You are on page 1of 147

vw r,”’

contemporary SOCIETIES
icotemporary
This series marks the coming of
Methods of Discovery age of a generation and a
Heuristics for the Social Sciences discipline. It has been halt a
century since the world’s leading
\Ietbeds nf Discevenj is organized around strategies sociologists engaged in a
or deef cuing arguments in order to find the best collective effort to make their
w ys to study social phenomena. Abbott helps social thinking and research widely
su nec’ students discover what questions to ask. This available and accessible. What has
exciting book is not about the mechanics of doing changed in the meantime? Just
social science research but about habits of thinking that about everythingl Theoretical
‘noble students to usc those mechanics in new ways, by
ot un up with new ideas and combining them more
effectively with old ones.
way to relevance, and a provincial
fJIetl,icEIs c
\bhott organizes Metbeds of Discovery around general
methodological moves and uses examples from
throughout the social sciences to show how these moves transformations has been the
cultural turn the recognition that
a Discovery

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
meaning dynamics—codes,
narratives, metaphors, values, and
1-leuristics for the
beliefs—remain central features
ts logical and theoretical structure. Often he
goes on to
propose applications of the move in a wide variety of
of contemporary societies. In this Social Sciences
series, the world’s leading
empirical settings. The basic aim of Methods of Discovenj sociologists show how these
tc ffer readers a new wm y of thinking ibout directions developments have transformed
for I cii resc arch and new ways to imagIne information their areas of specialty. They do so
relevant to their research problems. by writing in a genre that has

ANDREW ABBOTT is a professor in the Department of
almost disappeared from the
social sciences today—the essay.
Pndrevv Abbott
Ss’iologv at the Univenity ol (hicago He is the authot Well-written, clear-minded, and
iost re ntly, of Chaos of Dzscip I i s and 1)rne Matters: elegant, these brief compositions
On
The, od M th ,d, both from the University of Chicago are major creative endeavors in
Press. The recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship, their own right, even as they bring
Professor Abbott has written and lectured widely on the ideas of the world’s most
o
oc mpations and professions social science methods, advanced thinkers into the world
ofthelayreader. H
‘-oci il theory and the history of the .
,.

5.
‘.bicago School of Sociology. —Jeffrey Alexander, Series Editor 03

(j

:ss o-t9—tuc- 03

4

, ,

90000

1 BI I BI1MIB hIB iuui hl I I
1 780393 978148
www.wwnorton corn -
;WW.N0RTON 51W YOlK • LONDON fl JEFFPEV C ALEXANDEfl

I iuIIh1hIiO1) S i
U - dL U 10

*
0.

0

I tit i&4i iui Uw k
I iR .)HIII1

\iiU
IU
( k \
. t

‘±‘

- ‘--- -- ____i.__.. --

-‘ - 0. ---. t ,,fr

II -\

C.
L

£ I I tail (l t

a 1 1

1.4. lbS I
caaaa L 114. al Ll.aa:.c
lIs.,iuvh I
I
C I ,1 a %LIIaIlasia.V

Itd.IathAi 1.44 U Iii I. 1.1 lilt)
lI’ L ft 1
t,. IdjflAr.. n4.a
I .t xl iai.. I. Jail’

I I.

Lb\ ‘.
.. a

Basic Debates tf 3 H. The idea of Heuristic II. Explanatory Programs CHAPTEI Two Basic Debates and Methodological Practices I. Explanation II. Methods and Debates 53 III. Search Heuristics 113 II. Methods III. The Routine Heuristics of Normal Science III. From Critique to Heuristic 75 CHAPTER THREE Introduction to Heuristics I. CONTENTS AcKNowLEDGMENTs To THE READER xi CHAPTER ONE Explanation I. Topics and Commonplaces CHAPTER FouR General Heuristics: Search and Argument 110 I. Argument Heuristics 120 . Cycles of Critique 60 IV.

H PfER I ivii General Heuristics: Description and Narration 137 ACKNOWLEDGMENTh scip I I—Ic SticS 138 Ii “I in Hcu s ro 146 (disi’ cia Six fracal Heuristics 162 1 Positivum and Interpretivism 168 11 al s and N r Oitio I 171 III. When Jeff Alexander ofibred TIC tt e fitextualiso 192 II o Cc out portunity to put that vision into writing. Transcendent and Situated Knowledge 206 thing my students needed desperately: an introduction to roe C i a Si i a 1 Ri uP Puzsles 211 workings of imagination in social science. ifl no small Dirt V U nudity 234 by showing how practicing social scientists have themselves \d I ussies 242 protected it throughout the last century. WhaL they’ve told me. I thank my So ciological Inquiry and Thesis Proposal classes for having helped . 1 seized i’ Bu’ dx ii 198 VIII Conflict and Consensus 201 heady notion of fractal heuristics that came from Claos p Jiliiies quickly became part of a broader attempt to write sorro. They have taught me much: both drectiy. Other People 221 count (Lieberson 1985) that we gradually k11 the excitement III. This book was written in the intervals of Leaching rid CeSIS (ji SsSIIY 249 almost completely on my experience as a teacher supervis N 255 ing papers. theses. 1 hope. b. More particularly. First and foremost. written 0 000i IV. LheOrl 01 IiOv V Realism and Cc nstructaonism 187 social science developed also implied a VICW or flOzs SOCiãi can VI nd Noncontcxtc alism ence should be done. B havi rum (ultuca1isrn Titis has its roots in my book Chaos of Disc /1 ir LiTTLE TEXT 179 l\ Individualism and Emergenrism 183 While writing Chaos. IX. and dissertations. I came to realize rha iii. ‘iste 231 that will show how to protect that excitement. Undergraduate at It tS of It eas 213 graduate education in social science is so focused on ‘maki p a 11. Literature 226 our students bring to their work. and indirectly. then. I have. by the struggles for which rep help was so often unavailing. Rs IRF\(E 259 thank my classroom and dissertation students at thc LJnvc sill 265 of Chicago.

November 2003 wonder they feel at a loss. unexpected. Oxford. The sccnd a clever idea that responds to or interprets or solves that puzzle Everything else—the methods. What then does it take to have something to say I take tso things. Oxford. They un i a or vis t. and Oslo. they haven t siderable—are mine. They know about sources and data B it Fiarsard. Of course students think everything has al ( irge Pc lya. wher they sic ut their support. Faculty stud lit’r resources intime taken from the writing of her own splen arures and methods into their heads until there ia little to ni did masters paper. Small Chicago. hose kind hospitality I acknowledge. fin is chiefly a hook about finding ideas. during a stay at Nuffield College. One chapter (Chapter Six—typically. the literature. And of course they ri porrance of heuristic. Such success as this book may enjoy make theoretical arguments by blending ideas from here arid d yes lrc i hi happy inspiration Its failures—no doubt con there like squirrels furnishing a nest with trash. II of whom heard and commented on Chapter One. the description of data—is really just window dressing. Harvard. The hrst is a puzzle. Erin York was their own contribution seems to them obvious or rrivtal. fear that they have nothing to say. whose I ook Hou to 5oiie it first taught me the ready been said. the first down to rite course papers or bachelor’s theses or een doc to he imagined was the ‘ast to be completed) was written dur toral dissertations. . I hope that this book will capture some hint ot the excitement of our conversations. Although I shall talk about puzzles in the last chapter. And while I talk ab ut social science methods and about research unrig those method. AcKNo’ I 5DoM1\ [ ch’i iy thes ide is. as well as a conference group at the Social Science History Associ ati in. or novel. during Hi cry ‘err 21 1 h ik the Warden and Fellows of Nuffleld i’r IS A SURPRISING FACT that marty good stunents. something about the social world that is odd. Above all. unusual. ri r ax assista it I o chased down various sources and It is little wonder students feel this way. derstand methods. M tib ok vas designed. it 200 to th Department of Sociology at . learned to create theoretical arguments on their own. they just read it last week. I also thank uni— To HE READ1ik f1 v i it cii en as at Sar )ugo. and large parts of it drafted. I acknowledge the example of for anything else. The heart of good work is a puzzle and an idea.

i tEADILi I iii ally about methods instead.ea/icit that animates methods.” Nonetheless. We can teach others the back . I have assumed undergraduate students as my basic audi ertec. theinsus. Writing this book iia often reminded me of important things I had myself for— tter (and will forget again. I hope to give the reader tools for social scientific discosery. i 1 i. I i I sc minimize I idnotes as much as possible. though we can teaeli only what is not worth knowing. . all tr ing to say niteresting things. no doubt) We are all on the same ci v. all falling into bad fit ill strugghng to imagine the social world anew. But if we 1t. and the origins of an idea.r unds. e’t: M E T HO D S OF Disco v E R I ittle more bluntly in Pride and Prqadrc: “We all love to in struct. t vity annot ht taught As John Dewey put it. But much of what I have to say can be useful to graduate students or even the occasional colleague. by teaching some basic tricks for produc ing ideas. AJ articles and books mentioned \ type r i he P f rences at the end of the book. it is cry is not . “(N]o y ii. ito idea can possibly he cot scyed as an idea from one )etSOfl 10 another (I 96 159). the conditions. And I will show how these tools for invention and discovery relate to the methods that are—with good reason— thought to he our chief ways of prodLicing competent work. whus the text mefers to an author and a s sot added furhr citation if it is not necessary to i C. ci c uniqit iv. I a e tried to keep scholarly machinery to a minimum t ii general.

What one proposes. Social science in practice is lass old-style romance than modern soap opera. The monologue version of social science is of course easier to describe. ETHN0GRAPHY B. HISTORICAL NARRATION C. and so it goes. it is a long speech that ends with a formal question. to which reality meekly answers yes or no like the plastic heroine of a Victorian novel. ExPLANATIoN 11. EXPLANATORY PROGRAMS SCIENCE IS A CONVERSATION between rigor and imagination. METHODS A. the other evaluates. For them. Many people think of social science less as a conversation than as a monologue. XPLANAT1 ON I. on and on. There are many excellent books about its machinery: . Yet no good re searcher believes in such monologues. SMALL-N COMPARISON E. Every evaluation leads to new proposals. FORMALIZATION ill. just as they know about the endless teasing of reality as it evades them. Researchers know all about the continual interchange between intuition and method. STANDARD CAUSAL ANALYSIS D.

ThE FIRST TWO CHAPTFRS introduce th aims. many amples will be socioiogkal. the Citf •liw u ci I* imbirs in chess these mental moves are th family. history by an aspect of temporality (the r and sociology by a list of subject matters (inequality. means and Sist inc charms of methodology. as this one will. a h Ic orhe s arise in conceptual issues other discipline becomes too much of a bore. speaking. historical mud comparative in ihiids.perhaps even true-—about social sumptions of social science research. Yet social realit often makes a stingy reply to even the because explanation s the purpose of social science. I ow to design a study. there is n sinle ctiterw f u 5 on ars fur i ie punun esr loping. riot all of the s quirt and analyze data. economics is organized by a theoretical cocicepi w hit surprise. and a surprising amount of metho dology the ax inus methods.1sare SUDje 01 ‘s re v’g mi cd in on I p rti ula. then a ii i w ot 1 ca e in a x iologist. Indeed. All of this flux means that a heuristics book can cow. in fact. met I en istic hecau as I said social reality often re . I Ivy r iake up the heuristic of social sci where. mental moves they employ to hasten (erhnography). when one cu an h’ ii tim s Some sn general gambits imphcit in the nature of at mel ui to an I di set pi ion. theories. 1 begin with explanatior lite. and nos elt This discovery side of social idea of choice under constraint). a hook of aids to the social them. the othecs fun of it and steal its best ideas to put them to bcrter use else that pei alr the disciplines All of these gambits work within rsn. the mcars by wuicli so ial science discovers new ideas. As social scientists. . and o on. All that is fine and good. anthropology by a mechu ast 0 a mhits of imagination. how to ac the social sciences are all mixed up together. widely. returning boring stories even programs that carry out the different concepts of explanation ho gi qe st n I y yeai of painstaking archival research.ways of doing these matters. As a result. Sir no )s ut I) s 0 lois examples I use in the book come trom mcielogy. and so on). Thus. their orientations from various historical accidents. charuu tetize methods in terms of set of conceptual issues—n’ He o this is a vsok ahou heuristic. I treat ttiesS a iii sg it p1w sincled t ens us even though watched by methods as concrete realizations of “explanatory piograms not tlis of cattiest ethnography. I flrst introduce these conceptual issues. many of the give the customary account of methods (1 skipped it in Cf a . They are not organized into a clearly defined system law K [Iv } s se on lary data an’ lysis. But beCaSiSc ow to pn “0 a questi m. we aim to - n o scil ri ii teresti ig-. introduced eamlier in the chapter )Oe iii cal ty wa its a subtler wooing it wants rigor anti Chapter Two turns to a more customary approach. as we La 11 them: ethnography. kind c n thod. which social scientists have tried to be rigorous. 1 turn in cs SI U ‘nethi dok gical i ionologues returning tiny correla troduce some types of methods—some of the various ways i ions c en thu ugh challenged by the best of questionnaires. an rcalizing of possi distinctions among disciplines. political science by an aspect h um is more systeniatic rhin we think Social scientists use of social organization (power). IIos to draw inferences. Loosely the But suci heok lorget the other vow the imaginative voice . The social ScienCeS .

basic debates and rucrlmudological cjn cri of Cue rer To ee ual issues themselves urn out not to be fixed things. we iearn that switching quest mm nd its end ess hms. It also develop and systematize a general account of die reuiar ums F 8 ic is I as i g solid grasy of more traditional ways of think motion in the physical world. tOe ileururic: chat Cliatie a. the con. Chapter ch were themselves governed f ez more betierai values.1tiatel’. and of what different kinds of explanations of declaring victory. it stand I ids 0 I have drawn examples from as far back as rh and Chapter One a d Two are the heavy lifting before the fun recently as 1999. Chapter Sesen discusses uhe pc. rise nsedecas qIzesnu Orb rw se ye W( ii t be bie to tell the difference between of the nature and origins of motion. fractal character Not only do they differenti 1 example. Neo Ut lv u W7biI ti c r i. By means of these assumptions eahy a ucar c seel explanations. I discuss the heuristics of rime and space. which Wute themselves gcveei d the use of rommonpiace lists to generate new ideas. Parsons held that soc:ai be1sasu: F or Sri sn tee es the adLliri e heuristic of normal science and was governed by norms. \I ho sri Di ii cr Qi e) r hid says hat iethods arc best defined in terms of transforming out cxiscin argunic irts Cliapre Ti c i oh rhc nine issues. Newton became r ie bleat imagination.s caicli for niportable no elti elsevhere and produce it by local bieakdowmz. it needs to present a clear sense of rigor as well. lIa c an unsrab e. )r e Has ing set forth the basics of rigor in Chapters One and the great difficulties in tire work of Talccrr barsrms. Recognizing that difference motion b 1 simply assuming that ( motion exists nd . Old Work is not juecessarilu bad york. s I t ]U( s that zidi method poses to the others and show that describing or ensisi000g social reality s s to produce tnt iues lead us it to an endless cycling through the deas. n Ufj1 of the hook is to stimulate ten himseif is a good cxampte. Chapter Six examines the gambmn tha anse ou F 1 methods Ihutli in theory md in practice). by giving up on t e r ing about rigor. which are presented in Chapter Two. Finally. He solved die prob cii n m magi nation and foolishness. with its question. a problem event that had somehow wa’ed . That is. Moreover. they making a positivlst move widiri an iiterpre avi tradin ii. rhcn I leave the beaten path. change tonid be conceived only . how cc 90W stra icis mirhin each method-—and internal strands within the good idea when we iCe one. he almost completely answered inc as. name in modern science by ve n. the . I will turn these isms from powerful heuristic i950510. of why we rends to peisist.) The very same move has occurred in sO a 1 sc ci c. me ns getting se ure Sen e c I what explanation is. as sic would now put it) he v as zihe a nd programs of explinatmon exist in social science. In such c system. ri’ h c o yhal dehz is ito Inc heuristics.aun - v I he i rut t i rapi anon Chapter Three discusses the nant American sociologist ot the mud—twejineili cci wiy general concept of licuris tic and sets forth the two simplest in explaining social change.bh: cc ci n in m thod from an t ie thcy also differentiate internal uating the ideas produced by lieuriscic It ask. a. wh 1 Four considers in letail ‘he general heuristic gambits that values.an questexu u ra I I ass mcthodological debates in social science following his example.

then at the beginning—with familiar. First. I can simul The first of these views—the pragmatic view that an explana i itt rn ci it e hr great lit ritage that that tool non is an account that enables us to intervene—is the rsos t has duced er’s be in. We xplanat ion. heart disease. it as the normal state world where it becomes immediately comprehensible. ior.ond. It is this narrow neck—the necessity of a particular r ipli have cx lain ‘d the economy when we can manage organism—that makes the germ-based diseases easier to fight V€ a ‘timla ix d p e t hen we know how to eradicate than diseases ‘caused” by the interaction of millions of smal random events—cancer. mc e complex.mew v. and. we sai something is an explanation when it sary to the phenomenon yet clearly defined and subject to out ailows us to ulters ene in \vhaLe\ er it is we are explaining. So soci or aftiitrs. an account is Thus. rat he’. For side action. Mt 111005 F [)is (iS FRS ExPLaNarLrn’ iii simper sing x us. Thus. With this assurnpcloii. Consider the explanation of germ-based disease. This means that as I introduce the reader as it somehow marries simplicity and complexity. orl does. They go no further because they think selfish behavior i d i c I mod ity ii general. Then all they had to do was figure out what is regular gument that is simple. lie I tool kit )f heuristics in social science. and more surprising. exclusive. perhaps elegant or even coun it d v iv it happen They diould have gone on to cx terintuitive. it needs no explanation ye: hut neal s ioloLiists gave up on cx— I idll Third. and arthritis. se av an account explains something when we stop to the microceliular level in studying these diseases aims pre looking to itirther accounts of that something. An explanation cisely to find a new realm where there ma) lie a narrow neck— . This was exactly self-evident. In this third sense. we have discovered something that enables I vei is’s in’s us to stop the disease. we may think Freudian psychology is hette Icrnrsc L th’ pea much forgot about than folk psychology because it is better worked aut. the sarious historical sociolo biologists say they hae explained altruistic bcnax mr svcmi pists who challenged Parsons were abh to develop much more they show it to be merely an accidental result of selfish behav ‘nyc ourit Sia 1 Th)Vemflc its. think discovering a germ is explaining a disease because by dis covering the germ. becausc . Note that this pragmatic approach to cx I ac to cxp a a n ocia life ‘II etc are three things planation works best for phenomena that have somewhete a Li iii hr i social scieiirist ay that a particular argument is an narrow neck of necessary causality: something absolutely neces explanation. we often sai we have an explanation of sornethi p plain iiip cflaflpe and si mph assumed it was happening all the when we have made a certain kind of argument aboru it: an ar time. I s riters handled the same prob— t is an account that suffices it frees us to go on to the next pro0 i i I change by simply assuming that social - 1cm by bringing out current problem into a corn onse e nor it sital r 11. The move Se. urd work provides useful examples of heuristics just an explanation because it takes a certain pleasing form. of revolutions.

Utilitarians and their followers tI a t wn<I pa C I ) is wc shall see. as I noted derives from the duo ci iii ex lair d as the result of some characteristics of explanation itself. the prag— economists. aren’t happy until they have translated a phcnur e I I ia n in s c ii scie ice has taken a dif non into something recognizabic on their tamihai curt o H viduals with preferences and constraints. Often we think an explana o I k i idual bch t ots tion is satisfactory simply because it is logically beautiful and 5 d i ‘w o txp at at on in which we think expla compelling Indeed. Such view may meke se s e it slov h ternack pursuit of self-interest by for the natural sciences. in which ‘<emergent phenomena a ‘c 11¼. its content. Of course. like the (to them not shared or ordered in any way. Ii I re I sc phenc r ena. But anthropolog s i c.i V V t 1 nat or wi re an explanation is are equally unhappy until they have translated those very san Ia aLlcsu to It king f r further accounts. But it isn’t very helpful in social science. may not work. lie managed to produce so many insights! Reflective hat I idi dual selfish acfivity—is more real. life creates in us a desire for pretty argument We may not lik ho ‘ny cut i doe. It defines explanation as tion most people have to Freud on a first reading. or its results. C I a 1 1 let oiiicno peop e getting along without ob The third view of explanation. Si a r fiat explanation enticing mixture of complexity and clarity . it. This is the ret c ia t t ad er it i tic view. The word reduction seems to imply i ill 1 ira activit es without any reference to hierarchy of explanation. 1 11 a ‘nFL ifie utiLtar:an philoso ‘reduced” to “lower-le’el’ ones. i I id s ifishness because they feel the postulates. but we all appreciate is i Ft. whece he I ia cal usc in additive total of individ— nal realms of the various disciplines and research traditions arc. The at the philosophy of science. where it is common to chink ab0 I lvdtia t io iwn ) ‘i npeated many times) reducing chemistry to physical chemistry and ultimately c i fitC’ t d suit in the social world that was physics. but how elegant it is! How simple yet comprc i al r aim reached with which we are intu hensive! Many have the same reaction to Jean Piaget’s earl it s it -i Sc th uti arians <explain’ prosocial behavior work on the origins of intelligence in children From such tiny it. for example. which is the usual name for i in i r i cil 1 tt ch )flt< mo c comprehensible. sometimes we find an explanation beaun ‘i c n r ncj tua wc ild to another—ds not ful and satisfying without believing it at all. LxPL i<N t ON c c s reseic fa rtai gere or enzyme. n’t need to be explained its premises. clauvely few phenomena seem to ltwevcr realms for explanation. preferences into what is for them the familiar realm of cultuic ft lt hi r d I xpIanation works by trans This difference makes it awkward to refer to the semantic vi v it tXI n i 1 o ii a world that is less of explanation as reduction. different schools of thought have different h 1 s . It may ot a hc lent) 1 cm one spheic of analysis to an.

Great property of any Olie or the social sciences.12 i iiuus or I)iscos eas forma vriring tL our expl iauon has usually taken this f these thrce senses we choose of social life in whichever 0 I vie a explar at on o lo with the properties of an century or so of experience has taugln social scientuls sonic r in if its logical tructurc. there are four basic social sci egorize b Now the goft of sot Lii science. If we cat honk see undi rsrand ituitivelv (the ccma?itz. happily part Ic Liler case ignoring one another n-lost of the rime. the way its j’arts are put together. In fact. as I have said. Far from being parts of a strung majurirv”—!ogicall entails the empirical conclu general scheme. 1 type of data gathering. it has a they would be logical parts of some general scheme. mam social SCiCfltiStS USe m binii c general law with a demonstration that our par methods that take for granted that other methods—used by ast F ft condi o I that law. b it emphasizes the syntax of an pose a question. nor is any sociam scm tam in I c)9. view). principally nl sLich susrantjal maiority We can then say we have cx organized around the use of one particular method. they are somewhat separated from one another sion that Labour had a Iarie effect on the country.’ By and often mutualiy hostile. But nobody cares iruch i ion F law o xplain 1 c particular outcome in our The various methodological traditions roll along. In the most fa— standard ways to go about this sos art ft on expi marion the tw c nrieth century. the II. sri lizen ways r xplai n it tire hiyp thesis con I buns of some general “cover conducting their research that comprise routine and accepremi r law 1). but in org cffech —u ith our empirical premise— Labour in 1997 got practice they don’t work that way. with the possible exception of anthropology. lot c amp! ye might have the covering procedures for doing the rigorous side of science. Mii-rnons tihilosuplier Crh Hempel argueu that to explain is to demon strate that th starting condiric us in the case that we want Social scientists have a number of methods. if we recall the basic questions of merhod—Low to pro inn v cw of expi r a ion.’ ii icJ he Labou arty I had a str ng effect on British One might expect that the various social science methods i cc ret 1 997 he co i icti m of our cover would be versions of a single explanatory enterprise or that lass 1 enevr a party strong najority. i 11 he at I o have a large effect on the it is the right way to do things But no method is the exclunve couritri Then we demonstrate io a particular case (say. after the Labour landslide) that one party ence. u i ft a ar hit o fleip us act (the pragmatic t how to acquire ann analyze uata—we can see tnat any one or vi ) ot ft il its o i islat phenomenon into a realm we these questions might be used to categorize methods. Hempels view of explanation focused on the logical pattern It is therefore not at all obvious how best to classiLy meth Ot ifl account. is explanation ence methods: . we can use the con other social scientists—ale useless. Each method h 1 i ft u ft n y has a substantial majority is loosely attached to a community of social scientists tor whom a pal isa cot. how to design a study how to draw inferences. His is a 011 ods.

usually randomly Ethnography means rivicig inside Ufic socei SitOatiOri uuie’ scili . but wa can look at th has e three met buds: hybrids later if we need to. k-ctuaily small4’ comparison whi i/i it/on lalysis by’ an individual’s reflection i/el/Il i serve as an example of hybrid methods throughout. publications..c t ne’ ii itheting dint from formal majority of these subtypes have fecn tried by somnone at so i on. nd ii fact IlL — d ba. of how tiny cases we consider This would tins are like any other social phenomena They are made by pe is tc L r f r h )ds’ . erhnugraphy. S (ceilsuses. studying a unique example in great from other traditions. small-N comparison. b tour rast. standard causal analysis. and boric w :i t-’nn/i anaiulj.. narration is a wa of writing a up. N. plc working together. nor abstrant di t i• I categories in a single system. Moreover. criticizing oneanothei.1 studying and becominìg to some extent a participant in . s beg mu with hots one analyzes data. Methodoiogicai tntui i ortar n.i1Oi niph gather ng data by personal interaction iL. nor is thare ant If ste begin with how one poses a question. si 1 mr bit of ii s ‘.y to categorize mathods. hen using it to simulate sis is a general analytic approach. putting these three category systems together rc’q ident or thrr ally interviewing them gives one 4 x 3 x 5 3d possible subtypcs. we might note the simple set ot dimensions tur arraying them. i f using old ret ords. gathering data by submitting questionnaires to ods. standard causal an ly 1 i it the v I aix. i I in a/cl “k an ly sis by creating a formal system small-N comparison is a choice of data size. accounts. They are livn sociJ inings. I HuLl ) Disc in’ Lx )5. s king sin ilaritis and contrasts in a \‘ a. and roimalazation. Liq\ inaI3iii: emphasizing generalizability by A. we might these have been hybridited in iarlous way’s. or other and so on Because there is no OL)CIOLIS list ui cacegoiiaatiou of fltLtltOCL. is a living mode of inquiry with a long ann distinguished lineage. Ethnogphy methods of statistics to reason about causes is a way of gathering data. and een will simply give tivu axampies Or COflSpicuuusiy SULCCSSSUI macin odological tiadinons.i Any one of these categorizations could be used to a sassify meth 2 iwtc.) Note h i am yntl is s lot c myic. Emi. izarn no! ren. Mos ol ii. Each of toe five methods that rulIot a liii. i aeration) these five examples do not make up an exhaustive list Indeed 1 analysis using one of the standard come out of JiFfa/nt ways of categorlz rig methods. surveys. historical narration.iog apd stridi nip large numbers of cases. arid tormahzatioe is spci i analytic approach using purely abstract data Let me reiterate There is no one’ bas/c tca..

taphe Ho t into and ut of the field situa jew even while developing traordinary richness. The central question eventually became one of the i Id res arch begins ilrhough why the Azande held the beliefs they held about the supernatu icr I p a obi un s an ethnographer proceeds. An informed historical reading of primary materials I cx lee so. ral and the nonobservable. awl rd made sev The heart of historical method is the reading of documencs :1. examining the question 0 f the i ilnous field diaries of the anthropologist what really was the state of affairs in a particular place and time i k 8< returns home But historians often pose a specific narrative question. records of events.L. oracics. why did such and such an event take placer Histo and contemplates thesc hundreds of pages of surface as rians apply many methods to such questions. irving w keep an outsiders rereading field tioned not only Azande beliefs but also one s own an iisidrr’s one as well. E. and reflections about personal magic served mainly to reinforce the social arid cultural Statu wc as e hess rhati ix ret ‘ds of conversations and interac quo. as is evident in Historical narration is another methodological tradition. set the ethno Strange as it may seem. k Disco’n observation to going eventually wrote about: “1 had no interest n witchcraft wien One partie ipation can range from mere ck immer Zandeland. and a result. A tphi cue resent xrensi\ e data from the field.mnc/ by P.ork s d it. some sort. so-called primary materials bought. Continually reading and and it ti tl t )graphci th iks up iew questions to ask and B. beliefs in witchcraft. Lians-Pritchard. from the time and place studied. tl e ethnographer notes. Oaclu. E\ans-Prltcha 1 926 arid themselves. historical method often takes the form of trolling these P de t icorct cal is gh Magic among seas of old data for important materials. he notes.outns am rig the Azande between to study what he presupposes extensive—indeed overwhelming—knowledge o 910. ‘Il e result is m st olten a monograph of now clear question. as answer to this question. inter. mos Wh n the lie d. Questions commonly. i r t ugly h dir tic t go to 6 e field . onstant reflection is difficult. One comes away from it hashny qu’ tion. \ itli chapters that pose the in the rich. iXiLu5AL iO’< 16 lHO x. Evans-Pritchard gave a fur etioI UI she g ierates a mass of hr ci reactions. considcj xi itrncnir. . but the Azande had. But this simplistic summary of the book belies cs cx t o . As result of that guidance a s U ) ii au n etit 6 and rview of official records. Much of histori enie clearer Connections and themes begin to thought and cal work consists of amassing published or archival materials c i a e a a te class lied aid reclassified. so 1 lou to 1cc m:seli <<atne from xcasional afternoons to round-the-clo went to participation with interviews. A n example. be guided by them” (1976:242). historical data are often embariassirigl’. we often know too much about the details of the past. 1-lictorical Narration i c ave s t xplot flu. Evans-Pritchard wrote monumental book that explores nor a uier im infcrmani not very detailed be only withcraft but all the ‘metaphysical” ideas of the rcrriack An uthnographcrs questions are often the researcher will have able Azande. Much as result the held experience is disorienting. Bronislaw Mali of historical work is descriptive. arid obsers ations.

But it has long been measurements. like race. age. It then uses the inferences to consider the causal ustotO or historkms to hide their arduous research process factors that might have produced the correlational patterns mod eganr n ide of )SC 5 ithout question.. ironic prose. like the familiar ltct mate mu Or i / Hit 3enond Vf arid Wir. serted him only when he gratuitously invaded the Soviet Union cumt an mv eas but ci difficult. These can be anything: people.s that it asked this question at all. and declared war on the United States—caused a furor for toe ethnographcr. or I. His basic interpretation—that d un I r crprc I our c N source hould he read out of German foreign policy in the interwar period was brilliantly c ii r 1 Its ow r iften lies in figuring (and successfully) opportunistic and that Hitler’s ingenuity dc it lit c inus i cprion. They can be ordered categories. that context wcre wrong. Taylor s materials in lv k the ci ii viing 1 s orical record hut also knowing cluded thousands of documents. prcs ins writers had seen Much of the hard work in standard causal analysis cakes the . the interpretations ttied uniuiits read The liistorum lot any social scientist employing and rejected. memoirs. That simplicity. and employs statistical mod asscniblcs svnrhctic view ol something that is first perceived els to draw inferences about the relationships among those o.” Or they can be con c Onc the reo tionary aspects of Taylor’s book tinuous scales. As with most first-rare histoiy ccii ri . oust seekin documents. Standard causal analysis (SCA) takes large numbers of cases crc ig t d pamsiaki g process by which a researcher measures various aspects of them. cities. j. Often this includes not Hitler’s war as requiring no explanation. arid level of education W. organiza csult F ist rs an in part hit historical narrative seem at tions. gender. Taylor five-point attitude scale from “strongly disagree” to “disagree. As a whkh it is interested. and published works i g ol u. Taylor’s cele color of eyes. I cxamp ot htisrur at work is A. These variables can be unordered is categories. P. 1 te ‘uk of show g why the European war of 1939 “don’t care.’ and “strongly agree. Standard Causal A nalysis an itt tat rì As with ethnography. zing Ii osror i and rrgional varieties both of the methodological efforts that produced the book—the cad lriages and or the mans idrics behind the survival of the doc ing of this enormous mass of material. graduate degrce. wealth. occupation. t v en o hr so i etc ices perhaps the only social Causal analysis starts by defining a universe of cases in cit s r ad wic1ei It pleasurc by nonspecialists. now reading them. however. nations. like income. ay s i me s own language) and in in all the languages of Europe. sOC uitancousiV. the sources sought but missed—disappear behind st rca methods ii alles i th n hOe butsieen overinterpreting 1 Taylor’s smooth. history is t X that are observed in the data.i through a is elter of particular detail. Thus. some common yardsticks. The cases are then measured by ti it hcsn to be simple and effortless. families.” “agree. Sic i ODs Ot DisCui Liii hXP LaN at ION nn liii piac that prod -d them. 1) 1 tot mon now a mhling oreliminary arguments C. the historian carries out many tasks decades after its publication.

from chtee to perhaps a dozen. and sees how well of the survey (1962) in their basic model.. to be Twenty thousand male respondents ilIAd Ouc a uesnounaira de endent variahi Th t is the analyst will seek to know on many topics. among them the±r race heu ocapau 0 ft ts al thc thet idcpcndcnt) variables on this de and education.. the analyst tries to replace the employment. which of course had dozens of other hOning. “occupational status attainment. that ths maths niatics does its best to control the in d id s it f the vat mb[es L ithe. Elan and Dunca 1 crc are many mathematical com showed that the most important factors in dete mining cx I lit nc )m plexities to thu approach. for example. Mathematicaliy. The cases can be different vmnds A ) i11n ii o’ i. this forces that determine the kinds of occupations paupis eon are fly mp task of d ta gathering is easy to do badly if in They were particularly concerned s’th the icree cc I >1 lii parents’ occupations influenced tfich childie i’S ocui at On of the variables is taken. the actual dependem I vai iabie va one takes so many parts education and so many parts occupa— 1 ch respumidenc Ot LiiC time the prestige of the occupation mid b w d sc niam s paris iiencicr. occupation affected respondent’s education and hisi job wIn 1 r Analysts choose their ariabIcs by trying to think up causal in turn affected tOe respondent’s job as or Po2. In cnail} . for example. (That is.10 iik. The occupations were not tieated s pen cot am Able with a wc ighted sum of the independent (doctor. because they are highly rent reality of a single case and the statisticai analysis of man” cl othe cases lies a method wc can call small-N comparison. and their parents occupation. hut the basic approach is always to status of his llrsr job isinee rhe men were or idiJy vary m ages some had had many jobs). r C pendent one.’ Note too. tinuous prestige scale. lawyer. s am ic onseom .) Ihe Biau cxli one that wool I imply that some variable has a powerful ef Duncan study. Thus. di ting individual racial attitudes helped inaugurate two decades of research on this process of ss ill probably use region 01 birth as a predictor. but when the two Partway between the derailed analysis of tl1 imuLurical oC n to . h} Pete r Blati and Otis Dudley Duncan. in each particular study. tather s education and ratlmr i i a i the md ice e rsa. Nearly all ftc eftects of respom c v ght. dent’s fitheii education and job caine through hesc t Note howevcr. ( f ft depen I t viriable is income. lypm allj. Blau amid Duncan wanted s onneist rid I rb st s ariahies As in ethnography and historical research. and there are several different ways spondenr’s current job status were his edumcmnai cevel and d f csr miring the results.nu. education. tr cc t A lasic example ot this of study is Th mrriran Oi’mW type small-N comparison mom esriates a handful of cases. ii ider t bud the weighted sum of the mdc pendent sariahies that ix pm/irIs the dependent variable. that what is independent in one study can be “inter cuing” variables. and so on.cther they arc s’t twice as good.TH()DS l)isi i ) iiiv o hi di ig iea ing md assessing the distributions of this great work. and so on) but were mnVei ned ti a simm is ma s. education or occupation D 5ma//-N Comparison does pretty cii predicting income b) itself.

that of England. although anthro ii jugs: hi ca ic aces. rotcmlsm. nattu is. Moore’s sources includeo hundreds or 1 0. [orma/izarjo. bui I III snail N cc mparison as has historical sociology. an enormous peasant class provided sing Ic cise iIlctlySlS -that one can t generalize from a single multicase analysis— the main force behind revolution. Ua ly see n s a way or i n roving histories of this or that aspect of each country. the bour it 01 ct it C ai e’ the rh cut ut cases to test arguments in ith a single case By making these geois revolution failed. Moore theorized three ba r si si process in which a p tantitauve analyst focuses on a the sic routes to modernity. On the United States. — Mi I HODS 01 Dist m LRY u in studies of kinship. comparison. thus undercutting the drive as veil as the standard criticism of to capitalism and leading to a standoff between the revolution 1 OVle at d cbs uges the xicaning of variables by rs ft au aries in the advanced capitalist sector (the Communists) and 11 05 ilL ii 11 1mm th ir context. thr United States I re r ra ct wi of iations C r classes Small—N analysis rypi— China. bLut not in depth. and the single-i ase uialysis vu i tilt se if multucase analysis. ci ung t ic ix ix idual t ascs. France. all of them depending oil hew the tia s m ii umb r I cases to i nprove his or her “reading” of di tional ag ic ultural classcs—lords and peasants——deait with au h s the coming of commercial agriculture and the rise of dir bour maIn U io iparison attempts to combine the advantages of geoisie. In the first route. small numbers of cases. It occasionally arises from the reading. On The restult was democracy in Germany and Japan. After endless ung mote (and different) cases. Most anthropologi There are methods in social science that work without muclu have you fi ri ctly rom single-case anal us to abstract general- data at all. In uL i as s. Germany and Russia ate also coiisid Ily egi w th n th iograpluic and his oiical traditions and ie generalizations by invok ered. leading to fas lerailid vi pai ist ns. cornm pological linguists have often used comparisons of relatively tics r a w 01 e fo rn of soc at organization. Moore’s book provided the stimulus for much of Snia I N in ib is has h ei karat teristic of a nLumber of ar rative politics has been comparative politics and historical sociology in the 1970s. . or fdlkiore). I he held of compa l980s. or hand it ueta ns in t h inffirmation about each case. and reflection. it tries to avoid hr standard criticism cism. Or rather they work with what are calird styiized rat ions based on t aregoruzation of dozens of cases (for example. ets iii social science. France. the peasants. E. lit c secondary literatures con— i h av di uuc n sts.nocnnl. and india. and the landed classes determined the vavs that ate u nj ossibie v of shape and dynamics of capitalism as it emerged. social scrv ice agencies. This hook cucnpaus d fr ‘ii field s tes as writ as histories comparing several routes to modernity in England. and 1990s. a powerful commercial middle class overthrew S one nov trying to avoid the disadv the landed classes or forced them to accept muddle-class tcrms. In China and Russia. by contrast. Japan. at the antages of each. 1 hr paiticutlar form of data gathering employed in small—N ring several A classic example of small-N analysis is Barrington Monte noah si can vary Ihere ate e thnogi aphies compa dif Social Origins of Dicrazorshz7y and De.

the only two v r Is i on imc nr sa think ig i’ important throughout social stable equilibriums for the particular neighborhood considered I I r great anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss at are the fully segregated ones. Sociologists have borrowed formalisms I to s t 1 1 11 t 11 i d%cription of what happens to a physics and biology. the less tolerant members of the smaller group). in economics. forinalizatior is portab s i oc s I uasoni p about social reality that require some i sot 11 ate thus halfway between theories and many a formal analyst has made a reputation by ha c sa rowing Economists borrowed much of theii forrnalisr i iron 1 sip! of 1 i id of loin alization is analysis of thermodynamics. ablcs with birth-rate infor The Schelling model presumes two kinds of people one much ut g distributions for a popLilation. originally published in 1971 and I at I e x sec a i a )f lif is for those remaining. By nature. while the least tolerant will fu’thest of course. there would be a stable inte s F I t lIege res dents) as if they were electron-hole grated equilibrium (because people from the larger group i i i winch ac nc $ rather than moving people had the wouldn t keep moving into the neighborhood. The Schelling models require no real data. Both groups have a similai I n ake i sar othe useful demographic projec “tolerance distribution. breaking myths inc narrativ dir tension on the one hand and a each group were a little more tolerant. The most tolerant within each group will live in a neigh c I it h details in borhood as a one-third minority. He goes on to demonstrate that it i i I the two groups were of equal size and if the most tolerant of e otu lary ly for nal analysis of myths. there would be a stable o fifty-fifty equilibrium. Schelhing shows. in.satiz ii geographers treat arrange . and a neighborhood that people i Li i predict future family of both kinds would like to live in. A good example of formalization is Thomas Schelling s fa Ii ioi thy 100 ((0 individuals) alter n years of life: r 11 ii ig vhat number and percentage died mous model of segregation. They tell us that even somewhat tolerant populations . all of their own 1 01 vi i si oii act with social reality alto kind. He also shows that if the larger group I c st u tura dir so sion 01 the other (1967). But they tell us something important and counterintu iiv s it thiniatical lationships (Haggett. live only in a totally segregated neighborhood. more numerous than the other.” which describes how willing they are sic new ‘nforrnation but have simply to live in communities of varying mixes of the two popu a s W havei r pa hue a I by the information we already tions. republished in his remarkable Micromotives and Macrobe/sc cior imb sin ill. Under these conditions. only stylized I ilitical houn r ics as if they were the product of data. Cliff. and Frey itive. EXPLANAriON I iin r ssc v More than any other methodological tradition loin ale e ía t Cs r stri ods arc n t methods in the usual sense but tion lives by borrowing. frightening out i I Mad i. The sociol i on WI ste rr ated 3 ob markets (like those for cler included more intolerant people.

Chapter Two then shows how the standard idea of “well-suited methods’ tests m at on su ndard causal analysis. they are pro. We do this by putting sections 1 ss dir airs discip1ine although ethnography and narra and II of the chapter together. Each has been combined want to and ther methods in a bewildering variety of ways. The good news is that that railing apart its rca able successrul metliodoft gical traditions. with these what we are looking for. and as a cesult suiabilit s a nalysis and fort ta bot are thus five examples of falls apart as a concept. Each has creates important openings for heuristics. histot u a false assumptions about the methods. As I prorarn. stile and its proponents. they envision different kinds of explanations Th c ads r ci r ga OL argument takes up the rest of this chapter. LXPL iuLS t I 11005 01 l)lsCOvi K me producing tegrated neighborhoods when show that the different methods ate in fact ainitrig to do difter vastly 111 r c s z and indeed that sometimes ent things. 1 will little about one of them: the concrete version of the pragmalic . Formalization is an bu. od as opposed to another. there are six total possibilities To give the whole a I clop tlier h y are living traditions. Historical narration is a concrete version ci tin. And each explanatory program has some versions that ate i it it d so on They a c if anything. cussed to the three broad senses of explanation introduced earlier. Y. some are ways of gather tion. I We begin by seeing how different methods fact cry iui reiterate char these methodological traditions are not associated to accomplish different things. usoal answer to this question is en and the usual procedure i. each having concrete and abstract run cs I tes rchcrs who practice them. Ethnography is a concrete version of the senate/n- ANA1UWI PRoc. best thought of as more concrete and some versions that are more abstract With a cys of Ion s it ci se ence As such. relating the methods just din- ire somewhat associated with anthr(polog Sand history. teach versions.uca version of the iiaJic problems particularly well suited to particular methods? The explanatory program.R t.x explanatory program 2. Rather.iii c/a meth ou may hc r ondering when ion would use one of these explanatory program. three explanatory programs. but my answer to the c uestion of suitability 1 is n I don t think there are methods that are particularly good Note that there are two missing possibilities. which ate. nut rcSpeti\el I also want to reterate that these methods do not Each of the three senses of explanation defines ar ft tr m a single modc of itegorization of methods. SCA is an abitract version of the Jiniiaanc explanatory would he to present here a list of what method is good for what program - k’nd t problem. I shall say ser\ a ular questions Sc has e no such list. not ab analysis in simple form ahead of time: if 1. a general style of thinking about questions 0 f expiana— t rrr arc methods J alys s. abc all. Are there hypotheses or empirical 3.

-sai e ci rt ul rs fl CC T monsense events. while historical r at i at nh p We should s pa ate the concept of’ explanation from semantic non exemplifies synicictic explanation of particular events. Formalization ‘ihi •h cc iii ci ons’e le three types of explanations. rooting it in the everyday e. For SYNTACTIL e icli ut th si’ the origin stands for explanations focused on PROGR. ca/ho 1 he reade. FL Arson . should nd read tins little exercise as a definitive Ins rh ation of ii ethuds h t rather as a way to see that the var- to do different kinds of Let me now show in more detail how this argument worL. Our notion of ti t’ mu es I things has become very narrow in are found near the origin of the figure above. something 1april19 causality that obtains for example.1 lilt I 1101)5 (11 Discoytiri social science. this is probably the roost rapidh evolving area of rrieth IS I 10 IC I cii nec Modehrig ‘Ihis an’ils irs can he seen s rsuallv in the figure on page 29. in contrast to the much mere geiscca ld 1 bLiP of this is simple experimentation. the purely J?nipiiaric program tries to separate nioit arid mote clear h the effects of differe nt potential inter— s canons or from ont mother. These are an an- C 0 ii 01:1 r xplanaro y prOgram. much of iii soc al science unless you think of psy in ss c don t d c iolecy v loch involves a lot of experiments—as a social sci cncc I shall say inure about th othcr missing cell: the abstrac t v is ci of the irmanrlc pn ram Although it has no single OcilOC. soclai science does. that all explanation involves thinking about explanation of particular events. Erhnography exemp1tiu. fioch In of understanding the causes of something. as much of empirical real events rather than absrracr ones. lulls methods are in mont ways trying We start with the programs relating to particulars: concrct in gs Ii pa ‘ticular I an net assuming. but they ii. I he ii C in c prog am explains the world of so to more and more general PRAQIAT1C / SEMAcTIC PAOGR-sai coil particulars bt assimilating it 2: Experimentation Jail in. fhr regularities ovet time or across social s are imp space Finally. o i ii icr tin lii . Historicas o I r i his base u iversaliLirig” moves reach from the Narrat on Origin tO\i ‘ird abstraction along each )f the principal axes ofex by Comm )nSense Erhnography Pattern Sear In at n TI ita lit p ograni explains the social world U nderr randin more and note abstractly io1c/inç its particular action and in rr Lit ott hips. the law.

