98
Please read: A personal appeal from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales Read now Critical theory From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Sociology Portal Theory · History Positivism · Antipositivism Functionalism · Conflict theory Middle-range · Mathematical Critical theory · Socialization Structure and agency Research methods Quantitative · Qualitative Historical · Computational Ethnographic Topics · Subfields Cities · Class · Crime · Culture Deviance · Demography · Education Economy · Environment · Family Gender · Health · Industry ·

Critical Therory

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Critical Therory

Please read:A personal appeal fromWikipedia founder Jimmy Wales Read now

Critical theoryFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sociology

Portal

Theory · History

Positivism · Antipositivism

Functionalism · Conflict theory

Middle-range · Mathematical

Critical theory · Socialization

Structure and agency

Research methods

Quantitative · Qualitative

Historical · Computational

Ethnographic

Topics · Subfields

Cities · Class · Crime · Culture

Deviance · Demography · Education

Economy · Environment · Family

Gender · Health · Industry · Internet

Knowledge · Law · Medicine

Politics · Mobility · Race and ethnicity

Page 2: Critical Therory

Rationalization · Religion · Science

Secularization · Social networks

Social psychology · Stratification

Categories · Lists

Journals · Sociologists

Article index · Outline

v · d · e

Critical theory is an examination and critique of society and culture, drawing from knowledge across the social sciences and humanities. The term has two different meanings with different origins and histories: one originating in sociology and the other in literary criticism. This has led to the very literal use of 'critical theory' as an umbrella term to describe any theory founded upon critique.

In the sociological context, critical theory refers to a style of Marxist theory with a tendency to engage with non-Marxist influences (for instance the work of Friedrich Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud).[1] Modern critical theory arose from a trajectory extending from the antipositivist sociology of Max Weber and Georg Simmel, the Marxist theory of Georg Lukács and Antonio Gramsci, toward the milieu associated with Frankfurt Institute of Social Research.

Five "Frankfurt School" theorists were chiefly responsible for establishing critical theory as a specific strand of thought: Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, and, slightly later, Jürgen Habermas. With the latter, critical theory shed its roots in German idealism and moved closer to American pragmatism. The concern for a social "base and superstructure" is one of the few remaining Marxist concepts in much contemporary critical theory.[2] Whilst the critical theorists are usually defined as Marxist intellectuals, their tendency to denounce so many Marxian elements has been attacked as 'revisionism' by stricter Marxists.

Page 3: Critical Therory

Please read:A personal appeal fromWikipedia founder Jimmy Wales Read now

Positivism (disambiguation)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look up positivism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Positivism, a philosophy which states that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge, in opposition to pure empiricism and central to the foundation of academic sociology.

Positivism may also refer to:

Legal positivism , a school of thought in jurisprudence and the philosophy of law Logical positivism , a school of philosophy that combines empiricism with a version of

rationalism

Political positivism , a theory founded by Ljubiša Bojić

Sociological positivism , a sociological paradigm

Positivism in Poland , a socio-cultural movement in Poland after the January Uprising

[edit] See also

Postpositivism

This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title.If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

Categories: Disambiguation pages

Log in / create account

Article

Discussion

Page 4: Critical Therory

Read

Edit

View history

Main page Contents

Featured content

Current events

Random article

Donate to Wikipedia

Interaction

Help About Wikipedia

Community portal

Recent changes

Contact Wikipedia

Toolbox

Print/export

Languages

Eesti Русский

This page was last modified on 1 February 2011 at 04:19.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details.Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Contact us

Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Page 5: Critical Therory

Disclaimers

Mobile view

Contents

 [hide]  1 Two primary definitions 2 In social theory

o 2.1 Postmodern critical theory

3 In literary criticism

4 Language and construction

o 4.1 Language and communication

o 4.2 Construction

5 See also

o 5.1 Lists

o 5.2 Related subjects

o 5.3 Journals related and/or dedicated to critical theory or critical sociology

6 Footnotes

7 References

8 External links

[edit] Two primary definitions

The two meanings of critical theory—from different intellectual traditions associated with the meaning of criticism and critique—derive ultimately from the Greek word kritikos meaning judgment or discernment, and in their present forms go back to the 18th century. While they can be considered completely independent intellectual pursuits, increasingly scholars are interested in the areas of critique where the two overlap.

Page 6: Critical Therory

To use an epistemological distinction introduced by Jürgen Habermas in Erkenntnis und Interesse [1968] (Knowledge and Human Interests), critical theory in literary studies is ultimately a form of hermeneutics, i.e. knowledge via interpretation to understand the meaning of human texts and symbolic expressions—including the interpretation of texts which are themselves implicitly or explicitly the interpretation of other texts. Critical social theory is, in contrast, a form of self-reflective knowledge involving both understanding and theoretical explanation to reduce entrapment in systems of domination or dependence, obeying the emancipatory interest in expanding the scope of autonomy and reducing the scope of domination.

From this perspective, much literary critical theory, since it is focused on interpretation and explanation rather than on social transformation, would be regarded as positivistic or traditional rather than critical theory in the Kantian or Marxian sense. Critical theory in literature and the humanities in general does not necessarily involve a normative dimension, whereas critical social theory does, either through criticizing society from some general theory of values, norms, or "oughts," or through criticizing it in terms of its own espoused values.

[edit] In social theory

Part of a series on the

Frankfurt School

Major works

Reason and Revolution

The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical

Reproduction

Eclipse of Reason

Dialectic of Enlightenment

Minima Moralia

Eros and Civilization

One-Dimensional Man

Negative Dialectics

Page 7: Critical Therory

The Structural Transformation of the Public

Sphere

The Theory of Communicative Action

Notable theorists

Max Horkheimer · Theodor Adorno

Herbert Marcuse · Walter Benjamin

Erich Fromm · Friedrich Pollock

Leo Löwenthal · Jürgen Habermas

Important concepts

Critical Theory · Dialectic · Praxis

Psychoanalysis · Antipositivism

Popular culture · Culture industry

Advanced capitalism · Privatism

Non-Identity · Communicative Rationality

Legitimation Crisis

v · d · e

Main article: Frankfurt School

Critical theory was first defined by Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School of sociology in his 1937 essay Traditional and Critical Theory: Critical theory is a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it. Horkheimer wanted to distinguish critical theory as a radical, emancipatory form of Marxian theory, critiquing both the model of science put forward by logical positivism and what he and his colleagues saw as the covert positivism and authoritarianism of orthodox Marxism and Communism.

Core concepts are: (1) That critical social theory should be directed at the totality of society in its historical specificity (i.e. how it came to be configured at a specific point in time), and (2) That critical theory should improve understanding of society by integrating all the major social sciences, including geography, economics, sociology, history, political science, anthropology, and psychology.

This version of "critical" theory derives from Kant's (18th-century) and Marx's (19th Century) use of the term "critique", as in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Marx's concept that his work Das Kapital (Capital) forms a "critique of political economy." For Kant's transcendental

Page 8: Critical Therory

idealism, "critique" means examining and establishing the limits of the validity of a faculty, type, or body of knowledge, especially through accounting for the limitations imposed by the fundamental, irreducible concepts in use in that knowledge system. Early on, Kant's notion associated critique with the disestablishment of false, unprovable, or dogmatic philosophical, social, and political beliefs, because Kant's critique of reason involved the critique of dogmatic theological and metaphysical ideas and was intertwined with the enhancement of ethical autonomy and the Enlightenment critique of superstition and irrational authority, or, at least, this has been the ahistorical interpretation of his intentions commonly embraced in contemporary "critical theory" circles. In reality, Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" was named such in reference to David Hume and Lord Berkeley, skeptic philosophers who had employed reason and logic to argue against the reality of concepts of the self, the knowability of the world, and ideas of cause and effect. Kant, by contrast, pushed the employment of apriori metaphysical claims as requisite, for if anything is to be said to be knowable, it would have to be established upon abstractions distinct from perceivable phenomena.

