ryder used the example of a system of variables. According to Ryder, the “stability of a system depends on the discrepancy between the range of variation actually occurring in a variable” and that which can be compensated “by appropriate variation of other variables” (NRP, Box 4, October 1961). Thus, in a stable system, for example, an upward shift in X corresponds to a countervailing downward shift in Y; by contrast, in a flexible system an upward shift in X corresponds to an upward shift in Y.
Likewise, as suggested by the first row of Table 1, social change across birth cohorts can be measured by stratifying on age and comparing life cycles across cohorts, which are defined using birth year (cf. Ryder 1965, 1968, 1992). This is equivalent to examining variation across cohorts (i.e., within vertical sections) of the heat maps displayed in Fig. 2.
Note, of course, that social metabolism is distinct from “individual metabolism,” or the process of converting food and drink into energy for activity (NRP, Box 3, c. 1990).
Note that, from Ryder’s perspective, the fact that one does not necessarily track the same individuals as they age across periods is not itself problematic. The reason is that cohort analysis is an “aggregate macro-biography,” not an individual case history (Ryder 1965: p. 859). As Ryder pointed out, “the cohort is a population, with continual change in personnel over time, through mortality and migration, and that is part of the story” (NRP, Box 5, December 18, 1991). Although not explicitly discussed by Ryder, it should be noted that panel data, in which the same individuals are tracked over time, is in general required to disentangle processes of mutation versus metabolism in a given cohort.
As Ryder noted, this can include “definitional migration” wherein individuals are inappropriately categorized into some cohorts rather than others “as a consequence of misenumeration” (NRP, Box 3, c.1990).
The implication is that any given individual in the later cohort is more likely to shift to a secular viewpoint because of a greater exposure to highly educated individuals.
Regarding just metabolic changes, Ryder contended that differential migration is “the most striking influence in the short run” while “differential natural replacement” via fertility and mortality is “generally more important in the long run” (Ryder 1965: pp. 845–846).
The time for all cohorts to be replaced by new cohorts is equal to the length of a cohort’s life span. So, for example, suppose that the life expectancy of a cohort is 120 years. This means that, for any given period, the cohorts in that period will be replaced entirely by new cohorts 120 years in the future.
Note that in this case no distinction would be made between net migration and mortality. From the perspective of the organization, any individual leaving, for whatever reason, would count as a “death” of that individual.
Specifically, he viewed the entry of an individual into any social group in terms of “a marriage between an individual and a group,” so that the “marriage market at the time procedures an initial configuration of the marriage cohort” (NRP, Box 4, June 1979). Elsewhere Ryder also noted that the distribution of individual elements in an aggregate can be altered through processes of social “fusion” versus “fission” (NRP, Box 4, January 5–7, 1987). The former refers to an individual joining a group, while the latter refers to an individual leaving a group. For example, one person marrying another is a process of social fusion in that one person joins the family as an aggregate; conversely, one person divorcing another is a process of social fission in that one individual leaves the family.
This topic is discussed in greater detail in the online supplement.
As Giddens (1979) has pointed out, “most forms of social theory have failed to take seriously enough not only the temporality of social conduct but also its spatial attributes [emphasis in original]” (202).
Note that conventional APC data, or time-series cross-sectional data organized by age, period, and (birth) cohort, can be used to estimate parameters representing life-cycle and social change. However, as previously noted, such data is not sufficient to disentangle processes of mutation versus metabolism: separating metabolic from mutative processes requires APC panel data, in which the same individuals are tracked over time within cohorts.
I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this important limitation and for providing the example in this paragraph.
References
Abbott, A. (1995). Sequence analysis: New methods for old ideas. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 93–113.
Abbott, A. (1997). Seven types of ambiguity. Theory and Society, 26, 357–391.
Abbott, A. (2000). Reflections on the future of sociology. Contemporary Sociology, 29, 296–300.
Abbott, A. (2016). Processual sociology. University of Chicago Press.
Aisenbrey, S., & Fasang, A. E. (2010). New life for old ideas: The “second wave” of sequence analysis bringing the “course” back into the life course. Sociological Methods & Research, 38, 420–462.
Bell, D. (1976). The cultural contradictions of capitalism. Basic Books.
Blumer, H. (1990). Industrialization as an agent of social change: A critical analysis. Routledge.
Boudon, R. (1986). Theories of social change: A critical appraisal. University of California Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford University Press.
Bowman, D. M. J. S., Brienen, R. J. W., Gloor, E., Phillips, O. L., & Prior, L. D. (2013). Detecting trends in tree growth: Not so simple. Trends in Plant Science, 18, 11–17.
Bristow, J. (2016). The sociology of generations: new directions and challenges. Springer Nature.