Lxe A’i’Tk N dirlerent dimensions. In ethnography. Typically pi so r i a c n h tic echnography accomplishes this by providing detail by showin hriet de abc t cmv cii t. The ethisogr to )tht vote m to complex interre st oL r attdnti pher may have other protessional aims. ability to translate the activities of the Azande into something Poi. for example. Evans-Pritchard takes pains. Sonic explanations are fo iar people in the everyday habits of those Same people actd ther used on pro esSes. has explained with the oracles decisions. The held-worker has translated. I may remark tfla I found this as why the Frobrianders paddle around the islands giving and re satisfactory a way of running my home ad affairs as any ocher ccii op shelL what we mean is that he has told us enough I know of. the decision by living yes) or dying (no): urn i lieu t he ma irgumcnt. of course To return to a q s t t the think social life takes earlier example. A chicken then makes has e to think about time in ene way or another. lemporality is another di thinkable by Western minds. an argument by which he sets forth his functionat ft ir i i oral c ioiis history (narrative histories like theory of culture. fluivever imperfectly tra i ition s i incic type on thi one hand. it is important to recognize that all explanatory the epistemological and social function of explaining untortm programs lots e a mporal and aemporel versions. and Mtec. as something we would do f We iierC n thea in temporality but because of their difference in general cx place. in great A gonaat i/a Xi ultra Pacific. For example. the I always kept a supply of poison for the use of my household I icily s santi When v c say that Mali- and neighbours and we regulated our affaics in accocdance no ski. should I do ethnography today or not?) while feeding lions Ot explanatory programs more broadly. bLit 1 prefer to tic translation. and iEagic. All explanations young chickens a small dose of poison. le riporali ty is a particu— ramifications and by embedding the strange habits ci unfamil LrIt Iiiipottaiit issue in explanation. (1976:12d) c t lie tort a d thtim cial life that we can understand y he v old fh th s. o s the emnedding ot social life in moving connecting their everyday world with oat own.c is an cx . Evans-Pritchard aces thiS seman I could hoyt used to lassib methods. in his offhand remark about using Ic t fo i ehi itt s ha e c of he importance of time in the Azande poison oracles to run his everyday life. The Azand I i h t ip asized hi c is that temporality u c make daily decisions by posing a yes-or-no question (for cx is i out o I e dim minus ft t dific jentiates types of explana ample. nate events. in Wuchcrafl. of (o)\ 111). Witchcrafi Oracles. Ora dot wi ho c pA ci stiuct oiL which I cv treat as fixed fbr the c/es. to explain to us that the idea of witchciaft serves UIfle being. We an envision whit it is that they It is not Evans-Pritchard s functional theory that persuades SOt henisel cs doing and iv am St what they are doing as but this homey detail. their world into one that we find comprehensible. But the explanation of witchcraft lies less in y lit fii o tic 1 Ic innian War) and atemporal ones the syntax of functionalist explanation than in Evans-Pritchard s dc ciptioi c f a in e Sir Lewis Namier’s Striature of t sent. This is not beas of their difference reasonable.z: a! 512 Ajio.

riot its syn The real reason we feel that historical narration explains is ci a tactic ones. narration is the syntax of commonsense explanation. But again. sn it logy and thro ighout ychology). (Collingwood 1946) follow the same semantic principles as By untrast rh great virtue ot imnuiie explanation lies in ethnography. sonic inevitable way to the revolution. what uas done had we been the actors of whom we read. and the like. Two This synmac tic strength is. “people with Tile explanatory programs illustrated by both ethnogra large amounts of power door give it ass ay”). It is narrative ideals of followability (Gallie 1968) and reenactme it pineipalli a senianti prograic. the analytical philosophers of history never could really our onie cffectise means to pragmatic intervention in that demonstrate how narration explains. k i sri i I in Iii arc on che philosophy of his reasonable persons within itself. of course. To be sure. the first step mc be he nay icr and then employ general laws about to undertaking action in any particular situation is developing social life. But the reason we think his book explains the revo a narrative of how it got to be the way that it is. narration has other explanatory virtue a uounred to a kind of monomania. We don’t notice his as Narration is the syntax of everyday understanding. But the deep virtue of Narration often moves us toward a simpler semantic plane. habituation (in Max Weber’s ize explanatory syntax in modeling and simulation. by no means an ab major streams of explanatory practice in social science grov rae me Narratio seems p rsuasive precisely because telling out of moves to make these two programs more abstract and UI is h isv e cxplai i m i th’ngs in daily life. But these are for scholars. which em body what I will here call the syntactic explanatory program. the nw sWC epiny story that draws us along with France into the first appeals to the corn monsense content of everyday experience. u i t. i u o i if evo utiom the second to the basic explanatory syntax of everyday life. They measure a narrative’s ability to locate us as a 1. dialectical conflict (in This is the explanatory practice that is the abstract version of Marxian social analysis). Often. \\ !sen Alexis de locqueville tells us. why that revolution narration can also have pragmatic virtues. So there is no need to justify ic. Serious narration explains things parti cilar sequence of events mdc those general laws leads in for us because we use unserious narration all day every day. they just sa d Over arid 1 ulte A I I sc-S an s ucru ii anthropology had as its over that it does. Th 1 ii a s an pla i ito progian lies in translation. we have the attempt to formal i I rb r Spe ie r s soeiol gy). formal (This means moving away from the origin in the figure there are some quite abstract narrative concepts: evolution on page 29. nei tiC s at ic rdls a followahk reasonable story in which a ther of’ these is a basic virtue. Ic - toe as eli rb ographv f rhc drug culture is probably deed. hit’! trrue an xrrac rdniary yritacrie elegance that sometimes Like ethnography. o i of cv a c tusa laws (for example. Whar we notice is phy and narration thus appeal to the commonsense world. as people who would have docv tory is clear on this point. the one we Ut cc hoc1 rapi y cii base pragmatic and syntactic e. use all the time ourselves. . EXPLANAriON Me incus ci I)iscei ERi iii t L ‘s he au e of s semantic virtues. Arid 21.) On the one hand.Old R4i c and the Five h Reeo/urion.

the syntactic program buys elegance and i tcllr( uill hasin to tE abstract mind. Game theoiy has ‘ on journeyed from psychological experiments to explainig. embodied the early twentieth century) by borrowing wh1c cloth the in c f ily I ted ii qucs iosel kno i as data reduction ‘ methods of statistical thermodynamics. a set of statements “explain’ some phenomenon abstract syntax for them... and about those semantic grounds the c at simulat on has had tewer adherents in social syntactic program tells us nothing. Of atemporal in formal modeling and temporal in simularion to course.erioi level. highly general arguments. I shall call It the semantic modern algebra) saw major application in crystallography and explanator program. it dircc’ly . the semantic program seeks to ex ye 1 own Ia he dive Jty of some models’ applica plain social reality by a different kind of abstraction.ry t d w ag s b k. behaved in the same way. On the other hand s at the co i fete dons. some in their we can explain what people want to do. some Ii cc whole edi&e? Essentially. althoLigh Ja Forrester gave it a erv public demonstra miring the elegance of microeconomics if microeconomics tion in his studies of industrial. Microeconomics was systematized b Irving Fisitet ho we have the equb. some in their simplicity. classical microeconomics. What is the point of ad science. Group theory (a particalat bianc i i. th Formal modeling and simulation embody the attempt stock market and modeling family-planning decisions. they say.inrji . proponents of the syntactic program argne that semari- t ov it xplan itior y making it more abstract. What is the point of game I) lus iograi i game ili y. it can then explain that ability to produce unexpected resLilts. and so one can write elegance.iianticj. is dt th concrete lestl. diem effort to formalize ie. These empirical realities all have ci e alit ougli in di synrieric explanatory program is nil same general semantic form. breadth at the price of semantic indeterminacy and . tern s arcl in its most general and even anthropology’s kinship analysis. In it. and world dynamics frankly admits that preferences cannot be generated from ln i he (h)s i ci i I as r t irned in the guise of simulation side the system without undercutting the assumptions of the n cc.j . The tics in fact doesn’t matter. So what? co t ‘n All a clint parsimonious and in a deep way In summary. The temporal side—expressed on semantic grounds.3 \1 I HOD 1)1 I)i UVERi w hat . some in their extraordi— they do it. atious mcdi is are astonishingly elegant. microeconomics is telling us that if in their mathematics. as if gases and people a s te I s str i i he abctract version of what . these methods share a breathtaking disat— By contrast with this syntactic explanation via elegant and tc scmantics to the reference from model to reality. the theory models if we can write ten different models for any Markovian tradition in social mobility analysis. the group the— given social situation? We must choose between those models or i ye on f network th ry. (It is the important omitted cell men— in pure mathematics as well as in socioiogy’s netwocb tfiin. urban. if they orfer a rigorous complex. yet simple formal representa But most readers find the semauric assumptions or the syn ii 1Ic there are many embodiments at nporal tactic program quite worrisome. 11 o 1 limitat At thi same time.

but there is still variables “working together”—are treated as secondaty 01) teas conceptualization for the temporal development of net ‘rhe great explanatory virtue of this method. as originallo works. both analysis of c d tO an pe. o goo 1 ml pes of people on the same cross-sectional type (as in structural equations models r at analysis) and of the temporal type (as in durational modeL 0 Ismnantlc program has been strong iii psychology and tie Because the SCA program is so dornnanr iii 1 c ai rocm enSpr crib any s g. As we saw earier. Should one add . lNXPLANsTiOf gram. aly i n I ti mctican c nsumer market to The SCA paradigm arose out of a ranionahmtior m ci inn hundred so basic t\ pc of consumers in that sense. This is the program carried out by the stsu dc 1 insumptilin patterns by using a scaling technique that turns in Ic’ tcfercs lii cultu al materials into a foims of causal analysis in social science.fle tf in ins book I) au. effects arising from two Ci’ cii ic cs I i sna Sc n i c explanation. respectivel1}. these methods work en tflics are techc i pies that arc used to figure out by taking apart the complex particulars in the data tthe ec. Sir Ronald Fisher and his tohos enS bout i jkyir pattc ii scarcE techniques to over-time data did devised these statistical techniques in the i920s and i93tas to a p cacti I vclc ncn arrive in the semantic pro. ‘ semantic program has shoss n considerable pragmatic strength practical experiments. turning it into a the type was bought at the price of indeterminacy or th other reduced elescriptioli that a reasonable reader can grasp with Fhus techmques like cluster I have so far described concrete and abstract VCrSlo IS et cm /X S cry cy cxl niaCin I i i s o a cu ng talc data of enormous syntatic pr gram (history and formal modeling reupecni y and concrete ano abstract versions of the se tianuc prciian I iai ci t u it nit sinipi categoties and pictures. ties (the variables).. so-called independent varaules an no co for os it ues Network analysis is one of it Interaction effects—that is. There is ttci. l’mnaru successful tnar social scientists have forgotten mat ptaniata ince linurdicu has s isuallv presented the geometry” of the is its origin. the methods it methods that were originall used to incerp c uses. abstracting move in social scientific explanation .J tot evample. puwel it H siildss s hc ccnplexitv of the social world. Its o erss helming focus on one-time analysis ables—an arbitrarily chosen dependent variable—ann searcnes makes it static. xpLned consumption patterns in 4 i. Pierre (ethnography and pattern search.ich’ci by shìowing that those patterns toe a u i’ 1 1 s hsri i t otis From the reader’s moves out from the origin along the pragmatic dimensioc c is a nattet of common sense figure on page 29 Oddly enough. in short. rest the effects of experimental manipulations. in tinker ‘search marke ers routinely use science. It can ahstr. the semantic program . as with the syntactic program. for cx and treating them as intersections of abstract. universal prope t opl )n i syntact c sic however. we need to look at it in some detail. Only w lien some researchers recently began to think conceived.ses i ir t o i rcfeie c fm your internet use.tly describe a state of affairs but out the effects of the other. Analysis then isolates one of those an has hcn weak. this progran has becom tnt iew c e. was pragmatic.

they pretend to be syntactic . the stan stylized action in the economics case.Sem teutonic a//ticc/1/). So we say (using the signed to help us make decisions. r nIt nizar ion. But its main uses are not now pragmatic. f civ I serv’ ce systems) So this we almost never do). The words gender and ue at s atCbh s its ability to tell us about the comparative 5 fie. the methods are still used in evaluation All of this complexitY happens because in rcaht:’ the SCc re etc ‘h. I hr eCA program still has some the sociology one. h wevcr.i icy. ft i i IiOi)S 01 Dist OViRY £xi’L tioo errilier or uot Was soil A herrer than soil B They put the economics articles in the SCA tradition justity their SC cml z’r Ut sonic tic ids but not others. .lungs (ni this case.iacrat d not rcfei to real entities Gender and bure aucracy pragmatic effects on other variables gisen the impcieii do not exist is independent things they sumptiofl that we have a quasi_eXPerimertl situat’OO exist only as properties (fli of rio t. r its approach was applied to Thus. a mass of tormahZing and calculus that typicdly begins tcctt’ d I yti 1 1 out probability theor) for the resulting numbers. in order to be explanat0rY the SCA program has to con nonexpuit writ ii den ti c combi icd with new ideas about binc its variableslt vel caasal syniax with ni-nelated ieioaetzc ‘ci ausalit This ltd to the hybrid explanatory program that is erences to other.nc i oss ti i liapper t d. bureau prisingly difficult to learn. it was oriinallY iiC Rather. more credible syntactic approaches to urea general througl out the empirical social sciences. ‘flu point was to decide whether to take political articles of the SCA type hegin nor wi’lt t’ SCICflCC t mc a it ii tot to understand rnhanis ms. of course. toilouabie hCttatiiCS ii dard causal analysis program. pragmatic i elm ante. tins semantic reference one aspect of explanation ends up losing much of the cet i is cdi. measured the effects. in cern omits.tints approach mentioned earlier that differences in and sill) tit is also sut as a syntactic program it is ungracious C ‘5 ifl civil semi cc sysre rns are ‘caused by” gender. this cussiofl shows—is quite tortured. for exemI it.to toe al cud sir spi he I r a kls of actio n o typical particu1at the present moment in social science is prohabty otw . Strongly developing ci gende at d burtau. and so ott.) Its strongest poiflt wI oh language of s ariables is a mirage. But it can’t even tell us in which ditectlu s properties syntax ha to be justificd by Ibither jema ntic refer the causal forces work nor how causes work together ll ence \Ve h t ‘e ti have s tmc way U give emp irical meaning to those 1udgmentS must be imported from elsewhere streine its ahr t donor ships between abstract things like in summary. Since the original calculus of the eeonOiS but with commonsense tsistoriuf applcarions wert’ experimenud these statistical techniques narratives of the forn “such and such people arc lihely t 1 is en in fact aplanat nily quite p ‘rsuasivc for the put )Usc tiny rved Used i am cx erim pragmatic such and such things under such and such c nditions Tit s ental context—as they stories try to justify the “variables-level syntax’ by teacnig t till t Iten ire it isy 1 logy—— the) rem ain so ward the semantic world of everyday reasonable utidersta idi t b’ Later I e cci t try. since its rauonolec5 this long xb c ‘acy. to he pragmatic Dressen nI v ctghrcd. program has no causal foundation at all. article In sociology at d political science chit e temeJ rciu 5 T it ha I no ricular conce’ ii 1 o cituses br why or how ence is made to a set of simplified nairaniVC5 o t0 iolog ‘. there is no free lunch.

I [W. i) . k )ist )VRY

in \vhidI t[te vntactc and semantic programs
are about to turn Chapter TWO
the tables on the praimatac one, which
has dominated social
scan fPr hour slxtC
years. The latter remains the best pro- ASC DEBATES AND
at. s hink about sucial pohey. But if we are tryin IETi1ODOLOGCAJ PRACTCS
g to
etst r I n I hc thins happen, it has little to reco
rn
a i

I. BASIC DEBASES
A. POsITIVISM AN1) 1NTERPRET1V1SM
B. ANALYSIS AND NARRATiON
C. BEIAVIORlSM AND CULTuRALISM
I), INDiVIDUALISM AND EMERGENT1SM
E. REALISM AND
F C0NTEXTUALISM AND NONCONTEXTUALISM
G. CHOICE AND CONSTRAINT
H. CoNFLICT AND CONSENSUS
I. TRANSCENDENT AND SITUATED KNOWLEDGE
II, METHODS AND DEBATES
A. ETHNOGRAPHY
B. HisToRiCAL NARRATION
C. STANDARD CAUSAL ANALYSIS
D. SMALL-N COMPARISON
F. FORMALIZATiON
Ill. CYCLES OF CRITIQUE
A. ETI-INOGRAPHY

B. HISTORICAL NARRATION

C. STANDARD CAUSAL ANYSIS
D. FORMALIZATION

F. SMALL-N ANALYSIS
IV. FROM CRiTIQUE TO HEURISTIC

Mi iuo ) I
BAsic DEBAteS AND ISIETH000LOG1CAL P eacnces

hAt ICR loca stai dud methods in larger
,ia ss direct d in I tai ding social life. In I BAsic DEBArES
It I Ic j aditioi al aderstanding of Chapter One showed how rzethods can be loosely idntiSt
meth s Ii owl h hey embody certain as
‘sith diffCrent programs of explanation. Ba it i m’e ccrnn.
l)tiiiS ih. o ci nd see i I Ic 1 ii chapter
first clis to look at methods in terms of their positions on ccr ‘ai s b
z uses tlw Print cbit
I ho tllcw ass 1ptlons. it then social science debates. I shall list nine such debates.
ocates the mi rhod ( laptet ( I with spe t to these major
debates.
Ii is here that t he a i, A. Poittivism and Interpretiviim
rt vt he sta idard path The The first two debates concern methodology proper One strat c
v te t ss mild r tins
go on to a chapter_length
analysis or the d-taJ of social science argues that social life can be measured These
5 of each inc iod Many
excellent texts do measures are independent of context, replicabie by difte c it
so, Instead, I s iii show that
on Closer iflSpection, the
usual, people, and comparable for accuracl and Validt. B 5 couLrsc
simplc iC tare or the method
5 comes apart in our hands.
tlrst place. nh method ol}Crs In the another strand of social science holds that measurement or sc
a profound critique of iar/3
others ritlques that are aligned of the cial life is not possible or—what is the same thing—that re
along quite different dimen
SiOfl, As a rL suit, things that can be measured are unimportant or meaningless.
the VariQU methodological
critiques can be Events that seem to be measurable in fact acquire meaning only
arraiigecj in ran-chasing
circles. They do not offer the
chub e that they are usuald single when it is assigned to them in interaction. Hence, there can b
said to e nhody (quantitatj\e
({Ualitatn Versus no decontextuali zed, universal measure.
.
SCiefl ersus interpretation or
something like This opposition is quite drastic. For th first group, socn
rhat. This circular quality
guarantees an openness, a
richness to mutl heuristic research takes the form of measurement and counting. For the
methodological critiques. And
ond pi t’. tlw great in the sec second, it takes the form of interaction and interpretation.
debates themsels es prove to
charat ret, they repeat have a fractal These two positions are called positizism and inra/irniLiis.I.
thcmsei es again and
again at finer and
hnei les cs wit hi
0 die methods As
a result, they
as lixud Positions too function B. Ana/jsis and Narration
than is mcthodologicaj
5 of ins ent and
gambit resources, as A second deep debate in social science—one already apparert
discovcz Later iii the hook
Six), I will show that (Chapter in the preceding chapter—concerns types of analysis. Many so
thtsc lebat at ii
u UiC5 Wi lac Our richest re
new aleas cial scientists think that telling a story is a sufficient account ir
something. For them, narration can explain. By contrast, many
others believe that only some more abstract analysis can explani
something Usually the latter position emphasizes causality Ic

-ci Discü
oi i,x BAsic Diiarts aND METHOOOLJGiCi. FRAJiiCS

dl et n ig hpper s in
y S vi w, is rot to tell a story ture has an obvious methodological avatar, Ihe methodologic I
about it hut rather to list the various
effects iii/il ic/i/al forces position of bebatiorii,n rejects any concern with culture and
have n it f ther thin : w iii is th eliect of race on in meaning. One can consider only social struccLlre and behavic i
i C if c oc upati i at d sc on. This second
i
not meaning. There is no standard name for the opposite pos
debatc pits 1a/rcr against an//) non, which I shall call ca/turalism. On this position, social lire
ll ese ns u debates—positis ism iliterpretivjsm and
narracioni is incomprehensible without investigation of the symbolic sys
a ul tat I. Bt ould hc hard to overestj
i tems that index and encode it. The behaviorism!culturalisi
iat C lit mpo tancc Fhe are utterly pervasive in the
social debate is obviously close to the positivism/incerpretivrsm one.
sciem es. Piobably the majority of methodological reflection
But as with all of these distinctions, it is useful to cross the two
1dm s s tI rr, i me wry o not r
and see what comes out. Suppose one were a positivist and
I t. dc I ites c rice
t issues of method proper. culturalist. That would mean that one was committed to thc
But uchates about the nature of social reality itse1febates
study of cultural phenomena but with positivist methods. In
ihaut soi ont ogy also hax c Important Implications
for deed, such scholars exist: anthropologists who measure an I
t so
, s iall con de en as well count the various meanings of category systems among prim -

the peoples, for example.
C Bc/j ii i’,IL ), .inj Co//iin/is,,
tin nt ro ‘hr o
rn r latytic realms. Many social D. Individualism and E mergentism
ien s ci iw a isiHic non I etw-(en social structure and
cul A second debate about tire nature of the socrai world—another
uLire. Loosely speaking.
iOdiai itrzictm refers to regular,
routine that we have already encountered—is the debate over individu
Itrerr of hay Demographic phenoniena are perhaps the als and emergents. Certain social scientists believe as a matte
x ii El rc cc ses )f air i, death, marriage, and mi
of principle that the only real entities in the social world ‘uc
gration seem to have a regularity all their own.
One can discuss human individuals. All activity is done by human individuals,
the demographic l fe and fut of a population
without much and anything that appears to be “emergent’ social) behavior
r c u abe i r t sa )t tsid dcrnogrrpliy or
even to the must be the merely accidental result of individual processes.
of deniograpinc e cots themselves. By
This program of mahodulogical bianiduaiziiiz goes back his
utaning
contrast, one
would hardli think about the development of
language or of torically to tire notion that the interaction of indhvidual
i e li amoral terms Language and religion are self-interests produces the social world we observe, an blea cha
n

/ syst is, ten of symbo s by which people under first emerged full-blown in the early eighteenth century with
stand and direct their lives one cannot ignore their
meanings. Bernard Mandeville’s Fable of the Bees. As a general scientific
Tht anal c cli iric n h twce soi 1 structure and
cul program, methodological individualism is even older looking

things in specifiable environments. The same argument might apply to homosexuali. community may Here igain we’ ii ie tss u posirio s. s i f o ii fo cc iireducible to combinations them to he so: when challenged by others with strorg ethr it indi ititi ii inc flts. Accordiug to the second. F Cuiiiextia/isi. when ethnic identity might be materially rewarded. or I could be a left-wing Democrat companup s uomen h ise had sexual experiences with members of their own myself with all Republicans. disagrce F r Clkni the social real. coidiny to the first. Note that the latter statement is nor on y 1 a 1 tv sri th a quest 100na ire. fut the at ft who icny th a stcn(’l f cupa o 1 ns t as so- iii] . Otherwise. disoiganized.nroupt or tia i cality of consiyierejal firms as social actors. I could mean not that it is disorganized in som ui yr r one ligate it we ask about identity. in this case ira/fcm and at tract certain kinds of people beanese it is disorganized relativ ii. if I say a community s U iii iii hi y a e horn cxua Ii we ask about experience. we may simply be en- 1 ii i ti n o w r t s at sw In thci cvi ryday life. Classes. enir rgentist c1ssumptiois are identities. they and their a rivities have ro ieanifl autn. identities and selves in the process of interaction with one in sin oqlx ioi the explicit reality Of socil lcsel His famous book other. ing social life.. Lm1yi)nj. or is it res ealed univ in interaction statement about the state of a community bun also potentially predictive statement about causal affairs. In practice. Or consider hornosexu_ of-the-road Republican speaking no a member ot the new a ty W k )W Ito i tit)y dia that di more men and Christian right. a social statement or action has no meaning un’ I it ii r d c I wt ash su v y respondents to tell less we know the context in which it appeared. rot political liberal. Or again.itanr 1 extiIt// The distinction between realism and conseructionism tot as ie I / a i (c/Il c is sometimes called. In more re the social process is made up of people who aonsuuct thcii gi it as Er hI Durkhcim who argued most Iii . the social process is made to . i/it in. my statement has no real content until you in example. between thinking ronicaraaIt anti c i s d ru sit Ci con Let in sot ial reality are en thinking noncontexiwa/Ji. II I say I air a lilt tin ii ctlint it5.Je nw 1/ s rh a. In the contextual mode of approach- hunt e lit ii )fncna or simpl’ produced or reproducedj in so. and so on.i u/id iN 1 1n u. Paac ricts hack to l n iientii a Iicritj e ot atonìism with its tin up of well-defined people and groups doing wall unde wood con eej of a a oeise built b combining little units. they know with whom 1 am comparing myself 1 could be a middlc’ o nor think of i lie msel es as etliiijc. In this second view people become in part Cal r c nintries arid particular populations to demon ethnic (sometimes) when they are in interactions clac iall ui’. in hi g s b1 t of s ncide rates over rime flow of interaction itself. objective and subjective s len’s of social re l tiurd ontologkal debate O icerns the qUestion of whether ality) overlaps another one. many of them may not be ethnic ui c nr i in any ii cia thi I Yf crc may be many St Hic r soc ial s lent ISIs n ho deny th existence of Mar\ian_rype sense.. BASIC DEBAS kS Si) MFTH000LOuIC ii. we get one much abstract sense but that it u disorganized relative to other com n all r lion I icily true ian Wi it I icr letc mine sexual iden munities around it.

arrangements and connections that prevent free lorisni and cuituraljsm. They are not free to make then c oil re t} iii has e methodolt y ical implications The first way unconstrained. Some of them concern the kinds of things system. . there is no ab ing choices in groups. j i ii osely r 1 ted cousin pairing of con The consensus position is that while people are inherently dis texrualism and rioncontextuajism Each of these debates has orderly and social order is therefore precarious. whereas it might be losing pre understanding society lies in understanding now people nak. social structure con ‘H ucc nH a several important debates about the nature of strains and directs individuals. On this view. I c Viry Basic DEBATES AND METHODOLOGICAL Piciicrs Its surrounding commLlnltles. Much of consensus research takes the form of teas iai ys F S s otl r ye sion 1 the individualism! ing out hidden norms and rules that maintain stability in social C iergcr i de )lt For nonii in particular. usely those kinds or people if it were surrounded by a different choices or rather in figuring out the consequences of tfleir naie ci or c miiuni s Fro this j it of view. they are shaped b) so Irns h it tx ia e methc I >iogical schemes of behav cial forces. Duesenberry once famously put it—”why people have i o choices to make” (1960:233). howes Cr. i n ween social and cultural structures like economic markets.) For this position. sour nicib I \X/hei ss c set out q lesrionnaires. however the key to or a n e a ry )t w irsv i ha the same frame of ref derstanding society is in figuring out—as the econornis James i lini. social organiza important implications Hr methodological positions.. long-standing debate is choice from exercising anything like a determinant role. The question lies in figuring out how the my or (Iisoranizarion or liberalism is the same no matter what. between inds idualism and emergentism. what is taken to b problematic in So ues—all the apparatus of social institutions. I y onrrast. A second. we are For many other social scientists. calls them. except in specifically designed institutional i Ii t h. as this position il lite. rules. (The reader may recognize this position as descending from thi English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. from the grand social values seen by writers lift. the key to situations. (Economists feel they already knox or ga i at u u diso ganization relative to how people make choices—by maximizing utility subject to un ii i c orv. The answer is usually sought in norms. Rather. tion and institutions keep people from destroying themselves. tarn is re s wh ther to I cus tm choice or constraint. thc all ie b oem icntifi ft bares concern methods or standard question is why conflict does not pervade the social onrolog. i xtual r ode. with its associated hemes I nieth lological indivi Ii alism and methodological H Coi/lzct and Consensns s r i ti pai 1 of realism and construc Another long-standing debate concerns conflici and consensas 1\r. make those choices and what the social consequences are wheo Obviously. rh assumption of such noncontextualitv is central groups of people make such decisions in parallcl. arid Val that are to he explained. the mean— budget constraint.

nor the vis time. (Constraint and choice tology: behaviorism/culturalism.- reaching back access to their own reality. ftCji foP my the s nm div’ he TI se pohtical positions them realism/constructionism. these begin with purely meth 5 t iat the conflict and U )Vi00 consensus positions have distinct odological debates: positivism/interpretivism and analysis it ii ‘r y athi ‘s ‘t ml it wi Ii left liberal thinking and narration.tt . pt sition favor )f t inst tident. They continue through the debates rooted in on . n there so i. THE TRANsCENDENT/siTUATED KNOWLEDGE DEBXI’E is a usetcil In the area of prc blematics. knowledge s ilwp-s Jt/iao/ The latter argument often rests ( i tIm ot trt ctioi St pos ion tli social life is built in action . BASIC DEBATES AND MEl HODOLOGICAL PEAL rices 1a1it Parsom to the petty re 1UiatiOfl ot mtcraction rituals and hence that only the participants can correctly define what e vri rs iki Is ing (‘off ian is happening in their own place and time. on tr ii n H for w ire! conscout nccs believing as it V t mt conflict does arise iii human nature. con even quite a few survey analysts would accept.fi conflict’ The answer is that The political sympathies of these positions are by rio meums v lit pe it ili ret ily p o the r 1 yes are clouded by op consistent. much of left-liberal social science con ihh holy arks against it. one on the nature of To these are added the great debates over problematics: choice knowLd e constraint and conflict/consensus. ConfljL t eurisu also seek hidden norms and rules. (This is cerralnil a position thaL it p1 \lr R iss t i. Finally. an flirt to l5efl5U It should be cial science. and contextualism/noncontextualism s ye a ft ii linked t a furthei debate. lint tlicornft af. ss ith a gerieak>g.Oi1sC isUs rh conservative thinking. The universalist. unit ermsi/ knowledge. Why. The connection is thus not consistent./ iiijain/ Kiini P. or transcendent. position is usually ye that make them act in socially destructive portrayed as politically conservative. They have pris ilegen Th on lict position. Confin thinkers always begin with sists of applying universal moral positions (for example “op illi fi k ck at 1 lb c iUScS. then we have two important place to complete this short survey of profound debates in so ii 5 i us i H. Ar tile same time. This is the traditional “scientific” debates schematically in Table 2.i mit . . while the left is identified avs.1. 1 have listed all of thcse all nmes and in all places. As we have seen. . An ualiv sit m traui holds that sul knowledge is not possible./ or situated captures a host of differences about the sources and ci I i ‘i tra ns t w i ki owledge that applies at c C mc status of social scientific knowledge. individuaiism/ernergentism. as we have jt st noted. since they be pression is bad”) to places and times that would by no means ncs e i new do n it li iii hurnaii oat ore Consensus theorists have accepted them. i p ciscly he teveise. but with situated knowledge that accepts the limits of place and i ii ht a tI Ct inca ed mice if conflict. the characterization of the social sciences as transcendent 1.

‘/. too. ethnography has drifted. Ei/iI/u. to] cure çoc. Ethnography is almost tiex ci conducted ii s 0cm on wI nd lit v aewis make choices 1 and methodologically individualist vein nor in a strongly neabas 5 (]t t c of tI ost cbs us i ho ild for us o i s sr oct iral constraints that one. . stable qualities of social phenomena. but the latter has come to dominate it iii the la i on quarter century. Methodologically. it is also always highly conrextualized. in . attending extensively tO multiple subtietics 1 meaning.c. i’. these debates. and Ethnugraphy is usuail seen as qune well Jennect ill acetic c.2 H uini intlis ilial . although etlinographies of the icnerwai and ii1 odin.5 itt) cxpiaflat)ofi 55 ithout usaljtt. atC ‘. [ULltjfle hehdbvjor) is thc ppr 00 )t planator programs (as I did in that chapter). For each method.ar. sicIci eDa-rdents exist.t b uiccts (t social scientihe analysis. 111cR .r.p’aph) 5... ‘Ut tJi ttLiCtLite I it. traditional view of its positions in Table 2.. bout taking as count of context / / ocial phc fionsen. it is strongly iriteepreril Ut ial pht iiUSefia hai e cOd urance and stability. DLBAL’FS Ni) MiTHODOLO6iCAi Paa. 1. Ii. L analysis enduring. Dohates about Social Untologs The most common ‘a ag or characterizing rIm i etilUtis itia duced Chapter One is by defining them riot as flexible in ic.. such as kinship systems.il phenomena inevitably co itextual and cannot art lures.i I ave Ontologically..itt. pitmi 10 ji the aDstr. 115 earlier inca neannig ( nd can be it y d nid ‘pends it ot thc con cxts nations emphasized behavior and social struc ruts more that C [ 5 culture.0 Jic often narrative..y: our knowledge must he linsite.eo. irreducible to individuals. i fine n to meanum without i ntcrac tion and hence nu • SititraI knou /ra. ‘JHL BSi DonAtEs we need to explain why these is not ionic SoCIal conthet Debate about Types of Knowledge giea] Debates our knowledge shoutcl ai) CS n I hsmun/uii enou /ss/.U i nti lit analysi A.. sc nshohc s stcrn) is tIm proper tuunda’riiin these basic debates. although the ty of context has differed Ethnographies of the classical . Bas i.n. piccsc sill n rs.doe It should be “universal. It is always local oi particular. l’tces Cwf1iit: we need to explain why there is so mm h n cial n nOds.nd their acts are the only real Ut 0L i. lit is i:. MesunuS A)SD L)Em-cfLS Ut StUriLs cdfi explain. social phenomena are ontinually reproduced in sna aiia]vsis should mediate postwar period were often filled with explicit analysis focus on hat reproduction of societies in terms of social functions and fdrmai social stiuc us i. but ii) t0flh1 5.’ times. I lnve sononiarized die Sc.

5 Mi i 1on, ot Disc tin bAsiC DEBATCS AND MCTH000LOGICAL PCTIuLS

a tended to isolate societies from larger systems our sly aye
treated the local scene in a comprehensively contextual I ashior
By con trast, the main focus of contemporary ethnograpn
precisely the clash of global and local contexis, with much Ic
study of the details of local context. As for ploblematics
ther choice/constraint nor conflict’consensus has been a strong
debate in ethnographic study, although ras in all social sc
ences) one could see a drift from consensual to conflict posldons
from 1960 to 1990, Certainly ethnographies have not om
monly been done under anything like strong choice assu np
tions. Finally, ethnography irtual1y by definition emphasiz s
situated knowledge. The generation of universal knowiede
from ethnography has been very difficult. In thc early ycars, the
emphasis on functions and social structures like kinship lcd Cu
considerable generalizing, but the flood of “cultural ariaiyus
has washed most universalizing out of ethnographic studies.
The only universal statements in ethnography today conce i
I the universally creative and interpretive flux of culturc am
meaning.
V

V V

B. ]—iijtorita/ i\a flub/I
Like ethnography, historical narration is scronbiS intcrpretive.
Multiple meanings and ambiguities re itS everyday fare. Anu
it is of course narrative, both as a rhetoric and as a mode Dr
questioning and understanding. Narration as a rhetoric has
come
under attack in the last thirty years, both in the focus on

o
social science history (standard causal analysis as applied to Ii
torical problems) and in the newer focus on letting mul iple
voices speak, which has impugned the grand narratives ci
nineteenth- and early -twentieth-century historiography. Bitt

Sin HODS OF Discü nax AslC DEBATES AND tVIETH000LOGICAL PRACTiCES

b1 ii ci t ry lit. St 11 r sual y posed narratively—why envisioned universal processes was in the mid ninetecnth
d A ha per sd not B and socia reality s still understood

century—Spenser’s social Darwinism and Marx’s dialec ucal
laraell as a wus en eb of stories. nor as a s sternaric social or materialism are examples—although globalization may be a
cultural structure candidate in the near future. Indeed, world history is enjos nip
An on ccl I bare Olit) n ci narration has a new vogue so we may he headed for a new type of Linversal
I CI 1)1 0511 lilly
1 di ss c of contextualism, a! ism in history
insisting on the embedding of am historical Inquiry in a
ceiieral kiioss lcdce Uf its time and place. Again. thert has been C. Standanl Cansal Aiii1J si
mc i xatn hut h tune ci narra on remains tar r iore con- Standard causal analysis reverses many of rCie positions of
cx ci cl car any ti n a! sc entific method. On ethnography and narration. It is positivistic, believing that so
he issuc ol be avior s rucrurc and culture, historical narration cial measurement is possible and indeed necessary, aithougn
has s cried, ernphasizicg now one, now the other. This has been sometimes difficult in practice. It is unrelentingly analytic, in
tim usc with nd ividuals and merg nts as well, although the
,
voking narration only to imagine relations among sariables or
r P s 1 ic ml y ov the ast quarter century
iii t causal forces.
is p i ally
ncani greater cmi basis on emergent groups Ontologicaily, it has usually emphasized the individuan
and their histories. It is the same with realism and construc since it always works with individual units of analysis that ace
tion isir The inevitabls processual character of historical narra characterized by properties. (One can imagine an ernergentist
i I r es t ss at I a constr iclic ist position, but the mass SCA mathematically based on emergent continuities—an SCA
dci i at si be Id in a iar ctivc makes realism an im based on mathematical topology, for example—but it hasn r
portant defense against sheer informational chaos “emerged.”) SCA has also emphasized behavior/structure more
In problernarics. historical narration has always emphasized than culture. For the most part, SCA denies context, because
Ilal( t c be v en choice ccii con traint. Indeed, one might contextualism is a major inconvenience to the statistical meth
tI is i emal th entitc howe/constraint debate as ods it uses. The whole idea of variables is to remove paiticular
one of time basic marks of hsrorical ss citing Both conflict and attributes of particular cases from the contexts provided by
consensus, on cite other hand, have been motivating schemes other attributes of those cases. Realism is likewise a strong as
r lint i a i narration iftcn being combined in narratives of sumption of SCA, since it presumes fixed and given meanings.
a ilx t i r con ida fi i o conflicts (as in much On problematics, the standard causal position is more
v cit ng ibouc c id it veinc nts), open The sociological version of it is not very welcoming to
Finacll, historical narration, like ethnegraphy, always em constraints, since one of the assumptions of its methods is
pliasiacs situated knoss ledge. The last time historians seriously that independent variables are free to determine the dependent

Mi FHODO LOC IC SL PRACT1CL.,
Ii iiioi Basic DEBATeS AND

ef different
able. In a of occupational achievement. for example,
model tualized knowledge; on thu other hand, the use
aspects of par
SCA wouid nor recounize the tact that the overall size of most cases allows the analyst to separate the particular
what a takes
0CCtipdtiOH is determined by forces other than the qualities of ticular cases from more general processes. As for
naI 515 has no strong
the people w hu go inn cheiri (() llpational size is largely de to be problematic in social life, small-N
neichet
c cc I by h in mo i production i the economy There identity, emphasizing neither choice nut onstndnt
comparison is
vai erl mall sch k s ) ‘iologist ‘network conflict nor consensus, By contrast, small-N
ho v k de SCA a i 1 101 s but stud
1 con uniquely identified by its stand on
the aims of knowledge In
combining
tly
i onfl it co s ns is ‘ue, by contrast, basic aim is to square the methodological circle by
ii setho I), c ic, Fir i y t ic st indard causal po situated and transcendent knowledge
uvers Iii mi universalist tideed, this is one of the
foundations t its appeal. Its whole aim n to achieve knowl E. Formalizatiuli
most extreme or
edge transcendi i i 1 ucali tx. As in many other ways, formalization is the
) positivistic
the methods discussed here. It is almost absolute
1
measurement.
I). .s u/i-A C’cctcz: although curiously so in that it involves no real
and indeed i
As I noted, small-s mparson is a hybrid it aims to keep the The practice of measurement is unnecessary to it,
-

concern with
is ii and n ia i subtlety o e hnography and narra— economics, the stronghold of formal analysis,
anywheie
t t add 1 sc ai analytic t c ipti that echoes stan measurement of social facts is probably lower than
presumption
I u aly ) it I c
y ls s nail-N comparison else in the social sciences. At the same time, the
an absolute foi
s I thc J s 1 i ihy and narration. It em
ethno that accurate and valid measurement is possible is
aeither ci i
1 ‘ lual nor r gr p, neither behavior formalization.
formalization is
t1UC ore nor .ulturc, and has operated on both realist and con It might seem to go without saying that
theory—which i
strucnioiiisn assumptions, although like ethnograpby and narra analytic rather than narrative, but game
of an
tion it leans ioward the latter, Like them. too, it is highly certainly formalistic—Contains at least the beginnings
was aim
contextualized. indeed, the central point of small-N analysis, abstract approach to narration. Narrative formalization
196Us
s hen compard w ith standard causal analysis, is precisely to re characteristic of the literary structuralism of the 1950s,
Levi-Strauss.
tu i context ua i nination that standard causal analysis arid 1970s and entered the social sciences through
its n 1 cc Ics of cases But it has not endured as a standard method
both indi
ly 1 cii all-N inalysis c pes to p ‘oduce knowl Ontologically, formalization has generally been
conccrned
1, tl a , ho i it ed ii I univ r ‘al Ot the one hand, the vidualistic and realist. It has been overwhelmingly
and has hcen
it of dctail i ase siudie rodues situated, contex with behavior/structure rather than culture

That Pc didn t happe i i oi 13 t mt ru es mode s. It so happens titat We ha e a n inmon to run 01(1st (if the debates discussed in the first part ber of living methodological traditions. they are in fact organized mote in a c rcle \h a cot I rho ts and som iungthat s nor much for are all familiar with cyclic order from the children’s game mal izat 1011. then arc onvious ounterexamplcs. 7 hat UOaS liely J LipicaLlv tteimded Inure tO choice than to constraint. anywhere. it is nso’e from concrete tory programs emphasizes. But o e carl he i iii o er m s Is in i g tid sweep from cthnography come abstract in several different ways and one can rake a Ocu hitstot small N analys s hen SQl then formaliza direction an time. standard methods alrcadv introdm ed. He wished to make scnrucic a a limp -iarion models t I other contagion models. oc I dir true urc I myti Well. First. Indeed. and chey happen lie ch1Mte into oft tinge tiling art apparent gradient from have embodied explanatory programs in various ways just as i stet rrat ye riergenti t conrextuaIized—situared they have taken various stances on the great debates just listed v lcd one vi— us lytic—in I udualist noncontextuilized— But they are living and changing traditions. ( Mu ii 01 Dus 05 U Basic 1)Cs oso Mrm000ioGlCaL 1aCiiCiiS aeofteXtttal al tliouirh formal models of context. a gradient. time they like. that short reflection on our methods shows that far from lying uii i ii ati N ci lus u o numerical matrices. Ahstrction 5 t ma - 0 tot o At at these I tyreen cnts we might con nitude—a distance away from concrete reaht. u r a number of reasons. it has is to see his new mernod for myth as part of di explancncu Defl amlOStit on th conflict consensus issue hut has been ab program he was trying to create—a sr macrc Ode 51 itfl aLl e in it eiatie t traliscenc lit knowledge. Ethnographv and formal The conflating of all the dtfferent debates 1ritu 011 c I atiun taflie togit en LM i-Strauss’s attempt to find a formal iii opposition or gradient is wrong for another reasol. phasis on elegant arguments within it). highly ed fotinal zad the usual machinery of tile best deviio 1 ii Li around—microeconomics. and it is pessibil rsa k h dpi for them to turn in pretty much any explanatory direction aiy I his untiatiun is a m stake. like the toward formalization. game theory. rather than rh se nau II I tic one that had domiuated the study of myth up to that i (which had emphasized the reference betWeen myths aid dao is thus to shc t 1 the Past piHiosoptural stances of the life or between myths ntd social structure). and uch—-docn oil As Mr v hr I bluman fhrmalication has sit taC ri us to understand what he was trying to do. And indeed sketching It was for this reason that I stressed in Chapter One that the those stances hr ips make the methods more clear and compre three explanatory programs I was discussiug were chrectior I ‘obe aa mphiasi th svay in ss. one might say. the terms given in Chapter One. That is what the idea ot oxpiana non a urand to abstract. B or t Lie deeper pm lit s that Levi-Strauss did turn Rock-Paper-Scissors our methods set Lip a methodological . hich they disagree with rather than specific contents or methods.

museum workers. as it was studied by the early anthropological collectors was Susrematit d< Ia 01 h Bull i Cix I like data on hundreds of . . ture of historical Inquiry into tile nature of contact between 11 n s c’ Id I a i xccl en CA. NatLlrallv. say. imagine an ethngrapher going to the the \\ world. in large part a ireatioi of that contact iCole 1985.r 0 aud cype of contact with hb We can. these myths may have been pioduced “for the an is iii ia t a loose cultural picture of the c bins The clans use the thropology trade” as much as for the primitive sOCiCtIcS theni St t ilk ibou nodi Ut dercu am d otherwise selves (see Cole 1985).. Cole and ci it I s. some up in smoke. It is talking about a causal situation that wasn’t or ii ht lcw 1 p ‘Ia mIle ton i id coding scheme for the in any sense real. With those codes. the type of emerged. as well as for gave up on the ethnographic tradition. and we begin a litera other aspects of cultural and social structure. although not out of critique of an SCA literature but lineage system ipatnilineal. On such an argument. tribesmay have been reconstructed in various ways b cuntaL ire of clan ife. s . such a literature has societies tin tIm Stern could be ptcdctecl h knon ing. for example. ss e would to discuss this data want with modern societies. we now know. bilateral).the social structures of ‘hcs nian ulare the cc roii social su uctul e that is the es cry day real. ia h en llcctcd i something called the Hu Chaikin 1990). Using this enormous database. In .two studies using slightly 1 RoU One could imagine a series of such SCA studtes ot mecic ann I 1r i h t geth arc U w I seem to have a more ‘ other aspects of primitive societies.f e i. anti s on hut Ufie ca t t y i tu i i p oved by loving toward imagine a historian studying the process through which ccli rh Iit rural artifacts and myths were collected in a number or ceiDec Foi ‘xdniple xipp ISe v w or 1 pm ue Lf i-Strauss’s topic It might well turn our that the myths and pnysical artifacts ii U V ci in mo caph p wring all the myths of the . So we give up on our SCA tradition just as we ii th ystc ss ej o primit I C soc ictics. Put am. I’lns bums ledge would reduce our Bella estetfi field deliberately to study culture contact. thet me ta- v m hc 511 1 i f nydi m mr ng our theories with mous potlatch ceremony of the Belle Coola and the Kwakiut thens. marrilineal. (Indeed. a literature develonit p it cffccune in tliod \\ e will then bud that this method can be own internal debates and questions by chanping the atiable it ipros od further h mos ing toss xl yet a third method. a pc-op e ot western Canada Reection on our of anthropologists. W 1ll( S 01 Dix SSR BAsa DEIIATES AND METHODoLoGiCAL Picac ricks w Scissors game.” As is true of many of the Northwest s or te a d t thu stiucture. And observed. certain as rather out of critique of ethnography per se. the types of analysis. showing that type of primitive and the West. And we can imagine (a ila study to ( flu example of a ph ‘norncnon we iww “under that ethnographer telling some historians of contact with the st id x se t Ii ti e p ut ral nalysis West that they have missed the extraordinary creativity witi . fact. SO we decide the myth system totem poles. were produced for. the SCA tradition ges man Relations Area Files. however. and other collectoix ii tcs Thil n Sc’c a c )se un non between the mythic of “primitive material. and therefore determined by the demands BelL Coola.

