Search

The article focuses on prediction logic and quasi-independence in empirical evaluation of formal theory. In the paper by researchers D.K. Hildebrand, J.D. Laing and H.L. Rosenthal, a paradigm for the statement and empirical evaluation of a class of propositions predicting specific relations between qualitative variables was proposed. The approach represents a substantial departure from traditional modes of analysis. Consequently, it is not surprising that one encounters resistance and misunderstanding in those who work in different traditions. The lengthy critique of the paper by researchers L.A. Goodman and W.H. Kruskal, henceforth G&K, illustrates the inappropriateness of evaluating the paradigm using traditional perspectives. G&K operate in two contexts: measures of association and multiplicative models for probabilities in cross-classifications. The primary objective in the paper discussed by G&K was to design a general model that provides a distinct and operationally interpretable measure of the prediction success attained in a population by any logically distinct proposition stated, a priori, in the prediction logic.

This paper examines some theoretical and empirical problems in local-cosmopolitan analysis. Although this distinction has been popularized through exploratory studies conducted by Merton (1957), Gouldner 1957-58), and others, the theoretical status of this distinction and empirical knowledge acquired through its use remain obscure. Judged by the frequency with which this distinction gets used in ad hoc interpretation of research findings (e.g., Glock and Stark, 1965:280), it would appear that localism-cosmopolitanism constitutes a well-established explanatory principle in sociology. In fact, frequent use of the local-cosmopolitan distinction is a poor indicator of either explanatory power or empirical knowledge about the social relations or processes these terms may be taken to represent. Usage is often vague, e.g., regarding the nature of the theory or what, if anything, is to be explained by it (cf. Blau and Scott, 1962:64-71). This paper makes problematic what is sometimes assumed about localism-cosmopolitanism, and attempts, through analysis of empirical findings and propositions, to assess the prospects for a theory of localism-cosmopolitanism. Of concern here are: (i) whether writings on localism-cosmopolitanism consist only of an elaboration of an insightful distinction, or whether these writings contain empirical discoveries that through refinement can be worked into a theory of explanatory power; (ii) whether various interpretations of social events in terms of localism-cosmopolitanism focus on some common empirical referents about which a single theory is appropriate; and (iii) what the content and nature of local-cosmopolitan theory should be. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A number of questions have been recently raised or re-raised with respect to the status and intended function in sociology of the methodological device known as the "type." Martindale's summary of the historical and contemporary uses to which the typology has been put as well as his formulation of the issues connected with such use permits the economy of moving directly into a specification of the problems considered in this paper, and the proposed solutions. The present effort is directed primarily at providing one solution to the often raised problem of "the relation between the idealization involved in the type and the empirical reality," although less pressing issues are also treated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on empirical evaluation of formal theory. In the paper by researchers D.K. Hildebrand, J.D. Laing and H.L. Rosenthal, henceforth HLR, proposed an index to measure the adequacy of a particular kind of theory when confronted with harsh facts. The authors L.A. Goodman and W.H. Kruskal, henceforth GK, presented a critical analysis, together with constructive proposals towards partial mitigation of the flaws and gaps they found in HLR. The authors do not agree with the rationales given in HLR for the independence like denominator of the proposed index. One can, however, take the index as given and ask how it performs. It was noted in GK that the HLR index compares the theoretically empty cells with the multiplicative yardstick probabilities for those cells, and no adequate justification for this comparison was found. This is so for both the unweighted and weighted forms of the index. In GK, some modest ways around this problem was suggested without claiming necessarily wide applicability for the suggestions.