Alternately, Marx explicitly developed this notion into the critique of ideology and linked it with the practice of social revolution, as in the famous 11th of his Theses on Feuerbach, "Philosophers have only interpreted the world in certain ways; the point is to change it."[3]

One of the distinguishing characteristics of critical theory, as Adorno and Horkheimer elaborated in their Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947), is a certain ambivalence concerning the ultimate source or foundation of social domination, an ambivalence which gave rise to the “pessimism” of the new critical theory over the possibility of human emancipation and freedom.[4] This ambivalence was rooted, of course, in the historical circumstances in which the work was originally produced, in particular, the rise of National Socialism, state capitalism, and mass culture as entirely new forms of social domination that could not be adequately explained within the terms of traditional Marxist sociology.[5]

For Adorno and Horkheimer state intervention in the economy had effectively abolished the tension in capitalism between the "relations of production" and "material productive forces of society," a tension which, according to traditional critical theory, constituted the primary contradiction within capitalism. The market (as an "unconscious" mechanism for the distribution of goods) and private property had been replaced by centralized planning and socialized ownership of the means of production.[6]

Yet, contrary to Marx’s famous prediction in the Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, this shift did not lead to "an era of social revolution," but rather to fascism and totalitarianism. As such, critical theory was left, in Jürgen Habermas’ words, without "anything in reserve to which it might appeal; and when the forces of production enter into a baneful symbiosis with the relations of production that they were supposed to blow wide open, there is no longer any dynamism upon which critique could base its hope."[7] For Adorno and Horkheimer, this posed the problem of how to account for the apparent persistence of domination in the absence of the very contradiction that, according to traditional critical theory, was the source of domination itself.

Page 9: Critical Therory

In the 1960s, Jürgen Habermas raised the epistemological discussion to a new level in his Knowledge and Human Interests, by identifying critical knowledge as based on principles that differentiated it either from the natural sciences or the humanities, through its orientation to self-reflection and emancipation. Though unsatisfied with Adorno and Horkeimer's thought presented in Dialectic of Enlightenment, Habermas shares the view that, in the form of instrumental rationality, the era of modernity marks a move away from the liberation of enlightenment and toward a new form of enslavement.[8]

His ideas regarding the relationship between modernity and rationalization are in this sense strongly influenced by Max Weber. Habermas dissolved further the elements of critical theory derived from Hegelian German Idealism, though his thought remains broadly Marxist in its epistemological approach. Perhaps his two most influential ideas are the concepts of the public sphere and communicative action; the latter arriving partly as a reaction to new post-structural or so-called "post-modern" challenges to the discourse of modernity. Habermas engaged in regular correspondence with Richard Rorty and a strong sense of philosophical pragmatism may be felt in his theory; thought which frequently traverses the boundaries between sociology and philosophy.

[edit] Postmodern critical theory

While modernist critical theory (as described above) concerns itself with “forms of authority and injustice that accompanied the evolution of industrial and corporate capitalism as a political-economic system,” postmodern critical theory politicizes social problems “by situating them in historical and cultural contexts, to implicate themselves in the process of collecting and analyzing data, and to relativize their findings” (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, p. 52). Meaning itself is seen as unstable due to the rapid transformation in social structures and as a result the focus of research is centered on local manifestations rather than broad generalizations.

Postmodern critical research is also characterized by what is called, the crisis of representation, which rejects the idea that a researcher’s work is considered an “objective depiction of a stable other” (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, p. 53). Instead, in their research and writing, many postmodern scholars have adopted “alternatives that encourage reflection about the ‘politics and poetics’ of their work. In these accounts, the embodied, collaborative, dialogic, and improvisational aspects of qualitative research are clarified” (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, p. 53).

Often, the term "critical theory" is appropriated when an author (perhaps most notably Michel Foucault) works within sociological terms yet attacks the social or human sciences (thus attempting to remain "outside" those frames of enquiry). Jean Baudrillard has also been described as a critical theorist to the extent that he was an unconventional and critical sociologist; this appropriation is similarly casual, holding little or no relation to the Frankfurt School.

[edit] In literary criticism

Main article: Literary theory

Page 10: Critical Therory

The second meaning of critical theory is the theory used in literary criticism and in the analysis and understanding of literature. This is discussed in greater detail under literary theory. This form of critical theory is not necessarily oriented toward radical social change or even toward the analysis of society, but instead focuses on the analysis of texts. This term was first used by literary scholars in the 1960s and 1970s, and the term has only come into broad use since the 1980s, especially as theory used in literary studies has increasingly been influenced by European philosophy and social theory.

This version of "critical" theory derives from the notion of literary criticism as establishing and enhancing the understanding and evaluation of literature in the search for truth. Some consider literary theory merely an aesthetic concern, as articulated, for example, in Joseph Addison's notion of a critic as one who helps understand and interpret literary works: "A true critic ought to dwell rather upon excellencies than imperfections, to discover the concealed beauties of a writer, and communicate to the world such things as are worth their observation."[9] This notion of criticism ultimately goes back to Aristotle's Poetics as a theory of literature.

In the 1940s and 1950s, New Criticism had tried to analyze literary texts purely internally. Starting in the 1960s, literary scholars, reacting against this, began to use analytical tools from critical social theory - initially semiotic, linguistic, and interpretive theory, then structuralism, Lacanian psychoanalysis, post-structuralism, and deconstruction as well as Continental philosophy, especially phenomenology and hermeneutics, and various other forms of neo-Marxian theory.

Thus literary criticism became highly theoretical and some of those practicing it began referring to the theoretical dimension of their work as "critical theory" - a philosophically inspired theory of literary criticism. And thus incidentally critical theory in the sociological sense also became, especially among literary scholars of left-wing sympathies, one of a number of influences upon and streams within critical theory in the literary sense.

With the expansion of the mass media and mass/popular culture in the 1960s and 1970s and the blending of social and cultural criticism and literary criticism, the methods of both kinds of critical theory sometimes intertwined in the analysis of phenomena of popular culture, as in the emerging field of cultural studies, in which concepts deriving from Marxian theory, post-structuralism, semiology, psychoanalysis and feminist theory would be found in the same interpretive work. Both strands were often present in the various modalities of postmodern theory.

[edit] Language and construction

The two points at which there is the greatest overlap or mutual impingement of the two versions of critical theory are in their interrelated foci on language, symbolism, and communication and in their focus on social construction.

[edit] Language and communication

Page 11: Critical Therory

From the 1960s and 1970s onward, language, symbolism, text, and meaning came to be seen as the theoretical foundation for the humanities, through the influence of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Ferdinand de Saussure, George Herbert Mead, Noam Chomsky, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Roland Barthes, Jacques Derrida and other thinkers in linguistic and analytic philosophy, structural linguistics, symbolic interactionism, hermeneutics, semiology, linguistically oriented psychoanalysis (Jacques Lacan, Alfred Lorenzer), and deconstruction.

When, in the 1970s and 1980s, Jürgen Habermas redefined critical social theory as a theory of communication, i.e. communicative competence and communicative rationality on the one hand, distorted communication on the other, the two versions of critical theory began to overlap or intertwine to a much greater degree than before.

[edit] Construction

Both versions of critical theory have focused on the processes by which human communication, culture, and political consciousness are created. This includes:

Whether it is through universal pragmatic principles through which mutual understanding is achieved (Habermas).

The semiotic rules by which objects obtain symbolic meanings (Barthes).

The psychological processes by which the phenomena of everyday consciousness are generated (psychoanalytic thinkers).

The episteme that underlies our cognitive formations (Foucault),

There is a common interest in the processes (often of a linguistic or symbolic kind) that give rise to observable phenomena and here there is some mutual influence among the different versions of critical theory. Ultimately this emphasis on production and construction goes back to the revolution wrought by Kant in philosophy, namely his focus in the Critique of Pure Reason on synthesis according to rules as the fundamental activity of the mind that creates the order of our experience.

[edit] See also

Main article: Outline of critical theory

Book: Critical theory

Wikipedia books are collections of articles that can be downloaded or ordered in print.

[edit] Lists

Information criticism List of major critical theorists

List of works in critical theory

Page 12: Critical Therory

[edit] Related subjects

American Studies in Britain Black feminism

Comparative Literature

Continental philosophy

Critical ethnography

Critical management studies

Critical pedagogy

Critical philosophy

Critical legal studies

Critical race theory

Critique of technology

Cultural Marxism

Cultural studies

Culture theory

Feminist theory

Foucault–Habermas debate

Hermeneutics

Literary theory

Perestroika Movement (political science)

Phronetic social science

Political philosophy

Rule according to higher law

Social criticism

Tartu-Moscow Semiotics School

[edit] Journals related and/or dedicated to critical theory or critical sociology

Critical Sociology

Page 13: Critical Therory

Constellations

Representations

Critical Inquiry

Telos

Theory and Society

Law & Critique

[edit] Footnotes

1. ̂ Outhwaite, William. 1988. Habermas: Key Contemporary Thinkers 2nd Edition (2009). p5. ISBN 9780745643281

2. ̂ Outhwaite, William. 1988. Habermas: Key Contemporary Thinkers 2nd Edition (2009), p.5-8 (ISBN 9780745643281)

3. ̂ "Theses on Feuerbach". Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 2008-08-22.

4. ̂ Adorno, T. W., with Max Horkheimer. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Trans. Edmund Jephcott. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2002. 242.