I have ings ins olves a mm e to a new dimension of difference between gathered all of these comments in Table 2. complicate the methodological landscape.nethods. that each method can trump all the “people without history. hat tliriog ra tier his just read some gam i theory (which is.” studying the It seems likely. SCA trumps rthnographs b asserrni that generalization is more important A. historians throughout the 1960s. just to put them all down in one place in through a romplete redefinition But this redefinition lasts only part.” often employing an oral history that others clrhongh in diflrenc ways. too. moved toward history “from the bottom up. These. it is hard to believe that This is txactly i Rock-Paper-Scissors sittla tion SCA trumps these little round-robins amount to much. Although all of these erit methodological cycles’ like the one above.. each method offers a metacritiquc of the ctht u at I. But I also provide c thnographi Lv gener ilizing History trum ps SCA by his— this list to emphasize again that there is no inherent gradient or or roricizinti its categories. perhaps out. and 19Us cont nuities. for example. Ethnography trumps histo ry by un der to . Each method privileges some aspects of analysis de uttnip thc cry idea ot historical cont inuity. one can do an ethnography of historians or an SCA Clucken game in which esery time cont act recurs both sides of formalists. studies were in part inspired by a political impulse to study the . and as a consequence each is more or less importa U i nit Oiization into the bargain Note that each of these trump as we attend to this or that criterion for our analyses. I also show examples an asset Lion that the dimension emphasiz ed by the rep/acing of responses (implicit or explicit) to the directed critiques metlu d is more important than the one rep/aced.i-tt Basic DeBams AND MInHODOLOGILAL PKACTLCLS slnch iiniitive societies reshipe the cultural arid social mate nearly all of these trumpings have been tried and have led cad rials that come to them through contact So here we are back at methodological community to forms of revisionism that try it ethnogra hy ag ho. each method can be used to analyze the practitioners o haps ret ast the pro ess of nit ore cont act as a repeated-play the others. I do this so that the reader will not take therr too set until he next arid so o’ ously. ttaordinary variety of human life in its attempt to find the bthnographv rrtimps history by asserting that the power of cul trends and general principles of an age. showing both the methods and thus each methodological replacement is really metacritiques and the directed critiques. invoking over others. Moreover. Responding to nis tural reinterpretation can undercut our belie f in any historical critique. attempt to enlorce their interpretations of the situation until at It is useful to run through all of these critiques arid trump the last momeat one or the other transform s its interpretation ings and revisions. Ethnography than dtai) I listory trumps SC A by asser ting that histori Ethnography argues that historical narration overlools the e cal verisimilitude is more impottant than simple generality.3. r pe I lurtitalization) and thinks that we should per That is. When we see them all together. LHUL)s (ii Disto’. af Even worse. There are thus many differ looks no different from ethnography. 1970s. then. right where we started before our little de deal with the shortcomings other communities have pointec utit thu ugh SCA and histo r c P nal) 515 Moreover.

ren’n ls psnhese 5 ‘hc table is not sat orated in n a sc to r cv y pos ible cell is filled it I have Itt bla I. is group ethnographicc combining a unfalsifiable. Margaret Weir C Small-N Comparisos lacks theory C.e.’ worlds at -I Formalization lacks content. s 1 al hi u s o d r r i S A i i iii of in s. - F t’sr ograpl is tat ntis harg A meaning. _________________ AR C rote g s ct a r c sag nt’ I (tEens 1 ck c c Li tssnhi or . qualitative comparacivc analysis (QCA)— A rerains meaningless derail keeps wnrsi of boils Charles Regin 5. irs . Ia k to. accepts bad data C C C a Formalization C C Ethnograpli) lacks theory Claudc Levi-Strauss on mythological A analysis: Harrison \X!hio. wt etc am not asvan of a m jo ni i Iitcta ore . social sciencc hot nty ysis assumes that underlying model does not changc evolutionar) algorithms SCA Others’ methodological allcgiances can be explained by various caosal forces (implicit only) Ethnographs lacks generalization. uscs unreliable measurement is multiplc sitc not scientific a Historical Narratioi lacks generalization: lacks causal analysis is comparative histori al sociolog> a unfalsifi able a a Small-N Comparison uses case numbers too small ton generalizing.Sidnc of itself M ntz Eric Wolf S nail-N Corn1 anison larks prirnaiy date. misses contest priman data based compararinc historical sociology ignores contingency lacks account ot action.s ie ‘responses’ tn o itt scm sar 1 ome fit nI c cc cm s N oo nt iv i tar ccl so oiL cam og not histor . on Ems sip a Historical Narration lacks thetir rational choice history—Iflton Root. lacks causal analysis. a a SP lacL theory j tcsn ng of girne ‘. I i.t . to Is spc na n adclitic . cfwtnkn r into h sonvan I history if in son term of as typ s of ana y etliiognagliy ftc apln.

s of groups it r ye i lit I r mean tilt. Le’ i-Srr mus sian anthropology was highly arid theoretical issues. ioi formalization. eti noyrapl t it ft tinalization have had a B. social scientists cannot understand t at 4 it a’ it r iiil p. What is going on may di hi there has nor been e direct infusion of not be ‘social science” but rather making sense of local anon - ni. methodological communities iaJ-t a sense of thei: cm’ ci em. ()d 1 n u. controlling the wa) in whtch surveys sirn 1 ellmnegi 4 IIV into SCA hecausc of this critique. the highly structured and even ritualized ways. -e hi my a tic 4 a ices to ke sure that questionnaires rn way. dies in the data. I-Iiitorzcal Narratioo The historians have a different metacritique. Pri oi er I de nitta md o on) invented h ii y an e lie rists. ethnography can claim that methodological discusscai s n aLe it nsa with ics eel to the feople being surveyed. The content of the ci itique is SnT al Ecc is sa iables” n universal scales lwhere a given fact pie enough. t at al z . fo treat so natural and social scientists. The ethnogtaphic disc p14w of 4 trneinai put blcm of romp ir ihi ity between cases. they will be forced . I iii n SCA.68 Msiiious c t I)IR ovtitv bAsk 1JEBA’1iS 4N1 METHODOLONICAL Faacncxu I rg me dt itt ddeti tF ci stere elso rooted both directly formalists nad a tine time trying to rnathemaL1:c die Kuisl y 14 ii ir ci i th o raph i ipulse to get closer to the systems of the world. Until social scientists understand theirj u ni’n s it a c g micive an hiop logy in the 6s and as is 19 0 selves as working in cultural communities that interact rcmiicli of anti ropologic ci linguist Cs today For choir part. That is.i - it V. ot ci in gt mjfi it this is a Cr) 1 lexiti n of facts and events. lit Ic 1’ r. from otliet hit ts around them. This odd flirtation between w lac ace data undt u iii the nd st itI cu s that ignored so much. nistitutmocul thaim tit1iiy coming from the minds of suiveyors. details and infer it is a complexic of formal self. political. rather in practice a cover for other agendas: personal. parently the ends of a concrete-abstract scale underscoies en - Ia hnograpln argues that ii small-N analysis there are fun cyclic nature of methods. ci 4 in tile early lays. Their surface discourse—of mar di p cii I q u ttfiea mi it dii pt thund suspicion and believes ods and theories and findings—in fact covets a much mom ni at ci dat i mm whir I S( A bases itself are quite literally complex set of cultural structures. For them tflc hn 8 statit ing d rr tiC n They shm re a certain love of complex great problem of social science is that it does not historteize. even if the thropology has been far more hospitable to idumasization me I a ml si ii ci cc I i itself etimog aphi Small-N analysis con to any version of SCA. Without a serious ethnographic analysis of Sc I it e’ve m ne Cling irresper Vc of the other facts in its con practices and beliefs. F iiiogiapl y therefore regards they themselves are doing. as they often metal. there has been and so on Ii 6 at e ii n u i a as 1 the us of oc is groups and other realirl fot large or small political reasons. Ce C iii twit c ident in tim dozens of different games history and hence a sense of the transitorl nature of the ternittiologies with which they debate central merliodotogi ci iChit ke m. the ethnographic m ugi A f St The ethnographic metacritique of other methods is ci ci ci Cit is ii tub cicacer Echnographi thinks that social facts de out in the now widespread ethnographic anaiysi. .

the historical case against SCA is much more vague. a part of the game). We analyzing action is to estimate the effects of mai 5111191) he isandeting iround aimlessly. By going to the names and contents of occupations and the names anti p cc a trig e t mc an crit ograpl it loses the ability contents of types of over any time f cr100 to list nguish things that are changing from things that are worth analyzing. history. of historical analysis that anything. One t relanonsisiP bL It e tnt to the pecihc titiqtns that historical analysis really do over-time models of changes in the categorie 9 s Is ot set mit ink s e Ii id an . Histori tween occupation and education because the very a! anlysis ritir ires ethnography tot being static. action and reaction wh. historicd narration argues ania ological d yr lopmcnt variables have hisiories. Histori have been occasional outbreaks of formalist in.) gaines completely internal. To the extent that there are do what ii Ork— luisrom y ii im has bern quite simple Small-N analysts the)’ are contentleSS. Basic Dsnairs rri MF.A is that reality happens belongs to the computer science held of recursive sot us so! ed cv an I p ope tic as rite SCA practice of it will no doubt he addressed soon enough. By Nicolas RashevsK coming from outside history as a discipline contrast. (N t all of the participants in has ever seriously attempted the central task rules of cli this isa e beets historians: there has e been many historical de— models themselves fully historical (by making thc questioC 1 t iUb ra e v ‘ii s nu sir gist involved as well. thei use large amounts of pr mary documents and they want to do” and that sort of thing. Indeed. Against formalization the chief argument of Itistori 1 iii 1’ y ii i it lot cs as etutiograpilic en— model char ott ste lool<s pertsanent. i S3 reaction.rHoDoeoLrI i1ACr cci c uurir )y In i h or mhols to walk on a treadmill. But it is the cardinal very rules of the so is I tt w vr-r St ble 11oindnts tr di norial societies.crest ii g variety. Finally. can change. and niore recently there have been ods to sist ricil q mestiuns. s ariables anaiy sis assLimes. Histor occur— thu ical analysis on the waiting time till some dependent event chat SCA in ilia izu th rul ut ot in scncy at I a cidcnr in all method hardly history. hut in flict going nowhere. comparatie historical game. SCA really has rio metnod lo ilnagming tita thee are a Ivancing.s of action and . even the universal rules Agaost small-N ailal)sls—usuallv. choice and constraint. But no Oric of making fornul ii t hi so ial it cc history. gcneraii: tvplcall) knov. writers analysis is that it always presupposes a formal Ot rnicro eit he I ic th sogi 19 11CS f 11 in erwal period doesn’t change. fri m 1970 onward. th ik iia 1-N analysts simply d vs t know their cases. which arc alwa) s ignorcd. whether that model is game theoretic presupposit ofl tur treatin the tiecring moments ot rIte last stages of colonial ecoivsmiC or structuralist.risoever its only standard nifferenc vriabic: ri cC it ic w 1 t I / jib/i t gc n any diteccion. once wrote an amusing book called Luokiit tO hiirup tbiusy var ou ii ct Is c 1 s b ci a se hs ria1 ovc to marry SCA meth Mathemaliec. tar less than do sperialists on one case. This theory at c I he deepet instorcal case against S(. in the large and amorphous move rational-choice models applied to historical events. but rather n cascadt. definitional truisms_’pe0P ically d in t interestingly.

narration. On the one unideme s historical analysis for r ia ry of the same reasons. SCA argues that it is too vague ai d ic ii ii c Ii ioyr q is ft r not allowing general tonclusions. claims that story tellin g is one could model the output of the various disciplines and show nor le tim tc ii un of explanation that various causal factors-—the talent of practitioners. to envision multiple contingencies and can point to particular misunderstandings.‘ By this criticism SCA means two sumptions and implications. They can be and are used as weapons in intellectual de SCA i savIng diat instori usn r S( A. a form of small-N analysis folk belief among SCA practitioners that the form and content designed to deliberately evaluate difterent causal patterns in of ethnography. particular anachro iiicerdepeiidt neies This limited critique is largely definitional. lios nuch of each independent fat rot is involved in the de— As a metacritique./eo/ A 1zaI i enough causal 2 analysis. h idUi)s UI DiscosI:Rs BAsic DEBATES AND METHODOLOGiCAL PRACTICES don. There is no necessary connection oetweer a foimA 1 r mL I abl a L 51 ii ut I able ii d urureplicable sub. SCA con Against form alization. SCA is less direct than arc ethnography Ic it e ii H st u eti ia ran ui is more likely to combine and history. nisms. It implies that o 1 ic i s a d i it Itta t. model and any particular set of data. hrch does produce such bate. the structure of interlocking elites—might cx argues tItan lLsrorical analisis rarel\ if ever inve stigates common plain that output. Formalization u t I mA i\ analysis (in the guise of comparative historical The formalists. They di hrcn rs in a story. although there is certainly a persistent caflipalatise historical sociology. lie limited critique is lem that formalists have often been extremely cavalier about that hisror cal anait sis doesn’t proc uce coeffic ients telling us data. spend little of their time in metacritique o ioh y I r II hasi ig t o fess es for tffecti\e generaliza They don’t bother to write models for others’ scholarship. the Cv The broader ciitique is mote profound. SCA then en nt ized these revisions thenise lves It crit D. lame nanuhers oi historical story” patterns tike careers or revo lu liOns. and small-N analysis are determined i all r u ii ens f ases It alsc lcd to sarious foims of narrative by the (supposed) lack of mathematucal skull among those who visr i wh 1 err mpt to dire tly measure and analyze use them. while it criticized narrative positivism rdc not caiciv c eiiairJ (‘. On the other is the practical prob things one more limited than the other. al hand is the theoretical problem that any given social situation ti OUgli aiticulatlv emphasi mg tire fact that histo rical analy can he represented by dozens of formal models with varying 1 t s I ci lys . in short. The SCA metacritique is more implicit. SCA s r’ riques ol other f rm a me hod are tamilia r. SCA legitimately els of funding. too. tar not being scienti fic SCA This is both a theoretical and a practical objection. It is interesting that hardly anyone today o ins t I IC 0 s ases it never attempts ‘ ‘ even “histori bothers to do such models either as critique or even as simple much 1 css ii sal. whose metacririques are almost ad hominem. al . for contentless. as we have seen before. ge icriliranior This critique gave rise to sociology of science.

But when all of these var aigumeists I or cite ormalist these methods are simply not ious corrections are laid out together. The apparent gradient from one . as it is of it is useful to summarize the argument of the chapter so far. and small— N in substantial bodies of literature. just-so theot Izing. to rg mnic. FItOM CRiTIQUE TO REt RISTIC of SCA. as I rioted ci c rtaiIi hi id w nket under cr cit k nds of conditions. acquiring data. s far as hr nalists are concerned. At i the or na ist side. tht re are formalist connec ences. Rather they have a way. In ethnography ar I I istori al andy is w th their attempts to cx the first section. is f why pople stay at jobs might ontain two or three hypoth e IT IS THUS CLEAR that each method considered here tias solid ses. tial crgumt:i r iar solds them in i i rn common framework. soinet lines 00 the other this point. this is just as true IV. Ine implicatinns bin e not metacritique of the other methods. There would be a single chapter s rs al rc dt I si Ii ‘11 t thtse crit cisms Small-N ethnogra on each method. small-N anatysis oAen single oimn in critieue that they apply to nearly all other forms ends up falling between two stools. Mt Nc i ic DiscoveRY Basic DEBATES AND METHODOLOGICAL PaACTICES thu igh I spposehey ouhl easily enough. I cc i v cli cc rk d )U So t se first fcw pages if an SCA analys . sometimes originating ceding chapter are defined in terms of these basic debates. many of these corrections have taken foim r sore It r ethnoeraphy. and drawing the no-causa -aisalysn critieluc SCA makes of historical analy inferences. I pointed out how the methods of the pre t or t H at y all of the other methods. As is also implicit in the 1 i ietho 1. leaving the pro I maII N Anal5 iii found differences of assumptions as simply something to take SnialbN an lvs s is ii many ways a compromise method de notice ofand then move past. designing studies. elaborating the positions inherent in these I 15 tries o so d he in -generalizatioir critique SCA makes of debates and showing how the methods go about proposing t hr u a n just as small N luscoric u analysis tries to avoid questions. small-N analysis does not have any geneuf to ci ai c pl us. we rind oursehes ±n I lot yl t our N n only a ‘e t te rgumer ts i each study undevel labyrinth where any method can be found both superior and in ope i ii lorry al ter fls but there is also no broader. it was noted. is that methods have a cyclical reiationship. 1 discussed some basic debates in the social sci lai i part c ular cases All the same. In the second. 1 showed that the usual way of relating these meth inca lingless. Like most compromise strategies. The result. purely theo ferior to any other. at the outset. Each cc so iis C )uld essi y write r rncy pages of calculus to jus one is capable of correcting the others. s s t ih’ same time.arables to Ii o vents ci Hqucs that go the other ods to one another is wrong. s. Indeed. as we have seen 0 ft cc ) jist on c f t ose st sties fhe same applies ——only in this discussion. Th t nt c e i simply th t all other methods use idea of compromise. which would basically be stories about plausible behavi ors and profound objections to all the others. with its somewhat ad hot. a standard methodology text svoctlci launch into the details of each basic method. historical anal) sis. small-N ompi rison tries to avoid the Instead.

It is by mak the move you make when you ask yourself how someone ii )iT p t iIe ci it iqro S i that sic Erase in mans cases figured out new another methodological approach sees what you are doing Miv riling’s to sar in our research ut that the new things are nec tual methodological critique is thus the first of the general essarily better in any global sense They may be better locally. Sometimes sach crrrlqucs LaL. It is normal science. I’ r 1 s. already seen our first heuristic move. 1 also discuss the two imp1esr means low rc iii i rr re det iii I wa s or in mere different for producing such ideas. most tique of historical narration. examining what we mean by a trick or rule for com il sense Wh It ttrr in thu obai sense is to know more ing up ‘a itli new ideas. heuristics I discuss. while history “from the DCttOtfj hi atte llconscii 0 1 ci hodological critique is up” emerged out of an ethnographic critique or hisro ic 1. The second is thu i ply iir i i g say all of e things we could possibly heuristic of topics. that there is no real “better” in a generally. hybriuizing older or thesi critiques laid out in one place.) Some of these are wa s of searching elsewhere for ideas. The next three chapters discuss other kinds but userall the cyJ al character of methodological critique 5 of heuristics. as 1 has e noted. othets So mutual methodological critique is important not because are content-free rules for changing arguments. or p r en narration. we have to In Chapters Four and Five. I discuss tire idea of heuristi u”anter’s. (As a result. In Chapter Three. Both were exciting and intellectually decisive in t i i to tttir g out these arguments movements. Chapter Six returns to the heuristics implicit in the mutua c histoi i al i a ition from tI t viewpoint of methodological critiques just discussed The heuristic fertil ty formalization . some are ways of changing the way we tell stories I g it I iii I seh’I 1’ ticaL. derstand what we do as social scientists. making a new idea by making a minor chani. o lac eg to si cv row H the hands of some We have. (Put another way. All are potential tools for transforming cx id i S y S I ‘in ft c e roiri of ethnography leads isting arguments into new ones. I turn from such global heuristic dehne truth ii a much more flexible ss a\ it we’ are going to un strategies to more particular rules for producing new ideas. With all whole new methodological communities.l crir qires actualir eo around in circles. The first is tire additive heuristic cP’ rilEy ays some hing like that. Mti iiit j ) Scovtiii BASIC DeBAr cc AND MexH000courcaL PRAcTIcES iLlrodologicaI type to another is indeed merely apparent. probEr I ritiques Ic ome rearive. produces surprising insights. one can see that as a sys methods. using lists of standard ideas to avoid gettir p bout social it given an idea that we somehow be rigor stuck in one way of thinking.c err s u iv in sepi t rg th true from the false in an old idea and repeating the analysis. It cne rates new about those events. then. LO nrethodologica. That is mutual rue about. Social science history emerged out of the SCA cri ten tlre do nor torm a logical structure. C rodr n r it teresting r id note complex results. Some are ways t akes us more r i hut hER atisc it gs es us more—and par of changing the description of the events we are trying to theo i a ly mon r i a ed-rhii s n say. ous in 0tH Si as of saving them.

hut then each group divides within itself into tions. 1 it 7/ rai d fixed s tiot taken once and foi all ii ne h i c ot nethc d ‘I her at Si. sit is i ts an luerpreris ists and so on and on. who careful1 index their held i j iy hcs s’ I sd in the patterns of odes tileS See. That is exactly what we mean by heuristic. Chapie anals sis ot the basic debates with which I began this chapter. hot i is some. 1 ould but the point is made. ste h S a ititarpretis ists and positivists—only within v 1 v tl p1 v as gr rj o positivists This happens on the interpretive side as well ihere we will have. day out. Rather. s p ii tour iiarriton to ar ilvsis. bile others trt st random error to take cat ot interpretive problems. so too do the fracul ja ois. (>1 Disem ERS bAslO DCBATES AND MaTH000LOGICaL iftacTIcs I iii I n e ii (log ii c Nip au SC i xrended by a further them the same way in all contexts and at all rnonicnrs. Oil tile’ other hand. 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 ti\ ist lot i is all was s. And hardly anyone makes .as chowcs clas in. S Mi i u in’. These ha iTiult ii5 examples. Once ago/li. tilt V an not simple linear stales from pOsitis is tO mterpre vide bases for whole new literatures. they are COn hates at the heart of social science provide endless trays cc cuine )t s I vc s i uuu es I he p siuvists fight with the up with new ideas and even new ways to imagine Ott qu s inrerprerivists. 0 1e e at x Si isi ociologists like to do sur eys. the deep interpretivists. But am ig tflow xs in Jo sors ey s sun art very worrit d about cx i I iii n Ici so iii a question. aid inrerpri twist sociologists like to do ethoography. That science just as the trumping critiques of he last section pro is. oflti. Thel x rs ode the process ot tuscaN is. Six shows how this complex and fractal character of te baso \l ch t rh powcr of nutoal Cr tique corn N from a peculiar debates makes them jOLO a crucial heuristic resource for SOCsOi hty t tics t i is c it ti it thcy arc fractals. on the one ho ‘10 El C iisdexer-t cider r’pes.

Aichimedes had a problem. and so on. Each Greek cdt tiny iifnn. wa tel water slush out of solution. in computer science. in such a context. developing a plan to solve it. Thus. Mathematicians often know or suspect rhc tin swer they seek but need to be sure of how one gets there. was not “I’ve understanding the problem. how to create a perfect pentagon how D. of ct urse. So he could tell whether the crown ws i ade C rely )t gold irhoo of tricks and schemes for making difficult problems sod able. of discocect. because such mathematical problems. aS it were.” Ill ‘[opics KL) ( 0\Ic)NPLACLS Most modern writing about heuristic comes from mathe A. of Ptt tubs. wrote his brilliant How to Solve Ii precisely about lot it worth displace moic s\’arcr than an all-gold crown. as it were. melt Hg lt He thought there were four crucial steps to problem solution a ily s’t cited. the science. how to find things out—the discipline. heuristic itt 01 Ic 0 htuh t I ran talced hruugh the streets of Syracuse. F en H iRk l{tutjsi when they don’t know the answer. heiirzstw prognniiinky refers ti P T i mi uc Ill R1sii( programming that takes an experimental approacf to proble u I ( N lid I S )i c R\A St LNCL solution rather than an analytically exact onc. INTROOUCTION TO 1-1CLUs’riCs Chapter Three comes the English word which denotes the study ot heuriitic. the probabilist s c ii g in n was actual y made of a cheaper silver al George Pólya.” From this word of these steps involved a number of questions and tasks: . Pólya presented a large number sll\ e-r is h ss detue than gold. meaning to find. and looking back from the solution. Often one builds out from the problem on the ULIL the rub. means thinking creatively about how to get from problem to t h. slush or ut te tub Her if ti c supposedly golden crown of . they usually have a clear I tiC CIcISSI(stur ahut heuristics tells ho Archimedes jumped idea of what an answer looks like. Moaho S I HRLL MoDe 01 Laonsnc to categorize all the possible types of disconnection in six space. car hound hur ‘Eureka. The greatest modern writer on heuristic. Bobbing in the bathi LU gave him the solution And so heuristic is the science of nriding new ways to solve problems. lie tad suddenly realized that something that weighed hand and from the solution on the other until me two had es the same as his body but was more dense would make less water meet in the middle like a bridge built from two banks. the first-person singular Perfect of the rying that plan out. 1\TRODI. ARIe RI idEs Fot it CAL LS matics Mathematicians oftcn have particular problencc to s 1 K ‘s Ii ‘u ( t 1AX)RI S solve: how to solve the normal distribution integral (hint: yo Ii K S I K Ys u I sI I eM cati’r do it analytically).CT1ON TO HELRIsTIcs The Archimedes story is a good place to start thinking abooi heuristic.

mathematical in tions about some possible data. looking for new (at you ase tic Itsu’ ( an 00 d”riv the result ideas. SuEs e a bigger problem of which that have ended up in the undergraduate thesis or the doctoral it dissertation. Some 0 01 vati U papers to midcareer mulriyear. At some point—the dissertation-proposal hearing fot . how substantive chapters have been written. p e h y Can you prove means that I do not necessarily assume here that the reader is o s t ii y ‘0 iccr it 4 Look Back: someone at the beginning of a research project. Nothing could be further from Most ot Pals as book a ‘dictionary heuristic” —really a is of reality. Most research projects advance on all of thes C fronts at once. the methods more firmly decided. Carry Out the Plan: This difference between mathematics and the social scienicm it. Their original rescaicli iti can you proposals usually turn out to have just been hunting liCeflSCS. and the results more e to Ic t r a cad ot i s’ìc x mc dy vhat the problem is. then narrow Can 00 Oss rise result to soi me another problens that to a focused question. after alt tIc Ii us. has a reiatsd problem and solution. a preference for this or th’n Variai iOfl ot the problem. figuring out what the puzzle really lie carts of ihe m iditioris is and what the answer ought to look like often happen lii par allel with finding the answer itself..i. 3. precise. Most teaching on methods assumes that the student still start a research project with a general question. . This is why many if no flays on sect thi prublen hethri’ r sumethitig ike id most writers of social science dissertations and books write the i ov net ci piuf s witi tin same unknown’ introductions to their dissertations and booKs last. o li rs md he Pr bEen much less do we have an idea of the solution. the data getting better as the question gets more But ii tho social mci flees we mien have a different situation. multi-investigator projects - Ct thi’sc topics are strategies tor problem solving: auxiliary start out as general interests in an area tied up with hazy no iii IY c )i i g md re omb ni ig. Others kind of method. We often don’t know even what an answer v a I utc In dec u rub. focused. Indeed. working backward. and as often as not a preference for certain o ito led tom ys ‘i the ues oi s listed under items l—4 kinds of results.c 00 L1. ought to look like. which will dictate the kind of data (195W ‘xvi—xvii) needed. We orten co Ut \‘i hat the unknoss a an issue with only a gut feeling that there is something inlet’ is are tOe data \\ hat are die uui cii ? esting about it. a i at oslo e ths piobler i Solve a part of itl Solve an most often licenses to hunt animals very different from the one uiaiugous problem. Most research projects—from first-year undergraduate t 1 rue it topi s ic esa it to discovery. 51k 101 01 )iS StR INTRODUCIION ‘10 Flsurusric. which will in turn support an analysis designed to an swor the focused question.

The problem of having oothing c soup-to-n i renu is 1 kt y to h tot a different meal than (new) to saY is for the most part a problem that arises hecuso the lone that ciis up in the tinal paper. and data. flhat i. the grant proposal stage for faculty.ane Ocea .deci pi oje r has some of its foal results in hand by this mid. s hich will then raised. transforming it into new ideas and flC\ is lot -—-is her. We all know many people woo do nave sucn a read s s I s a. the typical grant— you find the huge variety of things that LtlflO bc said almost as foir. a Icd to toc used questions. z s ric-arll don-•---to get funds to do the project views.So ci I is usefu hci e about thc stages ot an intel- to see a problem from all sides. t v sat yr a going o lo uIltll you’ve very in this common heuristic helps ou deal v’ situation. 3u As aits senior researcher can tell ou. in t it Is pro Cs 1 u i anonlic r w s. These flow from their relatively orc Ia list [C a h s i sy SC v s to suggest that sided view of social life. you. or rgraduat e i er—-an att mpt is made to develop a soup I noted in my remarks To the Rcad thaC 0 comnio S piuD ic lie rest uh the u linonal order. steady practice of heuristic will teach aoLer that. t i by finding bases for new ideas. On the one hand. j\lI I I l. which they ap it inxi what has beets said. ci So to htst ersion of a traditional proposal is pretty Having a hard time deciding what to say is Some to eXtefii ye ‘lli t i v ason liv P J n reseat h into that format problem of people who don t have a ready-made stance toward em to what remains to be social life. as we shall see in Chapter Secen. and so on. ‘t won t s Ia made stance. it gives you tools to quest oi ions cct it d tojcct. and puzzles about it (as icr the feminist’s queStiofls ‘ishat about iioetlods uid tflc on s ill all be tecast again sod again through u omen and social networks? “what about a gei/ered concept or c our I tese r di I ject. people with such political interests have a Stance Ofl it. at d i it1iods.)is ti4 iNTRODUCTiON IC) Hauaisiics graduaa studnis. expecting you to know exactly what you are you rules for separating good things that could be said from cuing to do aheaci or time is completely unrealistic in the social bad ones. narrative?” and so on). Now 1cm among students P a feeling that one ha5 notting to in t )t p Ic it ic o literature re And the principal theme of this book is resolving that I ioh[c ad rug t al qr data. which is somewhat easier and in so ne ii 0 t oirig i the beginning w ginal f )U5 01 ways lessintellectually self-defeating than a position that tries 0 it. The gambits I way of thinking about it. overwhelming as the huge diversity of things that . for that is the position people who havc of I of is h r ans that I am eo/ assuming that the reader is strong political interest of some kind. It turns out that heuristics o different things w ncc hour u irh the supervising faculty member for any serious us at different ages. because data. you can’t tell a said. The proverbial view trolls . the of lectual life. are doing social science fdr rise flrst time. ii 1 t nd inc cc r any fat shy use grant both problems. the student. On the other hand. Qhatever the issuc cading this book in hopes or getting an idea. Even then. Often they esen have stock questions diseciss oan be useful at any tirnc in a project.

but you decide you’re a Marx heuristic. He decided to learn t is r ii Cti Baroque-style music.i tcS 1I [HOI)S 01’ DIsCOVERY oss hi is lii haracterisric of people usu stat ring out ii I is game-theory approach r 0 that question?’ and the i tollo v is in sot tel sc elice or of people who don’t yet have particular “Qould a t”eberian be coicfortabie with rOan’ viii nier t. the scamp Leporeilo.e nothcr: each bect>rre dir b this or that po1itia1 concern. You try to struck any listener at the time as cornpIenei uid-iashiotwd. Each stance begins to challenge all the others. now what’s the ‘ man. ou can do someching at tOts advanced irtc is t icc tirseif fo s the stric tions cf your point of stage that many never manage. Mozart found sonic dccli mario’ t at i v r dent shy so o se outside your camp scripts and was amazed ny them. So in the opera Do i ho teo’t ai’x s o We1 rians sihatever you are. ou cm comuuric stances tn ii he ii u arc al v ys V irif. tions At that point. We look for energetic hut sleazy sell. befitting hw if i ic tel w wi SI s nit elk t ual Ievelopmcnt. OK. The arias for Donna Eivira—rke must sues md an I clara In oti can’t learn to think in rohit vii traditional of the five women Don Gtovanni hustles in nw m Ic. he defined diffrent characters b1 writing music ft people dlii cys seem to have their oss ii well-worked-out views of them in different styles. ou n elk ii hem So now you begin to opera— are written in a rigid Baroque style that v ouR havc use lieurunic not just to loosen up your own views. An example from the Ctz ‘cii slioss U’hL I lieu’s hahitus as an educational corcepr” or “Marxian theories mean. while the music ot his servant-fn i 0 thu its mood students when we say. and ins C Minor Mass shows that 1 c The reason to free yourscif trom those restrictions suit waist could indeed write such music as easily as he could wrice nw of ut hat err e Iways ts of other people around classical stie for which he is more famous. you nerd heuristics not so much to get More important. Those Giovanni. 1sYKoOL &TiOs TO iia ii. cS nsasne the basic viewpoints and ci en the heuristic repertoires right for the old-fashioned woman Donna Elvira is meant to ‘I it Ic r I e so iii rid I his is the third stage be Don Giovanni’s music is much more current. This is the motto aD him Ic’ ci y t g Cci i it ist is kit d of second stage of social science work. in the early 1 SOs. papers in the form of fhr more complex forms of questioning than any one o them a nco-institunionalisr slew of ehuicli organ1ztien or ‘bour can produce alone. iS writtOn iii the rnythms of the . at it i mu hat er r work with than the st Wilcil ou know a I You have come of age as a sucai sei nt 1 itt NIP hi ic i om a on of the diverse second-level repertoires of concepts cud question Hits omrortaulc olic-Slcle mess. ‘iou doit t net ssaril become dominated stances to question Oi. is hich only strongly poliri so ivell that you use heuristic strategies to Set 5 c icUS onLs ii p pit all achieve after h is e frc m the start is a mali t iso of view againsr one another. mis is tenn what 1 meant bs tOe chsus to some c W I en or I tic it I hat nd voilk flu any given sions of rnurual criticism between methods in the preceding i ohi vi has en some standard ques a vi vpoit I an ci chapter. You start using the differcur tand of our dci cloprnc ii.

turn a crank. one chronicles a new nation or a ncw’ ant i toed ds. 1 begin. Once the pile of anomalies becomes very large. most of our time tuck-pointing or building so all additior In short. H-t RIsIl( sOt RMAI. the anomalies. If profession or a new war. One uses a . if not. At bit. new theories. t i I t u eirmnplaces within which research happens incrementally. some stubborn real leon Pol argi tha tJh un o heuristic is to study the ities refuse to fit. Decayed bricks are te II. It embraces new methods. But as this normal science goes on. Science grosvs bit b’ ot mans ste les can make them talk to each other in this way. errors in analysis and so That might make us think that discovery can be made utterly on. Kuhn resolved this tossing in the rest of this chapter the two simplest means for dilemma by separating normal science from paradigm-changing srodr big i v ide : the addiri heuristic that we call normal science. o Ce tee what we might call the big-editice model of As this description implies. He argued that science is organized in paradigms. and some new materials. iiii hOc JIM. we need w think for a moment well as for all the anomalies. If one is an SCA analyst. he overs. the old building down and building a new one with the left \\ lien Kuhn svror 73 Sti-zoiau 01 t7e1I1/fa Ret olutialis. i I th i tindin them rejected or accepted. by dis and so on. like a big brick building being sut up on a firm touuda se I i to el C Wi s icr iii wi ?t writ us heuristic non. They were hardly gradualist. We might occasionally replace sizable walls. different theory. both routine and nonroutine. They re to so i i r s f liscove at d i iverition” (1957:112). and methods. attributed to mistaken observation. T trrle results pile up. even ‘I 0 ii I ovidt I hat r flu my people is the new definitions of the facts of the real world. this vision of science scyied iii- levels in the social sciences But ss bile the basic repertoire of accurate Most major scientific theories seemed to burst on u s at lo t iia umb r )t ways and at a num the world like the revolutions of Copernicus. Only a master The model is gradualist and incremental. Scientists are per one is an ethnographer. SCJLM F placed. heuriscc o usetul to all ot us. each at our own To Kuhn as to many others. These anomalies pile up to the side. It means tearing taut d a ount do )ver). the rics. but w spel ill 0 1. New parts of the building are built. paradigm shift. ISICS 11005 eli’ DisCos tRy iNTRODUCTION TO HeuRiscies wa at d r For Mozart different styles are not 0 c n ii accepted they become part of the edifice. Kuhn called this transformation a about th routine toads. the central heuristic rule of nor t ) i i u K 1 u ici c a isv given trne is a big struc— mal science—science u’ithia paradigms—is simple addition lf ore of ace e ted lacts. If one is a historian. then. one studies a new tribe or a new situa PdtchhlY making new conjectures testing them on reality with tioii. different interpretation of hndings—- h i ti ut inc way ye have for producing discov one can account for everything the old paradigm covered as eries. and voilà—discover one sees that by looking at everything differently—different u Pr dc rl mc n c lung more as well Heuristic son method. they don a problem DLIC a resource isre Abeubrook 1983). Newton. some-- routine: we learn some rules. Yet before seeking those. Darwin ber evel is 11 a or iflcd tpero i e.

ii id Ii )i s a I in iii it ‘h gus tie rules a bit and re . I \ rsions of tin more of-the-same heuris vealed new aspects of their assumptions.” rather than just one or two. tile normal effects. it might be putting iii er xamnp w sualiy there art minor diftrences that enable exponential terms into the equation. the huge for social scientists. But or the beginning SCS nil SCientiSt. They are the conservative strategy bl iw But undcr this healing w I vu for example. For a rational-choice ic I i Ic i n e Jar t v r e the same deas to a new modeler. One brilliant contri Ii RL ii ii ury u al y 1 ad B r origins among artisans bution does not fully establish a new argument. For an SCA analyst. Adding new ir icr iii iii inn ii’i unsk lied tOis 1 laborers or agricultural cases or variables or rules is always a useful first step in the full . For aO sri ci ft ii vi ac er Ii tic is all N a aiysr. Ma They are the tuck-pointing and reshingling and addition- oi recasrings arc the objects of the stronger heuristics I discuss building of normal science. ut will it work there?” is a All of these—from simply adding data to adding a new di pet fecili fine opcnug for a research project. he cr1 nographei ssith a new case and tile “game. Libraries are filled with urn ‘ii he na ic Will hi h tr r if w c ) irol for native ability? published doctoral dissertations that carry out such additive ihr co lugi Hajor: tor parental cue 1 )Urageflleflr for choice of projects. to understand a particular s bo at wi iew uata ci it in. ‘(/as this also true in areas where artisans were fes s a iable. one adds a ethnographer ofscience. addition sometimes takes the form of aduing a new o nipiltes [lie o uilih. (because they have the most at risk)—shouid be assiduous prac women are less hkel> to end up in the natural sciences and titioners of the additive heuristic. Finally. tills might be taking a more careful tuv iii [ri cases or or’s Into mur be tab i th the cases one has look at the exact language that was used in interviews. I ‘vtr I lOt S (I Duct VtRY IiSTRODUCTI0N ‘10 HbLR1ST1(S at w iliac )ciidenr s ariabic or sometimes us en a new dependent laborers. to see whether certain in th ii is at t it pi c ol ideas rather than simply repeat dependent variables had not only linear but also nonlinear them. . on them.uiunis or the parameters or the conseq uent model or methodological wrinkle or theoretical twist. and a. HR ts [it w data se v ith which n study an old Was it true in Catholic as well as Protestant regions? east of risc problem oi asks an old qrwsrion in i new way. to sec II e h d i W Ii I elislo ii II sly i whether the order in which scientists said certain things re To Ru an s er. and it should Come as no surprise that number of SCA studies of the turin 1 know that x leads to graduate students—the most conservative of all social scientists Sib 0 i w I i t r Pu e in o1s to /. P11 •LCilS 1011 of ii id 51$ Usually this s a minor dimension. ‘. Scholarly journals receive dozens of stabmusions nased i Ii h U us a 1 Jr orndLr die long—standing . Sc nc hr ui sin of it voiks here.” For example. lb be sate. one tries a new Elbe? and so on. incremental additions. this might be trying four or five different forms o ph cc. mension for analysis to adding a new methodological or theo II scro ci vers oi ot addition s the addition of some new retical wrinkle—ate basically minor. Ply not just adding an bargaining structure. Ins or ai tin liii ri at the revolutio iary political parties of the Such studies are profoundly useful.

and it is not at commonplaces which were Ibmiliar notions. ones. 01 s i t lat C C K rts ii legal sen wigs. it. lVfaStell in such lists was i in 1 d . ri is o tlii ig o a t adit on about inVentiOn.Lcl side of an inil Runt niber Phli as definition: “The aim of hen argument.\PaA U’ become boring. “Pros and cons” is another enduring rhetorical fotn’i. I Ci SC t or a cga ye word. It is hardly surprising that in time there were complaints that oratory had ii SNL) fosl\to.--ss crc mainly con speech were to similar students two millennia ago—is “com e”ned with tr litli ig people as knoss Iedeab1e speakers in pub pare and contrast. How nionplaces and their subdivisions. and Quiatilian—.rue list in u-na ss lL to do so werc iniled U pics and included extremely of abstract categories or concepts. both positise and creative. What had been meant as a guide to in’senciig ‘I erc s. could be applied to any argument at any point to generate ness i i sy ‘a t ii a t p i r ci t arguments. )Om new ideas had become a machine producing endlessly familiat It s not Ii coal iii the srienccs but tatlier in the field of rhetoric. also on i Itcn.” (It was on Aristotle’s and Cicero’s liStS. rliciork was a aood thing. Each of these rhetorical forms can be invoked in the heat of tr I LU tile L lassical writers visi ni of rhetoric. Cicero. al in it n.. The most famous—as farnuiar in d ci vc Fl i ii cii u w itt. lit I U m c a n I hi tist is to impi ave on such nor common beliefs that often came iu pairs one 01 e. like th idea chat al so 5115 nn ‘hat ii ianv u us icy leas c - criminals did or did riot keep committi1g ch san’i: inilOr —.1 i I u ‘s Ic ‘t taLkin ht i a tice speeches were And each can sometimes become very mechanical. and when yoa find yourscl r’ i Ii im i es If tenu i d genus and ‘ running out of ideas about some aspect of social hfc. 7 ( op’cs. (Ideally one could argument to provide a prefabricated layout ior a discussion. 0 1 di toric—people like high school students in America as the six parts of a classical isuciaLes ristot1e. 1 iL ) ic t r cr1 Is id [U es d discovery and Apprentice speakers learned huge lists of topics arid co r Lovent rut Ins cut ion s ss hat ss seek not just addition.. This section covered /‘ ‘cud.tlieid f t rue and rehearscd urtensivelu) Rhetoric text But the use of rhetorical forms and topics as means to in ‘u iks nut im rl began with section entitled un ui/lu. from the for social science invention. \vt ttt ii . The most tIHflgs to Say.” More concrete for arguments were cc lied sources os begin oar reers with the additive heuristic. y ti go in . The idea is simple. most ancient lists. ii 0 1 1 1. as it is in the repertoire of roost scholars cci 11 l t I C Lii 551 i d t 55 of arguments was ceo day. tt label tricks of e social scientisin have such rhetorical forms. . And so for . These would be lists of topics that sailie toot as See Clarke 1 b 3:. tOO. VU lirRoDucrioN 10 Heuiisiics C Ic U f de a no s is alit and fitting that most of it species. u t s fo icvenrn n considered the foundation for effective argument.) ii Sc ii. (Jnun— Vention suggests that there might he similar forms and topics is ie ati i ss o d lie areek fo this was [mona. langtwgc or arutin cur P think or rhetoric as false or at least and commonplaces ourselves. You have a wied-and.

it doesn’t matter final cause 4 1 y i I d r log ly t p’stcmologically or wha ci. because two of the three always ally against th thicd Chest happeni to he the ones that have most often proved useful (something those of us who were only children in two-parent no ow They are al lists that hays recuircd in the works of homes know very well). or structurai. nt Aristotle’s aflalyis one uay or an itherj Rather. con clusion il ‘hat I i/Soil/il have thought about was which at something happens because of the social materials that went ist mi 1 re s tOil n svl. 55 e are out going to be part iculailv worried about whether effective cause )ur lists art the right lists or the rue lists. wc rc iigf t . F&.” we invoke material Cause. about a direct kind of forcing. into makin or unmaking it Demography is pa excellence m on r su n pical lists —two classical social science of material cause. This is i/c/t would b0 hard to come up with a concept of cause that didn’t tiical cause. By contrast. istie leas vo w of g aduatc school trying When sse say. But anced. Kenneth Burkes shape social life. “The Republicans lost the election because they Ut) dci ide on th ‘right” abstract concepts and came to no lost the women’s vote. we u . M nis Ds IN1RODUCTION TO Fiio. Is is the shapc that is is t twct arifi h causs cy are right (although it ‘ of the triad that gives it its peculiar properties. it’s because Aristotle’s nftk’tn’e cause is the most familiar of his four The icy s us 1 ‘I h y wIg u inakc o uck switches in our intel. a e Chants Mortis’s three modes of By contrast. effective cause of something is what brings it abous v hai oct itta vi ems You Fm already htcn introduced fotces it to happen. final cause refers to the aims of events \Vlien we say the cause of universities is the need for education. h the way: I used Morris’s modes of lan taliation or that a newspaper caused a war. Kant’s list of categories.ii Ca/1w Ar/ito//eS 050 1 IC to 1 start with Aristotle’s font causes. cause iug. So we say that a strike caused employer re to one ol tlieso lists. ROtics the list and hat it suggests to on. It concerns numbers of peopic and t vo modern—. Here we are saying something no ia y w it s sdc any different labels But let me reiterate about social material but about social structure.that I myself ha c often found useful: Aris of varying types arid the ways in which those differing numbers tOCles four causes. Inc k ys of am tu n. I ye mcd other lists from time to time. These are statements guage to Orgarure the tirsn chapter of this book. In this case. its a simple list: u i i times (that ists n ancient mateual cause is pl t ik t h too e ‘iousl and 0 c lists got very hot formal. Indeed. 11w problem is chat on must hrt get some good lists of Categories or COflCCt5 to A. we might say with Georg Simmel (1950) tfac n s pa cs hr i ison “hose should be your all social groups with three members are inherently unbal mph lisr.

and modality. ctrmtura/in quantity. Kant organized them under four basic headings i a tin s uneni ployment terms of its firma!. Our aim is not to get Kant right ii erelv random torces dcjd who in particular is unemployed but to make him useful for us. But the Anstotelidrx hit nothc r a pis can 1 o how usu p he ihur-cause list probably more useful. INTRODIJCT1ONTO HEL1USTICS atrributn. Or Aristotle’s four causes. p i lee y t x t it Ject cc cause new type of cause from the one that you are implicitly usi ne Ia v n as I laiper political in ii i nation Its also true that you can often come up with something ne en Sti ppus tic Os is liked to be their inn ?ay/nul cause. asking Quantity i i it h neth ip usc i fir somebody (for example. In what follows.. Kaiiic Lzst of Categories find at person or a transitory state for many different kinds of The Kantian categories. although thats not exactly rectly. the existence of universities to their final cause they complain?) and whether that somebody. which perhaps explains why it reappeac I w I •t’ to isa ( 1 sider uremploy with so many dIfferent names and guises. in a tight spot to come up with a new attack on a problem unenlyl y I Who art hey 5 ‘X7h r are they like? What finds of dualities do they share I )ues unemployment concern a B. Kant in an think at nemployn ent in terms Ut ts proximate. Time an is s icc d cit air ye speal of final cause. quality. although much more abseract than people’ This is to think of unemployment demographically. Couid it he the case chat unemployment is a general give the categories comnlonsense meanings. from And the nunuers and distribution or those interests are sii//cient cause (something sufficient to bring another thing the laws ‘naOe. C//dC thought there were some basic frameworks through which ani: H layoffs voik \\ ho decides who gets fired or experience was filtered. h ()i o can vieis ut cinploymet t jiimtionally. relation. There are twelve of these categorive. unity ci p 1 is by lowcr i p wages Lot those remaining plurality bee t y can t rarc ned wi ii unemployment if totality . Every event has causes of all four about) to nertisay cause (something without which another finds. not the formal structural ciualiti of a certain production system and that philosophical ones Kant gave. sn 1 Ar iii ant) W u is c say h reason for pollu As you can see. directly or (which toda is e often taIl thnctiuii.z/ cause. thing cannot occur) and vice versa. by switching from one to another /ogin! corcept of cause. it I e icci tives or ch os ng unemployment? and they make another useful list of aspects of a proDlem 1 Ii are 1 urnc lot s drivir p lowered employment? think about. the Aristotelian list is very useful. cr alwaH be e iii I of ut ci 4 1 yme U in tcrins of its material. maintains it because of this utilit). you can come t p with something new b 1 swift ung 0 1. again. 1 properties. are also a useful list of topics.

later. I shall also discuss the cen I n i Lulibed xc h Ia’ Flaw would sic knuiv in xi. Nor is it apparent when socialization stops and life be it uXafl} la. Ate there few or acquire skills. suggest important ways to chan. the obvious. how maui or them are Negation. t ii at cooks togeti r What about baby-sitters things. there must be some special process—different at u D i att r h( v n n there arc 1 Could differ from the rest of life—that ‘trains” them. plurality. Thus. as C.e oar SuOstan’ c a first conceptions of a research problem. I shall kiter t sea discuss several heuristics based on negation. Put at lOt se ‘u it a number ol ssc nrial ways to rethink a other way. problensahzing 1 oudirv fdlse the problems of the in??! nW/ia of a subjecr. forcing us u tioiis Does it ma u a difIyrcnr whether we ask whether the nouns we use in social science refer to real r p xc a. and the like. Mi i iii t Dis ovi. is an ucuupation It’s ohs iuus what holds doctors gins. of mis ecipi’oLiL. it is simply a reification following 1W )cWitOtS 1 wit s and scaitres s.as iNTRODUCTION TO 1uJRisTiCs divisible or indivisible? Social class is a famous example hue L ihi there a power elite. too. taking an abstraction mr a reality or—what u very common ifl 1t)diLlt bad social science rhiniring—imagining that because we nas name for something. Take the famous co Ice ecpt uf socialization. negation. ii. how many ii 1 egory invokes for us a crucial heuristic discipline. a child becomes an adult I is by no means apparent that this word refers to anything orb r ie Kant i i ty are c nit y. other. an kelatitu limitarion These. and to than the slim total of experiences a young human has. reversal. The reality categoi dUs. the reality ca cc a i it icr o for example. There is in fact absolutely nothing that is denoted spe tuatlier ds unit bat hat about ph sicians’ assistants? what xi cifically by this concept.ilit\ d:pi ikicic raises the subtle but important question of eeii4matiuii. Wright Mills thought? How umhc are elites and ruling classes? Are social classes unified wholes ot loose units that fade continuously into one another? ihe Kantian quality categories are reality. which is supposed to refer to all tiic ticiiie ing by which an infant and. and Idar care ii urkets? Or social classes.hat wa s is it tral heuristic importance of making sure that your idea is capa . Are these really units? from the (fallacious) functional argument that because people a liry c ci thc concern k na jihu’. it is therefore real. isn’t clear what experience a young person has that rsiaaii cjiicsrion iiirv raises th issue ot rh i/flitS ot our could nor be said to be socializing that person for something or iailS us: \Vhr ata they? \Vhv? How’ are thes’ unified What. too. is a centrally important topic.

take this circular format of reciprocal causality. we know very well There is a kind of reciprocity here between income and whose in iliac rio ron s the trbsranee ord the age is the properrt But tion that forces us to be much more specific about - nvolsed ut I a P hat. it is nor at all clear (no ni-st It is come. They . This. I’1TRODUCTION TO kiitURiSTICS liii 51 i o s i )iscs s al values Pu or hctnL w -on. soci hoer L. too. sociological ideas and kind ot ii pi mdi 101 Und what conditions is some argument and education itself become accidents. When we say the transmission of educational advantage across educa r r rtai m ape 1k r -xar pie. Many.re er such es I ill iii r ci icanori what the substance is and what The category of reciprocity reminds us to consid social dir Ii c It nt Is so o It gv a iamt tbr cveiyhody with certain chicken-and-egg models. I woo t liPt Ii i t t ) iv ‘r t t a Jitrons. but which which? Higher levels of education lead to higher income over iii na h nanc ar I rh properties of those things (acci allows dents). Often it vides a helpful way to rethink social scientific questio of ew ‘i’he Kantia i relational categories are even more important.. in which case the jobs concepts izata irs ‘xph ru g what so rologital positivists like to call substance. but availability of higher income generations cane rory provides no useful basis for heuristics. ns. Causal questions are obviously central to any as we have seen in Aristotle’s celebra ted list of causes. sociological ideas i-rid concepts—be accidents. We know that higher jevels of causes s ci s u cc aeci lents the di is or ef the world into gien — tion are associated with higher income. many systems in can h Pu uid of dci. Note that this n of sub A r t i c o ta ii P c s take effi t? These and a analysis begins to suggest char the whole distinctio . trying to decide which educ ai d I have fkni us hra aries in philosophy The first of them things causes the other. large hnr’idred oilier quest ions all arise ironi thinking about linmira stance and accidents is probably a mistake (as. tot i-xmmpln. wt might S id that many things that we body of social theory believes). reflect substance and accidents can help you change your way or seeing i 11 a c ii ry st in Ii up it iditioti are in ct invented at par r ii w ii m s ndc r what co Ii ions do pcople invent tra something. we find ourselves in a cul-de-sac. At the very least. and other things—people’s politic comi: types of employment. and what temporal orders. Art they leaders of hack social noscn rats? huh-n aristocrats Are there ways to differ consider causality further here but simply refer the reader cuitiate iii cntcd and ‘real traditio is All o these questions ‘ to that discussion pro ri e is liii we t y to set I routs 00 thit concept of invented The third relational category is reciprocit>. and political values. Xe should nvcr toriet to think about stance of sociology. whose educatIon. reis and training’ Then eduaai ion defines the sub. indeed ing oo too So. In some f airs t social scic ore. But I could just as easily dhne sociology a I n it ii icurist c cool Much of nor i ii a r t define 1’aI c u c a ta ily rakes nit form of tth limits to general who hold certain kinds of jobs.n t her oar ouhooil i rhracenej? Whe 11 a nation The second of me relationai categoties is causality heuristic is new! formed? Are there par iLUlUt kinds of people who are dence. /depen iltion: \V h. the substance/accidents the course of life. sat.