Buckley, W. F. (1967). Sociology and modern systems theory. Prentice-Hall.
Buckley, W. F. (1968). Modern systems research for the behavioral scientist: A sourcebook. Aldine.
Burnett, J. (2010). Generations: The time machine in theory and practice. Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Christodoulou, D. (2018). The accounting identity trap: identification under stock-and-flow rank deficiency. Applied Economics, 50, 1413–1427. ISSN 0003-6846, 1466-4283.https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2017.1363860
Corning, A., & Schuman, H. (2015). Generations and collective memory. University of Chicago Press.
Delmotte, F., & Górnicka, B. (2021). Norbert Elias in troubled times: Figurational approaches to the problems of the twenty-first century. Springer International Publishing.
Easterlin, R. A. (1975). An economic framework for fertility analysis. Studies in Family Planning, 6, 54–63.
Edling, C. R. (2002). Mathematics in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 197–220.
Edmunds, J., & Turner, B. S. (2002). Generations, culture and society. Open University Press.
Elias, N. [1978] (2000). The civilizing process: sociogenetic and psychogenetic investigations. Blackwell Publishing.
Eyerman, R., & Turner, B. S. (1998). Outline of a theory of generations. European Journal of Social Theory, 1, 91–106.
Fu, W. (2018). A practical guide to age-period-cohort analysis: The identification problem and beyond. CRC Press.
Gerard, R. W. (1957). Units and concepts of biology. Science, 125, 429–433.
Gërxhani, K., de Graaf, N., & Raub, W. (Eds.). (2022). Handbook of sociological science: Contributions to rigorous sociology. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789909432
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-16161-4
Goldstone, J. (1991). Revolution and rebellion in the early modern world. University of California Press.
Goldthorpe, J. H. (2016). Sociology as a population science. Cambridge University Press.
Goldthorpe, J. H. (2021). Pioneers of sociological science. Cambridge University Press.
Grusec, J. E., & Hastings, P. D. (2015). Handbook of socialization: Theory and research. The Guilford Press.
Haferkamp, H., & Smelser, N. J. (1992). Social change and modernity. University of California Press.
Hallinan, M. T. (1997). The sociological study of social change. American Sociological Review, 62, 1–11.
Harding, D. J. (2009). Recent advances in age-period-cohort analysis: A commentary on Dregan and Armstrong, and on Reither, Hauser and Yang. Social Science & Medicine, 69, 1449–1451.
Hechter, M., & Horne, C. (2003). Theories of social order: A reader. Stanford University Press.
Hernes, G., & Land, K. C. (2015). Social changes: Models. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 192–198).
Land, K. C. (1971). Some exhaustible Poisson process models of divorce by marriage cohort. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 213–232.
Lenski, G. (2005). Ecological-evolutionary theory principles and applications. Paradigm Publishers.
Lieberson, S., & Lynn, F. B. (2002). Barking up the wrong branch: Scientific alternatives to the current model of sociological science. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 1–19.
Lotka, A. J. (1907). Studies on the mode of growth of material aggregates. American Journal of Science, s4-24, 199–216.
Mannheim, K. [1927, 1928] (1952). The problem of generations. In P. Kecskemeti (Ed.), Karl Mannheim: Essays (pp. 276–322). Routledge.
McTaggart, J. E. (1908). The unreality of time. Mind, 17, 457–474.
Mortimer, J. T. (2002). The changing adolescent experience: Societal trends and the transition to adulthood. Cambridge University Press.
Mortimer, J. T., & Simmons, R. G. (1978). Adult socialization. Annual Review of Sociology, 4, 421–454.
Pelletier, D., Assche, S.-V., & Simard-Gendron, A. (2020). Measuring life course complexity with dynamic sequence analysis. Social Indicators Research, 152, 1127–1151.
Pigeon, G., Loe, L. E., Albon, S. D., Bonenfant, C., Elston, D. A., Justin Irvine, R., Ropstad, E., Veiberg, V., & Stien, A. (2018). Biased estimation of trends in cohort effects: The problems with age-period-cohort models in ecology. Ecology 99:2675–2680. ISSN, 0012–9658, 1939–9170. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2545
Ritschard, G., & Studer, M. (2018). Sequence analysis and related approaches: Innovative methods and applications. Springer Nature.
Ruonavaara, H. (2018). Review of processual sociology; sociology as a population science, Goldthorpe John H. Acta Sociologica, 61, 95–97.
Ryder, N. B. (1964a). Notes on the concept of a population. American Journal of Sociology, 69, 447–463.
Ryder, N. B. (1964b). The process of demographic translation. Demography, 1, 74–82.
Ryder, N. B. (1965). The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American Sociological Review, 30, 843–861.