5. ̂ "Critical Theory was initially developed in Horkheimer’s circle to think through political disappointments at the absence of revolution in the West, the development of Stalinism in Soviet Russia, and the victory of fascism in Germany. It was supposed to explain mistaken Marxist prognoses, but without breaking Marxist intentions." "The Entwinement of Myth and Enlightenment: Horkheimer and Adorno." in Habermas, Jürgen. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures. trans. Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987. 116. Also, see Helmut Dubiel, Theory and Politics: Studies in the Development of Critical Theory, trans. Benjamin Gregg (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1985).

6. ̂ "[G]one are the objective laws of the market which ruled in the actions of the entrepreneurs and tended toward catastrophe. Instead the conscious decision of the managing directors executes as results (which are more obligatory than the blindest price-mechanisms) the old law of value and hence the destiny of capitalism." Dialectic of Enlightenment. p. 38.

7. ̂ "The Entwinement of Myth and Enlightenment," p. 118.

8. ̂ Outhwaite, William. 1988. Habermas: Key Contemporary Thinkers 2nd Edition (2009). p6. ISBN 9780745643281

9. ̂ Addison, Joseph (1712-02-02). "Literary Criticism". Spectator 291. Retrieved 2008-08-22.

[edit] References

Page 14: Critical Therory

An accessible primer for the literary aspect of critical theory is Jonathan Culler's Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction ISBN 0-19-285383-X

Another short introductory volume with illustrations: "Introducing Critical Theory" Stuart Sim & Borin Van Loon, 2001. ISBN 1-84046-264-7

A survey of and introduction to the current state of critical social theory is Craig Calhoun's Critical Social Theory: Culture, History, and the Challenge of Difference (Blackwell, 1995) ISBN 1-55786-288-5

Problematizing Global Knowledge. Theory, Culture & Society. Vol. 23 (2–3). (Sage, 2006) ISSN 0263-2764

Raymond Geuss The Idea of a Critical Theory. Habermas and the Frankfurt School. (Cambridge University Press,1981) ISBN 0-521-28422-8

Charles Arthur Willard Liberalism and the Problem of Knowledge: A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy. University of Chicago Press. 1996.

Charles Arthur Willard, A Theory of Argumentation. University of Alabama Press. 1989.

Charles Arthur Willard, Argumentation and the Social Grounds of Knowledge. University of Alabama Press. 1982.

Harry Dahms (ed.) No Social Science Without Critical Theory. Volume 25 of Current Perspectives in Social Theory (Emerald/JAI, 2008).

Charmaz, K. (1995). Between positivism and postmodernism: Implications for methods. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 17, 43–72.

Conquergood, D. (1991). "Rethinking ethnography: Towards a critical cultural politics". Communication Monographs 58 (2): 179–194. doi:10.1080/03637759109376222.

Gandler, Stefan : Fragmentos de Frankfurt. Ensayos sobre la Teoría crítica. Siglo XXI Editores/Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, México 19 November 2011, ISBN 978-607-03-0070-7.

Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative Communication Research Methods, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

An example of critical postmodern work is Rolling, Jr., J. H. (2008). Secular blasphemy: Utter(ed) transgressions against names and fathers in the postmodern era. Qualitative Inquiry, 14, 926–948.

Thomas, Jim (1993). Doing Critical Ethnography. London, New York (NY): Sage 1993, pp. 1–5 & 17–25

An example of critical qualitative research is Tracy, S. J. (2000). Becoming a character for commerce: Emotion labor, self subordination and discursive construction of identity in a total institution. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 90–128.

Page 15: Critical Therory

Luca Corchia, La logica dei processi culturali. Jürgen Habermas tra filosofia e sociologia, Genova, Edizioni ECIG, 2010, ISBN 978-88-7544-195-1.

[edit] External links

Critical Theory , Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy "Death is Not the End" N+1 magazine's short history of academic critical theory.

Critical Legal Thinking A Critical Legal Studies website which uses critical theory in an analysis of law and politics.

L. Corchia, Jürgen Habermas. A Bibliography: works and studies (1952-2010), Pisa, Edizioni Il Campano – Arnus University Books, 2010, 344 pp.

[show]v · d · eCritical theory

[show]v · d · e Continental philosophy

[show]v · d · e Philosophy

View page ratingsRate this pageWhat's this?TrustworthyObjectiveCompleteWell-written

I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional) Categories:

Critical theory Postmodernism

Log in / create account

Article

Discussion

Read

Edit

View history

Page 16: Critical Therory

Main page Contents

Featured content

Current events

Random article

Donate to Wikipedia

Interaction

Help About Wikipedia

Community portal

Recent changes

Contact Wikipedia

Toolbox

Print/export

Languages

Български Català

Česky

Dansk

Deutsch

Eesti

Español

Euskara

فارسی

Français

Bahasa Indonesia

Italiano

עברית

Page 17: Critical Therory

Bahasa Melayu

Nederlands

日本語

Polski

Português

Română

Slovenčina

Српски / Srpski

Srpskohrvatski / Српскохрватски

Suomi

Yorùbá

中文

This page was last modified on 16 November 2011 at 04:25.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details.Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Contact us

Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Mobile view

Page 18: Critical Therory

Please read:A personal appeal fromWikipedia founder Jimmy Wales Read now

AntipositivismFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sociology

Portal

Theory · History

Positivism · Antipositivism

Functionalism · Conflict theory

Middle-range · Mathematical

Critical theory · Socialization

Structure and agency

Research methods

Quantitative · Qualitative

Historical · Computational

Ethnographic

Topics · Subfields

Cities · Class · Crime · Culture

Deviance · Demography · Education

Economy · Environment · Family

Gender · Health · Industry · Internet

Knowledge · Law · Medicine

Page 19: Critical Therory

Politics · Mobility · Race and ethnicity

Rationalization · Religion · Science

Secularization · Social networks

Social psychology · Stratification

Categories · Lists

Journals · Sociologists

Article index · Outline

v · d · e

Antipositivism (also non-positivist or interpretive sociology) is the view in social science that academics must necessarily reject empiricism and the scientific method in the conduct of social theory and research.

Antipositivism relates to various historical debates in the philosophy and sociology of science. In modern practice, however, non-positivism may be equated with qualitative research methods, while positivist research is more quantitative. Positivists typically use research methods such as experiments and statistical surveys, while antipositivists use research methods which rely more on unstructured interviews or participant observation. Currently, positivist and non-positivist methods are often combined.[1]

[edit] The concept

In the early 19th century various intellectuals, perhaps most notably the Hegelians, began to question the prospect of empirical social analysis. Karl Marx died before the establishment of formal social science but nonetheless fiercely rejected Comtean sociological positivism (despite[citation needed] himself attempting to establish a historical materialist 'science of society'). The enhanced positivism presented by Durkheim would serve to found modern academic sociology and social research, yet retained many of the mechanical elements of its predecessor. Hermeneuticians such as Wilhelm Dilthey theorized in detail on the distinction between natural and social science ('Geisteswissenschaft'), whilst neo-Kantian philosophers such as Heinrich Rickert maintained that the social realm, with its abstract meanings and symbolisms, is inconsistent with scientific methods of analysis. Edmund Husserl, meanwhile, negated positivism through the rubric of phenomenology.[2]

At the turn of the 20th century, the first wave of German sociologists formally introduced verstehende sociological antipositivism, proposing research should concentrate on human cultural norms, values, symbols, and social processes viewed from a resolutely subjective perspective. Max Weber argued sociology may be loosely described as a 'science' as it is able to methodologically identify causal relationships of human "social action"—especially among ideal types, or hypothetical simplifications of complex social phenomena.[3] As a nonpositivist, however, one seeks relationships that are not as "ahistorical, invariant, or generalizable"[4] as those pursued by natural scientists.

Page 20: Critical Therory

Ferdinand Tönnies discussed Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft (lit. community and society) as the two normal types of human association. For the antipositivists, reality cannot be explained without concepts. Tönnies drew a sharp line between the realm of conceptuality and the reality of social action: the first must be treated axiomatically and in a deductive way ('pure' sociology), whereas the second empirically and in an inductive way ('applied' sociology). The interaction between theory (or constructed concepts) and data is always fundamental in social science and this subjection distinguishes it from physical science. Durkheim himself noted the importance of constructing concepts in the abstract (e.g. "collective consciousness" and "social anomie") in order to form workable categories for experimentation. Both Weber and Georg Simmel pioneered the verstehen (or 'interpretative') approach toward social science; a systematic process in which an outside observer attempts to relate to a particular cultural group, or indigenous people, on their own terms and from their own point of view.