When half the young men of England. But do The Kantian categories thus provide another useful tisi classes exisr And llrLt does it mean to say that classes exist? of heuristics. cs ii it parions. the category ef necessity concinency raises n c tore. siiat does it mean to say’ have existence as tingency. Ar least it s impossible unless we de to ask about the muiciple dependencies among social proee sc line 1 1 success as bein 1 absolutely idiosyncratic. to talk about class. by the category of existence are thus like c1iee of thc cc r anrian Ca )r ci i x dality are possibility! category. ‘I n iiauy types of social actors: one alive for them to marry. for example. for on other things (that is. rc 0 t I ty in (01 strueti our arguments Germany disappeared in the trenches ofQorld War 1 a gc me 1 e a xisrtr cc iai es iciest ions much like those of anon of young women couldn’t marry—because there was i ins’. ‘md so on. Aristotle included two things that . for exampiL. The resultant family structure ii i dc andecl people the sam. hieh of indeed the resultant larger social structures of employment an I tiles i ualiy have existcn t s groups rather than as sim opportunity shaped European society for generationa Like ‘or ple tvpc Inth ed. s c Iced to check our ideas constantly for possibility. And ne L sc filled with argot nts that implicitly believe shy invites us to focus on necessary causality and its mu i uccessful o v tr ust always reflect on the canons. or are they conLingeru are IoicalI impossible It is impossible. too. which Cut up the Organize assoclatior-is of workers liat does it mean to say 7 world a little differently. Ic i rinDs Ui Discos cxs iN I’RODUC I iON lu H&TIC s I e r vsrc’rns ci r sm ilize hcmselves.IS a ro uzh eer one to be successful if being successful entails some form more complex phenomenon than mere limitation. necessity pervades the social prucess A good Is ut groups 1 here are many famous examples of this set of heuris heuristics will never omit it. these are like the questions of rh Lrnitatioo fleunS a desire to improve society. tic problcms It is easy. As with Aristotle’s four causes. This heuristic questions bouc boss events relatc to one aOotInr in is particularly true because much social science is motivated by one sense. Yet about the many paths that social processes can take.) The reciproc ci women a group? In what sense? The hcuristic luesticrs i is us to hink e epl abc t suth systems. Fiance. one arises of contemporary social science involve gender nd tcL f s e back th o 1 r io r negativc. ‘we can let the Are we talking about self-consciousness of ciass about coordi philosophers worry about the philosophical validity of this list nated action about simple common experience? Or take occu For us is a useful checklist of things to thinx about. p c ui a ys ems tlia blow t (Loosely speaking. Are they simple categories of people? bodies of work? happens. Aristotle had a category list. iPVite u of suyeriL rity to others. limited)? But contingency. They lie in questiomn nouns we couirnooly 1 10 1 eXist em c. But certain kinds of improvements tic: are certain relationships necessary. ii. social scicflce aryumcnrs that arc impossible and that. or they can x’ that a occupation exiSts Clearly ci n ost ta i u. Finally’.n DCXI n cc and necessiry!contim denote social groups and asking what kinds of ch rig chm ii sihiliry reminds us ci it is easy to come up with norms actually label. there.

how they get there. purpose. they are nit ci kss likely to drive after drunk merit is that changes in scene caused the crime increase 1K hit I F s ii liter m ne c ay 1960. Cohen and Felson noted char of near rIirerstatt highways all of tlmcm filled with bars and all of crime takes three things: an actor (this had been the focus can thieni i1iaccesSi) I y too i was pr tty likely that you were go- . Both of these are them anion—driving a certain way. and hose C. and how Si cc tI is is a i mdc’ i list. More consumer goods were in the home they analysis ot ale ohol were based ac id ii s i i terms of Burke five keys le). The central thrust of Cohen and Felson’s I ngland). possibly because they han Iariu s n ‘our qu st or ii spate (either social or geographical) more’ experience driving drunk and so were more skilled at it. be they were lea It flt t( de te mine whit Ii airs if 1w pnahlcm) Are there regu likely to get into accidents. H 4 ii n u Dnr ov iry 1N’li{ODLCTION TO HEURiSTICS [05 Kant iriade separate spae and nine. I ian gis e a famous example. lways ask yourself what the things (like fastening seat belts) spatial n I emp ral scr ings t f ye ur problem are. How can agents—certain kinds of actors (It turned out p1ent ot tiny he eharied? idh aspects ci the Ti art necessary or bOth ‘ older drivers were drunk on the road. for example—drive to show off . a target.blemc Joseph Gus ‘ young men. where.l I rec in ept ual ut d drunk driv rig. h. and an absence of guardians. Bi i’ ‘at 1i Ke ‘. If peo think of an unguarded target as a certain kind of scene in he pet irunk when riley can walk home (as in argo- the pub in Burkean terms. doing (or not doing) certa’t selve i setbi licur she reminders. We A u se i( e ut n iobiic acidents involving alcohol.) rune—where people drink. they leave (This was Gusfield’s way of attacking the vi ig the modern setting brings us to the five keys of to question. a problen of the iriJing.. In they do (Some people drive to get somewhere. We can use this At too as a heuristic aid to would be reduced. actor. prior research).) rethinking any ar ic ilar roblem puupose—why people decide to drive when. others— us s lend d )ook TAr Culture Pub/u Piy. fatalities scLtnig. action. He Prior theorists of crime had emphasized criminals (that is. the locations mous paper of Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson that duced the so-called routine-activities theory of crime (I where pen dui9a 1 ii drink The San Dreg i police had consulted Gus- p s nell about a st dden ri e in accidents involving alcohol. i it d n built Cur major hotels on vacant land t ra If yr u itive actors) as the key to crime. agent. seat belts were fastened around passengers. ofdramatjsni: Are lighter in proportion to their value (and hence more portab a (‘iclents be r understood as a matter of 5 people and the entry of women into the labor force meant fewer . I Ic said (among many Ia eti er di ni s h t ici ide it caused by drunk drivers are really a Another excellent example of Burkean thinking is the intro ‘a s ortat OI y robir rn.) Iramiti in wt td th b the f IT tis literary critic Kenneth agencj —vehicles and roads (If cars wouldn’t move unless hi rhi i F is he ok A C ‘aimi ii il Al fl.

Social scientists use many sucH lists tiltougn Ti Pr gi ati re ii U ‘u tel ii ions lv tn•eeri symbolic statements their careers. en How \X h Wliyi And one can also see in of Aristo it iairiy strong echo pragmatic context) of those market assertions are One way 0’ iii )i I ember that the utility of all of these lists ft stating Marx’s analysis of work is to say that there was a FUji’ en es icss in their nm city than ii their heuristic power Re damental error in the belief of liberal economic theory iii tlic port rs ist the who’ what-w hi a ist to remind themselves to separability of the syntax of markets (that is. ust ersi of rue famous old aliotlier s tence outside it. yi at t si ma i ic and )ragm itic This list was of new questions to ask. action (from in I ii nu xi don in which they are made What is rad f. o ic ii ii he Ii ci us taket rail d in 1960 and It can of course be used in other contexts. Kant. the wage teL touch a1 1 the bases We ire more interested in using lists tt) re tionship) and the semantics of the social groups in those mar n inc us that ou 5 thcor often foe its excessively on one or an kets (workers and capitalists as they were outside the market1. I used the Morris trici to start a t ) Waft Over )f pai d lx w p1 r ol goods n Sears. 13 irk cii misc ‘aised a si haL new theory in this case th semaneics ut (internal market relationships) over against u es n i si m ility. in endless empirical detail. and any number of others) as a use . Liberal theory said these things could be separated’ ±V1 rv it s usually a p tic stioi ut figuring a it what aspect of our analy showed. cm a1 Oil ny ii (. but seeing market telations as related to so eLI relations outside production in the same way linguisLic 1) ii 1 ii p Un/ti ?/L ‘ci syntax is related to meaning and reference makes the tradi A final topics list ( M rris’s three aspects of symbolic is harles X’e can think of tional analysis of work suddenly look alive. to chink that it applies only to it u c is ir p prity rir e tom 1)50 to I 9 5. Were at l II P’ )pcrr the cii thors ilL tLialiy tion are the only “real” ones. set of topical lists. this is far-fetched. 001st u.exisro. rum s ii Disc o ian INTKOOUC’iiON iO Hi’. 1 sy ter s. I used the Morris argument heuristically. 7 tots in n’iarkets are doing (saying) and what the actions th us. of cr i tile connections between groups n tile market and r C\ls 1 th Burki s list is really . Roebuck cat thinking about explanation more broadly than is cusiomaic ci zen. There is no rheces st p it 9 ‘l e 09 n ia iy ith ‘r ip u I Iv uc jOLts Factors paralleled sary reason. o aloes o er nh liars as \ve[1 as ii e percentages of homes with That is. Plato. And you could go on to think about \vlidi am i po iii sr or p \\ ho \X hat? Qiiere. \V1 cn we iced to think anew.hapt r )nt is its noting that tii ient mans ful commonplace list. I have often used knowledge. Maybe siS u old La ‘hang 1 ‘ode cc a 1 w Pen. eel ii Lb prer One Syntactic relations are relations lx se n U i ci ts h lie a ter 5 mantic relations are rela Wmi stir MORIUs LIST. Many of us have used various lists of Se 1 iS ‘Clleafu5 be ies e’ rhat prag manic approaches to explana cial functions—-Talcott Parsons’s adaptation goal attainment . I come to the end of my own curient tio is ht i sysrc Ic i lents and things to which they refer. You could think about the S) ntax of markets ai . Once bolic systems. feeling. that they could not. atiler ispeci of wh t We st u ly.n hi. for example. Aristotle. I \i.

Classical rhetoric died because d I n i t tcsarieattindei Soevcrythirigfrom cendeiloms to rib qes to pun.Just use them vihen ou et stucL Use them to stimulate your - thinking When you find that stimulation. As we shall see in the next chapter. turn to working out d l tc iew artu aent ) i t run through every Last i c iris it list tor ever> last idea and then try to put eserything together. gristle ‘was turned into ground beer. fbr example.u’i a Ihisisparticularlysobe taust as I iaottd in the precedin • 6 chapter. ‘I’ Li I u .we dun t need to aSSLtiiie. do not reif’ these lists. Don’t use these lists as some kind of comprehensive sys 11 pt ‘at ryar tea ‘hquesticnsthrough. Second.c stuck l)ont worry about their re .ITRODUCTIOL’i TO BEUSIST1cS 109 uitegcauon and pattern maintenantL. then spent a lot of time workzn ota the a in dea than’ vi under ban ‘. ‘Ii ed vi vi t isethscndTanyotheriuts. Most of us taken. 1 sant to underscore ns o cautions First.rnlebcxl) from a difierent dis details. thur turret tness or truth. aathor made a big move.But in dosing m• discussion of topics and commonplace lists. most brilliaa at- La 11 ions’ liii ‘Whatwouldananthro .the discipLinei from time to time as a commonplace tic move. re n t -I n u a.oneofthem. academic disciplines a t orjaniad around ditkrvnt dimensions of diffirence. polognt savt Sometimes there s no tstcr ay to come up with I ticks and books are built on one panicidar hon.way Youare ía: better nfl naiLing one major leap and then viorkn*g out all the details and subparts of that leap than you are tying to v ri tt r a1 riacrieap aidsukleap thatcouldbe . I c I t I utyo. dont oeruse them. Youil an er get anyvi here P anl r w • at hcunstigoes ton. They are siffipl) userul lists or reminders o things to think about.thq t r truth. MFTIIuDa 01 Disc OVFfl 1. Thc. Take the time to s ork out the details of a majot hcuris aso us’.

11 people for it. Just as there are several ways to tions among methods and the fractal character of social scien h b . Yhu can easily be too radical for an auttience. 1 shall illustrate these heuristics with a variety of of heuristic. while contemporary sociolo )1 IL i s ci scien es. B )RRU\\ 1L A Mriiio others’ current beliefs.ioni. Such papers are Curi facts so radical as to he irrelevant. Note also that the cyclical rela I end c p rc usi ig orneexampies. Often it cannot SeC rhen at all.’ire iif Scliuiriftr Rrco!uriu. Much of ir has to do with how one’s ideas fit w tim B. Coast’s woN. there rna be several ways to in tific debates mean that it is quite possible to be too radical to (Urpi et Li IL iiii :1 ii ct ual uves of ari given article or hook. vu r i il cd. B ur lid ot mc a touchstone of modern to some earlier themes. o FaiN! Ura (i\ER i. If you CX ip Cs ra n on s& vera] cliseij incs.iit s works perhaps cells us something important bout the natur lAk NC AN A \L( Y of creativiti. or a subdiseipline. a seminar. ULAItCH A Si) ARt UMEN1’ lleUKuncs Chapter 1 F o ur economics until the Bfius çCoase won the Nonel Prize o 1991. In fact. Ciecuicity is . 11 I L N I H C Sil s went unappreciated until the rest of the economics eomrnurut / I oar i FMATJZ1\H FElL Oh\ mr S came around to the broad conception of economic thinkmng 1vlim NC S l. a Cu i ai x ipi lius tate one a ci only one heuristic. you have to adjust your heuristic gam ftC 15 C not dcfniitivc ihc ieader should not get the idea that a bits to your audience——whether it is a bunch of college friends. Often a mainstream cannot see nev ideas as crc ative. I he examples are illus aim to have an impact.e1a. Practi S 11 us 11 SC Inc iplcs lat ere peruAed as clever tioners of SCA might find Fleck’s view of the conditionality of a long r i ftc r they were ritten. Fleck’s book was completely ( is aa ‘sic Assr MPTIHN ignored until Kuhn’s Srnct. ii one group while being insufficiently radical Lor’another. the ai zi of .) The aiithropologisr Fredrik Barth’s ALvlii. C’u tses t hr ned on the nature of the firm wi pub This rule—be different but not rca dfferenr—cakes us bacH i i d n tl 9. As I said in Chaptet One.v Ra that Coase took for granted. fhe economist Ronald gists of science would find him tame. HEuRIsTICS flI_OtiOn was puhished in 1960 but ditto become a classic ‘a- Search and Argument ration until much later Ludwik Fleck s pioneering book on scientific thought styles lay fallow from its publication in 1iN until it was i’cpopularized by Kuhn in the 1960s and finall translated into English in 1979 That people took so long to tecognize the clean itv of these I Sca H I-Icr iu .ts prcpared C ic(l[L 511 . I 11 H Fr n Nt Ii c DLSC Ru general iules for coming up This tells us about an important limitation on the practicL \s itli iicw ideas.

. problem: ‘the problem of trying to explain why unions fail is ii this chap i ci the next I discuss general heuristics. )iscos I RI SEARCH AND ARGUMENT HEURISTia 50 . argument heuristics help you look within bendirLl v wed for i action’ we always repooled what you have into new shapes and new uses. riances No suc care exists today ‘I here are.” Note that in the second case. methour. They are the first step beyond the additive heuristics do that ‘a hich Wc call mcthods. But rathe vi ci v s d ed r rultiple regression in than helping you look outside your pioblem or data or way - c hi be d r nanoseconds by eleven thinking. us tar I m cunerned. ‘The second are argument heuristics. ways to get unstuck. only that the process of failure has a broadening ‘aliat you are doing. out of ‘a hatever standard world you’re currentl in. The rule to he different but of the preceding chapter. 1 c J SOILI1CE is sa something interesting—perhaps een to general heuristic. neuer rules about what’s OK. The central search heuristic is analogy.” Or it could be an analogy about a w hose tI i s cgular I s s if yr u don’t want to. are not spec in all aimed at any particular ing of methods.Lfereiic rmcnds us that Each methodological commu These are ways to play with or pose arguments n order to c e ia cts owr it how far i too tar It changes from time ate openings for ideas Like search heuristics. Thet are tested ways of are like X-ray machines. these do not derive directly from fail. ‘a’as to come up with new certain logic to it in any circumstance. . That’s the When you use search gambits as heuristics. just like the problem of trying to explain why X-ray machires L nlike those in Chapter Six. But on should be advised that someone else has already thought seriously about your lit oi a e too c utside the usual methodological communi problem or something like it and that you can borrow that icre arc things thu ak strange noises in the so thinking. It can be quite general or narrowly specific 1 d u. ncs methods. beyond it to invoke riot only some ideas but also a whole appa ratus of analysis. true—about social reality. Borrowing usually involves analogy but goes w aspe I i search p ess I hey are useful at van. it could be at i•it if b I haPs w i rethodological communities analogy about data: “the marriages I am studying are really like a at t i c i cc cvi s you won’t have to deal negotiations in business.ot too d. argLtrnent hernia I i y sou si i y age remember well tics are general strategies for producing new ideas. Re A specialized but important search heuristic is the borrow niber that the. howeer. you are betting ufl (it it. 1 e hale some conventional ways to and ideas. s w k ids of c. idcs. we aren’t saying that unions tiie fractal debates 01 Chapter Two. al h irista gambits in this Let us now look at these two search heuristics in detail w th ‘[lit i t arch h istics the simplest form of some famous examples. I. SEARCH HELRISTICs 0 heuristics in this book wcll sometimes take you clean lb Search heuristics are ways of getting new ideas troir elsewhere. They involve seeking out new data. or new data.

” It is equally common for people to U ft m Vc (ft sidcr t c conc inc analogy. Ditto for Hannan and Freeman. Becker said. not simply adding some ii I srI ii H irg ss p1 d em t citucs in 1 95. start from the data and use analogy to find new theories and greatcst ipostle of this analogy. too. thing to them. and so on. as r k n nal gy etween fudal kings and Analogy is fundamentally different from addition. Becker’s analogy must have lieu sti 15 iuki hg au analogy so ung that an X IS really a G.) Examples crimiilatio. and . seemed shattering at the time. That would have nomics profession paid a lot of attention to The Economics of Dii (hoc nc. It has a risk to it: there will be naysayers. Applying in ii creat s began to analyze more mainstream topics. began his career with what IC methods. estimatc a price of discrinuuiation by the thiloiving method: The answer was that it looked like the thing biologists call an vc mci arc t.h lì curl wages pa d in southern textile mills ecology.xt f i is etc usine the n/Jiiiis heuristic. we think ahoLit racial dis of the city of Chicago and asked whether the city looked like H nat on as I as cii y an c ‘on mit phenomenon We can something that someone else had already come to understand. Suppose you are interested in the . Organizational fields. I Ic Economiac Dir tioned above. The H ean m tkirp n ando ‘y betw cii people having children and Becker claim was really “You may think that phenomenon X I ix i p 1 nnburgcrs cannot be analyzed with my theory/method T. But the analogy was powerful. but in fact [flew mciv seem like far-tethJ cunalogies. Stippose. like family-planning tarn hd ( cc models to cxj lain stare formation in teudal decisions. That was the source of the ecology analogies men as z t i it ii sly ist inishiiig book. can be Ii lip all ihit app crams k m ic roeconomlcs to hear on that price. Gary Becker. it can be very productive. which begins ical s sic nis Apply ing economic models to family planning with the theory and method and moves toward the data. aiian zing how 5 fluctua it te with labor demand and supply. It means rn r irhoiia1 actors Appi yi up ecological models to ho truly changing the terms of analysis. SSARCkI AND ARGO MSNT HeuRisTics 11 I S I I is 1 U ct ccii S Id/ crimination versus spending it on ocher things cnew capital for ‘he hi ii ci 1 mans of the general was’s mo t important the plant.i. for example). his work began to be regarded as truly revolutionary. nobody outside the eco Cc I ri s yc yon w c pet ring Y. So one way to understand it was simply to borrow the that efll by all-u lute labor forces with wages paid in mills em language and some of the analytic machinery thought up by ploy T nixed or all black labor foices The diffcience will be biologists to analyze complex natural systems: the city is an the 11cc thc bc tots ow tier is willing to pac for his discrimina ecology. Indeed. but they were you’re wrong: it can be. with their ecological tion cis i he were h iyii p it like a stnt if clothes. Park and Burgess looked at the raw complexity urns ‘u/i ci. Looking for analogies from the data end is the more corn- oh rp h rr c c-oft hetw en spcnding one’s money on dis mon experience for students. arid when Becker iii y cial s iencc. seen as ecologies. At the d Freeman applied thetis to organizations in 19— Haniiais i 1 same time. We can then approach to organizations. n iki aHab y bcrw en I iman societies and biolog p a i Many analogies take the form of Becker’s.

ripe for the taking. as a question of understanding because Parsons never med the analogy co quescuxi mc din p1itics voting. In two essays. which iS exactly what Goffman did. councils. Note char analogy is not simply a matter of goiny o orh’t c in. pa traliy important can be lost—in adehcion to the SoiTiethiny tonage. But to use analogy ode - t bizarr I hey c 1 Iliant because they make us tively. you need to cultivate it. and you will need to get a sense of t )HOIT r Ml v 1 this hinged on a simple. When you forage in other Pui’ii and Danger). too little analogical power. and mental hospitals (David Rothman The Discoi cry of nv ty arid iufiucr c A tI i r ripie makes dear. elasticity. economies of patronage and that of economics (other than iyiarxian economics) This exam polities.r possible to treat city government completely as a problem of politics—who gets what where. that bodily fluids like mucus and semen cross bound to! aspects of analog is it most often the ideas you bor aries in the sante way unclassifiable objects do IMary Dougdn )W w:ll be quite well wt deed out. di— whether you are more or less analogical than others. somethiiig cats becomes simply an economs’. It is fi ‘st tin Oifl e lot ia bu ci whatever surface rhetoric most having the ability to break out of the standard barnes Vu o u you rowed arguments and ideas i n hr ) put around phenomena Having this ability means seei i fo u I o id I it s t ia y rem puzzling when you think example. that everyday interaction can be trnued disciplines and subdisciplines. it is crucial to know when and how an anaiog Analogies don’t always i ode. ii mont s lie treated o cc is the ‘gold” backing up the To cultivate analogy. careful. “fec this is rh base LOpC . you must do two things. have seen life as into print. First iou “rnonc’v ‘) syst i H r flu cted on the uses of embodied have to be willing to make rash connections. many people besides Goffmai. If you ha e r 1 b v cen pm e inc money. hew. you must have not only the character but also the means . you will find the intellectual drama (Erving Goffman. you may need to restrain it. and decision-making all the machinery of economics: gained—unless ise are yen.F iii supplies plentiful and is eli kepr. Often the once gas e an analysis or power and force in economic terms key to an analogy is not having it but being wiling to work tqlda. In this analogy. not even the Ones that make it works. economies of location. lineal growth (exactly analo— is itself a character trait. not least among them William Shakespeare. that there is a close similarity between schools. p t urely t t a flu a! us as problems of power. The Presentation of . and ishsci—tnaugo ecorlonuc’s: economies of favors. exactly out the details. one of the Asylam). and you can apply to favors. LiJl). after all. He treated power as a medium of exchange. But it is perfectly bution of power to iodiduals. au ons. if t i pa a yn hat analogy are brilliant but much. bureaucracies. aLARCH AND AxGuiuoiT Hau uscrics y i ties are uverned I c usual line of analysis treats this think about power iii a completely nosy way They tie bizaiie problem quite traditionally.b). and demand tradc-o Is budget constraints. the famous sociologist Talcott Parsons drama.in. city politics pie teaches another useful lesson: in analogy. Tlus willingness capital”) t p m . Obviously. You may t d t writingthe final paper using disciplines and other bodies of knowledge.

1 could use all industry. . and comb protein databases. Often. Ar the other end of th social sciences. Certainly in methods computer algorithms Just titan being developed ho compLitet ourses that’s true enough. vocabularies of 0 heavily from the textual-analysis methods developed b1 gene ii yr. and I had heard about the hen expect them to use the local methods. reasoned that 1 i they were simple sequences.I IS )drinons 01 D1%( m tRY Saioo-i A\D jRGui 051 Hacacoics iou must read broadly in social science and beyond. t ui a dod much of anthropoiog’. a steal plained in all of sociology—as simple sequences of events. hypothesis rosLxng———ncarh all rians. cryptographers. I am responsible for Ofle 5 13 b ci a ing myself.5cm y Jo I ye to dia on. how long until a given compan folds) were dcvcl be carefulli elaborated and critically worked out on its own. uorrelational analysis. The more those meriiods people Liavc invented for atiaIyairp G . multiple regression mpcritrlcim a the reasons whi many yreat social scientists began life as histo and quasi-experimental design. Most ol r e statist ca a I ti n es tiways reading outside their tools in SCA were borrowed in toto Ito n biology and ‘ I giiit r ys u r sornc oil high school or econometrics (which got most of them from lit It y i i an o ceo nun and putting them nw uses.e ainly for t arch ptrs and professional work. however. tit’s also one of t case). Other techniques ‘arrie from cisevhcre ‘ilic riot it is a iot th ori i of analogies are generally tional methods used by social scientists to analyze boy lot cli 1 y thos vi c usc t i ice 1 n And analogy often pro things take to happen (how long unnl a certain hi id i’ Ia 1 mdv iii tatting point fr at igument which must then gets passed. sack code systems. literary critics. ran’ ii I i. i 1 simple nalogy that is carefiully worked out. each one of which ations of literary critics. and even were deeiopd to analyze crops and raids and rucuhiLao yti ifs it ii i’s. a I borro v i T1ie feel that th y are learning the methods .) genetks. BLIt dot the more general course pa scientists. S U t ivas of i kg is te evident in famous titles mous methodological essay Thick Description. That is why many great social times these are quite general borrowings.” ‘jx 1 s of kn v edge.’ has boiio a I ich i a lik 01101 1 f Livors. the borrowings are more specinc ctnh CsL ach borrou” on contested analogies. ame could appi of ttns or that tick! and that their faculty supervisors will “sequencing” methods to them. That force of occupational careers—one of the most basic things to be ex i ii Its method. In the early 1980s. th better. oped to investigate the failure of industrial de iCCs and the sur but the overall fcr is that many an intluential paper has its vival of sick patients. phi sicists. Students generally r ow i.’ a i i so on. daunts the andogv invols ed Analogy is the queen of heuristics. 7 ( h y not apply i six t hing do these to social data? ut all can ho put simply “if only horro n relati This idea proved quite powerful and spawned a in i I could make an analogi between X and G. chemical enyinecrs. particularly SilieC (diitFuru Gairri. arid biologists to compare dies. But I had lust something important in die na1o’. I realized that one could rlun o ‘her ihrt ‘ mean for t lri tug analogy.

and so on. Since [lii ri Ii possibilities of horn using. uncustomized learning. You will suddealy nod o S am I its veal side s well as its strong that you know a lot more about the educational purposes of mc auci ii u on ou ing was nsequentix nor a complete college a result of this reflection. As lie in id Ar t ment heunis i ‘5 work with the ideas one I know well. legislatures) are embedded in and surrounded by net ‘1 he hst a ulInc ru heuristic is to problemarize the obs ious. More important. not real force. Launaann and David Knoke’s book The Organizational Stare. I 20 \1i TuniC. bi wi n e all os a wide command I Si 5 0 college in a way that you couldn’t before you thought about all d iu i t ci ducij hots. po ibieniarize the ohs ious notion that college is ways. reaucracy taxation? How can an organization be said to ham . But suppose I turned the title around and made stare the ihouit em mug thin s Sup ose the prposc 01’ college isn’t ed adjective and organization the noun: Statist Organization( . now . mu can see the crucial questions about the en/irarzona1 purposes ut I anal p. Jr is by freeing the noneducational aspects of college.ou as stiC. List all the ways college life suppresses edo . There are dozens of’ and itarn1n ways—the nucleus of a good. ua u n ook unfamiliar and strange. t boards. VI is i i phi t I t 1 H ‘ccl is there any tea What would such a book be about? Perhaps the ways in whicl son a I y cull c inpht lie cxi ecu’ to has e ally purpose? Think organizations take on the properties of states—monopoly 0 of all dir alternat\ e reasons (other than education) tor the exis force? e 1 ll. however. providing a maximally supportive cii seflsO than th later ones because they can dominate where one vironment in which young people can experiment with erotu. But 1r ring oneself means everyone assumes universities educate students assume they >t m ci as cit k u uv edge. nd ) I ut I I mowtd id ut thing with that im and emotional relationships. You can also just reverse phrases Argumi ut heuristics are Ways 01 turning old and familiar argo and ideas. anal VsiS wi rIm certain kinds of methods that one opens oneself to A second argument heuristic is to make a rcs’ersal. contentious paper. acci it u t prevent education. providing differing individu inalvsis AnaloLizers and horros ers unust always be reading als with uniform.tAkCH AND ARC LMLNT rhwRisTiCS i2 I ‘I set a b o c gy md or ipuur science were not gcner ci ents marriages by getting cranky adolescents out of the house a p i uLii d mc r ) i as areers are generated in time. 01 Dm OiiR\ . d se or distant. lowering unemployment by keeping millions of young people Surek dir earli stages of a arecr are more important in some out of the labor market. Reversals arc not necessarily reversals of truisms.m). the book tells how state actors (bureaucracies lit ia. You have pioblemat zed oncu I from the cm veiiuionai association of ccrtain objects of the obvious. and make i decert case for each: saving par. although that Ii it always a useful place to start. I look at my bookshelf and see a copy of Edward nuents hiro new and creative Ones Search heuristics look else.lem a fuhl s ught f oti er methods and means of cation: scheduling boring classes. but perhaps economic force? ho tence of elk ‘es. works of organizations that seek to influence policies in vaniour Hr example.

among other ti ii economically irrational). too. which had pIll) 01 to transIae. (2) slave agriculture was eco must therefore analyze t in any situation. well-accepted and carefully tested ideas are pro :t r d( ii’ ar ‘r no sal’ th t assu ript on buys you all the foundly wrong. They turn out to have been not carefully tested methods or mit roeL onomics and gme theory. that Fogel and Engerman attacked several widely accepted “facts’ beiuse tiot human activities are conducted through lan— (1) southern slavery was dying as an economic system imrrie ‘a ge laisgu ge I old t se key to til socu 1 explanation.c by Robert Fogel and Stanley Engermars on r r ot r hines ‘Vi u can assume. and (3) the southern economy as a acids. But tiic Stdtti ig 1 ioait was a . but it suggests an interesting way of rethinking a familia rg F loss does the i lea o employees rights grow ilizata us? phenomenon. Let us now consider these argument heuristics in more de 0 I h is e drifted ti’om teve ‘sal to anaIog: the new title forced th tail. 5A ou eos see. Much of the time this iii? a rjsf on t H s c what it iets you fhe most familia r of gets nowhere. with but in order to prove something to people other thaji those (I ii i p iii es is a e o gut ation but also rights in they are dating. Is there something everyone thinks is obviously true? A usetu third argcinint heuristic is to make an assumption—usu ‘ heuristic is to attack it systematically.atizing the Odious cv rs t t ri 1 rt found the nuci us of the idea. But a substantial amoul — - hese r sh assumptions in social science is to assume that some of the time. Ii i ( 1) (YR SeARCH AND ARGUMENt HEURISTiCS ii ci 1 Nt w l e state n 1 V gotten thete—to citi pose we reconceptualize college dating.) But you can as is lime on thi Cros. dating should be catcgorizd with 1 Id (it 5dHzaliOfl ‘iiat ki tds ot OrganizationS ha e citizens other forms of bragging. Problem. Hie waves (if lecent layoffs and lege is not really about sexuality at all hut about bragging It it ii t tt e hid off na e clear tha for many people rights People date not because they are interested in intima -y thc r worh ri-lath oship does en atI citizenship of a kind. p A o s ddt n 1 are Fit cleus ( t Lizzie. for example. been mainstays of the scholarly literature for many years when A ii d tif rt in rgument Is ‘u istic is reconeeptualization. defense of it waS 0 ad ai es n se 5 w oh y of science. In the process of that rejection. ii e he ‘d c tis is ip to the ss odd of organ— zat’oia. they wrote their book. This assumption led nomically inefficient (and. Perhaps dating in coi Lens-— se that I haVe a topic. they sn iii that s hat von thought ‘aas I) is really Is or even P Sup- demonstrated dozens of counterintuitive results: the money . Note. Ut also has a con at all. people are often right. consequently. 1t i i toty have there been such true. ogel F itt sri g Yot usuall make ni assumption in order to sim and Engerman rejected all of those propositions. One diately before the Civil Wdr. ra v tk P bet S trio s’s tel brited assumption that all Perhaps the most famous recent example of this heuristw rationoiit bust he hounded in some way. making an assumption is often a prelude whole was actually retarded by the existence of slavety. Who knows if such an argumeut at N c ipl .imple grammatical A. Therefore. using examples.

- alti ig [k ii iy ti u sf15. prohlernatizing the obvious led to au exciting in— something is universal we have to think very differently about \ cstiAatlori one tIiii hallcngcd old truisms and raised new its causes than we would if it were sonic special state of affaits tics titi n s - Or you can simply take something as a problem that no o ye . arc fine sources of unsupported pieces of ommoii sense .cI aud Eniermans two- volume work aasai a alot upoit publication and fox man sider the beliefs that members of generation X hold cci ‘ax y years thereafter. nianagemenr 1:212. far from be a e likel o live ii cities /r other rea ‘ ing unusual. and so no. If inequality i. as I noted in Chapter One. Vl’ten Bruno Latout and Stcve i’ool i act id i t xi r s ii oc r s avery r the city. they were not Social science is full of such hollow truismS. Ir -i Ayain. Takt thr roe hat prohlematizers or these ohs jous facts and point to common belief that social change is happening faster than cvu tnioi dii aa difhc ohs sOt h a heuristic sometimes faces.g xooip is C iauue lx in any way true. Yet inequality. Fischer all social scientific wtiting on inequality. 1 no n an I rgu pIdntatir us I ad black azines.oo I : and so on Fot. The world is lit- gar did an ethnography of hId in a scientific laboratory a19 ( ) 9 . But tins turns out to he because urbanites for moral or political reasons. before. it c ‘taint ity across genders. races. with their strong interest in astonishiog their readea. Now. seems to be nearly universal n human systems. tiaü. Or to consider something more controversial.todt ox tiles it need to taLc on so i innumental a project else has treated as such. P a grain of truth in iliac thc A in LI ot people orhanines know these areas doesn’t need to be explained we don’t need to scare are somewhat different from rhoe rural people know. but all are standard fare in public niscourse. it is not even clear what this means. Hotion hit pen P who live in inc arc i ‘to ‘t isola ted—have rcw er I riends and acqailiran take tile idea that departures horn equality in human 5Stci’fls ces—ttran people in smal l towns or need to he explained. I his belier is a staple of pop psychology and e i if n uch sc it us scholarly work. much less that t it i Fiscncr’s Tii Due/i aruvn. F gel ax d Engernxan wcte quite clear abou attitudes or that the 1950s were particularly staid oi that t pioblematizing Americans are losing their belief in God or that the family P i obv o i 1 i a t ti ry devo e nan pages to expl aining how falling apart as a social institution None of these lus muha v s A J it nxx i s if ‘lay that uas so etroneous became - standard They also reveal I : appendix A) that truth in fr. This is a universal assumption of nearig anal serri nra. They are more articles about it. Li o a or Div Rs ScH AHO ARGutLNT HEURIs1iCS L uo u c g abo I tv in as highe t than what it would i tered with obvious 1dm that are wrong Newspapers aria ia 1 c b i ha i they (c i Ira shaiecroppcrs (1974:1:239. but why should we think it need are more likely some special explanation? That is.1 i it is I cople Ii) arc more likely to have ii tw rks it I if n m ku affairs. classes. we might want to get rid of inequalit} likely to b non- kin. pcoplc lookinn for ness oppo rtunities and unusual? We normally explain things that are unusual states of I ax I s . why should we think it iS I c y CiliA fcOplc. yet it is a devour assumption of dozens of arti i / ii p ii e ma y a ix r s deflated by his book is the cles and papers. We maicc thi went out and sim sumption every time we write articles on the causes of inquah r v i k e 1 xc ii utn out tlia the tru sm was wrong.

it is the other wayaround. ‘11 edges comt first. like “things of boundaries’ my iu us hont ci ith lace F and yet an— idea.” tion about human behavior. Becker’s ar ashed to ss rite a paper for a special journal issue on the subject gument was that people had to learn to think of the loss ot or boundarie 3 Boundaries and boundary crossing had become control and other physiological symptoms of getting high aS I sin inabit so I was bored with the idea ‘Boundaries. Mark Gtanovctret . CveL5d t cm uniling in the background on your computer. But the best reversal papers combine data and interpre V 1 1 and tht n hooked them up to make tation in a way that seems magical.—titled “Things of J3uw’imniea. behavior came first and motivation—sometimes--’ - t m self in tile shower one day Suddenly. rather than confusing or frightening ones. This is precisely the reverse of’ our standard assunap s v id I had the phrase “thi ‘igs of boundaries. ci’ i tug die obvious gross 5 out of the habit of always course—--grew out of that simple reversal. whether the data fotced it on the n t ii I t us by h ng a border with place A or it came to them in a flash. D tiivias SEAm ii AND ARGUMENT Haui is in s t It’ i’calized that Ii id taken life in the we something continuous and all of a sudden there was an insid i u and uiiprohlematic. In such a it n view. should be scanned with this simple check: Is this is [-Toward becker’s paper “Becoming a Marihuana fJser thaL rrallr rue? Could I get somc where by regarding this as a t based on ethnography among marijuana users at a time when problem rather [hail as something taken for granted? The must marijuana use was much less common than it is today. of boundaries of Hence. the deviant DehijViot 10 sal Sometimes this is simply a grammatical reversal. I made up die glut tug things that are said oi taken for granted It’s like a then tried to think of phenomena that fir it. and we called the inside a nation. ii tl hugs. very ceneral izat ion. a motivation to be deviant. Tummy the weapons of and an outside. Every not such a simple grammatical move but rather reVerSal arctlmL or. people take up pot smoking because of son’iething cnarac terological. then the authors who use thus trick. er t made it suddenic ne a ii s i mgc The resulting papel. to which I now tain people have propensities to do deviant things. Ufrer. rvrnong the most famous exrnp1es 01’ that ou run into. pleasant experiences. without talking to the I undiries. I was once time produces the deviant motivation” (1962:42). the afterward. That reversal opened up zones ot V 1 1 an? I puzzled over ‘t (after I got out of the investigation and possibilities of interpretation to Becker that I V 1 e n a real criscMaybe social things had been closed to others. of boundaries of things. becuer extrc me s ersion ot this scan is simply turning such arguments started from the standard view of “deviant behavior cer‘: that OP their heads. Becker turned that idea 13 \ lazn a Rn on its head: “[I)nstead of deviant motives leading no deviant Ar other of the central argument heuristics is to make a rever behavior. 11 i )i p 1 Se spell nuch of my lifli studying) Note that it is not necessarily clear. es ry background assumption some standard theory. That is the heLiristiL of reversal.

o tas ‘stARt H SND ARGUMeNT 11itiSIRZ vll fa ‘Stren 0 ii •tak ‘lies tells its reversal right in the title. ganizations subject to the ecological pressures tbr differe they were Ittasr if at y nt r e wit iii a eli filL disappeared. In amples. . and it produced—in —three t e sat it ptoj IC wi ate Er is tliiougls their ft iends ‘rn/sit/c the Becker. it’s the corn. ‘r My interest here is not with the content of the DiMag heuris Cr. ill the people we know conditions X is false. but under ons. Afterward. the two pairs of authois were looking to some extent at so i ran us ttt r iotn ed w s that if we tin nk about s ha: ‘ii null degrct of eni nection iii a group that has several of different aspects of organizations But the fact remain different tIn e tt iii. seeks a way to allow both to be right tb saying it ux d ji hs through sonic sect ndha id connection—a weak zation tic.—r uh r t ian hiouj4 ai i nmedia e friend. Gra Anothir example is Paul DiMaggio and Qaltei bc built on a iios ci tt’r ss as tuicrested !fl what makes inrerpersotial Coflnec mous papet “The Iron Cage Revisited. not your best and isomorphism comes late). chub is had drawi sociograms. or what i in ix H IC Cti( H why are there so many types of organizations? Tiseir \ n It w s lwax s 1 osely assumed that di nse soclograms_ was that ecological forces produced differences. DiMag gio and asked. ‘. a) i iagr ut s r u i pc p e as pc ints and with huts between the earliet (the one that borrowed ecology to study organizatloii va ‘on tt s n pi mt ri t in g onnc C t a us between pm pl —-connections The central question of the Hannan and Freeman paper answei II Ir as lsf ip CXCII huge of money. \ irhin oc r elk1 lie. 3 do things out of what they did see in common. Let me tell you about those conditi the ii us c the ann jul i lb marion ss t lan are tied to Iccause t wy This is the siniple reversal heuristic. it didn’t tion that Hannan and Freei’nan had seen. hnkc aaroa they used their different questions to make very and tSVf en tI Cr5 I IC ft ft icjUt tiCS (50-tCi led xvea ties) actuall . A id w all itink of it as unusual. and then lays our a genera u ith ex friend Many havt had the r xperience of this kind im p1 of retical argument about isomorphism and illustrates it arid e dc ntal” ob ot tact. The key to em. Granovetter. on the emp k Wii. bet ause the two individuals involved were prob pushed toward each other by forces of “isomorphism. r su h niatti r.” which wa direct challenge to the Hannan and Freeman papei I ‘tCfltiO fcQ ii n. ii ui ‘xp nit im. Oframs Hi wbi ii lUtist Ot Soifleont 5Ot ficetions are also his Powell simply turned that question on its head They iri I It’ C Ni it t i ) IS’ C H Set tI 115 art the Strong type of net. nt ‘s empirical data ins nivec hnding employment. and DiMaggio and Powell papers J cjne that lieu i itt rrnat on comes iii of the most widely cited works in modern sociology.’ gio bly c n set e I dirt ugh scv I c tiser eople as well. cal side. — Mt 1005 ‘II Dist. it’s just like Becker certain f ut a C ‘a 0 ettt’n S (licoritital argument shows. why do all organizations look alike? Obviously. ecological differentiation comes early in the lives of organi l theo In n is s as sour distant friend’s tint ic’s sister. Granovetter: “They’ve told you that X is true. Reduced to its barest form. is ‘ii In am. Vt Li and Powell paper but with the now familiar namre of its paper on I iu ie a mr ma rise iaeople Granovetter studied usually tic gambit. DiMaggio or r a u il thc cotictin because they WLrC bridges between Powell argued that only at the beginning of their lives were ntia tin ne e dl c n tctit is fell rapidly if they were taken away. “ i ji “ as well gaps heis sum. The paper turns the argument of another that its head.

31 \t y liii v np olves n ak be data it a vsicrsal i suggestion to make a reversal in the thinking about pecpic. all men do not a. liiJi are mote ot less negatis e electrons. the idea of vacancy chains i. C. it turns out to be useful to disregard rys al e P he a n icom uctors there are electron men. they make systems easier to think through In formal Iills res ersal like so many things. for ‘lnte turned his H) i i) ii se to ill I i lace lea iH a I ole somewhere else. /. Ia onwith posiuve rather than do that. rhc possibilities are dictated by can be a powerful heuristic. by assuming that “value” was a conservable substance ip. As far as formal demographers are concerned. So demographers generally start from investiga . Then of these is reversal—making holes more important than people. had it roots in analogy. for example. it said that constraints Hi There are other reasons for making an assumption. tools of statistical thermodynamics whole cloth (Mirowski ii ts aw Ir Sf ii cdi al iffs). absences that is impregnate women. SEARCH AND ARGUMENT HEURISTICS 1. The third is borrowing methods. ability. probability methods (Markov models) well known (as of 1970) aid 5onhod elirers acadenne administration from outside to by physicists but unfamiliar to most sociologists. 11aking an Assumption ‘3 Lod ii e I and n body can move cx it I )le opei . cii v S uV 11 ai I to b c pit dci t This merely Another is analogy—between mobility systems and crystalline t he liok’ —ci (Ocant y—rnu\ to some other place. Perhaps the population. One side t f larva d u nil the corrat resident resigns. thu (tootball coaches collece presidents. 0 v it n t v ( 1) No a an become an example of several kinds of heuristics comiog together. insight into empirical analysis by invoking a general class of I. rather Like so mans of my examples. tflat thea ire some inobiliG systems in sx bali holes. ending HH clv li_i oiorl er vox. It is the women who have the initiative. nm ills the v ones chain gets to th edge of the ss stem. economists were able to borrow the mathematical bil a SvSte vs ii ss Inch it was liasels true (tiniversity depart.. in icl a sotem. demography.. there are always plenty of men around to hi’! is ti i o w i In.e/ have initiative. Thus. mo a I or oi ‘31/h tio a ph1 sicist turned sociologist. As I noted above. usually from a I iw hat hr i e w u a wh )le class of occupations like discipline that analyzes simpler or more tractable systems. Then solids. 0 sumption is often a step toward borrowing. Making an assumption—usually a simplifying assumption— v here he or she Lllooses. their age is haigc So \\ hi te the pliy>i ist already knew about a specific fertility behavior determines the size and shape of a s in in v bali lit les Ia ed an it un mist rol . I( or t iat it a was i mmli larger class of mo like energy. besides 0 e e iv He 10110 trot t in mc bility ti an cuber the choices or the adapting someone else’s methods. noticed bility simply worked its way out through his subconscious. a simplifying as niL L 1 s ti at xisr ss he i ai indivie ial wai is to move. This insight turned 1989) is h L ass mobility on its head. Protestant clergy. ii Ii as k ( pm t ia tF si i s If i abolished. Assumptions make for tract li tact r C th Sc I Yny to itiove.

and respondent’s rst job When we result: a variety of new concepts of career as well as new me ii” vii it 1 C(jUdtl to c t u iare I c e effects one thing we as. ods for analyzing narrative models for social lifc. F statu )bviously. and background as these iorces in shaping men’s lives. Starting in the early 195 Os. Although Duncan w cu ‘welt ihan aid Dunans iu’ie.RCH ND ARGUMCIn HEuins’iiC: tlOHN 0f popuLLions 01 iie sex. This standard assumption is the bounded-rationality literatuin translates into tOe assumption that every case follows the same noted above. Duncan was able to apply path analytic leglession ard eals o t ii ti igui Ciwetn suth ractability as some powerful guesses about the ralative npor.c. sisting that we investigate the order of events in careers. tlRy C 0. 1 ill c )yi fist t vim did the study. which leads isticed” Ifrom satiij plus sal/ice). many cases will minimal thresholds for success and then search for actions iiiy r 1 i e p’ Mr i back t school after start ‘ until they hnd one that beats the threshold. that x omen can de assuming guarantee tHeir sons’ educations. . ware worth dir puce tO () up a 1 iation anal s 3 strong assucnption—iike the Duncan assumption— An An exeJlrnt example of st cli an assumption comes in creates the possibility of reversal. Petcr Abcl espo I lit s C lent iol start by si tidying the wa•’ it is (1987) and I did exactly that with the Duncan assumption i altected b 1 iidpendent variables like father’s job status. and only if radical assumption that th sequence was eserywhere thc Sctl. whit Ii leads to respondents brst-job status. many of his foliowtrs n IRH L it iptei e as a assic cxamplc of SCA work. and so on. u lutli are merely implicit. t F a at s s tictul the arrows describing what Another body of inquiry that was built on question no itft’ct vhar it lie nio Ii i——is thc same for every case. Simon argued that ration 1. Later researcf ci us mcii idiers i ay makc deliberate status sacrihces to have elaborated on this idea in dozens of ssays.sI p Sunipnuns. because the problems invohed mat Dc and tdther’ 5 education taken together lead to respondent’s edu too difficult to solve. )i sight of it Obviously. it is always a useful exercise to re ditional on an assumption known to be aeruncoLs n let t nud stuon 1 t se asst ption But 1 am here con . even though conditional. but c maulac tOe termine their oss n fertility getting pregnant if.uh. SL4. All forms of analysis were of course weaker than they seemed becauSe they ware u a has e iriplii assumptions. But the power of the assumption was great.i Ouiipaiii led! . a useful heuristic gambit is to hallcn. knew this ality was bounded—because there are costs to the unformatu i erfec 1 wcli I ideal ed mod I order was fathers job status one needs to be rational. 1i’/fC. He proposed that people “sat cai ion. t 1 ii ze t dependent variable of the such a foundational but forgotten assumption. bert Simon challenged the idea that all ecouomic actcurs ue Oh i sly is a it cal ss lnption Otis Dudley Dun rational. and so on. degree.u sump us Ii art ddibeiat I chust i. oh ci c F us asst ptions wh ch are designed 1 suIts. In his book Models of Man. the economist stor. Th etual reLticai. they make decisions by sctt11 u It nt’ i rent. . already 5 aware of his radical assumption. respondent s education.

open to our use distant areas of investigation and hol as not a driver (agent) problem but as a locatio n (place) thinking that aren’t normally part of our repertoire. make changes id what we ali’ead: h 1 nc a $ (Mayl e (1 irke ane Eliot 1989). That’s what makes ‘nsacsablc Somcri nes recunccptuali anon s almost forced on one by reading and broad taste crucial to a good social scientist. the major search Gu’ficld then lat r reconceptuahzecl accidents invo lving alco heuristics. Nader s book Unsafe at Any Specd tecoriceptualized injuries from automobile accidents.. Analogy and borrowing. They saw a ‘. dc theft fell radically in states with compu lsory— heuristics.ill °l I R ipi ‘Pm ìç yoc at once for the helmet violation ann tlicu Haute A final arurnent heuristic is reconceptualization By this. one can take advantage of these other’ ‘areas only n unr iS five key Lu ( C saptei ihr e aware of them in the first place. it was thou ght which I siew my problem? that high speed caused’ accidents. Both moves pro— nity: it was an opportunistic rather than a planned ac so I dose challenging and surprising results compuisotyhehmnet state. and rconceptualtziflg_t5e are all ways o . inakuiy P Ic explaratior for this if they reconeeptualized motorcy— assumptions. But s 1 problem (Fhus. as opportuniStiC But the nbtiOfl of opporruirlstle ci me dial I gave in the precedug chapter the famous example of views ul lenged long-standifli “criminal personalit Joseph (jusfields reconceptualizat ion f drunk-driving aced Hence. niatt . Them data.mnoc crime) as driven by j cit another basic heuristic in the social sciences. He or she is always rethinkin d unk-cli v n ‘1 But automobile accidents had already pro things of interest. latu. 3 i\li I 11005 01 1 )1s Os ThY ScRCH A4D AROL eNT 1-iCt f14s Mik up an I denying major assumptions thus constitute s dc thit tand. the ) ce . in Pie I 9Os. by contrast. Z. at hand. problernatizing the ob\ ions. making reversals. some eriminologsu ooriceel that rates of provide the basis on which search heuristics wcrk ArgulilLin iiiotot. xi you haven a lichuer allO suddenly decide to steal a motorcycle. A seasoned social scientist always ke”p cause of alcohol intake— the co Ic”pr implicit in the phrase these kinds of lists in mind. both of these are based on moves in the Burke noted. The fact that motorci dc tucK fal ciii mean taking a familiar or takn—Ldr-granted phenome non and compulsory helmet laws makes xmmediatc Sf SC 5’ Pet t cat S I t weic an example of somethin stop thinking of the crime as planned ad start rninkmg u i g quite differ s Te t it v t s a of X but t Y a even better. general heuristics. the reconceptualization was a radical 5 tie ci ts a a setting or location problem (too many people have Reconceptuallzadbon is always easier when one s 1) Iriv t rd r t d uik s ci il places) rather than an actor with the lists of topics or commonplaces I mennoned in P probleiix (coo many people are unable to control their cars be— preceding chapter. I ou are a thier. Is my case really X or really Yl can 1 sa\ P ci a far iou e a riple of rect neeptLi’ilization by a non—social nina something new by recasting the whole fraineworP ientist Prior n the writings of Ralph Nader. the they SFARC1i AND ARGUMCNT HEURISTICS ace simplest of ve c a driver agent) pn blem I ut a car (material) problem.

