Funding large-scale qualitative sociology

Myrna Silverman, Edward Mulvey, and Barry Glassner helped us with thoughtful critiques of earlier drafts.     

Must sociology be qualitative?

This article addresses the question of whether sociology can in principle become a quantitative science. I distinguish several senses in which a contrast between quantitative and qualitative science might be understood. I focus on the central — and traditional — sense: can sociology become a nomological science, in the way physics is? I argue that it cannot, on the ontological ground that the determinants of human actions cannot be analyzed in purely causal terms. In the article I try to characterize this difference.     

The invisibility of qualitative sociology in Sweden

Summary The special situation of Swedish qualitative sociology may reflect the implacable and antagonistic attitude of the quantitative sociological establishment which in practice controls all research funds and all power in the universities. To try for a scientific career as a purely qualitative sociology is still very risky in Sweden. This situation, together with the alliance between positivists and Marxists, helps explain the severe obstacles facing the formation of a qualitative alternative.Interestingly, however, there has always been a segment of Swedish sociologists skeptical of quantitative sociology, a segment which may be growing. But, lacking a qualitative tradition, regarded with suspicion by Marxists, and stopped in their career by the quantitative sociologists who have academic power, most potential qualitative sociologists end up trying to combine qualitative and quantitative methods. Thus, the qualitative sociology that does emerge is an out-growth of criticism of quantitative methodology rather than a truly independent alternative.This paper has been edited extensively by Shulamit Reinharz.     

Metatheorizing in sociology

This paper describes and makes the case for sociological metatheorizing, or the systematic study of sociological theory. Three types of metatheorizing are delineated on the basis of their end products: the attainment of a deeper understanding of theory, the creation of new theory, and the creation of an overarching theoretical perspective (a metatheory). The basic problems in metatheorizing are reviewed and it is concluded that the most basic difficulty has been the lack of a clear definition of the subfield. Some thoughts on the future of metatheorizing in sociology are offered.     

Trends in sociology titles

Recent reflections on the state of publications in sociology (Becker, 2003) suggest that article titles are getting longer. I test this hypothesis with data from ASR since inception and a wider sample of papers from Sociological Abstracts between 1963 and 1999. My results indicate a rapid and widespread increase in title length. Further analyses suggest that title length does not predict citation, suggesting that long titles are not an avenue for getting more readers. Thanks to Randy Hodson, Joan Huber, David Jacobs, Lisa Keister, Ryan Light, Betty Menaghan, and members of the Social Structure Reading Group for comments on earlier drafts of this paper.