[Sociology is ] ... the science whose object is to interpret the meaning of social action and thereby give a causal explanation of the way in which the action proceeds and the effects which it produces. By 'action' in this definition is meant the human behaviour when and to the extent the agent or agents see it as subjectively meaningful ... the meaning to which we refer may be either (a) the meaning actually intended either by an individual agent on a particular historical occasion or by a number of agents on an approximate average in a given set of cases, or (b) the meaning attributed to the agent or agents, as types, in a pure type constructed in the abstract. In neither case is the 'meaning' thought of as somehow objectively 'correct' or 'true' by some metaphysical criterion. This is the difference between the empirical sciences of action, such as sociology and history, and any kind of a priori discipline, such as jurisprudence, logic, ethics, or aesthetics whose aim is to extract from their subject-matter 'correct' or 'valid' meaning.

— Max Weber The Nature of Social Action 1922, [5]

Through the work of Simmel, in particular, sociology acquired a possible character beyond positivist data-collection or grand, deterministic systems of structural law. Relatively isolated from the sociological academy throughout his lifetime, Simmel presented idiosyncratic analyses of modernity more reminiscent of the phenomenological and existential writers than of Comte or Durkheim, paying particular concern to the forms of, and possibilities for, social individuality.[6] His sociology engaged in a neo-Kantian critique of the limits of human perception.[7] One may say Michel Foucault's critiques of the human sciences take Kantian scepticism to its extreme over half a century later.

Antipositivism thus holds there is no methodological unity of the sciences: the three goals of positivism - description, control, and prediction - are incomplete, since they lack any understanding. Some argue, even if positivism were correct, it would be dangerous. Science aims at understanding causality so control can be exerted. If this succeeded in sociology, those with knowledge would be able to control the ignorant and this could lead to social engineering.[8] The perspective, however, has led to controversy over how one can draw the line between subjective and objective research, much less draw an artificial line between environment and human organization (see environmental sociology), and influenced the study of hermeneutics. The base concepts of antipositivism have expanded beyond the scope of social science, in fact, phenomenology has the same basic principles at its core. Simply put, positivists see sociology as

Page 21: Critical Therory

a science, while anti-positivists don't. Positivists like Karl Popper argue that sociology can be scientific by following scientific procedures, while anti-positivists like Thomas Kuhn argues that sociology cannot be a science since sociologists don't agree on one accepted paradigm.[1]

The nonpositivist tradition continued in the establishment of critical theory, particularly the work associated with the so-called 'Frankfurt School' of social research. Antipositivism would be further facilitated by rejections of 'scientism'; or science as ideology. Jürgen Habermas argues, in his On the Logic of the Social Sciences (1967), that "the positivist thesis of unified science, which assimilates all the sciences to a natural-scientific model, fails because of the intimate relationship between the social sciences and history, and the fact that they are based on a situation-specific understanding of meaning that can be explicated only hermeneutically ... access to a symbolically prestructured reality cannot be gained by observation alone."[9]

Quantitative research nevertheless remains ubiquitous and produces data of some workable validity and reliability for social and market researchers, businesses, governments, and so forth; a national census being a good example.

[edit] See also

Positivism Postpositivism

Poststructuralism

Critical theory

Social action

Verstehen

Positivism dispute (Positivismusstreit)

Symbolic interactionism

Humanistic sociology

Philosophy of social science

[edit] References

1. ^ a b Antipositivism on Museum of Learning2. ̂ Outhwaite, William, 1988 Habermas: Key Contemporary Thinkers, Polity Press

(Second Edition 2009), ISBN 9780745643281 p.20-25

3. ̂ Ashley D, Orenstein DM (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Pearson Education. pp. 239–240.

Page 22: Critical Therory

4. ̂ Ashley D, Orenstein DM (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Pearson Education. p. 241.

5. ̂ Weber, Max The Nature of Social Action in Runciman, W.G. 'Weber: Selections in Translation' Cambridge University Press, 1991. p7.

6. ̂ Levine, Donald (ed) 'Simmel: On individuality and social forms' Chicago University Press, 1971. pxix.

7. ̂ Levine, Donald (ed) 'Simmel: On individuality and social forms' Chicago University Press, 1971. p6.

8. ̂ Antipositivism on Wikia

9. ̂ Outhwaite, William, 1988 Habermas: Key Contemporary Thinkers, Polity Press (Second Edition 2009), ISBN 9780745643281 p.22

View page ratingsRate this pageWhat's this?TrustworthyObjectiveCompleteWell-written

I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional) Categories:

Philosophy of science Sociological theories

Log in / create account

Article

Discussion

Read

Edit

View history

Main page Contents

Featured content

Current events

Page 23: Critical Therory

Random article

Donate to Wikipedia

Interaction

Help About Wikipedia

Community portal

Recent changes

Contact Wikipedia

Toolbox

Print/export

Languages

Deutsch Español

Bahasa Indonesia

Türkçe

This page was last modified on 9 August 2011 at 18:00.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details.Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Contact us

Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Mobile view

Page 24: Critical Therory

Please read:A personal appeal fromWikipedia founder Jimmy Wales Read now

Structural functionalismFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sociology

Portal

Theory · History

Positivism · Antipositivism

Functionalism · Conflict theory

Middle-range · Mathematical

Critical theory · Socialization

Structure and agency

Research methods

Quantitative · Qualitative

Historical · Computational

Ethnographic

Topics · Subfields

Cities · Class · Crime · Culture

Deviance · Demography · Education

Economy · Environment · Family

Gender · Health · Industry · Internet

Knowledge · Law · Medicine

Politics · Mobility · Race and ethnicity

Page 25: Critical Therory

Rationalization · Religion · Science

Secularization · Social networks

Social psychology · Stratification

Categories · Lists

Journals · Sociologists

Article index · Outline

v · d · e

Structural functionalism is a broad perspective in sociology and anthropology which sets out to interpret society as a structure with interrelated parts. Functionalism addresses society as a whole in terms of the function of its constituent elements; namely norms, customs, traditions and institutions. A common analogy, popularized by Herbert Spencer, presents these parts of society as "organs" that work toward the proper functioning of the "body" as a whole.[1] In the most basic terms, it simply emphasizes "the effort to impute, as rigorously as possible, to each feature, custom, or practice, its effect on the functioning of a supposedly stable, cohesive system." For Talcott Parsons, "structural-functionalism" came to describe a particular stage in the methodological development of social science, rather than a specific school of thought.[2][3]

Contents

 [hide]  1 Theory 2 Prominent Theorists

o 2.1 Herbert Spencer

o 2.2 Talcott Parsons

o 2.3 Davis and Moore

o 2.4 Robert Merton

o 2.5 Almond and Powell

3 Structural functionalism and unilineal descent

4 Decline of functionalism

5 Criticisms

6 Influential theorists

7 See also

8 Bibliography

Page 26: Critical Therory

9 Notes

[edit] Theory

Classical functionalist theories are defined by a tendency towards biological analogy and notions of social evolutionism:

Functionalist thought, from Comte onwards, has looked particularly towards biology as the science providing the closest and most compatible model for social science. Biology has been taken to provide a guide to conceptualizing the structure and the function of social systems and to analyzing processes of evolution via mechanisms of adaptation ... functionalism strongly emphasises the pre-eminence of the social world over its individual parts (i.e. its constituent actors, human subjects).

— Anthony Giddens The Constitution of Society 1984, [4]

Whilst one may regard functionalism as a logical extension of the organic analogies for society presented by political philosophers such as Rousseau, sociology draws firmer attention to those institutions unique to industrialised capitalist society (or modernity). Functionalism also has an anthropological basis in the work of theorists such as Marcel Mauss, Bronisław Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown. It is in Radcliffe-Brown's specific usage that the prefix 'structural' emerged.[5]

Émile Durkheim

Durkheim proposed that most stateless, "primitive" societies, lacking strong centralised institutions, are based on an association of corporate-descent groups. Structural functionalism also took on Malinowski's argument that the basic building block of society is the nuclear family, and that the clan is an outgrowth, not vice versa. Durkheim was concerned with the question of how certain societies maintain internal stability and survive over time. He proposed that such

Page 27: Critical Therory

societies tend to be segmented, with equivalent parts held together by shared values, common symbols or, as his nephew Marcel Mauss held, systems of exchanges. In modern, complicated societies, members perform very different tasks, resulting in a strong interdependence. Based on the metaphor above of an organism in which many parts function together to sustain the whole, Durkheim argued that complicated societies are held together by organic solidarity.