I lists) of space and time. SETTING CONDITIONS: LLMPINO AND SPLit tINU torni areri’ sun nrncs. 1 will focus on how we ac the y as something in the world tually imagine our object of stud indeed. too rh it ni iking ass imptions differs from the other chrct rr imrnt heuristics. TAKING AND LEAVING CONTING case that a good hr uristic assumption is a radical one—one that C. ANALYZING LATENT FUNCTIONS . one could think o”’ both at a moment and over time. lieware of assumptions that are mere Conveniences. time.c l’hey e\pIiCirIv change or challenge some I. D. Ci-jANGING LEVELS arrainly ss is the case with Dunran rsSuinption cibout uni C. DESCRIPTIVE REt RIST1CS thin By ()nttast rnakin a r big ass imption is often something ‘ A. useful in recasting our tie ular heuristic moves that have proved conceptions of reality’s layout in social space and of its lI )W through social time. NARRAYIVE HEURISTiCS with Becker s assumptions about fimily-planning “rationality. This chapter recognizes that importance. In the discussion o” these as the heuristics of space and mentioned the importance ii topics lists in Chapter Three. I3 . ANALYZING COUNTERFACTUALS chapter were largely Coil Ti-IF GENERAL HEURISTICS of the last and our general conceptions a” cerned with the methods sse use objects of study. CHANGiNG CONTEXT an ant hot is(curious ol but his r a her followers are not That B. both Kant’s and Aristotle’s category suggesting some pa’. They are simply a DscRrnoi’ AM) inauci 01 j’ra tic ol hasing the h Ihit of doing them Nun.ets noticed. they aren’t (ENEkAL Hiisi cp nheiu on ieadin or 1 sr adtli rI km wiedge But they aren’t NAATiUi’ti Lb pL’Ricnt dt th or know ledge either. M Fiuis LEst 15 HIS In r we al ady have and making it into something ChapLer Eivp new nd strange t nlike analogy and borrowing.” A STOPPING AND PLTTING iN MOTiON whit h stayed rontroversial for a lot g time It is probably the ENCY B. In this chapter. a ho igi’ was certainly nc the case 11. The other three are guaranteed to LaUS( publi no[i.

for example. we argue—as is commonly stated in various public media— pair Of their context. An important heuristic move is to change this even-tempered scale). Qe might be study for example. ii take the economic conditions they face application is another important heuristic. to decide that nxa be rh determining action les ci ut amds 5 i a broader phenomenon called rationalization. 1J15CRieY1ON AND NARRATOx He ORiSliCS at taletit) Wi i takes place within individuals (differences and values). and is e consider the local politics and Americans are frightem schuols n the toss its where they arc located as part of their con that illegitimacy rates among African up this queshoit text a ss C rudy tumid di liamiLs. hue i d and others I. in that case. and hings that are smaller titan it. or withu families (differences in family resources for teaching) Ii ) C s I i F V in gi Ic social school systems (differences in school resources determining level of a iprion i ii u orocess Every de this literature. things of hich it is a part and that possibly determine of behaviors: investment (formalized in the creation of the itt. a description doesn’t necessarily apply description. [alt I tie at a dillercnr les ci than is e thought it did. occupations are ‘sot d c ays an et’fe ru it c perhaps the rise and structuring of expert but are part of a Iii . howes er we take the ingly high. The ulation as a whole. we really should (This was Mac . for cxampia as context.vs i is a foreywund and a back— I ii r i descrt 1 Perhaps we want to limit the range of a this rafle around. the explicit question is the a suniptioiis I i i d challenging those causality eve ywherC 15% av o r i cc ncw deas at cuss is Finally. and even music tin he study tag turn detcrmiiies. aiiv dest ription also li a “leve1. gr( und Challenging these ing the rise of professions in modern history. Consider eher’s argument.) 1 the s it c if success in school 1 here is a king history of re ii’ o de ide wl he the determining action . turns out that illegitimacy rates are rising ntext t icr t ipair of the thcal area. tad us r s in which the tIn ii ncmhers work as context. c SC ouls and ndibhb hood n which tamily mem among whites? Hispanics? the highly educated? throughout the pop r I There S n ic ii it reason to make some. s’e also think of the s i rkers who isurk in them as portant and novel questions for analysis. la ins study. in the sense that really phenomena that happen in isolation formalizing all sort thete arc things we imagine that are bigger than our object of much larger movement regularizing and accounting). to sa it v on alsv. An obvious heuristic for opening description might appiy. Suppose. condition-setting concerns mple it if it we St . So is hen we srudy industrial applies in some places but not others Changing one that raises iru nrms. we makc 1 id some Chow big” the phenomenon of interest is. things it contains and in codification of laws).) the question o t s n lctc ont i ious But in order to More generally. a tocl area anda conteXt. to analysis is to ask where else that and so on (ii a.

D
u
1 cRunioN Nfl NARRAIIOIS iI1uiusrics
1 ci l)ism ei

two realms of investigation normally coiisieiercd cparaLe. e icu
j
5 ( J )J I C on at
nions and work. Traditionally, studies of n ork treated emo
(Jiaiiginp Co itCXt is a poss ertu] heuristic bemuse it brings to
gi thet rh n. w h s e at ±Cdl s c x&rt or it rearranges the tional life as a conrrxi for understanding what goes on c1 th 5

a cc wc )flncct sot nil things. I at i not thinking here so much workplace. There had been a substantial litciature on the to
if i h ides di ii the out yr letern ines what happens. (I’ll con
formal organization of the workplace” and whether n helpeu Cc
soler Put next,) I am n ore concettied with simply rearranging hindered the organization. This literature saw friendship, pci
level rearrangi i what focus of at sonal rivalry, and so on as a part of the Context of thC thinmi
rilillip p scii ci is iii our

tention and wha 15 outside. structure of the organization, but no one had thought about
For cx mpie, sup o you are stLidying why students choose emotions as part of the foregiound, as part of work inseir.
to go to iarticular colleges \ on gather material from college Hochschild’s decision to make emotions the foreground led bet
ss hooks promoron 1 in iterial Web sites, sod so on. You,
to the concept of “emotton work,” work that involves changin
(Inc’s own feelings in order to produce a “proper state mind
. But on don’t
smdc studs ins’ inftrescs nd se cli parteoi
5
in others” (1983:7). It also led her to a remarkable stuny of the
bud m ucli Sm lents -em to apply to a strange variety of
lives and experiences of people who do such emotion work
schools, i in x of four-i cai colleges and u iis•crsities, urban and
(flight attendants, bill collectors, and others), which rerrans
5 and not C irnous Moreox er, students seem to
rural, tamou
Ce sjx id ins ly in ins i ci ftei once s between schools. How
i > tic
one of the most interesting pieces of sociology of the last quat

shout changing the sontext* (‘mild it he that applying to and ter century. Bringing emotion to the foreground was a brilliaru

cc isideri ig olkge ate rcalhc, at first, about staking out a po idea.
sition as a kind of person cit home t in high school or among a Changing context isa particularly powerful heuristic tool

1 p ouj ? I hat is, the in ntext of the lecision is not
fri ndshi because contexts are usually established by largely conventional
Si imhy tik St Lident in the abstract hot the student as someone
rules within disciplines and disciplinary subcommunities. In
ss o s t viiig o t dl his patent that he is sensible or her many ways, undergraduates are better positioned to change thc
Inc mis that she is cfari up or Ii is school that he can run wi di the contexts of their problems than faculty members ace, because
be t, ml so n. Fins c rnt xi nat ows and changes as decision they don’t know the conventional contexts assigned ii tfe
time dmss s ieat and family economic and practical realities literature. It 15 always worthwhile to think about chai ging
Be t e in ii ssu is on o ontsxt. We change our
iii
the context. Are there parts of your phenomenon that you a ‘e
dunking about college apphieatiois he asking whether we have treating as background that could become foreground, or s ice
if r cht 0 e. u ti c p ohlcm versa?
A splendid example ot context changing is Atlie Iiochs
ci hi 7 ‘ha pp 1 art Hot I sd lie s hook puts together

L’ihP1u’ a”i) NAt A1h5, LdTieS
i2 Mr i in ms or 1)i os I RI

C )Uise I
h LriJ it plai s in th larger one. The same acgume it can Of
ucive iPx
social phenomenon—-work, say, or
xse think about sonw made in reverse. In a famous article on “The Cuniui
precie1
r. i w s ia e i eve! at whi Ii start thinking about it. tore of Local Urban Culture,” Gerald SLctdes -argud
time
T±k the example of tuies When sve ask what cities look the opposite of Sassen. Ant city. lie said, acquires over
cain political habits acid rigidities. These will be in rthifly
Wa
k c—-h a he ix shaped, wh t kinds of people live where in
f ur
P cci, m I so in first ira ii nation is to think at the level of
- iii unique, and they will overdetermire the fate or all Sorts
o with
U r iTv dual city S we look at who doesn’t like whom and ban change: political, cultural, even industrial. Chicag
al rn
its relatively cohesive elite closely tied to an aging politic
-

xs ho doesn’t win t ) Ps tiex t horn and who moves where,
mu v
ss ir. i. an I is hi hr. c look at tfansportatioii structures, land val chine, is qU1LC different from multi-elite New Ydrk and
i -u
o s, n Ii StE CS open and freexvheeling Los Angeles. To see a sflgle paetea
d
i tit jI .n iglit ad! he that t ie Structure of cities is mainly city poliocs is to look at too genetal a level, Thor. only Aou
re
dc cermi ii d b son’ larger flier omenon, th natioHal or global one not see particular cities as determineci by global structu
politics
Jr r it t cc i, ldr example This is the theme of Saskia one should also riot oclieve in general patterns of city
but only in a genera! process (aging) thai produces unique p
0
sassen s 1ij C/s/cd Cip, which holds that the structure of cer
tain “primate i ‘ies” Thea Yr. rk I ondon Tbkyo—is deter terils each city,
ill

n ii d It ir ia u c- as cent rs for producer se’ices (law, What matters is uut that one or the other of these argu
ments is right or wrong hut rather that both of these
works
C OUflt ix nking, insurancr. and othc r services businesses
‘,

further
need) in the global tcotio n ‘I his centrality generates a de have become cecebrated and fruitful foundations for
research
1 ci 1 01 It 0 in kinds U emok vees, a ho in turn have certain studies of Lirban life. Both led to extensive bodies or
levels.
P tids of incomes and tastes, which in turn generate a lot of because both ins oke the important heuristic of changing
t
055
thu in rnai Lets at d kinds it employment. That is, the Perhaps the most extraordinary example of sucf contex
“glob
ptodur. cr sc’ivk es industry thri ses on c mcenrration, which in changing in recent social science—the grandfather of all
seucf
it in I tate wh cc p d leer-sc cx ices employees lise and what alization arguments—is Fernand Braudel s monumental
of the
kinds of retail operations and setvkes must be locally available. The Aiedderranican, Braudel argued that the ‘events”
hoc
131 mp!aation, Sassen s argument (the dominance of the inter Mediterranean in the sixteenth century were just so much
of dVefltS
ii I i’ 1 cv si n of labor) ould be extended to other types of sam and jetsam on the surface of toe sea. The nature
leve
(JutS in a glob ii teoiiomv, was dictated b rvhaL he called utiJuncture, a middle
historical reality that included flue tuauiorla in prices,
chan les
Ii this argument, explaiucn “lower-level’ phenomenon
in trade patterns, and develo
pments ni uiaval practice ama
a i he i o i k me nistaku Tb real phenomenon of interest
war. But
in iy hr.. ni 1 1 irger and cia lowc r-level one driven by the part puss er, in types of governments, and in torins of

DESLKIIXILON i’o NAaRATIOI HEUjuSTICS
l•1 Yet it ‘a )t )ISCOVLR

and Lois
great producer-services cities—New York, lokyo,
beneath everytli ng lila a stead lug foundation, was “struc tion ‘was
don—and all other urban places. Of course, the distinc
are, the nor ha iging and leteri hr my basis of Mediterranean Lei
it S r irc b g i ii he ci vironnient—geography, seas,
overdrawn, Many other cities partook of this or- that ch1ara
‘le
islam boundaries, ii iatu..— but also i icluded foundational istic of the global triumvirate. But precisely what made
drawio
human prar tues ci e nat ire of towns, nornadism and “transhu book powerful and attractive heuristically was that
d Sassen c
ii a re ‘ular long-distance rn gration and return), types of
such a tight line around the phenomenon allowe
allowed dci

write about an extreme version of it. This in turn
ships a id other s ch tI ings F r Braudel structure was the depth tba
to explore the phenomenon of globalization at a
m sr impo tacit about it or bLimidred pagcs worth), conjuncture
larger class o
might not have been allowed had she analyzed a
âme ucond (about fise hundred pages, but then conjunctural
push an ar
cities. Making a strong distinction allowed her to
di ng thai ge I, 50 tb y ro P mc e space) Events——the stuff of
the las three hundred pages of gument to the limit
n st Ii srr rics— take oul
distcnctio
One could, by contrast, choose nor ro make a
Biaudrl s two volumes. The crc ctara and conjunctural con pheriome
but to lump things together as instances or a single
texts krr rmcne them. this in social
non. Among the most celebrated examples of
B ru id s la k abounds n interesting heuristics. His
s. Elias took
science is Norbert Elias’s The Civilizing Proces
u side-dov n map of Africa sh ‘a ng ‘how the great Sahara manners,
dozens of subjects that used to be separate—table
dcsert don mates the sea 1,1972 1: 169) is a spectacular exam on-—and as
nose blowing, spitting, bedroom behavior, and so
ple of r sersal Bu his most ea raordinaR effect was to give ” which ne
t tral g ieracot s of I v I-raising arguments, from the
s s
sembled them into an image of private “civilization,
us
ion of
then even more audaciously connected to the format
w rid-sysr rn r ieorv of the lfOs to the globalization theory , cons i
modern states. All of these things together, he argued
of the i )90s, c\Il of these mesult from Braudel s radical chang
l’s ‘structure
ing of level, his insistencc that grand conjuncture above all tuted a grand “civilizing process.” Like Braude
here rha
the 1 ic vent hch w. Elias’s civilizing process was a huge conception. But
ii cs
ining
idea was not Braudel’s of changing our idea of the determ
we had
1 1101J11fl), S/2ll!Ifl2g level of a system but rather an argument that things
(.Stthir C Oilt/I. (011 a/I]
g and the
cIa ions is a matter I’ deciding where a particular thought utterly separate—-the history of nose blowin
Sec hog 01
one largc
de a pt cii a plies P it anorhc r way, it is a matter of deciding history of the absolute state—were in fact part of

ft spli some social phenomena apart or lump them
process.
‘a ethr
oLis 01
Again, there is flO need for the student to he so audaci
to ‘ethe together
grandiose. But it is often a useful heuristic to lump
T ins a iothiet way to cli oh of svhar Sasseri did in The Global such a
o a t at tl e book cit ‘a a distinction between the
,
things that others have left separate. Merely to propos

and so on. hat it is quite gemicual heuristic move pretations be extremely diverse. Conversely. to mIt His viewed statically and put it unto motion or. ci hi. geud r studies. Nsiii :5051 1 list RisIU s market value.i a. id sSiWs mr inv stigatiun that has been isno the sameas An obvious first move is to take something H. c e ts it to think ib ut social life In this Sense.td rcual studc. it it Static ularitu u s t iption applies os er something that has been seen narratively and make . the belief that the kinds same results of can come a ci st r (TI is u id rscoies an important point: it thc t specifically interested i i C k eral and that if we aren d n ii t mattLr whit we ia/i tile WdS in s hiLh we ways generate new’ the pathways. we might well disregard the con Pu c nec ideas I ‘Fh mc are fi)ur impor details ot’ as ideas iu’t m ung as si ‘ example that determine them. To those n ce fas’ r iunge thaii w had thought fhu has been the over one). DESCRIPTION AND NARRATiON Ha RtSTc$ I ( iV t i it us )i I se )S I it whether we view processes dynamically or not and whc thee w lum un to mwr us to raise a hundred untrue sting questions focus on contingency.tsS ti P a st a oar who are usual. tess statically these companies view the situation more or iawyels othet laws that Epstei made about women lawyers. Carlin’s Consider cond Jetome act vist come quite different when seen dynamically. to freeze or heuristic involves contingency Many so ic s o A second narrative Pints’s rivilia ip process’ is as nuch a narrative as it is mose based or models disregard They are nuivibee of separate cial science contingencies. The senior iii solo practices— that they were quite different smal . fhe first two involve the tingencies literature the people’s lives. and stock within the narrow time frame of quarterly returns ers— from experience their ii. - L ii 7 /x hi ii made precisely the same claim about managers of tuons in high-tech industries today. work within time frame of se tIiarges to tile way reality is de the Ucs riptu c heuristics prop( Depending research interest. spit Ii rs put yr a sely. we are going to want time olve ehauigiiig the way we LiSt on our s ru x I \ iriat v lieu us its is flow. conver ci it t h tower 1 w I is th determining tine. A long thinking about a problem: of this comes from on n h 1 n mratioi entrr ur . Grand-narrative are ii 051 1 ilI pent rahzamions n th ni door apply lawyers who to le. Rather. A rather interesting i ant nartat or I ieuristics to disCuss. dynamic their careers. most histo bee u hr c rd ‘r of the day in tions come apart on close inspection. there is no great issue of faith here. V se characteriza much of history works this way. desk c ptl\ c Ofle It WCi’v es a narratives about in sev . n—the 1920s seem and has closer inspection—looked at in isolatio NulL liuss CVei’. For examp a s r ‘plittng I many jazz Age. many static inter a o m ii p ohr ci t o dr with research. it may ott n Is a Wo for the last twenty cinated by the processual nature of social life J m whc n n r t scn ic But to treat freeze framing as a legitimate heurist v seem crazy C example ( yntloa l:psteins \Vomni iii Lau makes the life indeed sometimes that’s the best way to understand social trs’tr n hat whiie them already nany hue Its about lawyers. bm uc ries of America speak of the l920s as the odds. But the workers themselves longer.

For example. Some disciplines arc perucuhcrly vs it set . 1 n rent JIL accnt hnictn ir ibis particular example of I 1 c i s kid by probk matizing the A. hm I ICJS efrient c nempiovment. we see is’here tile argo- lu (it latent tunctions: th alternative purposes ot college. he t c ega ye it ur itd ou to be irrelevant. here. By thinking counterfactually. Latent heuristic i in those kinds of audacious moves. 1aeht IL ‘fe is not tot educatic i hut for reducing unemploy merits hinges are.i it is dis ess he S irpi c lit W len several writers pro example) and so on. at least ‘a’ ih nic ci presence ot such over uJivil lOis ireI s. Is an eXalilpie Ut a completely contingent model. thit implicit counrerfactual itt A. sonit thing that turns our to My final narrative IteutiStic is the coantcrracrjal. J P. of course: common beliefs about who goc. v Ia alit h Id that ncgati c life events— sickness. 11 1 InIV ui I)is US ticS DiiSCR1PIiON NnacieviiUs Haissice college. he might have ent cu vu ut o vs hich clii large system has dominance over with most of his gains up to that point. But looking for latent tutiCeiGlis I’ 01 0 it sit Ii e tics on otto ma r age and so a useful heuristic i (iLl seoul LI haS C t Iii Sanlu eftect. White s model is ultimately a declared war on the United States. but on a smaller scale. how about making . un education 1. and o on—could lead to various people actually do there all day (raculty iju Out teach alt d. because of its ability to “Impute” prices to ucipeiced rhinn to havL )o lie P at hand so ietii cs contingency i 5 centrally by estimating the costs of the ocher things people forego r i ot i n arc n Whit v ic chat model. kiict Li b no or I s tt l us tI cot nymley— distress came only have happened if. is that he got the earlier gains by making precisely Someone A uhrd rarr. The counterargum that.ç in Motion If your pies r ens lhu lUrk lion of an instilution and looking for latent The first narrative heuristic involves history itself. earlier bold ar uiiplannc or largely UflflotiCe d results of social svho knew when to stop could neer have made the his “mis take it ii t it vhich. more d 1 i it )ur C) Cc nit of the full-time labor Let us now examine these narrative gambits with In ii or the ostensible function. T - articr. mentioned the unpriced ones. tailed examples. it d nanhicl it 1 nu. . There arc mant othur things to problematize about ent analytic strategy is static. Stopping and Puttin. I wevc t nit out to be impor moves that got him to the point where he made Taylut s tuesis Lmc lfOiCCLc n mat be the that these latent functions be- case Thus we see that the core of the argument anour political system in mu ceo portent ii ran acki uwledged functions ‘hen I lies in the nature of Hitler’s personality’ and the in German C ii n th (>1 V US I used an implicit exam that allowed his personality such comprehensive sway policy. cc for counterfactual analysis. however. hem. Fl lors Oi’igins ojthc Second Udiuld \l’di’ (dtscussed in Chapter Unef I h g cci m t C of m ans that we arc working that if Hitler had not invaded the Soviet Union and gratuitously gotten aua ctt the ss rung ics ci ut mali Cs.cct\ e uls es latent functions. But counterfactuals are aho widely used history. Economics has a particular advantag hc mctines conringenev matter hei th n we think.

QI’iat 1. changing Edmund Leach. turns out t has e oceil in motion. lies in taking the sIngle o’irmun’tx the 1 “ ‘ a rh fliuVe into liii- the reality. then. Leach he corn non arso ‘a the next five years drifting in and and then hurrying back ft shore seems to ed the army and .eachr set out to do ‘a functionalist study of a tribes symbols for ssu ethnographic slice of life. f ci 1 a new des elopment spi mgs up around the i ads ocatc of the use or’ history in anthropological ealizt bar ‘n fact your flivorite store hrwe tie 1 I yr u s ay s ddcnl h has-’IiOt yet explaused host rh 1.i. to see r it hr s w i ts temporary location. Leach made was onli a Ic v r iii hs intc the work when the Second World tory and then took it hack again. 1.rmit. iiow about making it in eacniy utiob. Curiously’ enough. visiting nearly every it’s dy’n. Wlien cally blunt prose. that it is too difficult to pat 00 prpea bus PioresIct Yr i m ghr It velop a story about problems between the store who is one of the molt stucc rr pho1dcrs u Evaiis—PrircliarJ. while two positions can be resolved (I 61:282—i’ ts new quarters were bring built. But having the c ntral ditficul its of assessing any social situa Urn He prese s—U Leach himself made a quite peculiar reverse ion at .’ of course. you didn’t see that. hut because you first got to long-rein change possible is to put Ones data in motton. NAk(Rrc15O HiR5LS I I I DOiUtOuN rNi) ociety itt t se a static As with so many out of northeri Burma. 1 hus you might wonder why meant by these arguments is not that history is irrelevar i i I t’ st i ave nra 0 St up in a new location. made that mo rather than simple equilibrium. But then equilibrium analysis in British social anthropology store’s new loca analysis. In his fiaai ctiSit’ classic community studies svas a mirage. a slice of IC ( i i c ta ing hi ye irs do w know which The generation of Brililli amlsropuioisLr UI A iich I parts arc hi urging and which stable. he wrote: (it r W( mu r to a ness town or school. n v r o r a c it t it Bt t or ir imcs it’s useful to attcnd to impi ed ii tile Leach s central point was that the stability that history rnd somerilies it isni.. The more tamiliar move is 1mm tatlc to dynamic. He pologists’ mistake. What seemed to be static Otters the best mm e Leach was right about “history. Theories we adopted at has proudly proclaimed its belief in th rrcievaii ef lihr. fne arithi it that language to do “historical. aflh lie Most of Iìis field liOteS SCCEC destroyed heuriatics the question isn’t whc thor the social world is in fact y. the n ost influential works of the Kachin act as rj thete were oqu1ibrLins sub u w ri ig a c r cv i i one stabilit nut u r Their cultural system draws on a language of i hiop dogy: PPz ica/ Syurmi oJ Highland Burma ii d r by thing. pr blenis Wit hi comper tors aid so on. it seems fixed. tirst seem silly o ice we understa id that this or that part of the for the understanding of social organ aiion. sinyk moment is precisely out inability to see the symbolic SVSLCITiS Cr equilibrium by saying chat the ritual sso snapshot merely as part of a moi ie reel. his tewS eLtA it my wrote his reat book nom memor I istot ic il or not Y iu don t have to be Max Weher to know the and what published materials he could bud. is also in and the mali. eall slice was ni fmr in rapid motion. This point is made soJeries ir burn a. (This wading into the yr re War itt r flu ii a ‘n i w u tone Shortly afterward.ICufl5jlEciILt5 1-ad bcn it arc 1 n the riginal ma] 1 only temporarily.

Catharism hsnmes 1iu at- C I Ia a t off by trying to keep thing strange and perplexing but something deeply consul boil dc wha -r il imio Stan es — was testify ing to hensible in the context of the culture at the time. it can be a gatesimy—uke. I best most pan or is nit is now Fi aiu u.in/ t Error by Em upon it.ili. That is. it is important not only in of historical Inquiry. as frozen for a moment. When Braudel is justify irig ins tel p. in some ways. no matter how ifle repeated pun s Path rn heies They are noticed in history might get there in practice. AFOUL Iri lliatt(’ ‘SeC i’. That is the usual story of the can be big moments to be sure. evidence about the community as e whole. sheep and migration Suddenly. Tin Pmnmi. in certain forms of game theory. Eve-n ex wu I y idur l hr h itt ourse of modern thit tended games—games that take place as repeated mlays o ur hi Ilij ma r ti In 01 S I ither France had been time—can sometimes be reduced to a strategic form in which pcrevcd jmi tly in thi i r role as the last representatives of the the answer is given at once. r ed i o put our problem rhis practice of stopping the clock s an iniportant uc.a’a.ii. about ramily and marriage.so nut. a marker may he It s Id 1 t ti w th igs s e actually know. I a p t ccii I isted ompletely —until death things in the present. Leach quisitorial tecords nor so much as evidence about ( thai u ml dii s i. daily culture.C tI art is r equilibrium. And Le Roy LaIrie realized that oiie could re-an ttie 0)- vi v wh mi is he he irudc. long-dead nistorical re-cowls 1 tir S give rise to a living. it an it Up Vi ith the issue of ocr se but a.J. part Lu mi is h r p c en m we L y the narrative in analysis. I iiss ft s th diem Be provoking these cru t soppressu many of these moves—to other heuristic moses. Hisrori ii us the he-u tiStC utility of invoking as well as ignoring the passage becomes ethnography in this book. ‘ hether it did or economy and residence. a ‘its i [south -rti I Cl 1(0.it. no ft i&u t beliefs (the highest Ca— 0 mcii Stopping the clock essentially enables you to attend to inure I iat ii SOS. too.) notes. rh southern imagine it. ihe maya areas I\ pilli s a vatit to do rhi is hen our interpretation of some of stopping the clock IS central to all forms of equilibnoir. Thus in many branches of economics. It allows you to broaden the context resul lad -—--attat thur ceremony of “heretication”) and for the possibly to change levels. Marshal I Sahi ifl s induential [Lnds f Histrirj But the inquisition that rooted out th he:es kept Je-tail flukes nt Ii the saffle ino e.J L. but by analyzing its behavioi n i ewelleni e\ainple 01 iii s is th magniticent historical equilibrium. b ii is bather rIte dow or es’eLts isas really there. far from stable at any moment. (e one-n 1 [eyed itral role in establishing the think reality is fundamentally historical. cnn 0) wit hut ii usr stop tI s motion that is already there. avnept of scruc’curc-’ 112 J/iu It/Jf. But it is still useful to a r’ lie s r in arini duo. 1 1) )5i1i DCSCRIPTLON AND INAI{IiAYLON HuiRisTics fltt)i spoloists. Uric can specify the direction of the forces plaI1tng et Om aripns ihioTji//. from time to Lime. So. he write’s ur aria .

The first factot is cl c nate systems. Pior and Sabel’s controversial argument sequences of action in thm dependent. what kinds of factors allow accident in 1979. svith many invariant has i cured at e iormc us mass of research on those areas of successfully operating. Charles Pein stronger argument in his hook cii ratc fliany ness s icis s of a theory ot a regularity by arguing work out a relativel systemarc row suggested that one could tInt it ‘s ‘ontinge it on so se hi g Conversely. it suggested te’thinking the Suppose you are writing a tif Was the role of artisanal burst open an intractable problem. Making an even contingency isn’t as important as ( ontinycili y also produces an important heuristic. flexible produc— The second factor is the cu ambiguous or unmeasurable ways. He comes up with m. hut h the history of moder WutIt union recruitment easier. t of the Three Mile Island thrilling. Suddenly. there are also argum 13. nam rats e 01 in iustriaio’atiom . tightly couple iteichat ye hi parts. complex ro lii ti i. La 4 an I carlnh ( ft lfi C fr1 we think. only one way of tht v ri ( ot liv estein (set tie iy and northern Italy. d systems are strongly’ time pling of the system. and the ency UI ian r i . “sysrernatmcalbi basic theory is that normal accide mm il ss he e complex webs of flexible producers have indeed most common in comple produced” contingent events—are mmvii ccl. He thereby systems that are also tightly hc b oP I cast. clearly fication’ created rnoru powcr ment? On the one hand. Perrow’s and. “massi some plaiiarion (1 972:2 89) I lo can two centuries be a created conditions that mmdc 1 pretending that they are. A ca rdit g o their irgurnc’nt. ful employers. typically. HFaJRUS 1C5 DeSCRIPTION AND NARRKHON I ‘iti moos Ot Discos FOS made to appeat? What wetc labor as tangential as it had been Hi t thtsc’ ts o I un rtd yeats. should trial divide’ for the labor move demands the consequences of the “indus I in i a ol ci ía unit. such as nuclear-plant ac 1 disregarding contin theory for rare and contingent events in s sri cluce cx raord’ni my results b like. tiomi u I here was no absolute need for assembly lines and IirS. at least in s me respects. and credit is always important in 4. time I ook had direct consequences out contingency can of temi old ing more contingency or ruling for industrial policy Sccond. The spc t ia izatc n. ship collisions. ‘I hat is. one can some . modern economic multiple functions. The book opens wltn id ed one I me standard moves made in cideiits. the book suggested investigating the web contingency. utterly contingent accoun formal and quao to atis e work. achiees something of a theory of ik s ihc inra tor strut tures educational systems. One can Normal Accidents. for cx— nts—that is.l I’ ii i th t here as nothing foreordained about mass systems have lots of feedback complexity of a system. ents implying chat pechaps By contrast. it i tumcnt Veil. On the other. consider probability—to cioffin contingency—in the sense of random licha I Pio ‘c and Charles Sabcl s Iryrument in The Second Indui two. A numbt t 01 interesting consequences followed from coupled systems. c III 9 ii )U Sc e to sonit in porta it insights looked ditfe rent. Perrow then asks As ‘in oxan pit of taking cc 1itinyenc seriously. the idustia areas of “flexible Considering the role of contingency It n ci cO s I’m heuristic moves of either invok thinking about social life.”ir. possibly in loops and lots of parts serving grow th might have been sustained by small. I t50—1650. they call t.

the book’s basic argument is or’ all at Once in a rompeti us got h all wr my vacancy chains. tL mcdii nc itU 11. Divested of SqUi[)i hug L thin a way to regard all of thsc little fights with a distinct p0 nt litical overlay (Edwards was a radical iot as icr I olei t I u t is s srcma ii . w di ( thu para 1 ofessions or I ti h ti flcctrng on latent functions can take us to iso v I i h s we can then analyze as we Set fit. n o i e risc hu there is lots of its fairly strong po wards’s book Contested Teriain. I) DCSCRLPTUS aD iARRAIiua t1. mni c ru turns A tn sune time. He argued The dci )aa user i Unc 10 (Inal isfl 15 deep and complex. but I of n’eanagement was t that the teal purpose of both schools itini iiiiei csted in functional auguinc’ its merely as heuristics. L I e ViAL e and nacerug 1 3 U pr fessiot like pharmacy. WItflILS twentieth cenwry This was “scientific liv I icd yin dl IL ZC en crc ia of ompetition uithin which on the StOP watches. On the traditional interpretation C fl. But it may well be II ig ri y e 1 t I iC Ut ic Oi OtI1\ i5 k. and similar argument that workers Ides and happiness. dull design 1 w s is Kid ard E An example of latent functional analys u a i qx pu es ionali. they seem to forces keeping it in place richer putpaSiet vi m ire LILCSC mc ices V 1 it.By ic\ up rhc competi that the usual hiscor ci held you cn see them as con view). Of- . scientific in v i i e war by thc ‘human rc a replaced in the 1930s arid after the at inal-c ioice aryumcnts function equals purpose equals much broader focus ufl i Somc t IUS ti cy are purely logical dons” school of management. in fact a concealed an enorm arc sImols lariunaluzations for moral arguments about how so vas fly extended limes bureaucratic rules and regulations that cic c t Ia (iigaulizt —quite persuasiVely control over workers’ lives. ion. gentler form of relations school looked like a kinder 11 1 a[ ‘P1 ci tSom ti ies such arguments t 10 ii 1111 S ous expansIon Of management. employment relations in the United Sratm rescni a lmirid set of resources As iii Ql3ite s efficienct filu\’efOcflt mtingency by seci p it as the outcome of a The traditional argument was that an o n n rh ear y yet rs of th dominated American labor relations for strac tin ed s stem of on1petiLion ‘iou base mos ed to a new management. welfare Iii lat irc as U the classu ‘irnpetati e lunction ri it Rust wcui for a society to policies or cc ii ate ci ii tnins although nbc humar identify the social structures What Edwards pointed out sas that ss nih. with its e U t u v in capitalism. I in uL lid!). ii S I. radiogra ten we look at a social institution or struccu 1 pi ii n ci abs inns pupoic o and it looks as theory of it based on what seem to us the pin aiRS i ursini. You ead books or each one mar tflcic src do ft fcssional taking functions that t serves.cl i tIe fl nit L st management was then Ii y s ml to hc i cnply elab rated versions production itself. stringent work rods and so se fights c h ui dcrswod ss stemarically. rh attempt in U il 0 ia cc cc into a I gone out of fashion SCV was driven by the engineering profess it )fl grown out of rationalizad half ccnturt Functional arguments are ronahze labor on the shop floor had i . ss c oust au I ui) alsvavs . 1 hat seems a ratllcr tiaccid. n in the film disc/na world of work skesvered by’ Charlie Chapli scientific manapemer t lath i1uii limes. piece mates.t kuSS1L it Li. In this story.

Fogel s mtroductoty chapter is kil I thousands nia) be men tells ol thousands. This may Would American history look fundamencaily noticed that cln see n an cid nay to think but in the years when American watchman in the Watergate complex haetnc 1 ib w s c r i ate I indus r al rkers organized labor latch was taped on a basement door in 19PP uctive. xci cc r u n i 1 in cci ms. lit pci t out Adult Hitler? Would Chicago have heroine the major n r 1 till )t Cr t it is u niport in social tortes.zu railroaus were eirnn gel problematized the obvious “fact” that ld have liappene. if there had been no railro of the actual userul narratue heuristics is i bat ij We are used to practicing would have been a lot of canals. ctual heurist ma\ Eu rn up nor In ny at a! 1. What wou ad? Obviously. () percent ni I c s ix met v c mc dii hax c met and gotten married. ostensible functions may abo I rc c yecieral itaeresc in in I vc e ii p reilciet v ad aking care of workers. counterfacruars are vicaily t d cur 001 purposes. employment. was Robert Fogel’s Railroads and zIeieri ca/. however. as in II 1 hadn’t gone hiking in Europe nomic consequences? As Fogel pointed out. a brilliant use of fami t of us accept as a differed in anious ways.” Fwm extent the railroads were git’e. Such a system would in fact. vesrigating counterfactual might have bens met tn 1 or chc. thor F m Ny. But sometimes—particularly in the 196u rately developed 1 yn b nc c iripotta t bin you tE ink t lay counter-factual analysis nas been an elabo So latent fu ctiuncl inalysis S always a useful strategy. There is thus little . s urkers may be considerable personal inteiest in impiur. You mode of analysis. Often. But you may turn up important One of the most brilliant uses of counterfa mi: 6cou. their total capitalization came from federal Indeed. Louis had become a rnajoi tail hub tiIie mentioned the latent fUnctiofl of college in safeguarding dif& rent ii emplOyment opportunities tor the larger labor force. Our lives might have with such information. Dssc IPTION AND NARRcEiO HIuiusTic I)cocFin aneial situation. But what to a considerable ci is in our own lix es. our hr 1 UI the socoeconociQ ta sc iplint (I C I lie sc nate.in. Fe- tiungs indeed. ut. have threat them—that is. It ‘s say of ur ultimate type of . there are hundreds.c r p ijit of vcv f coursc. or people to whom merits as gifts. to improve the argument for s and i%7Os’— ci c I o n n )bs Colleges unction of controlling unem pen.” respec tus of our children. liar facts and 51fl’ one oul :1 have been successfully married. aitlic ugh th c th dy But tile lrent tunet ion w is the same in both cases: con. 1 xc ish to consider countertactuals One of the most he wondered. whether that control was m melmaiii xeaL \XJould there have been something like a fksc 5 a I c t is that the seacch for latent ml. but most of them wouldn’t have been pie economic theory to demolish what mos t r u is rn. r i ill to American economic growth.i their role flat-o and state gox cit P i I . We often St’(ii ‘ly O f o d d iy attempt to crc ate the kind of combined Posing counrerfactuals can be very prod g our case agains cippri ntiieship-scliooluig system that trains much of the labor do it merely for the purpose of improvin what aid h p fofte In (rermanv. Em. I have several of the Midwest if St.

Ion A i 1 i p u i ot only something S BRING 1 COCNTERFACICA us to the end of this survey of general r o bu r an iore important. to think. and so on. They are ideas. starting with a simple counteriactual unei leaps. 1 now turn to them. lit Liii ippy wth any one of hun taken as aids to reflection. the population tends to I lu I igu it log cc ncludes that “no single college (And note that that portion of t C 1 Ic euom yrowrh during the ninu marry earlier!) spins us out. This chapter and the producing new ideas. DESCRIP HON 4NL) NARRATiON I Lu ins tic. die i al 0 the economy” etc a number of other heuristic marriage p4ttctlls TIn e lies w h it di I pages contain esting hypotheses about marriage and It drives us LO prob v i it ii Ii ii i pi nary markets s is the utility of counterfaetual analysis of new ways in whiel hi at d us oi P e American iron r u lematize the obvious and suggests dozens P nu d a r hr t I wit. e i a i hoi w uk p Ic o about finding and Ii 1 ii ig as college 1 (That ( ill v t e lat one m 11 facilitating the mar r I t r r t err i ura1 experiment of sorts I t i C jx c i ih i p pulatuon doesn’t go to . teaching preceding one hay 1 t I a r ceived and accepted heuristic gambits. I discussed a wide variety of ways of will again—that these av thi te ity and energy fogel has should underscore—as 1 have before and not about the true iIC lisp a eve his .areer. you should 1 i 1 1 -l ta lcd ly ii in of dating and house— ples have involved more than one work out the results o e u i the aige b it icr that shape ‘pools” of use them one at a time and carefully you iHto deep water very 1 i inc ogeth r barriers like college atten each one. Although heuristic move. Otherwise. not as fixed many of these exam s t k y n ders anding marriage and They are also very powerful. That honor a c a e va 1 tble n thi ma I et declines rapidly at cer powerful set of heuristic tools for social on the basic debates of s if I i out for t ample at the end of one’s goes to the fractal heuristics founded 1 a xx 1 y us 11 s makes us think about an Chapter Two. final 01 even the inos 1 t i it s veryt ne knows the number of plausi These general heuristics are not the science. But coun heuristics should not be reified. they can get C ) y ieo u w an put the issue of partner quickly. via i m id HO 1 ak n overwhelm- Thus. into a wide variety of ii. They should he r i alv iys usefu Reti rn to the example of and the untrue but about finding new things.

one that will fall into violent debates over That is. A famou irc looks the same no matter how close we Chapter Sax whose fronds is a little ferc tal is the woodland fern. the scientific knowledge that ay ths (tap er. 1 t sfe up a lout th type of heuristic.u llEtRIsrrIcs e ferns made up 01 tiniti made of leaves that are actually littl ferns. tty clear idea of who thc V )N’ lxi A1 155 Nl) NONCON[LXTDALISM Now most sociologists have a pre nists are. The LEN rhrce general types argue internally over precisely Sure enough. soci IX. get to it. and so on. each of F1 ‘iti. by playing witis I\ ININS ID SlissI AND 1 icaui.ti ol heuristics. Realists don’t.x FISM L ings of social life are made up as we go V R’ SlistI AND CONS CRL(1IO\ISM past repertoires. (This is. in it r tht it tru tal narui e A tr ic ml is simply Sc mething that . But suppose ologists of science are constructio nce and isolate them somehos. Others will argue that you by ma shaped by larger social structur are more self -consuor s des ices tot producing ness ideas itself is until you understand ticular cannot understand what science build pr far op arguments ltsctipt ons.’v DsL) IN EL t°l Ii VNF the famous opposition of realists and and repeatable. Con ii. Realists I Pu . Some will argue that this issue of realism and con d ide u he sceond are lists ii p iwric topics and common no. exactly what happen structionists. FR \\S lADEN F AM) I It 511 D KNOLLiit F constructionists. Ax. Consrrucrionist thin along.1\r. we take some sociologists of scie \X/ ii i o l. one th it I r orid btiefly at the end of that fact. dge produced by a certain kin ns.sc i ‘NI) N taR STION think social reality is a real thing. so CoNs i RAINI realists are and who the constructio historical sociologists to be \ 111 (ii ( I AM) (ONSENs1 usually thought to be realists and olars are usually realists. Takr what the level of investigation at whi constructionists. the big The third -i hr general hr titistu S ot Chapters Four and Fiv es. hi I t 1)111551 AND (N Lit R Si lSi\l structionists don’t. Stratification sch nists-—and so on. Survey analysts arc VII ( 101 1. fixed s k the actors and mean 111. pter T o are fractals ii The great debates 1 discussed in Cha ortant debates no matter the sense that they seem to be imp ch we rake them up.u iscs ifl tilL teat debates ut uh social sciences that I dis ism versus constructionism precisely the issue of real strong con ussed 1 u ( hapter ‘Iwo Jr maC use of a particular quality of ipline regards them all as chap though the rest of the disc ed in the thest dchates. science is a given type of knowle nuns that i e cai Ise as stimuli t) point us in new directio issue is how that knowledge is e— of social structure. and narratises in par language that scientists use to the actual flow of the daily gets rationalized in textbooks. FRACThL Haciusrics IC. they will start to simpl(t are ciddjtje rules or creating minor variations iii structionism. the two groups even .

v’ trjed tli tifc Was something more to be the community already represents one extreme or the Other on coming c mi nJ titan simply doing the act. that is just a curious fact. held. No matter how large u n il titan at attest But ni the I 950s. The arrangement of forms of knowledge that is social science. Ci tine statistics have a long history in As this example shows. Thus. ft sail - debates that the sociologists of science were at leave i i air Jo rake an aampit on rhe or het side of the discipline.” . fact means that we can use the basic debates as heuristic too Many people slinped away at each step along the way. and sentenced. even ii we chink tILa. aJing riieo. This la ri is hilil of these issues will be debated within it. somewhat erce respondents to follow a certain pattern? When is a que inn ooslv. loz. they would narratives and reinterpretations of data that would open new re a I or n k w ha it ii h d ot changed hut reporting re lookm piocedrires had. must 5 r ‘al sc breracur a oii rrucrionjst critique. not by counts ot offenders. When those correlations defined a r i p n vi in iza umi sri eys. the original literatu events) and i s in it ily cc st t t cite1 d cii inc shotild be measured only at the correlation between stressors (unusual proved to Dc h mire s (ii Vl( rim5. So a vo ifcrousiotip argued that arrest statis search vistas for them. convicted. constructed one. researchers scatted to think about “coping. In e was als sintilat but smaller debate gating these questions from the 1960s through the 1980s an outsider within the f1///) na/is! group of criminologists. searchers came up against a blank wall. But this cu irus letaincd. the 1980s. weak. but they’ were located in a community chat cite disc soot logy of tn iw was tor a I ny mc one f the strong realist pline widely regarded as realist. you had to the issue By itself. xc labelers insisted rh it rite long-observed inverse correlation be can always use these fractal heuristics to produce new questim t er s( ia si tus at d 1111 nalit happened because lower and new problems. )i 1)is 15 [1 V FRACTAL HJ1GR1STICS uc cig ot so oct in the I when the field had a kind of 1)5() tionist questions were asked: is a series of harassing acm ni I think more things are socialh onstructed than you do” con event or many? Do closed-form survey questions necessariI Cu r thc L n led ip s ith the Wh( I field retending. niar it difin believe in the reality of anything at tion to be considered “suggestive”? These were all 1. And in set distress (unhappiness). re on claSs tttierirlers were mtire likely to make it through the long A simple example of this comes from the literatu p occ s t ice cc s f om art to oiiviction Criminality was not a anxiety’ and stress. most? ‘‘hat can stop it or mediate it? The literature w canwhi e. teal flier hut a complex. How are we to explain stress? Who suffers investi simple. there emerged within how small the community of social scientists we consider. But what is most noticeable to positivis. charLed. These realists strongly positivist. Mr ii )LV.cns of realist 1 construc. the central social scientific debacn Ann rica i pobl life. yet only Wherever we find ourselves with respect to the compiev a ii 0 lid vo i re ill hecoi e a labeled criminal. t C IL1L ii. holds ni sociolog. and emed inure obviously few (Vents n of Chapter Two are fractal in nature. ft o ii P ar ecaus of the unreliability of arrest statis reading the stress literature is that whenever the develop tics Clinago’s crime rate rose 53 percent in one year (1962).

analysts open up new questions and possibilities. giv r ropose that the great debates had their first exis— for them all But I shall try to offer heuristics And I shall ciii tt tat s and bet ame gei teral. Lne can he greacis ca etuicO. ocher heuristics. no matter ss examples fur horn hnmces ness questions to investigate. and Wortman p:obn itcaC. Diffbrem es in coping skills and re ount for hit weak simpl orrelation between scielicC. Now the answer to this last question has been the 55 it flu them as great debates.lc5 cii Ocl its an interestitig pssik day in the UCi 1 ) t distress. Ii direction of causation.L1mO. tions or the research. But treated well. For eaLh one an be used strc5S positivists something new to do. v a ewtldeting vat Lety of c i gut i still credil I I n n it sure whether this throughout the social sciences in . believing so nany substantive things. I Lhc picas central OSc’Uc I umber of stressors than weaker copecs would When themselves widcl (if i nplicidy) used iU a fleurStmC 1 In ts glint. I silali cisc objectu e answer to it. Fitzgerald’s ar whute Lti. tl alt C( ping variables proved weak in their turn. 1 have tried social science. debases or sji. But JUSt thinking about it gave the bates discussed in Chapter Two. As bef( re. ( sti it n non on the pad (that is it the narrative) arguru i t holds uus is histocnJ . That wuuid h That is ss liar I mean hen 1 say that the main importance of for each of my five methodological methods x 9 debates.n jiji Rued. (ISA taL ELti’S ii L I sCOiLR\ arid die lilac not . yuud to the nine basic de XV/. fle USCIU sLibjeCt of numerous famous novels (for example. Price. On this a gurnent it is their wide— and so on. they dtould not be ufu strategy into a symptom? (Kessler.but that is part of the point. wo jajt ssflat point does heavy drinking change from a coping Like uken Cu bt the ti a. aithougl S 1 i that lea heorists of various disci— a stiong influence on subsequent favorite ecenc work av lo I i I ill )( ally d : osas into what appear some cases.d wit mt listress: beitec copcrs would suffer less from a In sunilna. çTnas has been the with l95 5nd. 1 do not give traciitoflS. They weren’t stuck any few examples. which show well that there is nothing like an 1 shall organize this chapter according nebate. of the uthurs 1 haS u C mi11 started asking even more subtle inrerpreti e questions. Indeed. organizing principles you a sense of the tichness of ftactal the grain: deep nterpretiViw w v ew hole disciplines and methods only because so phasize moves that went against who cry our ndividuahsri at Is e it. emergentiSts to seltct papers that have 1 ac n i i cs. aiw CuLl ne Ira tal debates may not be as organizing principles of the 90 exampleS (2 choiceS x 5 than I viart cc pci iookifl o iou hut rather as heuristics for the disciplines. and amples. 7 is Btaah/u/ iua’ DamizJ) arid filnis (fur example. I’ve been seduced by advance fdr the almost bewildeling liversity of me i ii g I b tes It e I m just pulling one of gize in cc tsed fractal heuristics v 1 1St i ks everst.saluate n-. I don’t want to read them all any more enough pusscbiiinies a. trying o shoss how each flat die curfeut deflhl longer in their cuhde-sac with the lousy correlations. such as as common a heuristjc as any othur hiticS. who turn positivist. Tik Daji of part of your heuristic armamentalium.i nature o things. They had matter what the method.

ha d huh I Saral Fenstermaker Berk’s one of the single most influential papers in political science the intlu nital article tin models for thi household division of labor the twentieth century. Key on critical elections (I95) in s I. of the exa c y s C I h gi ci t ‘ad t or I ie two no engaged in leave the reader wondering about the question In short f an icsa t dial nue So in etllno5raph\. and they provide quotations from “metal tUP duat 11 \‘IN\i AN 0 1\iERPREI\ Isal lustraring three different models for this “sharing’: definiiciuiss of 1 fu s C lu tat i bate is b wee i posit vism and inter port. T hyre counted bowling ter all the rules are followed and all the regressions form of relntOr U H A S t in omen ne our impulse is to way out of a quantitative dilemma takes the story lois into von son interpretis detail (as M itchc 11 Duneier preting a variable by anchoring it in a more complicated blind alley does . in a ii iv t. the authots point out that hus sive analysis. in ‘is i sand positivism ate too numerous to count. where we least expect it. 0. diacuc hisband does but not SlOe versa>.” “assistance. a positivist is. a v c I c s s tlic ousehold division of labor made his claim stand by taking a distinctly positivist turn ii a bha ges i wli h ta. . he pLilse is tO 0Unt Lhings tds cilliam F. ii i at tic s the other way as I just It is equally important to note moves coward positivism One ex outed in my disLussion of the stress literature. By analyzing detailed counts of votes in particulan 101 Sit i F employ an ext c ssely elaborate positivist de constituencies over many national elections in a row.’ct which tasks the literature that was until then given mostly to historical.n disc ussing police busts in iaku jfk). In SCA-type analy with more ambiguous meanings.” Thes subsumi on o if c n iv tI irI sho ik m asure social kin y in a i sharing have different implications for the Ion rise projecL reality tiarmafiv and thinking ou can’t and shouldn’t. husbands’ effort for the u ives’ effort and hence Beck ‘gnu Boric s isv i find vansples of posirvist and interpretive moves of analyzing the famil as a production ssmm. It was by getting analytic that Key made his bai I cci to a ci 1 ito jot sily th other family members in mark. are run. in fact. his argument count th ddnitiois of “sharing’ atid substitution” in house was that the event” of realignment was often bigger and rnorc hold tasks \oting the complex differences between hus enduring than it seemed.( lvi 05 respondents ii production. IRACTAL HEUiiS1CS i OS III )L) 01 Dt.” antI ‘supeiwised help. Key’s move is B hc t i I ends up i an interpretive discussion might be seen as a form of temporal lumping. he showed sign: a two-stage least squares operationalization of a structural that in certain elections there were sudden realignments tflat qu don model rn a Pita set on the allocation of household then persisted for three or four elections thereafter. sometimes our irn trade-off between husbands’ and wives’ housework. ks the xvii doe affi. Thus. A partu LLiaily elegant example ul an interpretivist move in ample is the paper by V. But it is important to see that Key i. Key’s paper removes elections from I 1d8c hand and Beth are attempting to evaluate the “new” one-by-one tell-a-story approach that had been common before 1011 c c 1 iii s ith ts booty the household as ‘a produc— his time. is escaped via an interpretive move. place like historical analysis.

