Search

Considerable attention has been given recently to the perplexing problem of the relationship between attitudes and behavior (Ehrlich, 1969; Deutscher, 1969; Warner and DeFleur, 1969; Ajzen et al., 1970; Lastrucci, 1970; Tarter, 1970). Methodological issues have been debated, the lack of congruence between attitudes and behavior has been examined, and a variety of solutions have been offered. We are told, for example, that the continuing poor correlation between measured attitudes and overt behavior requires us to search for the intervening variable or variables which apparently obtain (Ehrlich, 1969); or to employ the "direct observation" of the phenomenon under investigation rather than try to extrapolate from paper-and-pencil tests to behavior (Deutscher, 1969); or to develop theories that, in turn, enable us to find indicators that are more valid than the paper-and-pencil type (Lastrueci, 1970); or to simply admit that attitudes as "presently conceptualized play no real role in behavior" (Tarter, 1970). A number of important aspects of attitude research, however, have been obscured or omitted in these discussions. For the surprising aspect of the situation is not, as has often been implied, the lack of congruence between attitudes and behavior, but the persistent use of research designs that are inappropriate for the complexity of the subject under investigation. Further, it is surprising that researchers have failed to draw out other important implications of their research. That is, the fact that an attitude does not lead directly to a behavior does not justify the assertion that attitudes play no role in behavior, or that attitude research lacks significant implications for social life. The basis for this latter statement will be shown below in a discussion of the values of attitude research. It may be that inadequate research designs, valued for their simplicity rather than their appropriateness, are a manifestation of the "publish or perish" syndrome. In any ease, this paper attempts to outline the problems and the values of attitude research, and to demonstrate thereby that such research is of great significance for the understanding of social phenomena. If that significance seems minimized by those studies that have found poor correlation between attitudes and behavior, the fault lies both in the failure to create research designs that reflect the complexity of the problem and in the tendency to exalt the importance of the proximate causes of overt behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper proposes an approach to data analysis that assists the investigator in discriminating among specific relations corresponding to alternative scientific predictions about qualitative variates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present experiment was designed to reappraise a series of studies that have shown that people differentiate more among persons whom they dislike than they like. The issue raised in this paper is that the results reported in previous research may not necessarily support the hypotheses formulated to account for these results. Such hypotheses (in particular the Miller and Bieri vigilance hypothesis) have traditionally implied a certain type and direction of causality in the data. The present study reveals that perceived complexity can be manipulated by having subjects justify their choice of liked and disliked objects. This finding would seem to require a reinterpretation of previous data, and an alternative hypothesis is discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The reported experiment is based on a few assumptions. First that people perceive each other in the two dimensions of tower as the ability to satisfy needs, and acceptance defined as the willingness to do so. A new research tool, based on these assumptions, the statogram, has been introduced. The second assumption (tested in other experiments) is that human groups should be divided into Instrumental, Mutual Acceptance, and Vectorial ones according to the objectives of their members. The experimental group reported here was an Instrumental one. Leadership in an Instrumental group has been studied experimentally in the reported experiment. Leadership has been defined as a relationship between two parts of a group in which one part, the leader (s), initiates, stimulates, and sometimes even determines the activities of the other part called follower (s). This study emphasizes the situational factors in leadership. Leadership is a function of the specific situation in a group. Specific hypothesis has been brought forward that in an Instrumental group, leadership is rather a function of power than of acceptance. A group of six subjects was assembled, two of them especially instructed, one of them had to behave like a strong but unfriendly person while the other had to be very friendly and weak. The results of statogram and of observers, mutually highly correlated, did prove what has been anticipated. A series of experiments are being conducted to develop the new research tool applied in this study and to corroborate further and on larger samples the hypothesis proposed in this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the major gaps in research in TST measured self-conception is data relevant to the assumption that self-conception is a stable structure of meanings attached to self. This paper indicates the inconsistency between current theoretical and empirical orientations in the area of self-conception and outlines three basic models of the processual characteristics of self-conception found in the literature. Using a ten wave panel design in which self-conception is measured repeatedly throughout the subjects' daily interactional routines, specific hypotheses derived from the models are tested. Results suggest which model is most appropriate for the description of the processual characteristics of various aspects of self-conception and the possible errors involved in the continued use of current self-conception research designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The importance of scientific work depends on the number of scientific values it brings out and the extent to which allowance is made for each of these values. A perfect paper in social science should, among other things, build on safe data applicable to a representative sample. According to the nature of the research work concerned they have to weigh deliberately the gains obtained in certain respects against the losses incurred in other respects, or at least attempt to proceed as if they have done so. Different research workers easily come to weighing out the elements differently. There may be agreement about the scientific values but not about the weights to be attributed to them in research work. It is easy to acquire a knowledge of scientific values. It is difficult to adapt them. This is, however, a circumstance of which young research students are ignorant. Instead, they revolt at finding that such a large number of investigations turn out to be failures in so many respects. Later on, when they start doing their own investigation, they have to realize that there is a great distance between their aspirations and their results.