These views were upheld by Radcliffe-Brown, who, following Comte, believed that society constitutes a separate "level" of reality, distinct from both biological and inorganic matter. Explanations of social phenomena had therefore to be constructed within this level, individuals being merely transient occupants of comparatively stable social roles. The central concern of structural functionalism is a continuation of the Durkheimian task of explaining the apparent stability and internal cohesion needed by societies to endure over time. Societies are seen as coherent, bounded and fundamentally relational constructs that function like organisms, with their various parts (or social institutions) working together in an unconscious, quasi-automatic fashion toward achieving an overall social equilibrium. All social and cultural phenomena are therefore seen as functional in the sense of working together, and are effectively deemed to have "lives" of their own. They are primarily analyzed in terms of this function. The individual is significant not in and of himself but rather in terms of his status, his position in patterns of social relations, and the behaviours associated with his status. The social structure, then, is the network of statuses connected by associated roles.

It is simplistic to equate the perspective directly with political conservativism.[6] The tendency to emphasise "cohesive systems", however, leads functionalist theories to be contrasted with "conflict theories" which instead emphasise social problems and inequalities.

[edit] Prominent Theorists

[edit] Herbert Spencer

Page 28: Critical Therory

Herbert Spencer

Herbert Spencer, a British philosopher famous for applying the theory of natural selection to society, was in many ways the first true sociological functionalist;[7] in fact, while Durkheim is widely considered the most important functionalist among positivist theorists, it is well known that much of his analysis was culled from reading Spencer's work, especially his Principles of Sociology (1874-96).

While most avoid the tedious tasks of reading Spencer's massive volumes (filled as they are with long passages explicating the organic analogy, with reference to cells, simple organisms, animals, humans and society), there are some important insights that have quietly influenced many contemporary theorists, including Talcott Parsons, in his early work "The Structure of Social Action" (1937). Cultural anthropology, too, uses functionalism consistently.

This evolutionary model, unlike most 19th century evolutionary theories, is cyclical, beginning with the differentiation and increasing complication of an organic or "super-organic" (Spencer's term for a social system) body, followed by a fluctuating state of equilibrium and disequilibrium[disambiguation needed  ] (or a state of adjustment and adaptation), and, finally, a stage of disintegration or dissolution. Following Thomas Malthus' population principles, Spencer concluded that society is constantly facing selection pressures (internal and external) that force it to adapt its internal structure through differentiation.

Every solution, however, causes a new set of selection pressures that threaten society's viability. It should be noted that Spencer was not a determinist in the sense that he never said that

1. selection pressures will be felt in time to change them;2. they will be felt and reacted to; or

3. the solutions will always work.

In fact, he was in many ways a political sociologist,[8] and recognised that the degree of centralised and consolidated authority in a given polity could make or break its ability to adapt. In other words, he saw a general trend towards the centralisation of power as leading to stagnation and, ultimately, pressure to decentralise.

More specifically, Spencer recognised three functional needs or prerequisites that produce selection pressures: they are regulatory, operative (production) and distributive. He argued that all societies need to solve problems of control and coordination,[disambiguation needed  ] production of goods, services and ideas, and, finally, to find ways of distributing these resources.

Initially, in tribal societies, these three needs are inseparable, and the kinship system is the dominant structure that satisfies them. As many scholars have noted, all institutions are subsumed under kinship organisation,[9] but, with increasing population (both in terms of sheer numbers and density), problems emerge with regards to feeding individuals, creating new forms of organisation — consider the emergent division of labour —, coordinating and controlling various differentiated social units, and developing systems of resource distribution.

Page 29: Critical Therory

The solution, as Spencer sees it, is to differentiate structures to fulfill more specialised functions; thus a chief or "big man" emerges, soon followed by a group of lieutenants, and later kings and administrators.

Perhaps Spencer's greatest obstacle to being widely discussed in modern sociology is the fact that much of his social philosophy is rooted in the social and historical context of Ancient Egypt. He coined the term "survival of the fittest" in discussing the simple fact that small tribes or societies tend to be defeated or conquered by larger ones. Of course, many sociologists still use him (knowingly or otherwise) in their analyses, as is especially the case in the recent re-emergence of evolutionary theory.

[edit] Talcott Parsons

Talcott Parsons was heavily influenced by Durkheim and Max Weber, synthesising much of their work into his action theory, which he based on the system-theoretical concept and the methodological principle of voluntary action. He held that "the social system is made up of the actions of individuals."[10] His starting point, accordingly, is the interaction between two individuals faced with a variety of choices about how they might act,[11] choices that are influenced and constrained by a number of physical and social factors.[12]

Parsons determined that each individual has expectations of the other's action and reaction to his own behavior, and that these expectations would (if successful) be "derived" from the accepted norms and values of the society they inhabit.[11] As Parsons himself emphasised, however, in a general context there would never exist any perfect "fit" between behaviours and norms, so such a relation is never complete or "perfect."

Social norms were always problematic for Parsons, who never claimed (as has often been alleged) that social norms were generally accepted and agreed upon, should this prevent some kind of universal law. Whether social norms were accepted or not was for Parsons simply a historical question.

As behaviors are repeated in more interactions, and these expectations are entrenched or institutionalised, a role is created. Parsons defines a "role" as the normatively-regulated participation "of a person in a concrete process of social interaction with specific, concrete role-partners."[13] Although any individual, theoretically, can fulfill any role, the individual is expected to conform to the norms governing the nature of the role they fulfill.[14]

Furthermore, one person can and does fulfill many different roles at the same time. In one sense, an individual can be seen to be a "composition"[10] of the roles he inhabits. Certainly, today, when asked to describe themselves, most people would answer with reference to their societal roles.

Parsons later developed the idea of roles into collectivities of roles that complement each other in fulfilling functions for society.[11] Some roles are bound up in institutions and social structures (economic, educational, legal and even gender-based). These are functional in the sense that they assist society in operating[15] and fulfill its functional needs so that society runs smoothly.

Page 30: Critical Therory

Contrary to prevailing myth, Parsons never spoke about a society, where there where no conflict or somekind of "perfect" equilibrium. A society's cultural value-system was in the typical case never completely integrated, never static and most of the time, like in the case of the American society in a complex state of transformation relative to its historical point of departure. To reach a "perfect" equilibrium was not any serious theoretical question in Parsons analysis of social systems, indeed, the most dynamic societies had generally cultural systems with important inner tensions like the US and India. These tensions was (quite often) a source of their strength according to Parsons rather than the opposite. Parsons never thought about system-institutionalization and the level of strains (tensions, conflict) in the system as opposite forces per se.

The key processes for Parsons for system reproduction are socialisation and social control. Socialisation is important because it is the mechanism for transferring the accepted norms and values of society to the individuals within the system. Parsons never spoke about "perfect socialization" -- in any society socialization was only partial and "incomplete" from an integral point of view.

Parson states that "this point [...] is independent of the sense in which [the] individual is concretely autonomous or creative rather than 'passive' or 'conforming', for individuality and creativity, are to a considerable extent, phenomena of the institutionalization of expectations";[16] they are culturally constructed.

Socialisation is supported by the positive and negative sanctioning of role behaviours that do or do not meet these expectations.[17] A punishment could be informal, like a snigger or gossip, or more formalised, through institutions such as prisons and mental homes. If these two processes were perfect, society would become static and unchanging, and in reality this is unlikely to occur for long.

Parsons recognises this, stating that he treats "the structure of the system as problematic and subject to change,"[18] and that his concept of the tendency towards equilibrium "does not imply the empirical dominance of stability over change."[19] He does, however, believe that these changes occur in a relatively smooth way.

Individuals in interaction with changing situations adapt through a process of "role bargaining."[20] Once the roles are established, they create norms that guide further action and are thus institutionalised, creating stability across social interactions. Where the adaptation process cannot adjust, due to sharp shocks or immediate radical change, structural dissolution occurs and either new structures (and therefore a new system) are formed, or society dies. This model of social change has been described as a "moving equilibrium,"[21] and emphasises a desire for social order.

[edit] Davis and Moore

Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore (1945) gave an argument for social stratification based on the idea of "functional necessity" (also known as the Davis-Moore hypothesis). They argue that

Page 31: Critical Therory

the most difficult jobs in any society have the highest incomes in order to motivate individuals to fill the roles needed by the division of labour. Thus inequality serves social stability.[22]

This argument has been criticized as fallacious from a number of different angles:[23] the argument is both that the individuals who are the most deserving are the highest rewarded, and that a system of unequal rewards is necessary, otherwise no individuals would perform as needed for the society to function. The problem is that these rewards are supposed to be based upon objective merit, rather than subjective "motivations." The argument also does not clearly establish why some positions are worth more than others, which they may benefit more people in society, e.g., teachers compared to athletes and movie stars. Critics have suggested that structural inequality (inherited wealth, family power, etc.) is itself a cause of individual success or failure, not a consequence of it.[24]

[edit] Robert Merton

Robert K. Merton was a functionalist and he fundamentally agreed with Parsons’ theory. However, he acknowledged that it was problematic, believing that it was too generalized [Holmwood, 2005:100]. Merton tended to emphasise middle range theory rather than a grand theory, meaning that he was able to deal specifically with some of the limitations in Parsons’ theory. He identified 3 main limitations: functional unity, universal functionalism and indispensability [Ritzer in Gingrich, 1999]. He also developed the concept of deviance and made the distinction between manifest and latent functions.