924? of voting coalition in subgroups? of a change of heart by soro par of cv ‘e he void use Lli’Stt ritig and scaling methods that iately o u ‘Ii n e’ ci rca into It srers and pkt ures. the results of analysis -sod of such Inns es e mon dazzling. ()ricc lie had cak ulared the closeness’ of all possible result of the changed immigration laws of 1. which had ur is it was ens isioncj by the er a encies that dealt with it. hut it aism :onceiv d trul) a Ii short. that two types of need) people were ‘close. a crimp iter. in tact. Was it a result of new party ideologies? N w Y rhe f th y appear d in the sam descriptions to . but next 1ev 1 if let au and en ik ny e th r novc with respect to any times we treed to break it into bits and level. £RttCThL hc hiSTaS 1i iHor. in the eyes of it. but it revealed aspects of covered. -ft then a ials zed di nc olin ia[ descriptions by say of new party organ ins. S ml nbA ii a y n thod a any point. One hr Iliant analysis ot images of mvcrtv it n neteenth-cencury election resaics w Yorl (\. hnd that i In posit is hr ‘mnrerpi erA is choice can Vt applies at any level in those methods. If your current thinking is blocked. the pairing a fractal heuristic. narration is used throughout social science as h as a story.99). as in the fractal heuristic. either move see in dl ti Like positivism and interpretivism. pre nineteentl -cc ntury theories ot pus crty that had nes er yet been In short. As a result. could fir mor posicis ist than Key in evaluating the tres narration and analysis is always available . as Ke of the results leoplc. sum Sometimes we riced to follow a story throug - And at toy eVel! One can Can ly envision moving on to the compare the bits.s oc I)tst en c arid indec tiniIo. Rachet ida i thilow rh sormal srrateg of critical insisting on a more interpretive form of analysis original papet an tIySi of tcxt a iout )()Vtfts. it is clear that one no matter what the method or the and often used. t en. the switch between I lieu I at p es aLe ni t al elections. ci su major subgroup? The possibilities are many and immed did he product d an tsroundingiy cur prehensive picture of poverty encourage a large interpretive. The in fact emerge to try to explain the phenomenon Key xc s as a a it tH positivi. 1 e don’t expect new research problems and opportunities o intet nit ‘C in wt n SCA and we don r expect positivist II. This pairing is one way be mad b) tity kind of analyst at any point Often. Mohr sought to un can also imagine making the move to counting did. ANALYSiS ANt) NARRATION niovcs iii historical and cultural analysis Therefore. but thi “ovi r ew Yorkers images md c m epts of poor and needy and to examining longer runs of elections. torn Li n vie recent move OCCUrS in John Mohr’s Lion of whether critical elections really do exist. in the ies the phenome H ci s n lozetis or •New Yirk St ual service agcncies into is completely demographic.[ ii arid ugu one . uses m ntioned herr. the moves have their most decisive effect to move ahead is to use it to sidestep the blockage and open UI) when thc) go against the expected direr hon. He simply identif non in the voting patterns but makes no attemp t to lntelprt. there is a large literature since Key that has done just mar. lit kd hc o h ial descriptions of Key’s own rendition of the phenomenon. historical literature. izationi of legal changes in registration? Was it a downstream a new gethet. nor only is the pairing of positivist with inrer twist a heuristic pairing useful across all methods.

Thernstrom traced individu ul ulture intact as in tin work of Marshal] Sahlins on Cap als through manuscript census records. l he insistence that gender is nor a fixed thing but an great classic of rnid—twenneth—centur social—class studies ‘a as unguin a pc rfhrmancc challenges gender research whatever the W. based on the simple fliO ith espec t i i paticular urrent method. He made it in a very analytic way. which re simply talking to all of the residents of Newburyport at 1 c it r m ink al id ai ytic machinery than the rest point. ii i ss ut in t tad i thai r sun ing that there are stable 1963).. place of residence.. it means ins esrigating trade—offs in ture. h twans hrgerting about port. “Warner got it wrong tr x i p1 s s up dii of iii last twenty years has because he took a snapshtt when he should have watched tI” e tow i ci mu tfloft narrati ten poral approaches. Meeker. hut the anah us narration h untie move is often not just a Not surprisingly. counted noses. movie”). predictably. in ethnogra “putting into motion” heuristic (that is. the most damaging was Stephan Thernstrom s highly new cthnogtaphv embeds its local events in larger narratives analytic study Poverty and Progress. or some other large-scale his in that he looked at th life histories of individuals rather than u al pr s I n in at hroj ci gical linguistics. this switch can be seen as simply the of anthropoiugy. Thernstrom made a narrative move in I-long Kong factories [1951)). highly analytic and static (Warner. a kind of industrial-strength ethnogapl p si i tnt olc. bLit the product of social doings of some The constant tug of war between narrates e rid oa1yii. discussed in been marked. it ‘aas widely attacked by historians. The dered. [19 9J. globalization (as in Janet Salart’s work on young girls From our point ot view. While matter or settIng n motion or stopping hut can be a specific some of the attacks were. Lloyd Warner’s immense “Yankee City’ scudy of Newbury- n d is] ira . 1 vailaule. and xb H wa i [195 1). Indeed. The social-class concept Warner used in this work wis c hi of ci at d w mc rid in. Massachusetts. sort” I hs I 2(g That is gender a performance. us cr time. nclrrative heuristic of freezing or settingin motion. and manl other things (Warner et al. furni beth pupel Just mcntioned. howevei in that se . nor a rote. a process of moves is even more evident if we consider not a piunicc ii a cc c r at d nv g certain symbols in cer methodological tradition but a genetal field of research Studies La conic s wit i the tent pointing to oneself as gen of social class in modern societies are a good example. nor renewed insistence on local ethnographic validity. In SCA analysis like the Berk and and evaluated their class status based on their language. the rsoe toward mote OiVC methods tu. i-a t F) ins FIIAC1AL HLURIa’iiCS 1 In die nrst instance. d hopiiig capitalism (as in the showed that there was far more class mobility than Warner had ss ot iael iraw y ii he ill ing in American factories suspected. The . the drift to narration iS So stl’Olsy thu tin i e e c h t r. a id ss i ung how topic mark gen done by dozens of workers who talked to hundreds of peple her distiuctiom. and Eells 1949). F e\arn in one of the most influen ethnography is ripe for an antihistorical move——perhaps hasi a cu c I rs I i der icratu t (dsce West and on an ahistorical theory like rational die ice perhaps based ji D& turn erman argued that gender is not a set of traits.

i c 1h o litcrature dcliberately as- dog cal mc bl 1 capsule form) the histories of two dozen al Oi’ig. t t S S ci y L C ss V y h Id over ti ne. t stiongly with the con least for a while—was the price that had can you opea nd ‘r n mpor ItI nios by BIau and Dun an’s airea ly discussed Amer assuming away some parts of a narrative ‘. The reader should nor tnine thac e tiler di ipter ill if ci t r us-in lividual variation in the “nar the only possibility. assuin. war. in forcing bourgeois state populations. sis/narration Ce indeed ch whole tradition thee stood ‘n——conceived of the Before leaving the icactal heuristic of analy that move with the “riarrac is of mobility as a jump from the static class status of should consider some examples of studies already highly an a fathec to the Statit class status of a Son. Ifos narrative to be paid. moves. most of the change in the i fat it ‘ cia s studies that are already narrative but mak agaInst the gram t tin t rc f ::npai ‘an nd (as xse have seen in an . u i h c icduced tlitir lives to coded sequences of the almost completely in char periu d. BLC in fact tOe same d ci ii ii n cci vi w c’ople 01 seek er identities of occupations like secretary and bookkeep cha! lbcu als. that of democratizarun: participation or its threat was central ‘ hat cli c V c c i Ii irgm in th natu e of occupations them. analyses have left our another narrative in or threat of foreign I )cg e iid R si parer accomplished this by assuming . if wc u r t i liink U a peopic were rating the pres thority more broadly throughouc their . hut it is important to real Democracy” Therborn s paper considers one by comparing — izc I at a litcma mc has to makc such choices in order to move rative problems—the rise of democracy— modern democracies. ing to an even more complex narrative tal and the Rise m ho make so man\ ‘analytic moves—moveS away from narra born’s influential paper on ‘The Rule of Capi of the classic nar tint sounds is omcisoine. as t work of Seymour Ma tional prestim’ ratings are stable over time (1966). P ml Siel a id Peter Rossi on the history” of occupa rise of democracy is a complex and cont tional prestige iii the United States establishes that the occupa result of a single variable or constellation of variables. But the .ni / 1 V a nit pa rs of the history in order to get at oth [us argument starts where Barrington Mooras Soci the tiotion that the is F x cxampi hc enormousl influe itial paper of Robert ‘ Dictatorship and Democraci’ leaves off. ot DIStOVERS dc tailed histories of individu tige of the things throughout the period. ens itselt by niov mi me pattern of ci uses All of this in order to make dramatic An example of narrative ana1sis that deep level iS Goraii Them àfldi\’tk compar!sons. ignoring that chaoge—ar cia. ior tlic ilodge.ien Or zrpetioI ruJrtIm Thes students of mobility_and parts to analysis. a crucial peared to be in the mLcch more analytic ts that prior narrative elenlenc in the StrUt tural s iew taken by the Blau and Duncan tin Lipsur and others But Therborn insis essentially related to u o nid most laccr sociological study of mobility. Oni b1 move with u naf cc a en o it a.EIAi 1iLuRe rim M rjc>ii. He makes a strong case that war s to spread access to pow er and au Sc v b nut ‘t U 15 i id 196 ‘Cot assumption was necessary. He thus oum ‘. with ingent process. ng away most of the lifetime e further narracis e C r stand ig. of course. The move was ana grain rather than against it studies that are alytic but make move to become esen more so or a decisive I ci it r early ii le c s. Fsi .

a papi r t sa 1 ‘ i ot ccc or decade.)numies leads ci theories inconsistent \ith. uhserucd phenomena. For if secret speculative reward exist di i . Effectively.>: pointed out. this was quite close to “stating that the marginal revenue product of economics is zero” (1961:316). the Much paper assumed that at least at goods in turure rime intervals. or inadequate to that the firms they studied were as analytic as they.un. An Vi’ll mon i rat spl bu s ‘he othet direction) someone has taken advantage of it and hence removed the pos s John Moth s “Rat o I x w ta iss cnd tIc Theory of Price sibility fiom the market. it was argue transformed our s iew of governn i t inte vention in the econ speculators would take advantage of any difference betweer omv. however.i Muth’s argument was later used i Movemi nts. On the the same place as taking an analytic turn after a narrative o se . firms (as a group) were as good ci iniori’s Iivporlwsis of ‘bounded rationality” (discussed in predicting the future as were economists. This ex expl. The paper starts celebrated article than in its seemingly extremist insistence with a pureR rorinal analysis of an economy in which produc that an already absolutely analytic literature become even more ers are predicting the prices thin will be able to get for their ana1 tic.itc i tirm ii s cu an a tal ng advantage of it. cmi hasi idded Thus the analysis/narration debate also functions as a fractal argunient I T i ‘I there a re a substan distinction. Our interest here is less in the policy implications of Muth s nut thin in iact act the way tefloni 6 would. Much. We should note. until attack Keynesian management of the economy Since govn Robert Lucas and others tasl oc e rot its kernel a theory that ment fiscal policy was a matter of public recoid. it’ i\[urh 1961 16. Ti specifically attacks Herbert the level of expectations. especialir ihanges over rime.1 FRAC [AT HEURiSTic. sec Simon 982.S o) . an in onomist makes i t onglx analytic move in a government-supported prices and “real market” prices ii iii tradition of research that is alreaux highly analytic. but they also might as well assume cu. that the ordei /p wh J’i ciii and predictable di I e b ce I firms expectations and one takes narrative or analytic turns makes a big differe lii hcILi\ iot of rl c ii 1 sin ice vould have been able to Taking a narrative turn after an analytic one does not get you t . sonic n u v Ii i thcr vei i cc complex (Note that his would therefore have done that (if it were possible). As Muth himstt Chapter Four. not only are process canceling the effects of government intervention. traordinary assumption produced two or three decades of Our h pochesis is based on ex. he says. Not and’ It is suflietiflies arcied chat the assumption of rationality in were economists analytic. vhar It a ly a c m a i ison c )mplex historical general economic assumption that people arc ational. and if vasiio I i du a s ii le vat iable of war but fore we are safe in assuming that prices as they turret tly e n r to look. more exciting ideas.a Civ the opposite point of view: citing research before the rarionai-expectation hypothesis WaS it at it iiaflUi u union u models do not assume enuligli rational finally deserted for newer. s c Ii r n i s differen wars played in reveal all such predictions about the future including se c 5 1I die liistc c i ii s I C 11151 IC speculative ones. economic actors rational maximizers at the first level. 0 .

If we less standard. an I so OIi move in either direction.s than arc visible using the methods I A useful way to see the fractal character of this contrast is cc in hut rather cc t ious sat of people look at two influential papers. ( la c. I hat is. given: Howard Becker’s magnificent paper on marijuana use Bc cot ipa is ii i u. e 1 had de heuristics has a big impact on where you end up to i ad in dia jic I ur I d I ts dorrowuig bacaus k’J that r ss as important to think about tha full scqucnces of III. ng thc usaal am. unconcerned with the meanings ii . while in the other it is i w is n I ii pot at t q sum s hut lot diffterit rca. both of these papers m ha L ft em of ju niterestnlg It is not t 15 r consider the application of economic ideas to family life. We normally think of the SCA tradition of IN tL H Ott 01 a geitetal labor market. in— S oc this men example shows that the order in which you invoice tmacta hoi owin of opti mabman hng methods ftorn biology. 4(1. dirrecnt sat of rhmy. He was playing with our sense of the relation between behavior than wake a ‘iarrat1se mose and start to ask abotit the chang joy. In this first case. on observable behavior or aig rirhms wool I create on meaning. Rather. distances’ ber een careers. hen wa srtid v otkei s v make the an used this as an example of making a reversal in Chapter Four. hi r s limy. we inevitably think of individual episodes of The reversal Becker made involved just this heuristic Rather pat tu ilar w rha P winy c itpl w 1 (0 (10 partiL ular things at a than assuming that attitudes precede behavior.. I made a iiarratis a turn hrst. As it happens. i ti e I m am ulat labot market. hut even within that framework it is possible to lii d. With the heuristic involving behaviorism and cuhurabsan we i lovitient and ud cc an n hc tuli uqn ‘net of Hinleone s work life as move away from debates about forms of analysis to the heuris ut Lii 0 w as analytic. I’RACTAL hEO RiS’i iC. we are seeing and meaning. changes in likelihood of hir methods as largely behaviorist.. 10 5 ii D c ornes win the story of my own us tat n ci sons to different people with respect to different theoctes. n. and I cus on social structure or on culture.id ha a Lssit LCIT. the issue is whether we In got irhrns t 1 iat s tra usc ci to toit pait siands of DNA. one of which takes a behaviorist turn and Ofle Ic c i wr h t ther the historical develop a cultural turn. of panemn search One of the best examples of this heuristic I have aireadt i’necho Is. they’re that application is part of the hypothesis. a. The questions of interest aren’t tradition (SCA). s it types of individuals of things. both in a single methodologic’sl ha ci v We ha i ti cOntinuotEs set of transactions. is something to bc explained. . ii hi my. as is more oc an moment This in turn leads to thinking in terms of labor m i bats wit re th e yorker-jul units are riansacted. Ir one mit it He s ti r gilt set an I one the wrong. s 1 Bi vi cSNI) CULTURALISM vioiusii U( pits ‘c N r tIn r than jus a it psiara instance ot cm epation. Becker argued that behavior produces attitudes. I rca ized that 1 could tics drawing on differences in how we think about the ontology anpoi tam i cxi of social life—the elements and processes that we imagine omp ra ira rs C y am ioying the sequencing-Lompanson al The make up the world. tc turn rirsc.

c Lilt nrc. \ hat was not known ivas is he tlic r behavior did as well. not attitudes. v of husband and wbe to make money outside the but doing it better. larger phenom variables cannot be lumped together as part of I )td upn i and middle-class IloLiselIolds just talk a good line. Farkas made a distincti bc w i tat viiw ii t oupi s seek o maximize total househ e haviorist move within a tradition generally regarded as already utility and henct a Iji it their division of labot to the relativ house quite behaviorist. It was a matter of doing what we airc’ady do. al Husband and pened. it was regression analysis. with leir alternative hypoth test three basic over a family’s life cycle. but it does so by moving toward home) drivi rite dii ision of labor. Not sur— of social out. the dependent variables are the descrig ds re This move of lumping things together is one of the is ifhs in mal is srk outside the I ome and the husban uence of on households tive heuristics of Chapter Five. Indeed. Lesthaeghe’s paper advances our understanding of changes in u a ‘v ri ic s n chin ath n (iI# available wages outside the ill demographic behavior. Hence.and upper—class is more surprising—in Ron Lesthaeghe’s widely cited “Centu ry husbands and WIVeS are more lik ly to accept women’s work of Demographic and Cultural Change in Western Europe. the big results were surprises. ena. auth ii i ci e . dhat n behavic inst about the paper is its insistence that we The There are two heuristic moves involved in the paper. JJtSIJL r se and the “relatise resources’ argument that home. perhaps eses to which the division of labor. witi cxc 11cm d ira at d eflec ive analysis and. We can see the contrasting move—wlklch h IL hc tb itt in 1 theory ri it middle. which are designed to separate the effects it t i i It r Ia iv resou es and subcultural by pothe— ii d t whether cerran ent variables. subculture (class dirferences k a o re if rh lust papers to look directly at the family best. An important conseq I irtid Ii viii it housess oiL Most earlier isork he employs Lesthaeghe’s choice of the lumping heuristic is that wa h rse 1 it e hi ogra hic or interview-based research that lumping: factor a quantitative technique aimed specifically at gave ltss at ention to behavior th i to attitudes. As often happens. s r hap a n ove toward behavior. hut retrial perform inCc’. karl as aims to economist’s For us. It s a modcl presence of children played a central role in dererminin the CI( nce. rlLuimTIes Mt LFIODS Oi I)IScOVERY talk a more Lgalitarian line than they actually lived. (It is important to realize that once one - o ri car I c it Li va easy to suspect that couples might . chat rh pr snity. As opposed to SCA’s much more common slear from it cat 11cr reseat ch that those attitudes took the of differ techniques. Farkas found that the relative-resources (edanu. and that division of labor changed radically U IC it p wiant. George Faikas’s “Education. cxai ii e ii rt ii des bout the household division of labor first is locating demographic change within something larger.x \agc Rates and rh Division of Libor between differences) theory did badly. FaACTkI. but the wage-rare (ecological) theory could noc be rulul or of-]ibor ‘ueuon with itt nig modern data. factor analysis specifically asks s. the important matter here is that by insisting an theories about the household division of labor: the old predicting behavior. it has been very influential.ju ii artet t ion. starts looking.

i. Once again. coo.m p1 t make yot think. Lt unmistakably explicit behav of literatures invoke itidividuahst tneories and iCe ‘versa. Methooologicai individnaeiss v e ved as ii hI stations of cultural dimension that had a! are forever insisting that only individuals are real Yet most I y cmcrgcd at the ime the demographic transition in us are closet emergencists with working beliefs in SoCial gluaps F or pe çLst hat ghe 1 9S 1:41) and forces. Lii mas an I Lestheeglue s whole enrerplist ii this influential article is Florian Znaniecki s dye-volume series on Life Fe/it/i Pejicj.iStii / ri til cv it Ii e is it es ci e pelt of a broader emancipation measured variables. fending his emergentist views and attacking 1 i d ividu s. lite-tahlc a salysi through which rates of these four behav . Philosophically. death and migration. th 1 I ua Ily at a plane rho ot rn us. foi example. iphc Id by the accompanying communal or family au translate into a comm:tment at the flCXC ievl. chat wcthiu a pirieulae taa. dot 1 oi e. Lesthaep te moved ver much agains in that the author spends many (probably roe many) pages etc- train of demography as a social science Demography is r aisni. The apparatus see this in any methods tradition. from Mai it ten piod ii:e estimates of populations social science. Its nanv w ‘s m 0 the i sost behaviorist of the social science Yet this pairing. Ofi CCII iors. this is clear from ward behavior that can be measured Leerfia ghc a is to -vaid u i s lula pi p lu cc for its move toscard individualism ha. ncl he manages to use quanticec v cc i there are fo mal. . Yet nowski onward.al t tot iv an I cxc hane pattcri s. give way to the principle of ways opeti. Farka’s iTme move in SttO1as or (c r puiposCs If srhacghes paper is less interesting for culture. In ethnography. isake is see ccc mo taphi hange as a part of a cultural shift. 1. we see that a ommirmeti I i\lorc e i ic ll th demographic regulatory mecha one level to one or the other side of a fracrac neuristic due did nisms.--or a course on sociolog that is widely undecscood as sctougly behaviui sc I i nil in ic al statisbcs. INDIvIDLALISaI AND LMERGLNEIISM main of ci us tion I Ia purpose of this exercise is to explore the extent The debate over individuals and emergeucs ms I ecu out oc mc to v hi h itrIent changes in fertility and niiptiality can be most enduring lii soca1 science. Al] toads arc.ni iu of aschJ \Ve see. is one of the glories of fotmal to ual study or hf lust ory.) sibie to eitht ditectton. Cd Lit 1 lea cultural construct cche rise of 1 t uc ip ni ip so ite icc s: sured’ only as an implicit commonality amolsg cs. Every reader of Durkheim s ‘u1c1de hr ow In making this move. tIJCTA Ljisi’Ii M I ii D o D st )‘ [‘tY ic not ‘i behavioral cue. hc tel allowing an c xtension of the do mic tationalit to ti e pht-noinenon of reproduc IV. age and marriage the dominant tradition is etfinography of groups. Yet there is an ecjually old teadicion of incluvid ti cturc s. mathematical methods for many heurist techniques reach far more u 1 es to do it! nic is ov s St itisti al cod mathematical i. birch marriage. beginning mu W. emergentism has found itself the t the embattled position. can be a fractal heurist c Emergei nat - entral variables arc ra es of Ii.

Jr. But hidden in the i v • p )c I et i ist’ Olson lflswt r to this question was inge— of category thco incentis es—various couched in the impenetrable mathematics Co is ins okimip Wlhtt lie called selective study of networks: contribute (giving was a concept that would revolutionize the ways the t. Of cOUtsC. \‘ithmn An the same time Olson was writing. using fairly simple repre t c 5 1 f sun a locus i md viduals. with isolated indiv anal ysi 1 s 01 1 urse seesasveci br m my desa logist Hath ry. demand. As is often the case with such original I u sit Is ta tt s. (‘I hose who relations between larized the con notion that there are individuals and types of Etc e ii dee s 0) son s was nit analysis that popu papers. as s not from the no tive to take lence of Individuals in Social Networks” start rhine who can cut assay ss tab it have every incen rather. ilium is ithout contributing anything. FItACTAI htLRiSfia. similarity of ii r ive lence isrr rhc lasr half century’ is The Lugh ‘f Colltct aim of coliaborac to show why came first. m Am mg the most famous book individual interests their social groups For Olson. from the do so are the hon that there are individuals and groups but. similar mineresis question: not how is it that individuals with Apai i a pro I wa ri sec ci is I actal duality in action is to define individuals is major nethod tradition. I Ivi 51t inoos or Discos ms ctive aCtiOO uo t 1 ries and book ignited a debate on the nature of colle I is loch was largeli built on life histo ed in the classr toe anthropology has continues to this day. all h i is mb r. many is the them. it activities. contribution. Olson s basic aim is nd. get together in groups but rather should we i m pa e s wthi a t a positrons in all of as similar when they are located in similar i s in so is a It ris li. and location in groups (svich the or iii \lannur olson. there were further problems (who was to network ties are the same: a time s c mm c ‘I cove imentivesr and so on). whether the members cont ctural Equiva they are called. struc t (giving them pun the concept of structural equivalence. And it r orical A. Whue son White was moving in precisely the othe pirricular historical isorks. he wants to question ft om a resolutely individualist pit g similar (in in use of the benefits they first. as in Sahlins’s all of it scam ted supply. thu tis 0 bus els of analysis are often ly time ce”erse employed similarly formal methods to ask near comnpletel\ triter iss used. Loos thrum posit is e tess ards) and those who don’ actors all of whose turally equivalent actors are defined as those islinmeimnA. and we could understand people as bein tI a t a t n t peopir joi s pioup beca of social location terests or in anything else) if their patterns r i t sir H mote that pro ps often provide benefits for ribute or not.mf ftc t iding.”) But if this exposition char levels of complexity were included in this 1 ‘ cxpiain why p ups that prov ide collective s is complexity and have since been forgotten. For White. and so on. he starts ing on producing collective goods) came seco uopie )oin groups and participate in group in groups came was exactly the other way around. the socio great man biogrephical history and corporate histo r direction. Francois Lorrain and Harrison White s ‘Srru \Vhei it comes to these collective goods. were similar. des between in the traditional manner. r ( ta m C iok i i rh 11 iwamian Islands Hist iduais. Location misc. Al of this was argu lifmhisn iv docuincuts Th hisu ri al turn f senraniuns ul mal style of economics. but the ia .roup has of taretin&r those is ho ely speaking.

a and h original work and are developing “netwo ics of lit h . so also is it available for us Similarity became network similarity. ss 5cC that toves toward . there lence [ he strucruralist Ronald Burt wrote a . structural equiva ethnicity. a ns that drove Whre s I ( in e\acrty rita sane ways as b does ?rom rare logic of multiple types of relatio a ci obh ci rk” concepts of ma then. We have Whitc. y called everything in the social world: race. gender. are the and James such a big potential impact on social science r sac. But there orisingly gis en Burt’s allegiancc. But th indi id ualiscs went metrily on and because tney hava has ig a lo c I network ties was a kind of look at those. is steadil inutpr at sit mi oral equivalelkc. C ptions or emerfcni ones ctit H of iotmilitation with methodological individualism. IRACTAL 1-icUitisTiCs 6 Mt i w. lndted. in frontier. Vt P vh t â t ie emergcntisrs like X’hne (usuall edge—whate er. Relations ualism or emergentisici ence. aesthetic judgment. Among the most exciting. too. bringing together the aid \\ hit ) I. structural equiva and it is useful cc eventually devel— larly interesting versions of construcrionism. (Lorrain ditional microeconomics. Writers like Alain Desros u iidar I variable in traditional SCA-type . ate possible despite the usual associ a new line of investigation. riley arc substit at its wrote about games to [cc m ni to ideritif and b. and so on. ieres.ie o P a structure 51) it )i incentive theories of tra utable. this ately questionable now virtually a embody dozens of arnitrary and often deliber or of tht great grt kth oncept I the 1990s. Readers re no Not sur little need to illustrate constructionist moves i v it he as a I the two against each other (1983). Baptised by Pieire Bourdieu very census figures notion has become analyses of social statistics showing that our Ci leman with the name social apital. doubt already familiar with them.-j m s Coleman. for cxc rnpie) conceived applied to nearly lity” in net. The V. Just tr undcrstandin roics and social structures. REALISM AND C0NSTRLcTI0N1sM re his 01 1 ic rk analysis is cxt tamely instructive in this s probably the tthose opposed to The interplay of realism and constructionism at 1 Tha “intl s idualist network analysts spent the last thirty of networks most familiar of these debates. years hearing the phrase ‘social construction” hugeli n ret ms I cliques and iseasured ‘ccntra class. Simon Szteter analyses of field after coding decisions. I ci sty ii de in more routine social ac come hrst.Ds (ii I)isi vrav pared down the eLton held Meanwhile. Peter Abell suci t Sc a is I asr structural concept u networks’ (1990). i d P i one t at research. in kets that invoke many of the classical L u:iy ajws clam. 3 concepts of gamc networks and the relatively individualistic elaborate the theory. Li cli i. \yhitc and hi cullabort to 5 in I lol O\ ers would y takiüg new turns into a Corflpre So this fractal heuristic. or it dividuals. scientific know1 suructuralists ii t us Inc aturc) focused on is relatively widely cited paper Because of this huge amount of material. making it as it drives the research within the old turns. the struci uralists have s structurally chuisalent to b if a relates to hat xsoMs. Making a move toward individ div’dcab sCC( 1k a pohlem or findiny individual cots always available as a means of rethinking in t a. are some particu lence won. nationality.

Chambliss love i cii hi nki ig in e rid all too often stops thete. short. Fry in iy out how our labels for what he called ‘the mundaniry of excellence oct upatira iS caine rico existence and how loosely the labels are Superb performance is really a confluence in dozens of nThH related to tie r air res un lerr earl 11 tell us exitemely impor P. dwayc gi.asiorciili in thur telativc’s businesses? i/hat do we do other way. the>’ are done consisientl> and correctly. against constructionism. is ci tant things ihoot the labor market. improv Ii torcal 51 ties ot occupational numbers. There is nothing extraor if t ic cii is aicgo dina. lawn ward realismb One is Daniel Chambliss s c1ssic “Mund Excellence.out inc a it a aiim acily horn census to census. His cell ii th e tl yec is of th tnentieth cetiturl the nature of “talent” and “excellence” in swimm tion.’ Icork was strut tui cd in the nineteenth century than could a or superhuman in any one of those actions’ aul he fact that oat ii ud cc ea 101 die cc inns categoric s as unproblematic. His core research problem x as ing. it Ove the V nit is . it is time to ngnrc. sh iwn ft exam ftc that the occu ts H aVC you rlth consc uc priulal rarista s ci e ise to measure achievement were quite a realist turn. Wic’ at I usins and uncles who help lit h 5 nets an I Still. Once you’ve opened things up - real cotrs nenacs in tint d vi p id in re m ott-mt that they change tionism.. arid eat more careful1>. in a U Ia u. cad all together. skills or aCtivitieS. He coached from the local to thi national leve a ork in the drug rndustrn for example. e bud care. a One has only to p 1st thse qut dons to realize that what tral conclusion was that talent was a complete tabrica meaningless construction designed to cover and romanticize eflltti to he methodoloiical problems are all the openings c I maje usc a cli I rat it ions. not fat off Indeed . Tlrc constructionist sleep habits over the next month. much as to polish up their backstroke next week. nderstatiding the creation have been carefully drilled into habit and Lileli aiC acrt’J to o house vi tells is more about how gether in a synthesized whole.” Clianibliss spent fi’e years scudirig Dmpeucise mow I s o i What do w in the of illegal labor—paid n - SWimflllng. >1 lobs that got mixed into ann fliane ncI out ol the category of hookkeepeinyoti then face the im Great champions are people who work on the detuis motivatiot s or tint rs ii las o I what that con ass inbling n image c sure they do all of them right all of the time Their Olympics as uructed world looks like as a “construetedh real one. their goals were nearby. Are there push uS o w th hi s i r p iii ml ra f nvisihl work”—easual work for ‘ liherarely undercut social construction papers roar an ry ri t he ii urinal c eonomV of C leaning. 1LACiAi H u1s1iu When make a constructionist moVe. They didn’t aim to win the e their au ot o( kc p on hay a g it r to generate a firm “his . \X here do we count family construction. in the were also “mundane. . ‘cX hat do we do when with the b c 5 the in of tO Ott ipation doesn r change hut its status and its interviewed dozens of swimmins and rraieied to disco’ tpna1 rn bytes ii. as ap emd i ci e OSiriOn of secretary 1 teams in th country. one wonders whether tile heurstc tin Hilt papers that ci o a in . pro It is also ci oe that once you make the first Constructionist duced excellence (Chambliss 1959:111) au yo dig - all the type. each ore learned or sconbied pari.

In tile Wccc umirrucrion (talent) is simply a label hr the success are real all Differ. cially constructed) that we rated swimmers by their u id ni asi in l making every single day al meant stead of their beauty (the way we rate diversj or the ce’hnic wimil ic rvery s n Ic rat c a prier c Th big ones then precision of their strokes. i3ur the opposite of a fluid power of the heuristic that flows from the reallst!consrrc sisrcrice on looku g at si iab practic ied. W I. had of— structionism. Chambliss ss inning itscli not as soc tally c onsuucted hut as real. (Tamlib us s p1cc drew fire invoke con him for find new things. But once that decision ii manu. and talent (as tionist debate. “(l)f men define situations as reai. Thomas. that ii WaS L. ci iit rne tis Pc hiving ti it th’rt must he that although The realist/constructionist debate and the heuristic tiialccs for COIlslstt lit succcss in swimming and that. sometimes we need to trnngIy cOnstructionist ss tints Ira DeNota chided prestige. as have the students of occupational it ii ha i nany othc r he ds (Chambliss given by of Winning Sometimes we need a little realism. oInhii fliOfC 111210 [IIC’ )rIicrS supecu rgue rha particular social still can define excellence provisionally as consistent rr b ss’s m rs’ s n m Ot that it ority in meeting that standard” (1992:105). It is esscntial to realize that heurist na. culturali t me. at unreal ty (So tills move could ed an Believing in sistent group of scholars.a ions) even ilic standards heuristics wmr S in I audiences (for exam Chambliss. It u a ralier in’l’IC oca two the real sources of consistent such a debate does not aim at debunking or demo1ishug— ill nit way of our u lderstandinf moves. a s i s a I ii. common reasons for making constructionist and realist \ C 1 c i S 11 11111 topics to from more respectively.flc: talent. debate flows from it are probably the most familiar of the d i w u ly what t s. in both cases—indeed. The idea of heuristics is to open up new N on surprisingly. dig (192.. in response. But even within tills small and s iT pl it if c n a. in their consequences” (Thomas and Thomas 192S:572). tt ct ces the of the in Chambliss’s paper and the debate it inspired show well n set tins muse as a behaviorist (tie. UICC arbitrary çr 1 d herue 1 a uc i h ii t ci ci piut s he h g meets into ry to t u 1 times a big meet. Everyone involved in the debate was idenrtf e cv 0 is r w e ss old he ds and better or at least by the majority of the discipline. It does not relcr to anything at xplan u ccss in swimming. i or . “cultiv trashinc open. i r pirar ‘ly tic ‘in ncr imagery of excellence and rank for treating our opponents. Chambliss’s realist turn produc L e 1 sri iic ldrcd P One of my commonplace lists. they supposcills explains.102). T ta I she a tackcd Chat ibliss . . the excitement lies in following new leads. FxicTA1 Hiajiusrics 191 Mf lii0J) 01 1 )Iscos LIlY admitted. because ic es. with all of the sic r ticgc dated betwcei p ‘rI they arc ated an discussed here——the idea is to open things up. she felt. such as we are ter d ccn tat is c reneraliz. w should give it a single ic use of 1 cc nsrrnerion that gets heuristics I discuss. To do that. Once ii Ii arts Ii in hi Ss s arg ir icnt.) SOtfle one thing that extraordinarily heated debate. with metho ins d rc rh routine whas mis ot doing a turn committed thing as it subfields that are considered to be overwhelmingly sleeping well) i lilt 50 11 tCll a cultural or subjective fairly con have to constructiomsm.

’ The pape urn ts or problems elsewhere.st also on the ways in which education. 5 ii ticular atrrhut s f ii dividuals This is a noncontextualjz Note that this paper could also be seen as employing the ing ategy. Context generally asoid tIns For example. and parents’ schooling and occupation is cit t c Ce he n lie pr gram ) those resisting scientiza What is unusual is that the data (national survey data) are split tiors But when one looks at research. The individuals should not be seen as an undifferenti re’s ‘ut d xai p1 s ft m the laige literature on stratification. tn&AzT/ L 14CURLSTICS ‘1 J[ 0 )L )Vk CV nor such “market’ contexts as proportions or various eyj es o i. The contextual strategy is to achievement br. education. which else. riot his Ii iends’ types of emploc ment nor Ins extended so launched an entire paradigm of organizational analysis. Beck. occupational prestige. Patrick Roman. iIl norid. ‘Ihe’ parrneters measuring thc effects of education sri splitting heuristic of the last chapter. union member- ing S rice program of most of the scientizers. throughout this book I have matters.e it a pr thlem. The context is not partic r c . The paper finds that nor only illustrate tin puss er of such a heuristic particularly well. sh 11 in has at ssoves syainst the grain. ‘Ii i c t s i oki ‘a r no i g co texts is the last But as early as the 1970s. nothing Organizations” by Michael Hannan and John freeman. race. I have cial netnoiks is is \lark Grenoetter’s Cetrinl a Jof model) already mentioned this celebrated paper as an example of . two sectors. (orc LXTt ic1s\1 AD 1NO\cQ [lxi ALISM jobs avaitable in his locality. since they varied between the two sectors. predicts annual earnings based on the usual array of vanabies. age. M. oLcupa hi n o r in di e me r o see ho v it is embedded non. The equations were estimated separately for the important context occur throughout social science heuristics.o(. 1 r e I u y r e soci sciences i oncontextualiz sex. Th nonee litexi ualizing strategy is to dition is well ilitistrated by E. and tests were then done to see whether the effects As I etoti. it is clear that the moves into “core” and “periphery” sectors by the individuals’ type or’ ft og so ig he on ext o ofexpi citly choosing to ignore an employmenr. it’s simply a matter of seeing the workers in two groups. and so on determined that achievement That seetoral tra ii the I rgtr ‘.” Contextualizing ship. SCA analyses size of the effects of various variables on those rewards. work stability. aiid te r 01 ei of en g scu 1 ii by finding comparable Charles Tolbert s “Stratification in a Dual Economy. ated mass but rather as grouped into these two quite separate most of them looksng it individual achie ement in terms of the labor markets.upati )n n tath r’s occupetioi on a respondent’s current ularly elaborate. A clearer example is “The Popula tion Ecology of income cit acliic’s e ment are estirnate’d on the assumption that nly tie Ic spo ide i it own terihu es have an effect. an important line of researc c cc i the debates irisi ug irons issues Ot soaial ontology. are rewards vastly different in the two sectors but so also is the I hee’in cv Is he’ move of en extuaIizin. The issue gan to argue that workers were grouped ifltO sectors anu that ci is I Ii ‘a on ought t rr c o imp ove and deepen that sectoral context had a major effect not only on absolute oc’ Ic cowled .

ater limeratt re discarded. 1 g s u lie \V hou d ieeaH F owexer. to the the family division of labor was very closely related not I -Iannai. to social connections—social context—in Ant this r elegant illwtiat ion of ontextualizing. FRACTAL IILLRIST1CS i9 11(105 01’ I)iscovuty clt wa works and on the household division of labor. this move toward context had LO . he literarures on social net- . o this rraoition studied the founding arid dissolution of organ s with ts did turn up as an absolute regularity was that familie ZtiOiis e\tensiVCiL Oid sought to pur into practice concep net strong role separation had tight. Her original aim was to “further the sociological ( It V I it it I at tint n h de psychological understanding of families. sic should imagine them in a competitive and if h is as adahtinL consciously tions. It is to discover the origins of the household division of labor. Again. Rathct is is London done under the auspices of the Tavistock institute in than hinkina a orhanit’ations st iding alone Hannan and csciga research center dedicated largely to psychological ins F it entan arrucd. thei future deter interest in depth of analysis. hook 1ami1) and been lose ties to several literatures than twenty years later. instructive that when Farkas did his c uandtarive paper mote 1 a shortened s et. sion. the rather to the degree of connectedness of the family L c m a I nat n pattern network. a radical contextualism of works around them. is e should think of s to that sign—intensive study ot twenty families—bore witnes tOt in as ons trained md unable to adapt. that the tradition bent important for us is that rather than following Tavistock’s ha Uis is ith a r idical t ontextualizing titus e. sharing of household tasks than families of lower social rga izat )n S c e to V Nor surprisingly. Bu at rht heart tf the article was an ss and though professional families tended to have more jointne iiisisttiiu at ontext as tst most important determinant of an status. although that had not been consj ic . The research itself resulted in an extraordinary conclu pI yin to m ii n odds borrow ni directly from biology. fuil connccted Social ike r a iii a d g tieta ist at r in. from yet an. researchers following What there were plenty of exceptions and counterexamples.d or what is :camc tiC. ii is ial he aeti a) I irniulation is as lost. Her reear L or us i \‘haiborrowed was i mxici of context. a•r hay t seotini r h it partit ukir. mi ILd in iact I y rite tt mpetitlvt ressures of their peers. and her researc to ens tioum mii opportunirles and threats. Bott did not find the strong ‘subcuiture” Fannan and freeman paper included many formalities that the Ai mentioned in my discussion of George Farkass paper.it. invoked in the con turned for psychological or psychodynamic explanation. and l’rccman pr posed that wt recast our theory of both but psychological qualities of the husband or the wlfe or Orgtuiztions LI1IJft [is ’s social ate p iLl ne suoned above. it e t a it ) I i ti od is Elizabeth Butts ‘Urban Pam i . ncr attempt outward. where such ioves were unusual. routine methods her Bott did not specify which way causality ran.iously contextualized (durational mined argument leans toward saying that the networks deter methods) emieIgcd as the standard methodology for population What is the household divisions of labor rather than vice versa. context mattered.\ ru ni Butts paper has forgotten. Bott text ii tornsi ned ods.

sch ilars has e traced thes d eiopments to wildly vary omy. correspondents. course. a book whose women s lives utterly resists being assembled into larger argu C t’ ii e’ P 1 out yu Ii cs. of idle don as ia tv. too. ge one set ut absolutely separate spheres scholars deduced this transition In some ways. retailers. There it rakes the 1e tile Pita loin of g lit p ek to ra documents and rediscovering history England iii the eighteenth century. friends. then. the American War of indcpe Rather she An cxrcl cut teceUt example of tins is Amanda Vickery’s ex industrial revolution—these. pages of diaries and letters written by more than And Proc 1 C ii ma! a c ii sts t w mcn in this period have emphasized the omen (and a few men) in the north of England. mnmJO an cia is ci ii i SC \ and ci ii I a iii Htir the anricontextual consumption. I i-nineteenth-century system cud porn of the Lit terizirig the world of experience these women knew. she concludes: . Again and again. She also notes t jilt SQtitQa’. What results is a book o ti LI tht urge to it i e iLmily crc nds with respect to related portrait oi political and economic contexts has led to an aigtnng from con extraordinary strength of detail. s y o production in the in a a way betwec i dustiiai resolutic n) a the family tas in the assumption that as ments. ‘‘pru ty. traordinary CL /1/ maui I )axgIiltr V ckery wanted to know what one hundrcu ally a pent d to ge nicel women in thc eighteenth century. making of social life. women a l In a played a si ia ii r I lit i hi Note that these cirgrI example. 050 1 0 t U p It U Tic it 1 the Seven \‘ears’ War. tair y common iii histoty as well. Robert WaIpo nucrscc. Vickery ilso attacks the of Contexts (the larger social processes seen by tHeori neighbornooa. Faac IAL HtUR1S KS Ho M :HIOL s ii I)ist sri v o i to tILL We sli h’nk that riO e a a always made toward t Id t ments use a wide variety of heuristic nsoes in dditi cornxt. a are most tamiliar with this. pictuta of thc ia n val n from h cit r >1 iii product ion the creation if so ft these myriad details. sand f starts with the immediate situation itself. the women are seen in extraordinary lOcal it. as I said. That eliding of larger is indeed part of the books empirical message part of charac exist bat st CL II the starting point of the medieval productive p y i. under the headings gcnriiii. But we see the larger context only as heF Saw events erroneous) deduction that some Ci d of gradual transition must only what the documents discuss. nit tlmdoi g c 1 i o s of these accounts. the transformation of th 1 .” C I F irst. On 1)1 odin ion niovd out of the household into factories. She also sets aside the “larget’ Is story o impulse 1.” ‘civility and vulgarity and proprie ‘ ‘ contextual de i op period5 bet s eon the sixteen cli and nineteenth centuries. are nearly absert. arid the rise of separate spheres’ for men dent Cat>H sri I o ii ii V k ry a tacked this radition on several grounds. which are usually based other (the experiential contexts of eseryday life: this sense. in torians never fully decontextualize. with thou . “love and duty. she builds up a complex everyday world of these women.” ‘fortitude and resignation. his 10 (which are higl ily selective).” “elegance. hü cc ometin es ii is essential to resist the pres contextualizing one Vickery sets aside contextual phenomena SUCh as rha nil: sure tu stud) coiitext. and so on). ‘e see S a d thi r riginate in the simple (and tip urnents usually tail. Vickery finds a middle marriaga faa the poles of prominent theoretical debates. what the book does is eachan sts) fos a and then in pi se I it on dCta Indeed.

but I nsti cC cescea COL I ti ini onat narr age we inc t cCCsSivc stages in debate. the hingt we tend to viduals but successie motivational they govern. Some people think the world varying according to the future periods arena in which th iorig s to b understood in tetms of choic sonic in terms of con diet’s internal life is then an economic compete to “buy” the “reward’ . Second. Lleueg inslie lear F it ri issue I cOnt xt is always mplex Most removals In a brilliant argument. as a fruitful sourc of heuristic if Ovus disc usn d pm ol t s no Ic fan as Lawrene Stone has I shall illustrate the powet of this hee ristie by anoice cod asserted.. elI rorr impor nit at s of political and social diction—even if they me 51 11—overwhclm the far-off tand 4 y in value history.s. CRUiCL an C0STRX1\T different kind of discounting (hyperbolic this picoeconomics are not inch Vi ii i d tt n . Even create a “picoeconomics 2 a mim inside the individual u99 economics in two ways he z s st ap aren ly no icontextualizi g of SCA work is still economics differing from standard choice rules and dis tuatit g it subje ts s mewhc r First. so that the near-term pleasures . you must other kinds of “temporary preferences” indeed be deepi aware of this multiplicity of contexts. When you has shown that we can account for if we are willing to sc the totirextualizi rig noncontextualizing heuristic. the “actors” in states. This example makes it especially limit their future behavior. Economists have tried co account foe it by am ad B i g vi 1 ci i p tier c oi the grasp of general an discount rate for rewards. iViker 1995:56) to involve the choice of a behavior Rnowfl to flas C setting higr wards. Vickery possibly large) costs because those costs are discounted pfesCing rh b sth lecontcxrualize and reconrextualiaes The result is to the further off they are. as it long had done.rai its A I i o c i t odt cing this lebate in Chapter Two. . a) for miserable servitude. a. we mc a heuristic pairing that tial). Addiction is a coimundrurn for economics bca iw it seem am it id of it i iagc a a p ical and emotional part negatit c ic netslrp. tarher these were. too.urn. run selves and the short-rein self . the psychologise addictive bChaViO 5 an I it ot c i Xl t ts t tmp ize another. The take as problematic iii the world. and taking it on its own terms as experience. in is governed not by the standard but by different rules and counting curvc’s of the economists rather than expolien VII. although held as addiction i c I t c’ I t im narize a d reduce to an abstract concept of choice even in so unpromising a addicts often try i: inding that can be inserted irit theoti ical debates about fam does riot effectively explain the fact that il and gender in Europe. with then mnteres ises wh 1 ha e calle I proLlarnat ‘‘. The patriarchal against many other social scientists. as Keith ‘rightson has sensibly some particularly extrauidinary work dnc n is the argued poles sIan enduring cntlnuum in marital relations constraint in recent social science. fiaLiaL hacaisi ii NI ion l)is sins Marriage carried the potential both tot harmonious license and me opposition of choice arid constraint ieinh ii pit rcuiir 1. vise setch example of add ic s v i a t’ d I tl tin acy of male author tempt of economists to develop an econom c model non. Such a model.