The author clarifies the points made by critic Leonard Beeghley about his sociological research on four function paradigm. The critic is correct in his contention that the paper missed the point on the dual application in the four function paradigm. The reasons why the paper never went too far with the argument is the lack of necessity to do so. However, the author examined the propositions upon which the four function paradigm is based and finding them contradictory, felt there was no need to deal with the applications of the paradigm that depended upon the validity of the propositions. Furthermore, the difficulties in the paradigm are so abundant that quite independent additional arguments can be advanced against it. Thus, while the argument presented in the research that the paradigm's foundational propositions are contradictory, the arguments presented in the research is quite sufficient.

The author reflects on the issues concerning the work relations between the officials of international affairs and academic community. He asserted that a problem of mutual incomprehensibility has emerged between the government and social sciences. Projects wherein the government and academic community collaborated are provided. In fact, the government has undertaken some initiatives to encourage scholars and government officials to collaborate. The sensitive problems emerging from the use of scholarly research by the government are discussed.

It is traditional to consider that scientific research should be free. During the past, it has been affected by material and intellectual constraints; these constraints have evolved but exist still today. Because of the unity of the ocean, researchers, and especially oceanographers, claim a scientific immunity for their work. Because of the resources of the oceans, governments explicitly or implicitly consider freedom of scientific research as an application of the doctrine of economic liberalism, with its advantages and its disadvantages. Be that as it may, scientific research is absolutely necessary. To make compatible the demands of researchers and governments, freedom may become deontology. Researchers receive from authorities the largest rights of circulation applying to individuals, to materials, and to ideas. Researchers have, in counterpart, the duty to protect, to develop and to share the knowledge resulting from their work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on empirical evaluation of formal theory. Researchers D.K. Hildebrand, J.D. Laing, and H.L. Rosenthal, henceforth H-L-R, propose an index to measure the adequacy of a theory that asserts or predicts emptiness of some cells in a two-way cross classification. There are two separate motivating arguments used by H-L-R to justify the independence-like products of marginals in the denominator of their index. The first argument establishes a kind of null or benchmark hypothesis for saying something about y in ignorance of both "x" and "y" to compare with statements of the theory. But that benchmark procedure seems to us arbitrary and inappropriate. The second argument for benchmark independence turns on arbitrary, tendentious definitions of the terms scope and precision for the theory. There have been many attempts to frame useful quantitative notions of degree of confirmation of a theory. H-L-R and also much of the literature mentioned treat highly simplified notions of theory. The very concept of a scientific theory is not simple, and in any case it seems to us confusing to deal with scientific theories as if they were reducible to cross-classifications with some cells asserted empty.

The article reflects on comparative method in education from 1964 to 1966. It discusses the efforts to improve methods of cross-cultural analysis which, according to the author, is of immediate importance to professional researchers in the field of comparative education. The article discusses the search for systematization of comparative methods in education and related fields. It considers efforts concerning foreign education which could be listed under the heading of International Studies in Education.