Merton criticised functional unity, saying that not all parts of a modern, complex society work for the functional unity of society. Some institutions and structures may have other functions, and some may even be generally dysfunctional, or be functional for some while being dysfunctional for others. This is because not all structures are functional for society as a whole. Some practices are only functional for a dominant individual or a group [Holmwood, 2005:91]. Here Merton introduces the concepts of power and coercion into functionalism and identifies the sites of tension which may lead to struggle or conflict. Merton states that by recognizing and examining the dysfunctional aspects of society we can explain the development and persistence of alternatives. Thus, as Holmwood states, “Merton explicitly made power and conflict central issues for research within a functionalist paradigm” [2005:91].

Merton also noted that there may be functional alternatives to the institutions and structures currently fulfilling the functions of society. This means that the institutions that currently exist are not indispensable to society. Merton states that “just as the same item may have multiple functions, so may the same function be diversely fulfilled by alternative items” [cited in Holmwood, 2005:91]. This notion of functional alternatives is important because it reduces the tendency of functionalism to imply approval of the status quo.

Merton’s theory of deviance is derived from Durkheim’s idea of anomie. It is central in explaining how internal changes can occur in a system. For Merton, anomie means a discontinuity between cultural goals and the accepted methods available for reaching them.

Merton believes that there are 5 situations facing an actor.

Page 32: Critical Therory

Conformity occurs when an individual has the means and desire to achieve the cultural goals socialised into him.

Innovation occurs when an individual strives to attain the accepted cultural goals but chooses to do so in novel or unaccepted method.

Ritualism occurs when an individual continues to do things as proscribed by society but forfeits the achievement of the goals.

Retreatism is the rejection of both the means and the goals of society.

Rebellion is a combination of the rejection of societal goals and means and a substitution of other goals and means.

Thus it can be seen that change can occur internally in society through either innovation or rebellion. It is true that society will attempt to control these individuals and negate the changes, but as the innovation or rebellion builds momentum, society will eventually adapt or face dissolution.

The last of Merton’s important contributions to functionalism was his distinction between manifest and latent functions. Manifest functions refer to the conscious intentions of actors; latent functions are the objective consequences of their actions, which are often unintended [Holmwood, 2005:90]. Merton used the example of the Hopi rain dance to show that sometimes an individual’s understanding of their motive for an action may not fully explain why that action continues to be performed. Sometimes actions fulfill a function of which the actor is unaware, and this is the latent function of an action. 2.14.08

[edit] Almond and Powell

In the 1970s, political scientists Gabriel Almond and Bingham Powell introduced a structural-functionalist approach to comparing political systems. They argued that, in order to understand a political system, it is necessary to understand not only its institutions (or structures) but also their respective functions. They also insisted that these institutions, to be properly understood, must be placed in a meaningful and dynamic historical context.

This idea stood in marked contrast to prevalent approaches in the field of comparative politics — the state-society theory and the dependency theory. These were the descendants of David Easton's system theory in international relations, a mechanistic view that saw all political systems as essentially the same, subject to the same laws of "stimulus and response" — or inputs and outputs — while paying little attention to unique characteristics. The structural-functional approach is based on the view that a political system is made up of several key components, including interest groups, political parties and branches of government.

In addition to structures, Almond and Powell showed that a political system consists of various functions, chief among them political socialisation, recruitment and communication: socialisation refers to the way in which societies pass along their values and beliefs to succeeding generations, and in political terms describes the process by which a society inculcates civic virtues, or the habits of effective citizenship; recruitment denotes the process by which a

Page 33: Critical Therory

political system generates interest, engagement and participation from citizens; and communication refers to the way that a system promulgates its values and information.

[edit] Structural functionalism and unilineal descent

In their attempt to explain the social stability of African "primitive" stateless societies where they undertook their fieldwork, Evans-Pritchard (1940) and Meyer Fortes (1945) argued that the Tallensi and the Nuer were primarily organised around unilineal descent groups. Such groups are characterised by common purposes, such as administering property or defending against attacks; they form a permanent social structure that persists well beyond the lifespan of their members. In the case of the Tallensi and the Nuer, these corporate groups were based on kinship which in turn fitted into the larger structures of unilineal descent; consequently Evans-Pritchard's and Fortes' model is called "descent theory". Moreover, in this African context territorial divisions were aligned with lineages; descent theory therefore synthesised both blood and soil as two sides of one coin (cf. Kuper, 1988:195). Affinal ties with the parent through whom descent is not reckoned, however, are considered to be merely complementary or secondary (Fortes created the concept of "complementary filiation"), with the reckoning of kinship through descent being considered the primary organising force of social systems. Because of its strong emphasis on unilineal descent, this new kinship theory came to be called "descent theory".

Before long, descent theory had found its critics. Many African tribal societies seemed to fit this neat model rather well, although Africanists, such as Richards, also argued that Fortes and Evans-Pritchard had deliberately downplayed internal contradictions and overemphasised the stability of the local lineage systems and their significance for the organisation of society.[25] However, in many Asian settings the problems were even more obvious. In Papua New Guinea, the local patrilineal descent groups were fragmented and contained large amounts of non-agnates. Status distinctions did not depend on descent, and genealogies were too short to account for social solidarity through identification with a common ancestor. In particular, the phenomenon of cognatic (or bilateral) kinship posed a serious problem to the proposition that descent groups are the primary element behind the social structures of "primitive" societies.

Leach's (1966) critique came in the form of the classical Malinowskian argument, pointing out that "in Evans-Pritchard's studies of the Nuer and also in Fortes's studies of the Tallensi unilineal descent turns out to be largely an ideal concept to which the empirical facts are only adapted by means of fictions." (1966:8). People's self-interest, manoeuvring, manipulation and competition had been ignored. Moreover, descent theory neglected the significance of marriage and affinal ties, which were emphasised by Levi-Strauss' structural anthropology, at the expense of overemphasising the role of descent. To quote Leach: "The evident importance attached to matrilateral and affinal kinship connections is not so much explained as explained away."[26]

[edit] Decline of functionalism

Structural functionalism reached the peak of its influence in the 1940s and 1950s, and by the 1960s was in rapid decline.[27] By the 1980s, its place was taken in Europe by more conflict-oriented approaches,[28] and more recently by 'structuralism'.[29] While some of the critical

Page 34: Critical Therory

approaches also gained popularity in the United States, the mainstream of the discipline has instead shifted to a myriad of empirically-oriented middle-range theories with no overarching theoretical orientation. To most sociologists, functionalism is now "as dead as a dodo".[30]

As the influence of both functionalism and Marxism in the 1960s began to wane, the linguistic and cultural turns led to myriad new movements in the social sciences: "According to Giddens, the orthodox consensus terminated in the late 1960s and 1970s as the middle ground shared by otherwise competing perspectives gave way and was replaced by a baffling variety of competing perspectives. This third 'generation' of social theory includes phenomenologically inspired approaches, critical theory, ethnomethodology, symbolic interactionism, structuralism, post-structuralism, and theories written in the tradition of hermeneutics and ordinary language philosophy."[31]

While absent from empirical sociology, functionalist themes remained detectable in sociological theory, most notably in the works of Luhmann and Giddens. There are, however, signs of an incipient revival, as functionalist claims have recently been bolstered by developments in multilevel selection theory and in empirical research on how groups solve social dilemmas. Recent developments in evolutionary theory—especially by biologist David Sloan Wilson and anthropologists Robert Boyd[disambiguation needed  ] and Peter Richerson—have provided strong support for structural functionalism in the form of multilevel selection theory. In this theory, culture and social structure are seen as a Darwinian (biological or cultural) adaptation at the group level.

[edit] Criticisms

Main articles: Conflict theory and Critical theory

In the 1960s, functionalism was criticized for being unable to account for social change, or for structural contradictions and conflict (and thus was often called "consensus theory"). The refutation of the second criticism of functionalism, that it is static and has no concept of change, has already been articulated above, concluding that while Parsons’ theory allows for change, it is an orderly process of change [Parsons, 1961:38], a moving equilibrium. Therefore referring to Parsons’ theory of society as static is inaccurate. It is true that it does place emphasis on equilibrium and the maintenance or quick return to social order, but this is a product of the time in which Parsons was writing (post-World War II, and the start of the cold war). Society was in upheaval and fear abounded. At the time social order was crucial, and this is reflected in Parsons' tendency to promote equilibrium and social order rather than social change.