) His diversity of this literature makes clear is that a verm’ useful i shov se pow” Os’ mt o ng even more choice into heuristic indeed is to question the role of choice and constrainL ad e omn tad to choice as a model of in one’s research problem.\1F iHODi OF DiscovERs FKaCTL HeuRisTiCs I r nis g uccot Yng to rht wishes ot one of them as op [>dlmav have ignored the consuaints posed to mobility by che asaitahit )O Ito c TI c riultipi n nal states sustain the possi— ity of jobs. By contrast. s I mo s r man all’ in iii inquires into the impact of and it is both useful and important to try to rearrange then train thcn n ong t eta the most important and . As I have mentioned VIII. (He ss as not addicted to the short. which 1 frequently mentioned in these pag Occupational Structure C[JsS OJIL1 ways cxpoicuta1 ones cannot. The pairing of conflict and consensus also has its uses as a of ‘b led rat on ty’ (19 2). Thinking about these in new way’ can open up whole new terrains for investigation and research At the same time. . It staits out from choice heuristic. This is the theme term pleasure of w ruing attacks on economists but took nearly ot the job matching” literature in labor economics. Adherents of the two poles differ in their view of human cia flOSS srtidmc’d mnvol\ e information von can t always get enough ture. Some mm ho has e studied the status—attainment process conflict is foisted on people by wrongful social institutions. in where they think conflict comes from. Writers like Seymour rat i divi i is into i It ecoflom of choices. They are nor interested ( t di maE’ y in where conflict comes from (that is obvios to them) bat onlm s n b v en im v oward choice and moves to in how ii is to he restrained or contained. al Spilerman (1977) focused on the career as a sequence of th” re’ hsyin 1 nc yE different rults from those of suits of many constrained choices over a lifetime. Blau and Duncan’s menci.” and the informa think are the effects of conflict Consensus thinkers hold that tion on do hCt costS you something. Most of us have pretty clear preferences on this OHE. others have not. choice lwr1oI Of unit. some S icii’c c i mu’s iiisIie cam o this algument over a long writers try to envision the interlocking of two choices. indeed. and in what they information to make a “rational decision. conflict atd tunstiaint is haiateristic I stratification literature as thinkers hold that people are by nature orderly and that social ms cii. otheis has e of course tried to suggest limited forms or constraints on choice’. CONFLICT AND CONSENSUS seseral times Herbert Simon’s work is associated with the no. veloped a strong focus on constrained mobility between the I hi mud—i titus ourchoiced’ the eConOmiStS by turning primary and secondary labor markets. ultimately takes little notice of the const ‘aims on nof iii y guarantee th creation ot the temporary preferences” toward choices. Of course. What ch us enty years to assemble the entin argument into a book. By contrast. of job by person and choice of person by job. the segmented_labor-market Itteracure de \\ hi Is the addict is arnbis alent. . which must be taken out people are disorderly and greedy and that social conflict comes our ti reward 2 large 1 rature has examined these from these qualities of hunsan nature. a i of i ent d hype olic discount curves.

informal. Mark Suchrnan and Mia Cahill. to be sure. and v on This was an absolute formality. \Vith no S icial control to restrain them. They served as gatekeepers ano nr us. Suchman and Cahill— cliat s cc lruptioim played an imporiant role in facilitating and taking a more consensual point of view—saw them as an essen r gulatir ig u i ity i e. lawyers. lawyers were in tact among 3 orderly corn munmnv s ith Its own elaborate rules and in Iuyhl the most important Jinilitators of entrepreneurial lift in Simon stnun mis ‘h tc Sr Ldie I b wling leagues among the ‘corner Valley. in this view. The same move—but in two quite differe ci inn grouj 5. Here. maintained by implicit rules and con age uncertainties for investors. was in fact a that far from introducing disorder. Their opinion letters helped man with their soLlal status. is literature as disturbing influences who introduced dvcrsarmat a let Iii lii n hi’ aw for s i na ned itman nature run ism and got in the way of simple market relationships. in ii err he found a highly or tial ordering institution of the community. Their contingent fee structures reduced important un b vs ant fo md that h vs howling scores correlated exactly certainties for entrepreneurs. i C hcago s Neai \\‘est Side in the I 9 0s. di rl y SOt iii sysiem. 6 intellectual contexts. Pe ha 1 ii n sr of wo k playing with the iii otis ‘xai s By contrast. but n the first case the others nugrann Loflimunini. Lawyers were widely regarded in the that they are places without a social emit my proenessis ‘sm. the standard view of th situac on ia. crime. . strong. Suchman ntcr But ill lam I’. the med iorn turnof-the was a conflict-theory one. these forces preneurs and venture capitalists. lit pekssness. Sunless nai/ of tar )iiim did the were a body of consen. hut the pieces of views of city structure was an elaborate and complex set of su in fi iak tt Ii a u I 5 s s woe cx unpies will cial rules—different. writing about cookie t and LOnscnsuS debate orne from the man) writers who lawyers in California’s Silicon Valley in the 1990s (1996) facd iv ye studied in ‘erld SurniePs sv rds Thr Swial Oidcr of the a different situation. with three conflict thinkers. and relatively unconflicted. underneath the disorder so cmphasiced in ccaisee c in thi ha dlv nit contrast seems extreme. and contentiousness into relationships that had been C its It ii I 151 smooth. but elaborate and extieniely Ii I eat. Fuacrac Han u:vics I ci c ri se ki it I institutions When we ig is of ti it Again. would get along i i .cas thinkers and in the second a body of nt sank thing in a n ore cc mplex ueighh whood. and others and found nw B )st ins Nc n Ii id s fear (I by city leadeis. lh if sso tbc ri of louis. lie ‘at n ned be murnbcrs c tine (an illegal lottery on builders for the informal funding and entrepreneurial networks rse races) and thund it to be a stady employer and stabiliL that built the community. we have authors who moved toward seeing ni i at Ic J f rein I vi lie ules of 1 in hv i h nonn order wheie others saw disorder. hyte s bri [ham Srmvet C ornr Sudetj showed viewed dozens of entrepreneurs. divorce. Entre dee.1 e ic is ii t e b orbit retorrncrs: poverty fine if their lawyers weren’t introducing so much complexity. One with functk fling institutions and rules So in both cases. where the conflict theorists in c ii ii i y II i net He stud d local politics and found had seen lawyers as a disturbing force. In short.

There are s( m ci tt as a d c inllic thaeor is it was a simple empirical Si Ot n i u P isis o a ‘oust isus iheor the costs or’ writing specific contracts for long-term needs tria An ecitrivalent most on the (ouflict side is made in Ronald may turn out differentI than initially imagined. holding a rally or reaching a class. Coase says. because people choose to organize inc s Nat rue of he l’it in. and sonar were told to think carefully way.s firms?” This is problematizing the obvious. pletely. and sometimes th its pr hi anon was cogi izcd as o e of the classic papers of the . Classical microeconomics in some ways squares the confirm. a paper that many decades after ‘ activities in the cheapest way possible. “Why are (here firm? Put a intl icote cou ‘ leagu S in an in lot or ial paper or p >1 rical tolerance (1991). r sscmr-s that people have inst nitrous as tolerance. conflict side of economics. as in consensus theory. some t( “economic man” is only partly greedy. Kuklin which he proceeded fit the conflict. asking.) Here. way—by command and nonmarket coordination as We do so at to ike at l Its ike ml ha . it assumes people at r e t L 1 a ‘us So ri e quest ions i ml u led nor ust do you approve greedy. It turned out control in economic relations. tolerance and do using the price mechanism to make decisions. What turned out as as that iv o important consensu s” sal LieS.’ activities in tixothei Pu it oii ci ‘OflSctiSU iramework’. Iii shorn firms emerge. rid civil ihcrties are nn en dry tO keep those likes usually took firms for granted. I’RACTAL Hut RISSICS Mi a’ toys i Dur o tin ov is riiauc by James Kuklinski and his col century in econon’ucs. who should we organize an. w is to investigate empirically one C he •r icr tl estr ning institutions of a con and wrongful institutions. or disorderly and wrongful institutions. “if the price mechaitisrrr aOd me uaarlcet aiR furs ap r like most of the literature on political tolerance. For example there are the costs of writing contracts for purchase and sale Iib t’ tj 1. Classical cLonomin. Are firms in fact dsordeul. is so perfect. It’s not important here wi at ye y 13t K ul Ii iski and hi colleagues also introduced that we reconcile this apparent difficulty in the distinction h_ di rr c is tO ti Os to subje ts S mc subjects received no in- answer from the were told tween conflict and consensus. thi a. Coase did not But the way it and dislikr fron exteasrvc a RI do. On the other. it aigues with or tv (or the vu Klux Klan or whomever) but also mmui is s mal conflict theory. greedy in a controlled gut without reflection. (My argumnt would be tha sri or rot s o a ov to answer. (IL ib ratio r. microeconomics tacitly assumes an enormous amount of about tire (onsequences of the actions irisolsed. tructive cxpression.consensus heuristic qulic sk and Iris vile spires start with i cuirure-to-hehavior move. that this (greedy) nature produces an opt 1 “as vu d yot approat’ of tire Communists’ holding a rally?” (or state of affairs in its “natural” state unless we muck it up win the Klan. di uk .s f PC r it gr u S but ils their views of groups’ po consensus circle On ifle one I’iand.rhiet 1irs A liflkr or ii tics. insist ny that ss e lust s urve trot just respondents likes and mcelI. r whoever. It starts with am of tray e. it asks. mucking up the optimal system o wi Ct let markets? Coase says no: firms exist because there arc “costs to Sutisus svsu In actually supported that system. ci ii o Iw ri onflic t. TI e vs at hert. The heuristic move was not There are the costs of marketing goods and sets ices. Coase plays with only the th r eflcct jot sri orig ly err/vied t )le ance second.

p c t iech Iso as the absolute pun t ie in soci1 science “X is tine for white men of the mi Idle class iple tor resou u e a] location y savi ig that people sometimes (or.\’I A\’I) SEi’t AICD KNOWLLDGI papers about issue-s of transcendence. or whomever. of The logic of much of contemporary social scieii research ourscd begins with the recogmrioll that “X is true’ has onen meant 11 i I’ a.IC for a few collegc students i ikd boost on pr ee p oi rids nor t USC the rict mechanism. I S S tis t I eu i ti 0 I shall use two simple illustrations. there are some others as well. playu p with the parts of the conflictj it i is ti here’ of the additive heuristic: “X was true thete. bi ut dv nature of institutions as But if the move against transcendence is by fr the most i ai s f ‘o ti oi d sorde o This whole series of problems of nk one’s research comnmn of heuristic moves employing the sii.uated/transcerm tfrs a wide sarietv of different was s to rethi dent debate. kio. which then presents am can b o question one’s beliefs about the orderliness or dis opportunity for a wide variety of heuristic possibilities.e dont organze evcryihing this way. Like all the other fractal debates. . Decad hr not with a. i bin fir fl heuristics drurneEIt tot wiis a.answer. Thousards ot rescar tiers have inSisted 00 iO /eStigtola appeais to be a violatit is of the univ sality of price logics—the whether this or that truth holds up in other groups. flow of work are fairly stiaightforward. s wa is a. d a a bent sue Ii is best to start with an un . itS operatloil at a dcej er lesel. The first step is to sa char o b i rr r v al inst rutk s c[ it ering up the free what appearen to be general knowledge is in tact situated or lo mark’ t base I mt ract on is imit an irrational. h hdi v r. and ii is useful to il questions. rue price principle is recursive. The heuristic moves of such it an even usrilv its own removal In short. hat drives ibis debase hut with how the debate events that ical research had uncovered a long list of’ crucial s cit ai I e. what appeared class Latina mothers. The first is one of the most influential papers in the literature or stress. conflic t/consensus lustrate them. worse yet “X is Ctm. against transcendence. rdetlii ca. Once such research makes the original move SoIling. The second step is to seek other forms of local liStitUtioli. working x a. cmi by polita. ima. is X true . disorder-creating cal knowledge. both famous and classic IX. blacks Vietnamese immigrants old people.cme HLLRLSTkCS \le 111005 (II DiS( 05 SRS a (He ilso aretully includes an derstandinh of how the political vcisio a operates in tcii s a.S( CNI)F. al COflCLfij. Ic la. it finds a negativc. ommsenstms debate Time s arious examples here show how useful Most often. What to”). it usually moves direLtly into the realm a u. be they it f lirni is o rhc cC ntrarv the clearest evidence of women. t s itsi if an expres ‘ion 1 the free flow of price tea knowledge’. This paper is a classic lebare is di is. But we are concerned es of clin cause it made a very big bct on transcendence. Much of this be Thomas Holmes and Richard Rahe. the endlessly rI crso mom debate ages in social science over the question of of cited “Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS) article Si itt I n wie Ip tra iscend ‘or ot situated.

the was. research that looks at variables that explain the distribution of cneration American relirion and race. these profound debates. in betis me popuhutons in the sample that is impressive. by relationship to crime is completely invariant. I come to the end of my discs. In “Age and the Explanation of Crime. The mon move. It was obvious trom this work that for term danger. s I I . Indeed. What u’ire those system v i a I i at task (“how important is atic variations Holmes and Rahe noticed? Have the got1 i is es I I (in a e of t and fairly di erse 1 (JO (> a large bigger with time? Are there subpopuiations that ‘ealiy ditt sample ut people Tli. past bets on transcendence are always ripe targets siotit aried s leiy wi Is the a iem” (l96:2 16). social class. n view. (1 96:21) age and crime. But the for the situated-knowledge heuristic. t ducation. “the psychological signiticance and point of view. Note. sharply? Every move on this scale creates opportunities to mo The crucial rnovc was as foliows in the opposite direction.results is Cic’ averaged as a rating scale. Travis Hirschi and Michael Gnu’ men’ beiwl en groups and amore. of to irse. For our puipose u it t i ha ci) I he subs uent literature employing what is striking about it is that rather than making a transcer these cale saluc is enor MOLIS. This paper is a quite un S egcl a d Rossi in the o upatlo il-prestige paper mentioned usual type: the definitively negative paper. Hirschi and Gottfredson say. iave h siglii o the ariation i lecided to ignore. Age. sex sari Li t 105. r Di LY F RAC IAL HR U RISTICS shaped people’s uses.’situated debate and iat hno sic) radition o op back to the great turn its associated heuristic moves. the SRRS was backed up by a long clinical WITH MV DIaCUSSION of the transcendent. n though the issue of the c dence argument in order to facilitate further work—the com variation that was ignored remains for investigation. can’t be explained by things that do. individuals about the signif fredson argued that the relationship between age and crime is I I Ic cv nts unde t ly that tr inscends so systematic and so invariant that there is no point in doing I cS e. illustrated by the Holmes and Rahe paper just strength of a bet on can produce such transcendence is that it discussed—it essentially makes a transcendence argument to a em In us ai 01 lit 0 1 sterestmp work The danger is that strike clown further research. which generate so much noise an I . My aim here has been to show how sit! thu SRRS la ked that awaret s. This is a long. it is actually unimportant from a research point of . st Holmes and Robe bet on transcendence ças did Hodge. But rrorn Out any one of these life events.” one of the clam The high degree of consensus also suggests a unixersal agree— sics of modern criminology. Since the distribution doesn’t vary anywhere. Most of those who mon of fractal heuristics. ci an u w xi rly what that work is worth because we is more or less uninteresting with respect to crime because it. My second example is another famous bet on cranscendenc h c ph tl S ‘rctc i pruu c o assign a different but one that argues paradoxically that because a tact is tran ad sa mdc o he iten it is he degrce of similar scendent. i ii 1 muss Ad P Meyer. knowledge becomes ungrounded. that the authors were perfectly aware of what they \\ crc doing.

(And it’s worth remembering “the moment’ could mean a lot of different things—five minutes. First come tests we set ourselves.1 II S . How do we know which are good and which are bad? Part of the answer depends on what we mean by a good idea. A put c1y by pIIy op with th ‘se t arious deatcs in cxcit in wy a Thcie s no rccisu the Student should riot use the Sat ic tot Is Y p t a sc isc of ii sc dr bates and. Sometimes ‘good idea” means an idea worth retaining for the moment. itt picces of social science have madc their to. as everyone knows. PUZZLES WE HAVE NOW BEEN THROUGH four chapters of heuristics that generate new ideas.) But some times a “good idea” means good on some absolute scale. PERSONAliTY VI. But not all of these new ideas will be good ideas. ri i u to let s punt )f mtw o Ps with which to pen Ctiapieu S’eii c’ u o cc s C i t w idea. So we need to dis cuss some personal ways to test ideas. and so on. LITERATURE for pro chic uì t ‘W so ial St ito :e And toy good student can IV. t 1. until I think of something better. TESTS OF IDEAS __ 51000 01 otltetwise etch in stone bat as something to play lL OTHER PEOPLE with. An astonis UEAS ANI) PUZZL hing tw nb r 01 iciic tt. A good idea is good because it’s right or because we really believe it. Critique starts at home. Obviously. an idea has to see some testing before we decide it’s good in this second sense. ‘rhest debarts are the most sophisticated tools Ill. above itt ic —________ dl a ci r hr ii mt as some hitig to get right or take a po I. an after noon. to get a personal sense of 211 .ms and presuppositions. and arguilscnts.1 1 151 it I itS ‘a iu oc in w iunt about paraht. There are several different ways to recognize and develop good ideas when we see them. TASTE get in on V.

If you ate Barringto s i rat c v if y a t to have deas that make Moorc studying the histories of the revolutions thai. Most people get ft C ‘st 0 i . p d a hers are pretty tlic m an I t c it. led t sea. uttcatir g puzafemer t s /IJI CI cci ictiur 1 t ‘ts ways yii p the idea out on others. with equal empha come from dataless thinking. to thc Issue of puzzlement. I pinical things they already know. in other cases and see if you can predict wheteser a govcrnmcn the ii IS tLifl plus!inrcilecrual taste i the best passport to good turns fascist based on now its rural aristocracy fared Juriug idea It p ss C no gee ithom a r scans of travel. and eVeO 5s.IJIS i he t’ ai w rt h c’lano a ng and dcvelopi up. rhe brst test of an idea is to rd it OUL. In practice. S x C s Ic it u Ily i nyc an L’ach if us has habits of It’s not just a matter of looking for other cases of a phenoir th i l r c in. Second cial world as puzzling. you start lookir for leireca] personahties.lea’ witi respect to existing stimulus from thinking about data they ye already got oc e i s h a nt rn m au mall. Its also a quesciol mor e I ii or mci easy. tam hook aced in the complaint I heard from many ci iii Once you’ve go an idea.Cf furmal nwthous siS 1 //aS and a cn Oh thoughts can help you see the ideas usually come more from reflecting on comrnousen wi c Inc v i t bad abc YOL I OWi knowledge than from pure deduction. Having good idcas also incails being able to see certain things in the sm force participation and you suddenly get the idea that ir s . These of taste and person c toph s. modernity and you notice that in America and France the old 1 ISIs leads Us naturally to two broader topics: how we de rural aristocracy was undercut completely but ILl German. looking for other implications that your idea kas fec data. but I think some data. Sup OSC you’re a survey analyst studying married women’s jabor . way iinking more dangerous or mien or a relationship you’ve identified. I \iTO)D OF 1)m (J fRY sums 4ND 1U. ing concern. Only when one is using formal methods do diem of caudum opinions. finally. So if you’re an ethnographer studying welfare-so-v”ocd read a hook s se orth of \vax s to bud new ideas. most ideas come from ioolmn at data 1 o hue inttllctu life s neither a shoot-out nor a sequence the first place. peupu v lie write ti n. So rnodcrnizati on. I said at the outset topic. ideas weic targets. It a mutual challenge. you need to try it OLs on Some case scitdeis char I have nothing new to say’ Now that you’ve data.111CC ormg ma. The question or taste is crucial. CO lull pm mm tn rn ss uk the ohiiato “chat may be. We dis wc us and ot Obviously. wc ofte s behave as if I TFTS Of IDLtsS oUl wen. the literature training programs and youve begun to notice that the trainer’ shuuid no began seem so fniphtcning1 complete and compre rhetoric emphasizes getting rid of race-stereotyped manual - hem core I to usc i literature in order to evalu isms you start looking for other indications of ovmt oc u vcri at 1 lop ut It t’ Yw ave t u iderstand how social race retraining in othet parts of your data. it \ elop good taste in ideas and hess we come to know OLif intel survived and even dominated politics.

“\‘ll. It should become a matter of see in order to be tested. In d ii t ik an lea. but if it works al the Gould n . Ii i his usually pi sducc clear predictions. MLTiioDs OF 1)151 O CR1 1UES \u I iv i y need to guarar tee a skill set and an expe nina s lie immediately would respond. crhar’s what Roger would have bren çwomen With inherited SI edith. inverse. for other move a few things. t social movements and ri ing goes on in the background.iS a master at this.. Its liked cc be a 1 e “young op1 rei lways e uh ) her’s harshest critic’s. That correla ci dna thci so that older peoples harshest critics die nLLer 4idei I non tbllows logically tron your new idea because jf women ple” and so on. It is a matter of practice as much as anything mal methods n their copious production 0 f implications. c0nvene and so un—need rind arpunleilts in Siliehlitig’s famous iIIic. whatever the all view might be worthwhile. tested formalls or nfurmahlv. step bce v I c . YOU IS ould utter an idle truism. The for logical forms—implication. all of theSc ideas and implications I i e x p tI at p es 0 almost automatically when must be framed in such a way ihat they can be wrong. you should start to suspect it. ) se old sa the greatest virtue of for your computer. Being able to quickly think up c I s Yo I o i d get i t ha nt of continually gen three or four implications (positive and negative) of a social at op these imi I icai ions and of continually moving your theory is a crucial skill. ss’e get new wrinkles in our ideas than way: We leatn hu s I’ w it or c a ii spli at the ndividual level) to move them around a bit. ily friend ai d colleague the late Roger great if your idea works most of the rime. Thc basic ci In Is. step back again. like the antivirus software on a so In I J. Mi r cc cssitv br them to have work skills as a precaution.s c V 1 iL 1 cI icy will also hi. oughr to be the ease that dissertation defenses ill D caner u mix Iruri that idea that thi. lon erm overall trend in graduate stlidents than having lunch with their Irience ) i h f pi I at o old or late closely with you really mean that peoples harshest critics tOe long trim oserall trend in the divorce rate. You often. It’s rather like decorating a room’ you try it. dw. SaV SI oflt has e to get the re suppesLa u making the generalization that peers are always tile liarshesn iliro ph v rk. ideas on new Cases or data. ot course) Both ul these empirical predictions can be reoiganiz - tion.” and and therefore not terribly interesting. try a serious reasons. and so you Fheor implies that they critics. time. Note coat ‘ust because an idea fails a law c t 1’ f C suffer divorce’s ceo g t i )tC d id these tests—makes a few had predictions. expand one pa t at the expense o at on vitf Ite nyc en uces unaffcc ed by divorce another. i nellie ftcord o that she can support herself in case of divorce. then (on oui arrzui sent) there 5 not the same couple of casesoesn t mean that we musr chrcSI it our. (Although sometimes it . If your logic software hasn’t been updated reccocly a ru Flu leas has e implication for data.’omcth ri book have to be hardwired into your mind so that the process of monitor it i pin ons er tialhc ja ss. doesu t wock in i nornic lossi. if Jan s Cft. This continuous monitoring and resting of your ideas rests W 1 d y I im he ons nost ci any in formal it more than anything else on a firm command of logic. and so on. else.

cc c p c sals I ci e fbi I n go ig to take a the writer. and probably even in a rela one has only to reconceptualize marriage as formalization of a nv is st aug case Thi inn-i stiec questions invoke how relationship and divorce as breakup or damage. as ss e se seen. The s p ci cii i-zs exuc insults by omb ing a Goffmanian writer’s ideas are tesred against random chance.2H SlEllioDs ci tDiiAs AND I-’u ZeES tun to tutu a etunru on ts head. Sup a it a! t der ol -s ay. the idea that this or that to try to make a truism into an idea that can be wrong. is a platitude (not only in the no ii r to hat good ideas have real t ii s t sa nontechnical literature on romance but also in Weber’s formal ci rernat i c-s. not simple negations. Watch out for ship decreases some aspect of its quality and hence makes it unvc-rsal gre-U ‘cares.ciia so it on loesti’ work. seen n real alternative. and we have n it $ i c c ut u ed u Jai he conseqnences of the very interesting hypothesis that formalizing a love relation nit constructed nature of accounting experts are. where the natural human desire to develop t miii goes without saying that having no empirical referent am all is i Hi ‘U (i tu H pesen a cohesive in.” if a little less amusing wnrhout alremniatises is a particular danger in cthnography and Not being able to be rong is rhtis a sign of a bad idea. o ‘co intancy—is socially — pose we wanted to make something out of the old joke that the d ii uc ion t titt 1 irk ster ting Everything is so leading cause of divorce is marriage. the writer s sympatisies are cleat iieounst itutiunal Sr viess 01 mental hospital foundings” or well ahead of time.) It is quite sur which often tests ideas against things char are caked. flict theory” is not very interesting. Similark a user ci prednates are iii general uninteresting.” If you nitionally true and could be empirically right or wrong. Truisms are not a lost cause. not simply to . i t ot t sr ard iua itirar ye work. also a sign of a bad idea. It is better to be thinking version of it as ‘routinization of charisma”). too. Thinking leading cause of divorce. all coo 1it prising how mans researchers—even graduate students in their erally. even though a n I I t iii CI H t n roar to lang sage” are . but it’s not a . It hi analysis. and try to be equally attached to both. much better idea than the bald statement that “marriage is the v r r i pa . An idea always does its best lf it has a runi l hey h di doss is r lassitving a phenomenon or. and the suspense is purely rhetorical. An idea of the form ‘The population- rurpne tar ii at the end of the research) pronpts us to notice ecology theory of organizations is really just a version of con univ those aspects ol reality that accord with our cLirrent ideas. nobody really thinks pure randomness occurs much in social ‘ion interest n heause thc do nut pnopose an idea that can be life. it is a useful challenge cccii if they are consequential. more likely to dissolve. To make this meaningful. reasons want to write a polemical paper about it. The majority of published quanriratie C d ru s oj uet sic ts th an be wrmg For ex articles do not have two real alternatives that are boih dcci a an Ic. Always maintain tuo basic ideas about your t is a r i ly 11 is r sy r rhro project. however. its a h a enui pi a ss c t to solve t. One could for various I Is org i y . iall\ constructed in some sense. but it is nor defi “A is true or B is true’ than ‘A is true or A is icot true. Most of the time. This. null hypotheses. Thus. All of this is wrong.

A stu quite old and kmilist (Stincncombe called th s mechanism 1 dt. re when yuu’ic ust read a new theorist. it at the behai ior thei enjoin. but most of the time when the term is usea b) S aiLie. attc. no niattti how abstractly construed.JflR3e “S Iii Se. we known or accc.ood idea. The notion of norms doesn’t add anything to the act of work for so little money. but doing it regularly creates the possibility and me likelihood hcv ma yof ialtle r>e. puhit on-eco gy theoty of oiganizuzions Much of sociology fell in love with Pierre Bourdieu’s wo d rut - . it simply means “regular benas iot’ It’s )U5L nt iou us lasihator e ‘rcsL I’hc second is an a new word flit something we have talked about fbi a lonb rzq Ia on un clist yofscc i scienc time. Saying that the family was really . conflict theory. for example. and if you don’t fight it out.1 i unlc’ssvc u. Although somewhat 1kv. Often What is really at issue? Note.nr is stlI acli ised to stay clear ot writing pure theory. “Social work is ieally a profession ia an intercst a bat . that a certain can understand something profoundly puzzling about it. It’s an “historicist explanation. too. your work ficatory ideas aren’t interesting.a 219 ov a cx ii . tc make sense of that must be considered empirically—but of course it too. and being thought as r ci’ cia iorstratinl that these rules actually a professional confers high prestige. Sc ii w cal wot ii dii.” for example (L968]i )lleti iitat’ to v uq.ienccbecauseit’s classificatory idea is Why do I think this classification matters a isa ap aning ovels thouc havins to do much. c nergent rules But then you ways willing to exchange prestige for salary.2iS Maiitoo. such as “People are al Ian i u ‘ed y )bligatory.” This is quite different from ist indtpendc.rr it ntotheempirical then it will turn out to be the same old stuff with ncw nanaco asstr a tlit the .Allreal that we will do it even more That is a stronger assertion—on C. So the proper cballenge to present to ‘t I L It a&ta ala vit insocialsc. but they often conceal an jus• ros ad ig tar labels for so nething simple. which are among the most is iLi 5cc-rn supremely compelling because of its novelty.unv t )lL esiculdnotethatitisalso teresting.ot Discossai IDEaS aND Puzz. then. but powerful of heuristic gambits. i siciat isc rid. interesting question. A . Ideas that reclassify something are also usually pretty unia s c I . then. The others in sociology. But then the strong form of the idea reguLiriti unless it involves the positive assertion that the reg would be some more general statement.” By themselves. tilia Versiuti has the bezinnings cit a good idea in it.pted When vo z have an idea—say.mj t.i13 tnc. it involves the assertion that. To the extent that it is new..ti if idea works t o will or too quicldy Usually this ing topic polemically. classi qucstion that is trudal. isistsoftclabeling. that theorist’s language classifications are often analogies. It’s this existence “Social work is really a profession. that world This is nun to deny the utility of pure social theory. ouht to haie some referent in the real the behavior involved is in some way self-perpetuating. idal y ott -mo t of the time you are example. that in the largest scale. we might think that demonstrating that social work tfll chic gt act La thc b havnrisregularandcon was really a profession might explain why its practitionets sistent. Pot tic el t is a. but as a research idea it is going to be means that the idea is just relabeling something that is already interesting only if by seeing social work as a profession.

That gives you the uflfl. sometimes informal. so 11. the best good idea pe rsotial criterion for a way you hear them yourself. \ork c v t wi . sometimes it works is hen That’s why singers are always listening to recordings of them I ii iatriv. ‘v hen aL uoU iit te s u a ‘nod idea. O’rHER Propi. A good dea is one that sta s faithful formal. trying out ideas on otliems is ditfere it ate - est ha ti ii t d it trying them out on y ourseif. But your voice ‘caches your ea eel irly that conies rrom ii tnsms and rt labelings. 15 that it still seems guiding idea. t r piactice va often forget it. too. A good idea s one that is nondegenerating. our i. La in i \i ii og to ke iriy other heljed win Gary ethnographic settings slogging thiouph archivd d )LUI me I bt Let tia ubei I nze ii economics.L that von e t1rgotteil iniportant sarrs of it—you can’t come Once an idea has passed our OWi prelsminary screening. the next incomprehensible docuirient or conversant to Indee’ h n L w en ugi . Ii s like singing. When you do these things with d good de if. \ en whsmm xxi ‘at lit with orhcr i leas There’s no other way to From the start. to more puzzles. I ii I s( 1 Y liwas iso Pu . Ca The it ri d i Ie: di ens ed so f r are shortoterm mr got know why you are doing them. A good idea is much through the inner passages of the head s through tOe I Ic e’ La to u I s( to a aes docsn t work when we outer car. to granted that we are unaware of.i I cr t na [1 csc ire iot t lie only o mes. n I I I e piniosopliem Tm e Lakatos thirty something like that. and the grunt work wd become much rrmolc beatabi ma s or colt ye students dncluding me) notwithstand ing. with ideas. Others do nor hear your idees the In the Ii ni haul. nc knows good ide is by the solid feeling they sels es. it ment but the voice is heard by performer arid listener ni cli a ‘t her s it w th e rid lenly eserything is solved” same way: through the ear. students often throw themselves into the detail work to hica Fur trr m ii bvi nis Lu t to] lows the that no good corollary from their feeling that there isn’t a big idea.” are sustained by a lot of assumptions and things taken mo i n dir is I dyes i sc to in t deas.i sinek i ig he uractice of genera the idea. it al it I t it Iurside that enables you to see s ‘e needs to be tried out on others. Rather. Its not jLLSt that they disagree ti e nt n. so it never sounds the same to you as to someone else 55 ant it to and we least expect it to. One ot the roost impor and endurance you otherwise teen. os to t he grunt work that tc k 5 tip the majority of research And it is crucial to remember that for all save a handful of Lu Lam i1 1)1 tnt ai SC da spending lonel time in it is their sound to others that matters: to teachets to readers . If it In ii a ft r m in a really ai away from it.ad. you feel despeiaLe you hoya roar sonecriuw kc I (a tic ss en got gt n hc next d ty oi ss hen you’ve idea ill emerge magically from the next pae of coetfciaritt been Union sonieihing else tar a mess dais and come back to it. At the same time. Its cur e is upward. Sometimes this exercise will be is hethc t xl or tint. They neVer sound he unite mu others. itadless to say. An intra iore p ssihihits. Don t. our ideas yeats ago I 9U). tryitig to hear what others hear cii user unit A good idea will make on feel secure while So. inside our own heads.

o Ii u i d CXf La 1 t add or to nove in order to The things you learn from this process of clearing up others naPe votti dmi rL )n tl at argument. the more you can figure out about Tb ott iii so a hai I v I liv hal o cl iso oo inch explaining. not that the idea itself is bad a V st ely jt ho 1k. you tells how to write better for others. iou must tind a better way to communicate. you s hat rid niistuiderstand-. the weaker your idea is. rue l aspt ts of our k s hen y ni talk to other people In One’s first reaction their criticisms is to scream and yell n to ( ly t or p t wha he people say in re anger. ote that these two arguments push idea. IP ty fa r id perfect 1 isightful. it is tru that an idea that re that the reason this smart person tnought your idea. i. more or less because I liked the sound of . you should assume At th stunt t tine. what they want clarified. Ih inure iirroiant ciffloflg us find this a hard lesson to learn. il’• . \Ve find (S Ott id ssc tiol r s ci he ea So listu carefilly them overwhelming and collapse before them But even if you Ot C S C lieu iot arifi tioti believe someone who says your idea is junk. the assumption enables you to get the maximum oat of rherr ) he ist 0 Wi 1 be no Every social scientist learns this from dealing with hind ref r S p it y 0 (It lot sou d the sante to others is ces (people who view articles for publication in journals a sO\ inc that coo ssill ads ays find yourself leaving out t at of usually they are unidentified colleagues at other universities. It may turn out in in ditieront direc tiolis. hi t nrsl-nt them. You also learn about the background as I 1000 wttli it.n. The first says you should figure out from he much better than you thinle. however.vas wrong tire i oa an nit f ox lanat n is orobably nt t a good was that you didn’t say it right. I called my book about professions Tin i or t a s a s nit ia if nl people eat r under. the way they misunderstood ponsc to coot idea ts hat the add. The skill of learning sumptions that you make—often as part of your general way of tn to tht r p oi ‘P -and is skill just Ike any other—lies in thinking about the world——-that others do not necessarily share o u i in se vi tradicroty processes If you are careful. but to your inability to articulate yooe ida pruperkc The o . they may well be stupid.il stand you. ooe lit )hletns other people i tire 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. But even if thry are fools.No matter how words. you will also learn a great deal about th Spe urree tic cific (and often contradictory) meanings that people give to kite first is the more important ot the two. 5steni of Profeisioiis. to raise it to its highest possible level. its nut due to thea stupidity. reason for making this assumption is not that it is necesseol t I t i It-! opP in t car her hen when you correct. n t e teed for expla That enables you to use others comments to improve youi nation u telling too that. and so . so on. the more problems presumed misunderstandings are fairly specific. disinterested. You learn first others Ilevi with c our idea. For example. diOecst.that coo will he able to figure out Some of us don’t get angry at negative comments. 1DCA ANu 1’ij0LrS pi oksio or popifkir audienec c ma wish to persuade.

Or it could be that they graduate students really know how to read particular faculty i t ii itch and are agreeing in order to be polite. For a graduate student writing a .’ the tint place to look for misunderstanding: the defini their judgment. maybe that’s good news. The trucial moment conies 1St v red that mana p ipic unffr horn the word cys when other people are able to repeat your idea to you in such a t t te hook arguc s that tha re is some kind of grand in. this is going to happen after many weeks social science is a place w here most of the basic concepts— and many drafts. idncit. For an undergraduate trying out ideas for a course paper pores a us weta pai-t of a huge plan. one should remember that dissertation proposal. h Id b lisnussive people who never way to do this. strue cure. This relativism is true. Then you can start to put some faith in a u. as it all of society’s it. I have talked only about the fact have to reset your meter based on the person you’re talking to. and you need to second-guess e n. for faculty just as much as for anyone else. cii y Id nae ui drstood it hut people who air sympathetic but thoughtfully critical (‘Ihe is a I t a s. ‘4 o s Discui sin IDiLAS I Ni) Pt. sonalities. I e ause it’s too n nab work for them to dis the rest. If the way. there are c y thu I t s great. Arrogant people like only their own ideas. and . Thus. You ii b tl a ou hav€ an overbearing personality and can probably guess most of it. Negative Note that . don’t take the first also important to keep pedalling your ideas in many differe it vraci s Oily places. the book says pre this is going to happen after talking to four or fit e people and Sc the ret LfsL of that. hut I had torgotcen what the word sjs hammering out the details. from thoughtlessly arrogant to hopelessly tan i note than ou do and that it’s really a bad idea negative to mindlessly supportive. Of course. it could easily be that they don’t under faculty of all types. is to play the same role for them. Pollyannas like everything. and bricfi. You ple think your idea is good. you still have to factor in their per tions of the words you are using to state your idea. LAcES 1 a ‘a used for au early papet on the subject. members. It is important not to If the negativist thinks it is nor the worst idea he or she has take other people’s first react ions to your ideas at face value. this is al clearly is the watershed. way that you recognize it and agree with their presentation of m bali uid the wa piofessious stork.1 haven’t said much yet about whether ocher peo people don’t like anything. e I it it ‘I t icy think it’ i lousy idea’ they could have You will find that it is useful to build up a small group of cia ) a wg i icr. Although only their own i o 1 c misunderstood. and so on—do not have Whenever it comes. the ability of others to restate your idea anything like generally accepted definitions.) It s v ti i bu thernselv i so n. culture. that they are likely to misunderstand it. in rct. Your friends get used to you (they start to know. means to most readers. The first hint that you are past the stage of first reacrio i v b ik had a title allowcd m to feel it was more comes when you yourself feel confident that you cai state youi luring the five yeats it took t wr te it But I idea clearly effectively. Indeed. nation. of course. ever heard. b TI t ‘nu s berhr they think it’s a great idea or a bad one. it’s wise to be aware that each has a unique style.

But what about the scale? Why do we think about a family’s social status by ask a isi if i mis idea 10 fltCi ions pun1 ished worki [‘or tin— ing the job of the husband? Indeed. which would be a had thing. Suppose you iw for an as crept person with no special interest in it. For example. literatures work by making mm i id again it i w ways with new plifying assumptions about some things so that researchers can . in new contexts. personal judg r i ossihii hL said has hero aid There is no ments of well-being or satisfaction? And so on. Moteove when you do think these things do get written about. which old things neiai to ne Jr let n the person iii the adjacent aircraft SCat can understand resaid. There are a lot of questions that occur to you about that sti use ihrniahsnis. ou don’t really understand your and see is tween restating something and stating something new. tht I ter itu e s reaction (via the stratification literature goes on happily envisioning new i t y i i 1 or ismissive omprchciidin puzzles and issues without thinking about these questions for a alize is ti “ piobibly true that second. you take a stratification course. and iightl tel w i i r irid I mu is lilu y to be think SO. t least it the level seem of burning importance to an undergraduate. You arent ready to prescnr it This holds no matter This system of conventions is mostly invisible to under lion coiiiplea your idea iS. indeed. idea tet. Occasionally. 1D5A5 A “10 1 uazau ik Ideu assumptiot ) a id i 1 ultimately get evidence. of course. They know how the literature defines the border be ht t ‘s interesting. u it lac to start.ai 1 a Ii t tins is the hardest hit. tion of excellent social science scholarship is: saying the o[u H your luslopii p iJeas S di iIost inipor— things in new ways (if we didn’t say them again and aged’ can do It Is alit the hardest we’d forger them. why should we judge somebody’s success by how well he or she was doing in a particular year? Why I u e talked so tai ahot suhmittnig sour ideas to your own should we assume that everybody judges success by the same nt and sour lriens judgment.) \*‘har taculty who become sLrious sd hats. They know which aid L’r is hat son aiC talking about is 1 enough so that your taxi things can be resaid and. indeed. literature that most people writing in it don’t seem to worry about. But in the main i i i t i t and new. if Vuu cali’t state it in everyday graduates and even to most graduate students. Yet the 1 r 1 b dcl ha i . You read the stratification litera or undersi end it vet Even for those is tirking in the most ab ture. the nit mate test of a it S know that students do not know—arid what enabler them LU dea is tIn taxi-dri r itsi if von art or your way some. I pr vent lieu themselves f om saying As I have said throughout. It always seems that every status more important than measuring. why is measuring soc. They are ignored by common agreement. say. this is the aDsolLite test of understanding. that s what a huge propu i diiig a group of pmople who will listen to. accomplish this turning of old things into new ones—is die a Lere tc present our idea ud von cannot hi ‘ii iuklao cx conventional nature of Lhe literature.