Ryder, N. B. (1967). The character of modern fertility. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 369, 26–36.
Ryder, N. B. (1968). Cohort analysis. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 546–550). Macmillan.
Ryder, N. B. (1973). A new approach to the economic theory of fertility behavior: Comment. Journal of Political Economy, 81, S65–S69.
Ryder, N. B. (1974). The demography of youth. In J. S. Coleman (Ed.), Youth: Transition to adulthood (pp. 45–64). University of Chicago Press.
Ryder, N. B. (1975a). Fertility measurement through cross-sectional surveys”. Social Forces, 54, 7–35.
Ryder, N. B. (1975b). Notes on stationary populations. Population Index, 41, 3.
Ryder, N. B. (1980a). The cohort approach: Essays in the measurement of temporal variations in demographic behavior. Arno Press.
Ryder, N. B. (1980b). Components of temporal variations in American fertility. In R. W. Hirons (Ed.), Demographic patterns in developed societies (pp. 15–54). Taylor & Francis.
Ryder, N. B. (1990). What is going to happen to American fertility? Population and Development Review, 16, 433–454.
Ryder, N. B. (1992). Cohort analysis. In E. F. Borgatta & M. L. Borgatta (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sociology (pp. 227–231). Macmillan.
Ryder, N. B. (1997a). Migration and population replacement. Canadian Studies in Population, 24(1), 1–26.
Ryder, N. B. (1997b). Reflections on reproductive institutions. Population and Development Review, 23, 639–645.
Savage, M. (2021). The return of inequality: Social change and the weight of the past. Harvard University Press.
Schönpflug, U. (2009). Cultural transmission: Psychological, development, social, and methodological aspects. Cambridge University Press.
Schuman, H., & Rodgers, W. L. (2004). Cohorts, chronology, and collective memories. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 217–254.
Simmel, G. (1898). The persistence of social groups. American Journal of Sociology, 3, 662–698.
Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106, 467–482.
Sørensen, A. B. (1977). The structure of inequality and the process of attainment. American Sociological Review, 42, 965–978.
Sørensen, A. B. (1978). Mathematical models in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 4, 345–371.
Sørensen, A. B. (1979). A model and a metric for the analysis of the intragenerational status attainment process. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 361–384.
Sorokin, P. A., & Anderson, C. A. (1932). Metabolism of the different strata of social institutions and intuitional continuity. In International Congress for Studies on Population 1st, Rome, 1931. Proceedings (pp. 319–344).
Šubrt, J. (2017). The perspective of historical sociology: The individual as homo-sociologicus through society and history. Emerald Publishing.
Šubrt, J. (2019). Individualism, holism and the central dilemma of sociological theory. Emerald Group Publishing.
Šubrt, J. (2020). The systemic approach in sociology and Niklas Luhmann: Expectations, discussions, doubts. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Šubrt, J. (2021). The sociology of time: A critical overview. Springer Nature.
Šubrt, J., Kumsa, A., & Ruzzeddu, M. (2020). Explaining social processes: perspectives from current social theory and historical sociology. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature.
Tilly, C. (1984). Big structures, large processes, huge comparisons. Russell Sage Foundation.
Udehn, L. (2002). The changing face of methodological individualism. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 479–507.
Vaisey, S., & Kiley, K. (2021). A model-based method for detecting persistent cultural change using panel data. Sociological Science 8:83–95. ISSN 23306696. https://doi.org/10.15195/v8.a5.
Wachter, K. W. (2014). Essential demographic methods. Harvard University Press.
Westoff, C. F., & Ryder, N. B. (1977a). The Contraceptive revolution. Princeton University Press.
Westoff, C. F., & Ryder, N. B. (1977b). The predictive validity of reproductive intentions. Demography, 14, 431–453.
Wilterdink, N. (2018). Driving in a dead-end street: Critical remarks on Andrew Abbott’s processual sociology. Theory and Society, 47, 539–557.
Winsborough, H. (2009). Ryder, Norman B. In D. Carr (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the life course and human development (Vol. 3, pp. 343–344). Macmillan Reference.
Winship, C., & Harding, D. J. (2008). A mechanism-based approach to the identification of age–period–cohort models. Sociological Methods & Research, 36, 362–401.
Xie, Yu. (2007). Otis Dudley Duncan’s legacy: The demographic approach to quantitative reasoning in social science. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 25, 141–156.
Yang, Y., & Land, K. C. (2013). Age-period-cohort analysis: New models, methods, and empirical applications. CRC Press.
Zahle, J., & Collin, F. (Eds.). (2014). Rethinking the individualism-holism debate: Essays in the philosophy of social science, Synthese Library, (Vol. 372). Springer International Publishing.