Furthermore, Durkheim favored a radical form of guild socialism along with functionalist explanations. Also, Marxism, while acknowledging social contradictions, still uses functionalist explanations. Parsons' evolutionary theory describes the differentiation and reintegration systems and subsystems and thus at least temporary conflict before reintegration (ibid). "The fact that functional analysis can be seen by some as inherently conservative and by others as inherently radical suggests that it may be inherently neither one nor the other." (Merton 1957: 39)

Page 35: Critical Therory

Stronger criticisms include the epistemological argument that functionalism is tautologous, that is it attempts to account for the development of social institutions solely through recourse to the effects that are attributed to them and thereby explains the two circularly. However, Parsons drew directly on many of Durkheim’s concepts in creating his theory. Certainly Durkheim was one of the first theorists to explain a phenomenon with reference to the function it served for society. He said, “the determination of function is…necessary for the complete explanation of the phenomena” [cited in Coser, 1977:140]. However Durkheim made a clear distinction between historical and functional analysis, saying, “when…the explanation of a social phenomenon is undertaken, we must seek separately the efficient cause which produces it and the function it fulfills” [cited in Coser, 1977:140]. If Durkheim made this distinction, then it is unlikely that Parsons did not. However Merton does explicitly state that functional analysis does not seek to explain why the action happened in the first instance, but why it continues or is reproduced. He says that “latent functions …go far towards explaining the continuance of the pattern” [cited in Elster, 1990:130, emphasis added]. Therefore it can be argued that functionalism does not explain the original cause of a phenomenon with reference to its effect, and is therefore, not teleological.

Another criticism describes the ontological argument that society can not have "needs" as a human being does, and even if society does have needs they need not be met. Anthony Giddens argues that functionalist explanations may all be rewritten as historical accounts of individual human actions and consequences (see Structuration theory).

A further criticism directed at functionalism is that it contains no sense of agency, that individuals are seen as puppets, acting as their role requires. Yet Holmwood states that the most sophisticated forms of functionalism are based on “a highly developed concept of action” [2005:107], and as was explained above, Parsons took as his starting point the individual and their actions. His theory did not however articulate how these actors exercise their agency in opposition to the socialisation and inculcation of accepted norms. As has been shown above, Merton addressed this limitation through his concept of deviance, and so it can be seen that functionalism allows for agency. It cannot, however, explain why individuals choose to accept or reject the accepted norms, why and in what circumstances they choose to exercise their agency, and this does remain a considerable limitation of the theory.

Further criticisms have been levelled at functionalism by proponents of other social theories, particularly conflict theorists, Marxists, feminists and postmodernists. Conflict theorists criticised functionalism’s concept of systems as giving far too much weight to integration and consensus, and neglecting independence and conflict [Holmwood, 2005:100]. Lockwood [in Holmwood, 2005:101], in line with conflict theory, suggested that Parsons’ theory missed the concept of system contradiction. He did not account for those parts of the system that might have tendencies to mal-integration. According to Lockwood, it was these tendencies that come to the surface as opposition and conflict among actors. However Parsons’ thought that the issues of conflict and cooperation were very much intertwined and sought to account for both in his model [Holmwood, 2005:103]. In this however he was limited by his analysis of an ‘ideal type’ of society which was characterised by consensus. Merton, through his critique of functional unity, introduced into functionalism an explicit analysis of tension and conflict.

Page 36: Critical Therory

Marxism which was revived soon after the emergence of conflict theory, criticised professional sociology (functionalism and conflict theory alike) for being partisan to advanced welfare capitalism [Holmwood, 2005:103]. Gouldner [in Holmwood, 2005:103] thought that Parsons’ theory specifically was an expression of the dominant interests of welfare capitalism, that it justified institutions with reference to the function they fulfill for society. It may be that Parsons’ work implied or articulated that certain institutions were necessary to fulfill the functional prerequisites of society, but whether or not this is the case, Merton explicitly states that institutions are not indispensable and that there are functional alternatives. That he does not identify any alternatives to the current institutions does reflect a conservative bias, which as has been stated before is a product of the specific time that he was writing in.

As functionalism’s prominence was ending, feminism was on the rise, and it attempted a radical criticism of functionalism. It believed that functionalism neglected the suppression of women within the family structure. Holmwood [2005:103] shows, however, that Parsons did in fact describe the situations where tensions and conflict existed or were about to take place, even if he did not articulate those conflicts. Some feminists agree, suggesting that Parsons’ provided accurate descriptions of these situations. [Johnson in Holmwood, 2005:103]. On the other hand, Parsons recognised that he had oversimplified his functional analysis of women in relation to work and the family, and focused on the positive functions of the family for society and not on its dysfunctions for women. Merton, too, although addressing situations where function and dysfunction occurred simultaneously, lacked a “feminist sensibility” [Holmwood, 2005:103], although I repeat this was likely a product of the desire for social order.

Postmodernism, as theory, is critical of claims of objectivity. Therefore the idea of grand theory that can explain society in all its forms is treated with skepticism at the very least. This critique is important because it exposes the danger that grand theory can pose, when not seen as a limited perspective, as one way of understanding society.

Jeffrey Alexander (1985) sees functionalism as a broad school rather than a specific method or system, such as Parson's, which is capable of taking equilibrium (stability) as a reference-point rather than assumption and treats structural differentiation as a major form of social change. "The name 'functionalism' implies a difference of method or interpretation that does not exist." (Davis 1967: 401) This removes the determinism criticized above. Cohen argues that rather than needs a society has dispositional facts: features of the social environment that support the existence of particular social institutions but do not cause them.

[edit] Influential theorists

Kingsley Davis Michael Denton

Émile Durkheim

David Keen

Niklas Luhmann

Page 37: Critical Therory

Bronisław Malinowski

Robert K. Merton

Wilbert E. Moore

George Murdock

Talcott Parsons

Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown

Herbert Spencer

Fei Xiaotong

[edit] See also

Sociology portal

Cultural anthropology Functional structuralism

Neofunctionalism (sociology)

New institutional economics

Poststructuralism

Sociotechnical systems theory

Structural anthropology

Structuralism

Symbolic interactionism

Systems theory

Vacancy chain

[edit] Bibliography

Barnard, A. 2000. History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge: CUP. Barnard, A., and Good, A. 1984. Research Practices in the Study of Kinship. London:

Academic Press.

Barnes, J. 1971. Three Styles in the Study of Kinship. London: Butler & Tanner.

Holy, L. 1996. Anthropological Perspectives on Kinship. London: Pluto Press.

Page 38: Critical Therory

Kuper, A. 1988. The Invention of Primitive Society: Transformations of an Illusion. London: Routledge.

Kuper, A. 1996. Anthropology and Anthropologists. London: Routledge.

Layton, R. 1997. An Introduction to Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge: CUP.

Leach, E. 1954. Political Systems of Highland Burma. London: Bell.

Leach, E. 1966. Rethinking Anthropology. Northampton: Dickens.

Levi-Strauss, C. 1969. The Elementary Structures of Kinship. London: Eyre and Spottis-woode.

Coser, L. , (1977) Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context, 2nd Ed., Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., pp. 140–143.

Craib, I., (1992) Modern Social Theory: From Parsons to Habermas, Harvester Wheatsheaf, London

Cuff, E. & Payne, G.,(eds) (1984) Perspectives in Sociology, Allen & Unwin, London

Davis, K (1959). "The Myth of Functional Analysis as a Special Method in Sociology and Anthropology", American Sociological Review, 24(6), 757-772.

Elster, J., (1990), “Merton's Functionalism and the Unintended Consequences of Action”, in Clark, J., Modgil, C. & Modgil, S., (eds) Robert Merton: Consensus and Controversy, Falmer Press, London, pp. 129–35

Gingrich , P., (1999) “Functionalism and Parsons” in Sociology 250 Subject Notes, University of Regina, accessed, 24/5/06, uregina.ca

Holmwood, J., (2005) “Functionalism and its Critics” in Harrington, A., (ed) Modern Social Theory: an introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 87–109

Homans, George Casper (1962). Sentiments and Activities. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Hoult, Thomas Ford (1969). Dictionary of Modern Sociology.

Lenski, Gerhard (1966). "Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification." New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lenski, Gerhard (2005). "Evolutionary-Ecological Theory." Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

Maryanski, Alexandra (1998). "Evolutionary Sociology." Advances in Human Ecology. 7:1-56.