Replication is one of several methodological techniques that contributes to the verification of survey research data. A critique of the literature on replication reveals that limited systematic attention has been given to its various functions in the process of verification. A replication paradigm is formulated to clarify terminology and functions. The paradigm consists of four major replication types: retest, internal, independent, and theoretical. These are analyzed and illustrated by published replication studies. An argument is offered in favor of the increased use of replication in survey research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The state of current theory is one of variety. Not only are there a few competing large schools or systems, these attracting most of the attention, but there also exists a far larger number of small theories, more likely to be used in research. Complicating the picture are two other trends. One is the intensification of the long standing "humanist-positivist" polarity in the 1960's at the expense of the Theory-Method ideal. The other is the fact that much of the field remains empiricist, following neither large theory nor small but confining its "theorizing" to the conceptual level. Ail these exist in modem sociology and present a picture of diversity. Moreover, one ought not to be too sanguine about an integrated future. First, as the field continues to grow, it not only expands into new areas of human concern but gains strength cross-culturally—these creating at least a temporary heterogeneity of standpoint. Second, and a more basic barrier to integration, is the likely prospect that the heterogeneity of subject matter of a given field—such as sociology—requires several different theories that must be used alternatively and selectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sociology is believed to be the most methodology-conscious of the social sciences. Difficulties in defining who are the good and bad in sociological arguments have been the focus of much debate among social scientists and the debate has greatly influenced the need for methodology in the discipline. The article examines some fundamental issues in methodology as applied to sociology. While the placement of method as the essence of science can generate a sort of methodolatry, it is only fair to examine in some detail the sort of propositions dealt with in any inquiry. The goal is for all to be equally and very rigorous, contingent specially on the degree to which the problem is rigorously stated.

Since the impetus and design of research inevitably derive from a set of assumptions, whether explicit or not, the nature of fact—the categories in which something is captured out of the Deal world"—is dependent upon these assumptions. It is reason enough to suggest that in efforts to advance sociological knowledge at least as much care should be given to explicating the linkages of ideas as to empirical operations. The positivist traditions of sociology have, however, often meant that high-level, "general" or even "middle range" theorizing has been more of an avocation than a vocation for most sociologists, and that much more rigor, energy, and professional skill have in recent decades gone into the empirical aspect of research than into the theoretical. Though the bearings of theory and research upon each other have been usefully discussed and have, in fact, become a kind of credo, almost any published discussion lacking in figures and tables and involving some commentary beyond sheer description has been capable of definition as "theory." Where so little has been expected, relatively little by way of intellectual and other resources has been invested. Consequently, the returns have been small. Even when serious theoretical work has been attempted, it has often received something less than systematic consideration. Such work—some examples undoubtedly more scholarly and sophisticated than others—has been given more or less favorable receptions largely in accord with semantic preferences, generally unspecific "orientations," and degrees of sympathy for speculation as, hopefully and somehow, relevant to real research. Other than to note particular historical events and to cite research findings considered pertinent to some statement or other contained in a discussion, the supporters, sympathizers, and opponents of theorizing have rarely spelled out the criteria by which judgment was delivered. In short, the problems of theory construction have been neglected in favor of the more obviously empirical problems of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents remarks on the sociology of social scientists. Initially, social science ought to engage in the critical analysis of society, which implies that social scientists should engage in discussing unsolved social problems, in analyzing them, and in taking a position on controversial subjects. Secondly, social science ought to be used as a tool for social planning which means that social science ought to put its knowledge at the disposal of politicians and those responsible for planning. Thirdly, social science ought to be used in social engineering, which means that social scientists should actively participate in solving social problems. In general it is difficult to measure the influence of social scientific research. One possibility would be to measure the way research is presented in the mass media and to observe the influence that it has on the reasoning of opinions transmitters and on opinion leaders. Thus the results of research may be used in opinion formation.

The author criticizes the article by David J. Gray published in the periodical "Sociological Quarterly." In the article, Gray claims that the chief characteristic of our whole historical development is to have swept cleanly away all the older social forms of organization. One of Gray's failures, according to the author, is his shifting of meaning for value and value free. The highest use to which Gray's article might be put would be as material for a class exercise in conceptual analysis. Gray has also overlooked the fact that sociologists, like medical researchers, may legitimately adopt value positions.

The article presents information on Scandinavian Summer University and information on articles published including the contributors to the journal "Acta Sociologica." The Scandinavian Summer University was established in 1950. Its goal is the pursuit of interdisciplinary discussions and studies, Sociology of Law was obviously a suitable subject and in 1964 it was included in the programme. During the last three years students and scholars from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden have participated in the Summer Universities Sessions which each year take place in one of the Scandinavian countries. The participants have also prepared each summer's work by taking part in study circles, which have been arranged in some of the Scandinavian university towns. The present collection of articles is the first, more substantial result of this Scandinavian cooperation. The interdisciplinary research work is being continued in working groups directed by Kerstin Bimborn, K.J. Lang and others. The work in the Scandinavian study circles and the summer sessions has during the first two years been coordinated and directed by Hans Klette during the last year by the editor.