Archival Sources
Box 1. September 3–5, 1959. Abstract of “The Cohort as a Concept in the Theory of Social Change” by Norman B. Ryder.
Box 2. 1959. “The Cohort as a Concept in the Theory of Social Change” by Norman B. Ryder. Draft manuscript.
Box 4. October 1961. “Notes Toward a Model of Societal Transformation” by Norman B. Ryder. Unpublished manuscript.
Box 4. Circa 1961a. Summary of “Notes Toward a Model of Societal Transformation” by Norman B. Ryder. Unpublished notes.
Box 4. Circa 1961b. “What is Social Change?” by Norman B. Ryder. Unpublished memo.
Box 4. Circa 1961c. “The Stable Population Model” by Norman B. Ryder. Unpublished notes.
Box 2. January 1962. “The Demographer’s Ken” by Norman B. Ryder. Unpublished manuscript.
Box 5. March 29, 1962. Letter from Norman B. Ryder to Otis Dudley Duncan.
Box 6. December 4, 1962a. “The Demographer’s Ken (Oral Version)” by Norman B. Ryder.
Box 6. December 4, 1962b. “Demography.” Interview transcript of Norman B. Ryder for Sociology 201.
Box 2. 1963. “The Translation Model of Demographic Change” by Norman B. Ryder. Working Paper, Social Systems Research Institute. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Box 6. February 1963. Draft of “Cohort Analysis” by Norman B. Ryder for the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.
Box 3. Circa 1965.Outline of Fertility as a Function of Time by Norman B. Ryder. Unpublished notes.
Box 5. November 29, 1972. Letter from Norman B. Ryder to Gordon W. Douglas, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University Medical Center.
Box 5. December 21, 1973. Letter from Norman B. Ryder to Arthur L. Stinchcombe.
Box 3. September 1975. “The Place of Demography in Social Science” by Norman B. Ryder. Keynote Address at the Second Turkish Demographic Conference. Çeşme, Turkey.
Box 4. June 1979. “Commentary on Cohorts, Periods, and Ages” by Norman B. Ryder. Unpublished manuscript.
Box 4. Circa 1981. Letter from Norman B. Ryder to Otis Dudley Duncan.
Box 5. April 24, 1981. Letter from Norman B. Ryder to Karen Oppenheim Mason
Box 4. January 5–7 1987. “Seminar on Changing Family Structures and Life Courses in LDCs: Introduction to the Seminar” by Norman B. Ryder. Unpublished manuscript.
Box 5. Circa 1985. Letter from Norman B. Ryder to David Bloom.
Box 3. Circa 1990.“Cohort Redux” by Norman B. Ryder. Unpublished notes.
Box 5. December 18, 1991. Letter from Norman B. Ryder to John Hobcraft.
Box 5. January 15, 1998. Letter from Norman B. Ryder to John Bongaarts.
Box 1. n.d. “Fertility Analysis” by Norman B. Ryder. Unpublished notes.
Box 1. n.d. “Fertility Measurement” by Norman B. Ryder. Unpublished notes.
Box 1. n.d. “Problems of Fertility in the Period Mode” by Norman B. Ryder. Unpublished notes.
Box 1. n.d. “Research on Fertility” by Norman B. Ryder. Unpublished notes.
Box 1. n.d. “Some Fertility Theory” by Norman B. Ryder. Unpublished notes.
Box 1. n.d. “Can Substantive Findings be Introduced Into a Forecast Model?” by Norman B. Ryder. Unpublished notes.
Box 1. n.d. “Transition Theory” by Norman B. Ryder. Unpublished notes.
Box 1. n.d. “What do I Say About Micro-analysis?” by Norman B. Ryder. Unpublished notes.
Box 1. n.d. “Thinking About ‘Thinking About Family Change”’ by Norman B. Ryder. Unpublished notes.
Box 3. n.d. “Current Cohort File” by Norman B. Ryder. Unpublished notes and letters.
Box 4. n.d. “Notes on the Stable Population” by Norman B. Ryder. Unpublished notes.
Acknowledgements
Daniel Linke, Christopher Winship
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Not applicable (single author).
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate
Not applicable.
Consent for Publication
Yes.
Competing Interests
The author declares no competing interests.
Additional information
End Notes
All archival materials are from the Norman Ryder Papers (NRP) collection at Princeton University. The NRP include Ryder’s research notes, drafts, and unpublished manuscripts, as well as personal correspondence and administrative documents. Sources listed by date.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fosse, E. Theorizing in the Cohort Mode: On Ryder’s Processual Account of Social Change. Can. Stud. Popul. 50, 5 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42650-023-00075-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42650-023-00075-9