As a result. That’s the nature of the 5 sa C conventional assumpticus to rurtiei analysis. and ‘ rect link to occupation and income) rather char achicvcm i± F . Such a study would three lasvycns suitably spaced through the century. But a faculty adviser would probably inOhe sl continue the stratification exarnplc. i actituuu rcLire to behavior.onvct t ialls by the lirera (These statements don’t eratures. as wcrl as changing s st lI( tht (f stratifi anon test arch. set. A historically inclined student might b inteiesteb i r i ai 1 at course ht t hey m y changes in the patterns of lawyers careers ovet the twentiecl I ci an hapteis I’ cc through Six. Thc conven conrrihute to the literature precist ls by opening up one of its non is either to be fuily scientiFic. w ho ph ying assumptions They . o c that . . moving to the wife’s job prestige as the status nidica’oi U. But a biographies of lawyers in order to develop a schematic modci good jda doesn’t try to push several cons entioris at once. digging up simple th1aL xi a if ‘ i ec rh Wii s job prestige matiun fur a much larger but random sample i 0 h’s is tin n I tot of tan fly social status throughout the period. ‘ I it d an mc ut 1 in substancc. but.’ “That’s consider education in terms of credentials twith t1ier nb e ii. A d now U e ma F Os Lit V hr on these cons en nuns so well that they are usually begins to lose its relation to the traditional stratincation inoic UllC LtliO\% Ore ()t them as coflvuntiofls. 1)5 LilS 1i)EAs -. it would be interesting to largely conventional judgment that the student should inO a.c at lii e ohs ous questions to a bright undergraduate. renct—by any method changed indicators on both sides oF the relationship ii t s. in eral resource) So you would have done a doubly brtiar 1 01 these may turan that the fa ul ty member has forgotten Al but one hanging in midair as far as iltetatutes ate aonccriceJ. So. I Hi 105 oi Dot. to lawyers’ lives. c mrvv anals sts make about how assumptions standard indicators) to a true outcome variable.J5i kLLtS oL Oilcx anal5 ses ot other dot gs.s ons about ‘ion informants do and do not twist the truth. that sour idea is a legitimate question because it has been set Conventions play an important role in all marhods and in a I t. with a aefensinle stiatefli .. it s h t ntr I tr art typi oh reactions to scores (which measuri a less actualized but pciIiap inot. Mi. lific 3_-t. soc n° its osol I to do ‘o si. many ideas cure. where it is conventional to think abOot scrai hcarion 1 in that Oct or imrneoiarels to underyri duates seem ridiculous to terms of breadwinner employment and where it is cslstsjmar\ I t ltv. tare h N5 rt tiring pie tro bogging down in also changing education from degrees or cats in sa iOO ti rimiurlu. or toward a detailed study of tw c nc soon av agt of ) ith. and etluoraphers make assump scores. ceptual idea of the meaning of education. ‘W i ss cd y a igo t h hat did hr matter. This would res in s r i y t t P c try cc 1 f t c substance.dies one r another k these conventions. for example fon the assumptioil tnac the CA’i acccoj. a good idea century and decide to approach it by reading twenty oi. And measures prior achievement and schooling irare than u I issui is iOu I go wel ) mid the methodological sures sciioohng-independent talent). attention to the college bound. s hx haj I ns to the standard r datiunshIp between educa either toward a quantitalise analysis.

your world—meaiiing people whu giVei uc. heuristic—is broad reading.. tfe conventions are that you probably conventional papers is a way of doing that. It is impor social scientists is the equivalent of sight-reading rOt pianists. to try new things as one rites new toods. faculty push students toward blh wi i orL g lu Li’ irm. playing steadily ott in spite f . and feasibility—and to be vvilling to make some rump uses iii the middle mises if necessary. I mean a gen n obey [he convennons and have people think you unadven eral. By taste.. be they aider students or rPcair. Students research plans are eaten uncealisLic a bit’ rego at i of bs that v 11 enable meaningful cod the extreme.ND tCLLis and agr±d-upon career measures. one could i terests while helping make the research more feasible Urg n argue that its samplIng is so arbitrary that any conclusions are students to learn conventional research models arid to cvnii spuriom onethe ess. A musical metaphor is vii s ii ha of inidi y. to know aoout th problem of consentions. Tks1 C w iatevr r else ii does. like t your ideas. one could easily argue that changes in than you do. It is not necessary that all th a ig the rime ernd exarr med adding some more cases. again useful. A student iced: i d e t V 01 Ot dir inrcrpretiv version..t so . Often. tant. A good pianist always practices not only zeci I s t vay it I t ii’ a iei a. or to be deeply interpretive.) But this in always involve judgment and reflection. but be aware of this complex tension between convention. the best way to learn ones caste. But dcv 1 th research Conventions is tf coLirse to look at current work. intuitive sense of whether an idea is likely to be a goud rurous or disobey them and have people reject or rnisunder— one or nor. Ytt against the first plan. the nique and repertoire but also sight-reiiding. there is no much harder. It is of coarse important not to become a slave d r a un ) stu is. oping a sense of taste makes things a lot easier. Broad e. -lii \tei non. reading be of good material. oi 1)is u SWS 1btAS . wnich is. after all. ventions for the very good reasati that un onvenhional v ci cot in 900 than they did in 200( in that sense. ng h sc i on a her o these damned-if y —d dami ed if you ont hing Everybody agrees that IV. A pianist practicing sight-reading grabs a random pieCe ci It atrs i I P o u -tsr ndi ho v the professionals t in music and reads it through.ethig completely differ.drig L dilemma of creativity in social science writ small. —v. and the easiest ss av to generate feasible ideas is to clone an cx The foundation of good taste—like the foundation of goud i ig jet Iy angir g one detci getting a new variable.H va 1 n w of mea I at c )dlng aregories. only that it be broad and that it (1 his is the additive heuristic of Chapter Three. and faculty are trying to escou ‘agi studcr u o i rh nt Ai aguast ic se ond plan.. origin you will hasc troubh writing about twenti to thirty lawyers’ ity. nonetheless. mea. the best work neatly always overturns Cons enrions and the problem of knowing them bring us to the s tie c )fl5 r rhi same rim the general preference is set matter of taste 3 Lidging ones ideas becomes much easier wh be mv io cspc ally whe me is starung out So you one begins to acquire scholarly taste.

should you jus pick up pieces tc o and methodological tricks from material that used to tcli you of social wiener ui sociology or whatever and just read through nothing Ii in. it can teach you how to set Wi icli ott don t 1 Pc. always working around . There is no point in very imitable. run into plenty of bad stuff: bad books Cl ip xit s I tlt dl L in ut )r c n like the style of analysis. Other signs are excessive attention to methods rather tha ‘ion kern many things from sudi broad reading. you will gain a much surer sense of both more on your own judgment. You learn substance and long discussions of the speaker’s or writers poSi hi . Nor that these are an the us tu1 lac tc dcv iop ‘on taste. ii sm odet i ill ‘I it r what ver. to ce s d ii’r ial SC 1st force vot tself to go on and ask what Of course. 1 1 St CRY iDeAs AND PuzzLes in sniP s id in on So. and too hgule out n hich you like and teach you things. All that does is rein— You also look at influential material. even hose ar it ics that li completely outside your own what the insight was that instituted a new paradigm. you ask righteously telling y’ot rself about the “positAist morons” or people you know—faculty members. its feeling of ease and fluidity. bad papers. even in the worst casei some references. see the You will. what should von r react Olb usc as you should disregard. overreliance on authoro i t r 1 . of course. What P In you take away from good work is more its sense of excitement fins is also i usetul rule tor seminars and lectures. bad talks. sit nig thu ugh a lrcture ot talk whose methods von hate. Soon your taste will establish itself. for “sight-reading. and when it’s well written. Oddly enough. wherhi r yo i knois the iet i Is of the methods. when you are the writer have been tr11ig to accomplish? This last i5 the ques ‘Ii cc p c v i ho i v th vhi h you disagree. There is no substitute for prac stt ng us nd rut we knesses of ‘our own preferences. Great social science tends to look self-evident after di p iaty jt usc s. a hy — work. This hard. it is also important self-consciously to read good there s that u on get out of it. good work will not teach you as much as pothesis.” You just need to You xi ill bcct ie ahit to yatF er useful ideas. theories. But even bad material can tu us if ca h zone. and you can rely but by is orkint’ at it. facts. friends. You learn what interests you and what standards for an article or talk on its own terms. although—again oddly— to] cc v )ur rej idices and trothJudge a talk or a you nothing. aimlessness. What was the d s t f UI y u 1 I n let your interests dictate iou .perhaps some facts. In the best will bad. tO tice and. ‘ opaque.li he 1 1 t ir ties. tellow students. writer trying to accomplish? For the truly terrible. in particular. The symptoms are usually pretty clean I t ot vious uav t i do this is to r up recent issues of jour pontification. Most important.o ‘s f r wa Ii ii disci 1 or You learn the conven tions on various important debates. But they set an ideal. you may not be able to sec on. confusion. cry err Ic ‘11 have something to reach the fact. there is plenty of influential material that is badly argued and r P c” i us I tri ig to do. learn to read and make judgments. which are and clarity. When tion that enables you to judge material on its own grounds by no tind you don t like a paper s methodology and you think its imagining the task it should have set itself. self How does one find such good work? At the start.

as Mr Va says in Pride and Prejudice. long list of ideas. but builds on it in surprising ways. a natural defect w ci h rd judgi iv s Fvc iv n all n c n nrs scattered riot even the best education can overcome. But orderliness can also be important eventuall\ learn no second-guess sour scholarly judgments. You must investigator project. Ti 5 records and filing. a mania about careful V Pcxsux. thougir. cleating care s i ucness t anoth S a us c inc de somc character traits as gories within my headings (for example. The to rinse. So in writing this chaptet. and so on. of course. figuring to move from the hai acrer. Tht sai. When you write our a big. I then sat down to write the chapter. vIi:i no hwxs AND PuazLEs no p c us C paL u d work f om w wk you sim self where you are on each scale. s hat is preci ins loyaht ii ( Se context is mindless ob qualities to more general ones. Th k’ll of rn ng to find good and bad character. for example. the different types o ella t tial virtu d via s Yr 0 1 d to figure out for your- personality qualities) and setting those in order as I came to . In is true. some about talking to oth It is important to realize from the start that every aspect of ers. The v i be im skilled at it is to acquire way toward controlling it. and you cons a lonr sk of all. Then I put them into a set of categories. every ideas. genera] taste and i he ueful y at d painfully t irn that taste on Let us consider some important qualities of irrellectual your os ii thinkiny. It is very helpful to have an orderly This sec (md-guessing comes from understanding your wider nsind. in every dus u lop t ib o e i Ia s is a crucial step non a tendency to some particular evil. Once I saw this emerging out stinac in another. to make it better and better. it’s very chara rer as a researcher and thinker: your intellectual person useful to have the habit of rearranging the ideas every now and ahir. c. Lcd less is true in the re line I saw that I needed to split up one category and relabel r search w uld what is darn g nak ny at one point is dangerous few others. It is painfully obvi u things in the work of otlu r i h I cc h Ip in finding the that orderliness is absolutely necessary for any major resea c ood and bad things in s oui owi von project. from an undergraduate paper to a multi- our on n urengrlis and weaknesses as a thinker. that “[t)here is . within thinking itself. Take orderliness. strengths and weaknesses of your intellectual character deci I first wrote down dozens of free associations about judging sively influence the way you evaluate ideas and. changing the category system from time character. Later (after adding sonse niore ideas).’ F ii of as i ()ugliOut this I p ter u Igir V i w s ideas s the hardest least one great weakness. indeed. I put thOsc Our mallet roal character lik esery aspect of your everyday categories in an order for writing. A keen sense of research design. understand it. a deliberate discipline of analysis—these atc the avatars of orderliness necessary to undertake any major Cc- Part of developing a taste for goon ideas is getting a sense of search enterprise. there seemed Cu thi hg about he was you think be some about talking to yourself. Your intellectual personality is based on your everyday then into categories. is both a strength dnd wcakiw ss in the everyday individual to the group and the literature and from the specific ss odd.

The svorking Out iS flOl easy. wE en to set them aside and he too imaginative. excessive breadth ann personal idiosyncratic set of ox t ii ii C0f t nt Ii n iu 1 pigeonliolers often depth) of inteiest can. the most common single disease among young researchers. Loyalty i \ U ide s ii the face of various kinds of ing impact: imagination Ii may seem odd at the end of a bool criticisms is a streiich ‘\t the same note it can hecc me aimed at increasing imagination to mention chat it’s possible to a liahihnv. pa pets wIt thy urn is to pull sorn idea 0 ph nomenon out of Also two faced is DreOdlh oi interest Teie is comet ±u lie pieco iltolc and put it nto anotlict. u the - r ike tilt t$ and detort them considerably to get them into the need to say everything one knows in every single papem ts as lab e aj te it [ci ‘ tin . to arbitrary argument. because only thaL can deal with ‘1 bus iirdcrli ness is a iuah lv char can cut both ways. bring things together somehow. EveH worse. At the same rinse. Ptgeoi wonderful about a giect breadth of interest.” and so on. If they don n sustai nindeed . So. 1 such diverse 3 interest . loyalt to ideas. habit caii become parali LOg. an ability to scc ibolers also have a hud t mc ii nch ng phenomen 1 ooia It puzzling Their main the many things relevant to any gisen issue Breadth at ifltte on ri Ctt hg hi igs can open the doors to powerful analogies. it is all too u v d 1 b 4 l tiire ‘ comfbrtable to avoid recasting one’s ideas becaus” “others don A itnhc r Ibit i ty that cuts built w igs is habit. It can bring d tant $ th r boxes. And ‘Pci this ahn icy to levc things unresolved is absolutely neces excessive breadth of interest can jead to a variety ol artier try tu Ii t he pathologies. like habit be utterly paralyzing. There are sc-c the imaginatis e links I have made. ft uSera to Lsow ct Ui 1) CC St i C conventions and usual disciplines of ones lesea ch arca. ciusflt show its colors Or a svl ile t Related to breadtn of interest is another uaiiry with vary Ic c “sists r evades. p rice Ear. they’re had ideas. ned earlier. hut it is worth reflecting o i imaginatioi riot c on. It is useful to have It hab I et sot icd wh it I vu got i long list of somewhat related ideas listening to others as Well as oiieselr. it can lead one cc mild I ut a n mi in ch r u ris ic t F as problems It is cept dead conventions. Most of us have a little museum of cherished notion There is more titan a grain of truth in Edison’s “genius is s at to I e ed fo his or that reason.s ambiguous and open. wiost of the in h ii Ha a v t t sd’ i is useful to have the habit rime when your ideas don’t survive the tests presentcd ca [let 1 out unicicoily vs rib ing the log Cai structure of ones ideas u in this chapter. I Li t SC L IDIOk NL) Paees vi ii Fl s a use ul s tatcgy for m because I before considering them further. ii Ohs 1005k orderliness or thought is a good c]Liality in same time. You have k wv vi gi e t p on idras. becausc the ceitain 101 alce to clcas is a gleat strength. no slicer paralysis. to pigeonholing. on spet stunt n re’s th pigconlioiei has methods to new uses. On he one hand. Often a good idea range of topics is too great. much 99 percent perspiration and F percent inspiiation” Ideas to agait si cur viii In’s OK no keep these ideas in a personal mu need to be worked out. because it Will t 10 s I al . It can hide Ui gaihs of Imaginauc it the riot of tite rechissiheation papers mentio completely.

if you cant rake cniLiciSisl. H (0 U y A louglinut a d a cof easy to tell it you have too much self-confidence. This quai (ditre rences) engineers tbr some cases. In ldct. people who have too much self confidence b n up ci tis d keci 11 he de uls straight? As have much the same problem as people who havc’ too ittle . by fat ihe iriost rciportant it r . If they do recognize tneir tendency to d I p t Ds ( II imar iat you’a treated as a vi domineer. this quality of seeing confident. students who tack selt-cunndence are usually quite awace 5c tei on tin ground. So watch out fur congratulat styles if you Cafl. so idm p alits lilicrence at issue selt-conndencc in genelal everyone in acaocniia Lliii&KS C 01 e Sonic people has a tendency to see things as alike (by site can judge the self-conhdene of orheis by noting how macic making analogies): others see things as dirferent bv making they talk. rhcv’re probably just flimsy with so nienI c cudlcies. you arc C C ) Hi ati emauc us. but the’ often do riot see ic a their problem y ‘cal Ii t l)o i hxh I ir si in antics’ build down from so much as that of other students. on y irna ii ‘moo . if ou don t have to rewrite mon P ooi . can I e a cover—up for intellectual personality Ut Iesc.1501 / Cs cdl uut tor—aretu1 elaboration. if you can’t up poP liv t I alen .1\ tilt . they may put it down to other things: educational ry isioi tool be in a group of Ss can de advantage. who (they chtnie domineer t is ni s t m ti Qi do you see differ in an odd way. something that you something important about a topic y ou tnought you ktievv an’t happen with a pencil or a tennis bail. your papers three or four times. it\ oh seeing siiiiilariti or seeing (]ittereflct-S is captured in the There is probably nothing’ more importara than cuOiifl to a oath tus jt that m poiog is a niatlitmatician who good sense of your own degree of seir-confliene. there’s couch else involved in talking too in rio i Many ‘ears t the sonriel irc rots of Bell much. Come ruicto LILe moic uaiicies of ablicly cv iGent c 1 ii youru. iice a plane intersecting quickly th nk of two or three people who have recently taugi - th in can intersect ris a disconne ftJ parts. Li s best tà alLernate haLO eel. s1mpl’ because they are airuganc. As the Bell Labs feterence makes clear. If you do ir 1 n to ch orl r hut to doughnuts or coffee talking in most of your classes or in groups of itiends. 1 anJogics ss ith nothing in them. which are topologi well. you are probably tOo ost of the self-confident. c u us iou c aljk to them. you are pobb[y too sd. Generaill. desire to help others. Ineas 1. By con a ou as a plodding pgconhokr cc as Someone with his or trast. It pLCity ci y. and so on. People can talk a lot because they know a lot or because Li ‘e Ic ic b s trot g hat they they come from talky cultures ot because the ae try ng t to c so nit similar 1 ) engineers worked for peisuade themselves that they have something to ay a in S Cusses an I D D bosses. It is worth Irving to figure our your of their timidity. overconfident students ate unaware of al tram tl habit t otlic arounc on. To be an S person in their overconfidence. you are probably iGO selt silnhlarities or differences takes on much of its color relation confident. Things probably too self-confident. prior study.

People who lack self-confidence also iuse what others have As in love. Every in 1 hey deny thcmselves the help others can give. endless power and excitement. . interests and desires. thai u ) ( ri i i tional b i it s You need to recognize retains the sudden enticement and novelty that grabbed you cc ci c ( sak. But the long-run costs are great. never risking their own ideas independently. But remember that ulcu cli v often end up following the lead of something out. verF hosc of us who analogize begin with. but not because they don’t listen. ing a bathrobe and slippers. Having But you should feel you can never come to the end of it. a teacher— and never really stand back and judge them. You use daily. long while. even it they give then time to say it. LO break to hnd jobs . so here. all th while spree ut certaif ntellectual paths and tound them Liseless. work becomes pleasure and Edison’s 99 percent perspiraiflois and even then only at the price of incredible labor. You get familiar with it. You t i re are r nents whet we get into an shouldn’t move in with an idea that doesn t have that kir d i c nd cvervtiliilf the w rid looks like mar. maybe for a good. but they cannot learn to think on their with. perhaps better still. without its makeup or aftershave i i r I about ii in nions of ideas. It’s as if lating on the many details one might use to place them hetteL Mark Granoverter’s job seekers cm Chapter Four) were trying as a type of administration or. It’s like falling in love. a friend. As dulge yourself. IDEAS AND Puzzars Neitl n ti e feedback necessary to learn from others. The pigeonnoler can ponue pros their ideas Tl]e\ dun find out about facts that others ss ith sweet indecision. suddenly disappears into the 1 percent genius.m their own. Wallow in your ideas. down of rules in meritocratic administrative systems. You see it wea it be c i y ior risk then wn ideas. read seems to ht the analogy perfectly just as everyrhing about ore lose most ut what other people have to tell i the person you fall in love with seems to fit perfectly with vou I his rriakes their os ii intc Ilecrual de elopinent harder. they lis the excitement for a while. Rather. Feelings can be just as sriong for otne y air onI} As good as their own ability to judge and im styles of intellectual personality. but it takes a long time. Only truly out tellectual personality has its moods of excitement. when hard standing talent can make mLich headway with such a handicap. that it continues to challenge and provoke. just as you have to stand back arid I i for themselves. too. The short-run reward for such patrimonial bureaucracies deriving from the gradual drealc ople is aiwas s being right. without all the weak ties—you can them down into patrimonial bureaucracies set up as such arid do it. mately ideas are for communicating to others. which might be th best of four or five happen n base noticed They don t hear that others have tried ways of viewing patrimonial bureaucracies. Everyrhitig c c s e to say. it is worth surrendering yourself LU to tel them. kets or networks or nested dichotomies or whatever oni tasc it I eoi vi e much self-confidence don t pay attention to don is for the moment. They can do well under certain decide whether to move in with or marry someone you love. so you have tu ci I rs s es——a book. An a ii t otis—particularly if they are students of an idea you become serious about is just like somebody you live e I er. In ten too rnuLh.

a research project starts witl 00mm ‘t. . perhaps class clients with minimal difficulties while low-status psy swk c p nit is t t ideas—like the social real chiatrists worked in mental hospitals with mostly lower-class ty I d Hsc d he op iii ng p g of this hook —have to be clients with huge difficulties. Professionals b ip ni b t i id (My in isibic companion thcmselves give highest respect to colleagues who have little to CsIi oh I say iings e or then or get bor resay do with clients: consulting physicians. Most of the time. It was one of those rare occasions to ueji out dir a loi ely ci clung on the town. For me. interest and aren t clear at first what our puzzle isi Consider the tilot I5tl 1. Re \c m a What does it mean to say that we start out with general ii at tni y i de wd u h end time alone. hardworking professionals in the thick of client -bo tiers v hmr 11 m. ence with our data. I once noticed that status rank \V1iiLiI 10(1 ti gut to koow your idea in depth. They don t just shoxi up thll dressed and med most psychiatrists did. of the research from puzzle to solution. we are generally e 1 in s it ii area I mdi ig thc teal puzzle and ‘c r being urged on by the general (and insoluble) problems that 1 icliiij s sol on oem togctl as wc go foratd. and this empirical puzzle You w iii do mmething difibrent. trying out all the old additive tricks: What In the ver\ beginning. We are more likely to start out by playing at normal sci l1 o[ tl tSriiiLs Us to rn final topic: the qticstion or puzzles. And they when there is an obvious empirical puzzle and a straight march ant y toll ntion not part fit. clear puzzles don’t appear n S data. talking my elite researchers. I now probably got us into social science in the first place: Why oeed to clarify that idea. gives highest respecL ideas dirouglt to somuone imaglnurv makes mu more conscious to front-line. courtroom attorneys. its also great fun. clear. (0 ourse. does society have the statuses that it has? How does real social . however. The public. as I and most people then imag is ooud to he won. an problems: pri mary-case physicians.HL I i1( Os Ot Dicovzit iOiAS ANC PLzzs iht hoc sc ggesrs so ethin else important. no doabt: perhaps sit in a simply occurred to me one morning while I was thinking about mitain p10cc and look at certain scenery. clas 1 va skDws h(wfart push you and room teachers. no talking rare reverse case once in a while.) Someho. Do what on most to create a private world in a striking. lawyer team leader n or whatever st hich is very usurul. puzzling fact. it ings of professionals within professions were different from sta n am OliHI walkii aIUUl iiid t ilk nit aloud to an in tus rankings of professionals by those outside. perhaps clear your the fact that high-status psychiatrists talked to upper-middle- 110(1 LerL musu Iwfore si my do vii to think. by contrast. l I t neat mm ito TV. I suggested that one of the odd qualities is the effect of another variable? Does such and such a finding suci n-nec that w oftL n s 1 t a project with only a reD hold up in another setting? At the same time. Why should this be? I was working on the lUt I psychiatric profession at the time.

115cc surprising.e a - ss 1 at v c n s as ‘elivar t to that gen it ug the instant answem is what leads to success en 1 i lien and hut c i that hi mg ng the concern and the Some of us rely on external puzzle geneiaruis.os em ua Ia L .. thing doesnt it itlto it. it s hard to see what female colleagues dismisses as “reseaich of the loins add puts of the worh I call out for explanation. No matter what tile paiticular duection of ti en a t t to It di F re t o i whit it i That expectation commitments. nalizers. were bum mvi s. o tism re nearv devoti ot real content. well Seeing things political source for puzzles work 1111 if’ o e JIoc etc r zzlcs seat s it tog vii hug to live with ambiguity. social change.. You end up writing women and Stit. You but they all thought inequality was extremely important. Y I eat tell whethi something is puzzling unless ‘ ing concerns.aL tion. M1:’riioos ol Dis&. “ Such research is lioL terrible :rmncresing be’ cause it soon becomes elenticSS normal scsi 0Cc. Te toot t 1 s r a it i solved a.les means. 1CLEii1 Ix he ‘en the cry w i s i i 1 en have infinitely con di ift a bit.\ n i est and d it cal and moral commitments—of many ±rfe k rods—. war. Self-confident people. context-free meaning.rni’n a c find ourselves with a general concern of fur a bit. aren t happy running the engine an rome s roust . recOgnitoan Originates n OOliti. \V dii Cs di d ision of labor? How are t to have trouble seeing puzzles. The knowledge part is sense that inequalit. or they mht s wh Ut di gra ‘1 ian’ slajorS ri ode survey ‘ourses and why been angry with people who thought inequality wes em gra I in it gm s (ought to) I ye general examinations. in peat snuro”s. aiic have to know the background before von can see that some. these people caine to social sewn c tl e’tdy rcsts on what alread kno’a So the basis for finding things you thinking that these phenomena were heepl) minceesting. If you one always sees the same puzzle The result is what one ol’ misy don snov mvii sg ab ur dii woild.ie e essivc est e r ii Sn s. finding things puzzling is very i those who entered social science in that pet od usually han much a matter ot taste and knowledge..n L he en sting p with ideas. in many ways puzzling. This might have thought inequality was wrong. you are going men seem so often to behave differently but then go OIl 0 . If your puzzles to grow perpetually within one’s biozoer concert no first instinct ss i cli ans unusual fact is to am it into a category you can start with the puzzle of explainuig \mli’ wome and a lion ize n nr us of y ii favorite idea. of the arrogant varletl. is knowing about things that arent surprising. ‘1kw i ti issu is how wc recognize a pi zzie in this amor or moral commitments. bus iUr data together wtll lead us to a more specific puzzle and a solu many social scientists. t confidence gets in the way. Note that this is another lace vim . particu ted price S uc—-none of these has a iixed. s c al eF ange division of labor. and seeing puz. Out minds a a v ci 0 pilci td alucs 5 tahli e h ed Inn resting as these problems are. But that idling often helps in seeing pueieu i. \Ve can’t directly reason powerful pattern-making machine ut fOOte JnecISei. ad so uO.. The I Pbus was a time Os niomig fomtu 1 1 ‘I . Note that this explains why people The danger of the moral-political SOUCCC ‘of puzzles h that itt c e al heo v ne ret rue up w th much.

‘To tidgr h1 social science practice. ho of thIs attirudt mdcx mcinteststself iii what xe usually call hies.ht when lit said that “all personal and social concerns. hut an tnihappm family is unhappy at’— about the social world xx ithout hc ing a personal or social its own Isllioii. Foi eveiy petson liOnS dtiiths air’ ot this Icind. rather. there is agenda are often the hardest to come to know. if we hgure our our basic pm ale. And to he blunt. plains the surprising number of social scientists who undertake For somi pcs)pie—this is more characteristic of generations passionate research as oung professionals and then go to sleep tr )s ial v ilc to s puplcxing because they are intellectually in middle age. But they I lust mentioned The strength is strength of commitment and also can provide an energy and passion that drixe our need to depth of intetest. just as some of us wanted that mix nc t be clenti y rd ted 1 you alk with faculty mem Lack it) know all about snakes or tadpoles as little kids i . o xx 11 in i stnp isn utimber whose i people. it is sobering chat usually these xshose passion for social science comes from irub disinterested c\priumll motivated tacaltv members rite reacting to tin curiosity. personal sources for puzzles as well as social n pu 1 lai cnn 01 tril utc o the researcher: gender. It is. stunents. Theic passion iiii I iN ut join crest s al t pc sitive experiences Lit. w 1 11 n t va cc is p cent ly the tension be . finally. ately disinterested curiosity seems strange to the majority ot’ . ones. race. and so on It n t r arc I This it scareh soti ated by and focused on There are. there are dozens whose passion arose onigunaliy from ia y ‘c t r ‘i ol ov vas . Faculty who are deeply puzzled haN fan dies art alike. a piuDleni ‘les rak on logi uf H eir sn Among the best of the for middle-aged faculty. becausc thin’ of Is there ‘ri sorrow like my sorrow H’ n which case we they can get mindlessly routine. and because they are good cot w akn sse I thc political-moral puzzles only as long as the personal and social concerns last. All of these various sources can be dangerous because the ethnieitv. Sir IHUDs (ii Discoi FR\ liit uori vabout whs t is that xs ithiii women s groups s e often see tie is written about them. Perhaps r is this that e c i rhi se two log ics that Uris es their creatis itv. or whatever. These are the driving forces b ssl ni i ins c i r ivil d en hind most great social scientists. prolessiunal and Institutional eminence. ( c i als bc I is ci to st dy divorce or disability or There are those. children. although a school of “well ‘haitig re tepeared mane of the patterns 01 difference that we see between search has finahi taken root on the frontiers of psvchoiog ‘ and hr es he ohj ‘k in r 0 hc in nsion with the econol nics ri I in uzzi hoe vet. id o tend to force a choice The most important weakness of these personal mot1vatiol to either tjck v ith the origilial puzzlt or allow the subpuz is not one from which students suffer. don’t have a new source for problems. I lie weakness is the danger of bias and relent understand a puzzling world. Often identity research takes the give us particular desires for particular kinds of resulis. who simply find the social world in sclloolina or wealth hecatisc’ of immediate personal experiences trinsically interesting and puzzling. then. as their personal problems loot p< Icxed V i lie it oss posit on n it fhe most common form smaller in a life filled with marriage. very rare people.

th. proximaic. or sent If protessors..irgucnei Ic urisi Os are prohieniati a tar dc i. i a’ a their lives . hatever its sot h s UUZ/ enienc hcc mes compulsion to ligure our the a I W et y i I I fac I y ho have it.. and final) and by Home to h un r 5 orab s fl it Y iv 11 cc in hen by their behavior: mi iheir causesl It a shibboleth f standa ci sun tan know only isgular patrons. sot al taca cisc surround it cii in soctal Lime and spase. Op3sJ as cuituralism. cOflIOS svtth invent icy your ins n heuristics and reimagining the . — - ulteirir. Vlien you go to ofhce analysis.nd rca oneefo ual ran behaviorism. In I ye u sen ce front pcisoual and social ie rc socia concerns But men are ctlWdVS among the most creative.-.ce 0.rs: usidt tab c success. I said at the otit. constructionism.A tfoanriVumve technqse i’iW nssips cflhiiiclit cluster macion about rcseinhlarmci. learn front tHem. Thc 5lLO5S tn[i SclO. i distance between tOe ubjc cc a/cs uaca—reoct u ho it IC Lit I 1 Ic or ic ir cm usin the bland. behas ionstn. The position that air cani-ot measure (or s. A 1 stud iii . i. The position chat the chings and the qc alitmn of things em ocmmtcr I ci i t i1 5 itt ia a en vcta on between rigor and imag— social reality lire continuously reproduced anew in inreracnoo.tle. a success they yalue more highly with 0 brands (macanal. iUcr’ . Hut tot a lii in go1n throuah cons entional motions often case studs.cStL d It a now for cc u to find the excitement that 5 sosition . . coiC 15 sli Jft ho condesce ncltn and uninterested: another is analysis.s sorts noleca base I but tuliVciltionii and stale. The is iii has c thea faults often great ones. The raasons things oar Causaiitx was thougit 0.ll actor. thai rIle symbolic of cimicorm uSO n I rio ft id euhuralism. - . minc lioss ci er. i. The ma. - enrl> disurdeny indisiduis d.i 0 ogle uta: 50. busy techniques. so can contextuabsm.in suIh. I am 11 iv it tIny lad is 11 aginatiun. . . ane. 1 LISt aS rigor cJfl Dc practiced and mastered. that there arc active and ci en tal iH i Op or Jenti rig mdi eal assuiri p:ians . hut tOoT 031cc much to teas Ii and are thumsels es willing to learn. wers I r n i leas exti icate yourself conictJconsensus.iIy) tiic nicaiiiii that . objeeO or L. additive heuriseir Tra heurisc :iovc cT - c)ifiy 00cc icsl:. h iu tHai t is 1 s meth g tf at all good IiL 1 (1 St vs whet undergradu th arc wgn ni ig atCS. The debate user whether ui. tormal.fitiS nrc soc ii lists v ho I i t I ye th s err ative puzzlement si sign in action One can study only behavior extcinal actions t sat ace neasciranic 11 tI a ci mc iibers who d s ciii scic ice not for love reliable and reputable manner.n . 0ficlcLatC stticnt.ordcr in social I mcsultc in a dimidc and oppressive institutions icunboc theory or rri. n 1i pIt 1o i I h w t I nd y an own gifts of mu in a iccs dimension ot analysis making usc ol as V men on logical fl e argument heuristic i he heuristic mc vs ci ai rums a familiar eryClmci t mo a comp SOC I Ott C 1 HI oat it ii new t. A form ii quantitative analysis ha cu us ne winy 01 rir 15 I a i c e he i cm mxci cs o doing that But I have . Op/wacO /s realism inc helif mar soHl Octs make no ‘eras csl-en ahstrnreo ir 1 Iflat 100. prod son i all i an.. 03 inn sit Discotgi ci.lnseiSsiis Jcaur).. Iii I Ilatilil Dc Os ciopcd and ilicrished I hope in this book to correlational analysis.0 e’ . lent cedniatu0 ii 00 titdc uul SucH people have nothing to teach you. causalits. c. I he si nod i cc s:enr I Ii sue al . i 1 Us a.

... as hich must hr estimated by some naathematical functioma of the dam.. ‘I’ll (ti 10” cOO s.aric. ts o’ A t setettu 0 c S iii (it (LM c thor dirsetli atad dependent variables.mtm\c dat. The position tlaat socia facts cannot be measured a ichouc caking accoui I et of their meaning. I t L 1.sciaa . face mulscm emergent..citoOal 1inpi or interaction effect. .A qctantitariae techniqste that turns informarton . m — two or three dimensionst.tep0irttt sattattles pius sonar error nsation as possible See also data-reduction cechmques.5”i. demand. ‘here are laondrecla of multidimensional scaling.ct on sariable Z depeatis 0 the level if “ecal:oe r Pt’’ c ctpt c hetitt.eo a mat tc Ul.L\l ‘I .l_i.oid liter lcvels.rc cci...stigariog naethmads.’ a.. as in the phrase “\\‘hat is your merhodoltigy a oaeamng ‘WI ac tall 1 o l. ‘fypicalls. They create serious problems for nearlu’ all rypes of c . . a .my art 1 teitet al linear tiimcdcl t(.t mt ‘m ic m.. a atiah t caner. an effect that . P a . price.’ta at oi at i c a hits ate t1atii ag the con o urvilinear mtfet ts..mtng ntethod to the practices of tIme critiqued naerhod..mtte patti’ P.iantuaotae’tra them.itp It vi aol split inatiott and inierpretatior of coefficients.omt. These can he of var’ tOg types: mutttpbcattee efftats.atS sIio afe held to eenie. tap. 5. In linear jatodets ri.. In quantitative social science. lie’..x \tS We ces attic vie vets.. i i i 1 s t i i ii clii I sm irlrerprocivism. . .onmbitaaetonr of 0 ‘i abuts. a..p.nv lres m. acti n i I so ota.. A .mt ‘](m.a.. l’he word is also often used as It) imgctact 0 o nartlaocl it t at I pl It toriaaal cod analysts of equivalent of . ‘. the mathematiral form relating variables to onc ao it .t I ta s c t cd faets naethod did you use?” 1 1 s Ba a a o tt isa i’ atctlaod c otaccpt on in soctal act microeconomics. An alternative name for the standard linear model for indepcoclc a. a. em’s —r ‘P irf 0 . inLar i a tot tore ciaipkx data into historical rsarration. On tit.ps tnvolse scalar coefficients usho known as psranae an mc theta It fr ot tat ott tlmar taaojm...’ t ‘ I.c ““‘ .e.m. 0. c splanatort pregi at it . Tlae that all sorial phetitinmetia . cc l..est di tnt and last orm relits .. ‘I’lw heuristic move that works by changing ths’ wa we usc sro’ cs and events to describe the a cual lanooms. The branch of economics concerned with the behas jot of multitudes o wft cIt iaertv ‘ot tttg t lttacr . dating largels from the 1960s and 190s.t. asseimprions) that arc used ro estiniare the parameters of these (aiacl other) mcdels... . usually far a particular actor..Ltat a it . . .m.. It.rc namarel mtapa’— a tm tta. The important iaarrative heciristics atc p . n it C the patcmro a I cii at adci etit a estttaaatcd The multiple regression. _ a’ a ‘. t.... ’lat. tact on. mt ‘ct..lttat. ram.a. tar to if a In otate it p ft ij pragmarn cx ing rlac formal analysis or literary texts. 0 .cici t.eo. t..t.rtiica rolec ate at t:tt ‘.r. ci t c tint pertaca a oat tp roe at tOe elasale debates of model..l that of rltr incus idc.. d .t ‘iii i l lie ilii ‘.ta. reduction..ott. ii .mitim. such tIr sariahie X’ 5 er0. air t .tt..iJA . 0 . e instil. tta ic.1 a a cc di t sect if t w fat a and nan ative heuristic. P i ttie .tartae ..tmh tO tOe l. e’q lanattsin as t isac [to e sjalanat on nactacritique. advoc i s A a..... naaximuna-likelihoud cstimatioia (MLEI.aaivztng soci.. the relatiunsh. and budget constraint.te ft.mt get total atrateps or miqm... 11 Sn Oi to simpler di rensive readiiie of primary documents.ssc isa ..menc ters).bom rm. 1cm ‘dot tio a I’m. riinc..Oataredation it qctea. ia....‘ ‘at e the r p rot p.ti’ mm. A nauvement..mSe acat’ tt tot cite att”.o a .ut. suppressor cuïe. The critique of tine method by another based on the application (it ttt. aS.t tiara itt ss heat [tat.r data.a eattaplr. adam a )lcmna. A iaaerhod to a. atad place.d inc b 1 storeS Daseet cit. usit are nantes for different sets of assulnptioos (aiad the algorithms associated wici tla as tat a s. t .r” rtaetit cia a. A set of standard procedures and assumpriotas for carrying out some forna or tip . OppUieul to posisivis literary sri’ucturalisin. t te.ntihsd. .ta.sei Ott 1 rf.it (it.te r in. tea a 0. depimtes met t icmls method. so. .r. a’ tat. reramning in rite map as much cit rIte original distance ittaoi— a a. methodologis al india iduahsrn. a ta [l. always identical actors in simple markets under simple constraints founded ott concepts o the relationships antong supply.’ imp . a. ..tttmqeti. rcj ta a. 1 max oroos soc ml aiaalvsis tacttit snalmata. arid so on.it tacit. hniqctea methodology The dtscipline of invi.m je. Opposed to mulct cf/or’ she effects o otd a 1 t Ic ti is d The cxia potident variables when taken stngly.. arid so on whicf 5 1 t sr Ic sot a a art sul t titia ci c criods.. nor to be cortfused with sirdinary least squares (OLS peter itatist 11 ‘a tim I Ii n at miii a aliecd least sqciares (GLS). hiance or distance between a set of social oblects into a map of tht oh ccts usua. plaitat tim ac tat antic.ttcrn.t.. at ii.i ttmatliet.. 0.

551 V. An .. s.i\ with thc di. 5 Ii Owl I II 1111w 1(1 C 11)1)5 Ia tIll S aw. tL Crc 150001) eel win td SIVIOC went to HiS HISS s11ec AcsilIsSci 550/I S.S s.CLCJ sample hr reopt . oi ib.55 (.1 .tnrs S 1 s/s lormalization. Vs.U . Si •V ( la st 051 . U SsiCSds. In economics.s.e ieisd—nncar— TIOS Ic! .s..ta.0.1 1 ‘si a iy S S 5 pis. 1 W .prs-ss.ural analysis.\ enS Vtflt.a..1 scislItLi It) intttas. sails inis ow. ts.Vp!_HLs. U s 1 doan I SS S_i ‘V 0 llIC tVdll .sts. o L it i ns Is III S adigiti eros in a i ariahie ti VlI.15. ha.Ss.fre ptriuds but only one v 5 ii SC (15 COO VSSSH ii r s it .) S S.iy. p sJw to r rrserlt a. a cit elms. stairdaru e.irs.). 5055551 . t ‘nisi t I he atlas 1051001 f5 5 IV VS IS I 1 S is. C.L a.rnllr Ii. sS .-us.isncJ 1 inro )iseUilflitli. generalit or OUSt othei qo.1’ rs.l di V V . a iii her is seciucncc iseai.s.0 .flsil1O H C 001.t srI ISW TI ip V VS S 550 S tI a.yis. lie.s S Lit t a.5) 45 s.105411 ds: ny .111 VS . in waoU. C es S CVI ii . i wi i t i I its ti u p1 c (1 lieisi I Iowcr a i d I y al Ii lOsil . tnnatc loll ivtsIae e15 t I 1) I 1) a.VH V S S IVV V5d51C )s Oils ll S ‘nit t a.VVS: VS. _ VS_S SSS ‘h t.-SStIII 1 i is. suro It noethou 1 Tls S_jtlitShi da. o..tISVVs. S /ss. rs.j will ii alive model .555CC 55. dl S Si ii th V ill i iAs.d ifl 5115511 tile sis. U C um shic. independent. iiOi flJ t C iCiSS ours ival method. 4110.IU4OSSSCVs. linear nsnidel: ariable.s St 5555 V.n. Ussni b.S0 C at iarnii 55 ..ph s siz nil) 1 s Ii 1 h measure time-series method.(AI.. depenaent. LH. 5. 5 1’ .tstiltd. 1w-s sI aricthet. isascpens. is.S_SVltsm_ S5SiS )555 SIVI I. V 115 sO I I 5 fl 5 5 u in i sti H S I 1 c i n Is at ci a t ij nit interpre— ables..t. till tIC 41011 is) litjn._ is.h s. . ot iVarVahie. VS s_f VVII1a. Ao a. time-series tee hods are most cc n moIsly dc Ss. If OslO so tic 5 extcnt s. i h u t by rig irded as a I I H 51555 LI i I in 1 c t s. .h Ills.t ss srk 5 Is nVSI .s• 55 . 5 0 0 5551555 si aiim I th j ott iso i n inc strue i ura 1 wju atio a A s..1li tealitc variables. Lii. in st n 4 dar Causal 5 mnaiysms. p - V tb.0 uid .nn oUCS .. ii i o id t a.) 5)55 treat 5 i!) pi:iL 1 15051551 .5 P11tH VU s.ilisIlLii ch I Cs.1IFSCsifVU . teo. t 1 5 ill Ut as. 1 Se.5. ms. S met’ts 55 nlfs. SC A nil] udes . A s.. SL1’VilSi F s..Ss.l sit tiiLssft. A method hacd models of so solve sin a ai aba.w 0 SVs 1551 1 seilontUn.ns.is U eLnO iSa. tIependeOl: ariables .ioinrs janatiisn.r f ones. V iL arm I dat dl I5 Ls S S a.\IS)UtlHL.05501 l VII ii:m SVIS5F 5 C IitlleiO.1 VVV . tiC aoOS is .100 tOlUtits ol variable.ie s. 1 _Us.1 Inca Un V sat al esn . xplssnai r 1) A 5 :a.nmaliow . . I .ss. .s.midard s.ss in ossio. sa.SsJ. I V IV 0 il tas.SSVISVVVVIV_•_.SUiny si. 5/ 5 tote us. tincti ii htt\5 eel) depns.01 1 It I LOIS y ti nttlIIidS..e tICtI VS :s0s.h 1 . 1 5. U Us . hence ten js hot sviilo mans vasiabics. t 1 si 5.s sib ss t he!iavn t I s 1 i s.acsos.la i. I Sit! SlUt •SV U H S. VII t:Vs.ler .d Sn oa.f 55 fi. . ntactn. depends.srd UsiLsJ 55511’ CII 1115 .rai I 51)11 1551 UCOF 15551)51 St _. VS S S is VVI i 15 hi ia. s5 S V S• V VV ... VVa. ut Ida.siiiy U 001015 I 1. is) tn i. IViOC h 5 oar iieullstf_s so . explanation.t. data Ii ow ci e Ui ffercs I I ml S III V5 . sli se.! I 5. In sociolnys they are SHort s.1 S:CLs.tV)UIVVS >Vs. mL standard causal analysis. t i .tisjfl. SIC 0/)) St u a V teal Vii Sd s uual olluctiS LV IS V I 5 5..!l .ient and sidLCsV_Ie IL thico 5 sl 5iCS i ir d a i cli cquai ohs S VIV dit cc It a. thc ha stylr ad tact A impli hed lsiyhly aba.

’ their ahilir 1 to keep producing OCo ideas and ix inc the wa to new findings. chamsgmiig. 5 liat people osny. in practicr people .. they use . Properly spcdPmmg. Among nlanv writers who have made the case for “beatv’ in scmentinc Sw Chandrasei-iar ii 99.. semantics.prucc-o Ores lot rsgorm civ gui ry.hsJlsa! the ad e to. . .Is/sm ie/. M etiiodology S (Ii re—calls i j Sc OSSIOiS I ms-sos -us 5 or standard causal analysis (SCA). c loi m o . - rs lutinc. nessi 0 is not a complete d o can do titIis orE. atsd L me 5 peopw se 0 oorkmn morIg lcse out been studied hetur he cannot help making an of tn Oiitinfl ti kfmoSs ledge.the rnos :mww 5 quality or research programs is thcir heuristic pow er. -t 2 li ‘vorsis for oem tin 0 methods art. w h 1 cli .su. Svnr.Morris (1938).si. Scimetimes qoant tacise analysts do undertake dctailrd study of several case’. s.a. (170:2-Is) In the mow icai phraseology 5 thcore of hnre Lakatos .’ iv in the lhmiliar seminar question.. ihsse terms not ustamarily use ses. met/sari. 2. and pragmatits arc the three fundamental sspectS of. a mk-noe sS c. then.s tlios the adjective form mis. vs hilt to write aL’s m Ethnograph ethnography or SCA is to write merhodolog.x.lo st Evaiss—Prits haid Oflec remarked.mrs 1’ nOsy SIte! ow tact! mds/sy m mean method. Ar ‘one an pn d oc a new tact: the di no is a nt-vs idea. !.s. is a method.i 90: -2r1. 01 vs tw:s explanation is an s-sample.sii stems. “What’s your method oloy t” ls. rs. Noms C1IPTER 1 1 As 5 tg anrs: anrlir pi. a I have tried to maintain e 8 t traditional distinction betvvecn meeho I and inetliodoIog thrt oghoco - 5.s.ed ‘ (or a itt/s 1 and k-ti/S lslog. For an c ample see Paige (1975).

ci n’s ft tIlt . is. dent tells his merucoc he SeeS • one -urine red-U iliac DI -sto tJ H s it.’ see Abbott and Isay 120kb- hut ii ass attic Js is’ ft-ins tiers To h . ’ 0 oj. si 5 -1 (5 if r s C ‘I ii i c .ular .io base piaked is on. its eta Ic’ iiaurcd it ci tiutincliac iii mi sonsecilse woc.ir d . at ta to beyond clue Hiss I i1 1 tie. 1 t ii ii mi r i t I ss 1 IC z an 1 isa ii.i 5 c Lsi. tois stoats a we V i_it h urtsniCus 5 t _ti ‘Si r r c iii hi cit 15 i..i s . Dssrostorcs n. riOt tO sOcial icc_h ‘. it n. i U i h y c:a l hit had no _ stti ‘i’itict 55. ‘ ‘-.n chc tins Ic 1 slocal fiji the snftuiar Oct.ihCCiSE i a ii ii 1 a c t tat v ci oils rh SEA pog ‘a a general tevtnsl of Le “mint-industry.I dido t get cisc poior char he Was talkitig about hint and inv—sachs s5o• some abstract tisue utsul t-sao.as. . s. 555 i5s ARGL MLNT HL0RISTIr U t c.. a. Li..tsOtsS. it ii V ti is c tud and sic at r at ssvs r rita clots— rite sinsilartliCi. Of i mc and of Si’S iSIS iC.• st Os..se an.a maLe o I lntputer Sc Otis C. at cc is it ins sat a tic unisrstandtngs tIc inn d. t is aaamned. ‘S S ‘.hes einbsdocd tn aC rifle and tics itisc ci. 5 Cook l. So he sale tCC another si uoiarsrs . he saw she stir’s taisi Ni as p t ti t.S is elf.00 . a ii sp I Ci . . moos-is resorne ii is torn.sjlci. ni sd I or iorniai iuic as individual logh sysroic a d in 5 i code C . I ift Ott tili cUr sn rtt a lint liii 1550 inn. h : their tusages 5 bo iii lciWI th 5 sm’sdard usace rh cit .tSt a0v no cvsni—. o 0 rrectl saw ii snot sdeas cuss reason why hc atsd 1 ha’.s as i Cc 1)5 ’ 5 it. its ‘a ti iii .’is is mdc i tot isir tUft slot .s riu. ‘You dinuld have vocsr e i btli woe ch.” arwoids 2. Hut b i sos to cn mu sic riot n c tint ii ft mel lack but th ‘Y I a h ChAPTER 6 FRAC . that cvi ac r a cwftit Is fiat . .0 sos .5 0 1 5 oaiu inc sat c Li ins m uus waikit doss ri rho road. )( Al PRM Ill ES CHAPTER 7 lOLA’s -cND PLZZLES ii c ial copi I am I Ic i art i C itc d in w I Di c din c cli u ys about any ieats ago Ls ir tlsthe 1.rc osesisuafi to suer about a c:btag0 CCUt5Ci.l I lies coot )S’s it Soro . u. HEDR1STICL i to <nit no i si 0 r aLl s. lOt I sloti .. .10 ii a S-uI’. . Ha in I i c no c cit real 1 i it I’ i it 1..-c.onn. Dunn ftc-I nscth. i at ci In cc s u LI. is tic is. 001 i’ is iii c-i cii’ H -its ise Ott cas.cis ccci. c is tic Hi i 0 si I hs the gr.tntn ai’tCk ft tn Sc ‘is.iituits classi is s 11 i-i a sa it. I1.s the L aUS.1 ci s ott ‘1 h s is lie is .ctlicr too frames sO taiLing abouc nsachemattrs aud other techniCal sttbccts. . 0 rS die itoil’ mujt Soft 5 it dii k and 0 ‘i’hctc.1 c-s’.0 _Dhuft ai0. tfsitos are it’ Ca IL a ccis r is h I. ‘I S tiznc se bcii.’. wheti I slnssed him this note lie sold ails it c Ic though of himself a a 5 stmt r ities l. I . I is-’ Oct i’s ci ii c w .tsis i’s \Ian 5’i sit iii caL a a nut shc 5th lit tnt ii a fiartusu at h ‘cots . e .s 5 .C it .tsar 1 sisd 00( N U) ){ II )N (1 Iiit i IICS loft’ tot...ici_at.metst ..ss . Moreoss’r. It us . peetoti . years laser. the iititbsc 0 ii ‘itO sic Dan kt. The 5 n. ii Os u ii tr 1k s ( 1 I didu r..aU Utit’ speaKs ft L i 0 1 l’s t itt i its is ii hLis 5 i i is s hi rln..ao pcev p. 1 was referred to chs discctssinn 01 scientists as Bell Lais n 5 0 cut.. ci iLs 0 horrus tn is as .5 1 dis..55 tnt I C’)i Kit so cHing to gi. t - ot csJ ‘cot... C • hit first susu0leicas scatestt0ti..bccu CHAPTLIC 4 jLt\Litor HEE’RISLCS: oA S_i i.t acuse . In this sardt.tttitjst stiles . .t. r c as i t an ods of -i isO ci ti itt c.cs Its 55 •‘‘ ‘ .troular ‘lists aroc.se lcseeO cIte toSOfl.11