Maryanski, Alexandra and Jonathan Turner (1992). "The Social Cage: Human Nature and the Evolution of Society." Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Page 39: Critical Therory

Marshall, Gordon (1994). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology. ISBN 019285237X

Merton, Robert (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure, revised and enlarged. London: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Nolan, Patrick and Gerhard Lenski (2004). Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology." Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

Parsons, Talcott (1951) The Social System, Routledge, London

Parsons, T., & Shils, A., (eds) (1976) Toward a General Theory of Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge

Parsons, T., (1961) Theories of Society: foundations of modern sociological theory, Free Press, New York

Perey, Arnold (2005) "Malinowski, His Diary, and Men Today (with a note on the nature of Malinowskian functionalism)

Ritzer, G., (1983) Sociological Theory, Knopf Inc, New York

Sanderson, Stephen K. (1999). "Social Transformations: A General Theory of Historical Development." Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Turner, Jonathan (1985). "Herbert Spencer: A Renewed Appreciation." Beverly Hills: Sage.

Turner, Jonathan (1995). "Macrodynamics: Toward a Theory on the Organization of Human Populations." New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Turner, Jonathan and Jan Stets (2005). "The Sociology of Emotions." Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

[edit] Notes

Constructs such as ibid., loc. cit. and idem are discouraged by Wikipedia's style guide for footnotes, as they are easily broken. Please improve this article by replacing them with named references (quick guide), or an abbreviated title. (March 2010)

1. ̂ Urry, John (2000). "Metaphors". Sociology beyond societies: mobilities for the twenty-first century. Routledge. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-415-19089-3.

2. ̂ Talcott Parsons, "The Present Status of "Structural-Functional" Theory in Sociology." In Talcott Parsons, Social Systems and The Evolution of Action Theory New York: The Free Press, 1975.

3. ̂ Bourricaud, F. 'The Sociology of Talcott Parsons' Chicago University Press. ISBN 0-226-067564. p. 94

Page 40: Critical Therory

4. ̂ Giddens, Anthony "The Constitution of Society" in The Giddens Reader Philip Cassell (eds.) MacMillan Press pp.88

5. ̂ Department of Anthropology College of Arts and Sciences The University of Alabama: Anthropological theories

6. ̂ Fish, Jonathan S. 2005. Defending the Durkheimian Tradition. Religion, Emotion and Morality Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.

7. ̂ Turner, 1985

8. ̂ See Turner 1985

9. ̂ Nolan and Lenski, 2004; Maryanski and Turner 1992

10. ^ a b Parsons & Shills, 1976:190

11. ^ a b c Parsons, 1961:41

12. ̂ Craib, 1992:40

13. ̂ 1961:43-44

14. ̂ Cuff & Payne, 1984:44

15. ̂ Gingrich, 1999

16. ̂ 1961:38

17. ̂ Cuff & Payne, 1984:46.

18. ̂ 1961:37.

19. ̂ 1961:39.

20. ̂ Gingrich, 1991

21. ̂ Gingrich, 1991.

22. ̂ Davis, Kingsley and Wilbert E. Moore. (1970 [1945]) "Some Principles of Stratification." American Sociological Review, 10 (2), 242-9.

23. ̂ de Maio, F. (2010) Health & Social Theory. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 29-30.

24. ̂ Tumin, M. M. (1953). "Some principles of stratification: a critical analysis." American Sociological Review, 18, 387-97.

25. ̂ cf. Kuper, 1988:196, 205-6

26. ̂ ibid

27. ̂ Jay J. Coakley, Eric Dunning, Handbook of sports studies

Page 41: Critical Therory

28. ̂ Slattery, Martin. 1993. Key Ideas in Sociology. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes, Ltd.

29. ̂ Giddens, Anthony "The Constitution of Society" in The Giddens Reader Philip Cassell (eds.) MacMillan Press pp.89

30. ̂ Barnes, B. 1995. The Elements of Social Theory. London: UCL Press. Quoted in Jay J. Coakley, Eric Dunning, Handbook of sports studies

31. ̂ Cassell, Philip The Giddens Reader (1993) The Macmillan Press Ltd, pp. 6

View page ratingsRate this pageWhat's this?TrustworthyObjectiveCompleteWell-written

I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional) Categories:

Functionalism Sociological theories

Log in / create account

Article

Discussion

Read

Edit

View history

Main page Contents

Featured content

Current events

Random article

Donate to Wikipedia

Interaction

Page 42: Critical Therory

Help About Wikipedia

Community portal

Recent changes

Contact Wikipedia

Toolbox

Print/export

Languages

Azərbaycanca Català

Česky

Dansk

Deutsch

Español

فارسی

Français

Bahasa Indonesia

Íslenska

Italiano

עברית

Қазақша

Nederlands

日本語

Norsk (bokmål)

Polski

Русский

Svenska

Page 43: Critical Therory

Türkçe

中文

This page was last modified on 20 November 2011 at 21:05.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details.Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Contact us

Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Mobile view

Please read:A personal appeal fromWikipedia founder Jimmy Wales Read now

Conflict theoryFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sociology

Portal

Page 44: Critical Therory

Theory · History

Positivism · Antipositivism

Functionalism · Conflict theory

Middle-range · Mathematical

Critical theory · Socialization

Structure and agency

Research methods

Quantitative · Qualitative

Historical · Computational

Ethnographic

Topics · Subfields

Cities · Class · Crime · Culture

Deviance · Demography · Education

Economy · Environment · Family

Gender · Health · Industry · Internet

Knowledge · Law · Medicine

Politics · Mobility · Race and ethnicity

Rationalization · Religion · Science

Secularization · Social networks

Social psychology · Stratification

Categories · Lists

Journals · Sociologists

Article index · Outline

v · d · e

Conflict theories are perspectives in social science that emphasize the social, political or material inequality of a social group, that critique the broad socio-political system, or that otherwise detract from structural functionalism and ideological conservativism. Conflict theories draw attention to power differentials, such as class conflict, and generally contrast historically dominant ideologies.

Certain conflict theories set out to highlight the ideological aspects inherent in traditional thought. Whilst many of these perspectives hold parallels, conflict theory does not refer to a

Page 45: Critical Therory

unified school of thought, and should not be confused with, for instance, peace and conflict studies, or any other specific theory of social conflict.

Contents

 [hide]  1 In classical sociology 2 Modern approaches

3 Types of conflict theory

4 See also

5 References

[edit] In classical sociology

Of the classical founders of social science, conflict theory is most commonly associated with Karl Marx (1818-1883). Based on a dialectical materialist account of history, Marxism posited that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, would inevitably produce internal tensions leading to its own destruction.[1] Marx ushered in radical change, advocating proletarian revolution and freedom from the ruling classes.

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

— Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels The Communist Manifesto 1848, [2]

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure. In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with

Page 46: Critical Therory

the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic – in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production. No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society. Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation. In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient,[A] feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic development of society. The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production – antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social conditions of existence – but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism. The prehistory of human society accordingly closes with this social formation.

— Karl Marx A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy 1859, [3]

Two early conflict theorists were the Polish-Austrian sociologist and political theorist Ludwig Gumplowicz (1838-1909) and the American sociologist and paleontologist Lester F. Ward (1841-1913). Although Ward and Gumplowicz developed their theories independently they had much in common and approached conflict from a comprehensive anthropological and evolutionary point-of-view as opposed to Marx's rather exclusive focus on economic factors.

Gumplowicz, in Grundriss der Soziologie (Outlines of Sociology, 1884), describes how civilization has been shaped by conflict between cultures and ethnic groups. Gumplowicz theorized that large complex human societies evolved from the war and conquest. States become organized around the domination of one group by another: masters and slaves. Eventually a complex caste system develops.[4] Horowitz says that Gumplowicz understood conflict in all it's forms: "class conflict, race conflict and ethnic conflict", and calls him one of the fathers of Conflict Theory. [5]

What happened in India, Babylon, Egypt, Greece and Rome may sometime happen in modern Europe. European civilization may perish, over flooded by barbaric tribes. But if any one believes that we are safe from such catastrophes he is perhaps yielding to an all too optimistic delusion. There are no barbaric tribes in our neighborhood to be sure — but let no one be deceived, their instincts lie latent in the populace of European states.

— Gumplowicz (1884), [6]

Ward directly attacked and attempted to systematically refute the elite business class's laissez-faire philosophy as espoused by the hugely popular social philosopher Herbert Spencer. Ward's

Page 47: Critical Therory

Dynamic Sociology (1883) was an extended thesis on how to reduce conflict and competition in society and thus optimize human progress. At the most basic level Ward saw human nature itself to be deeply conflicted between self-aggrandizement and altruism, between emotion and intellect, and between male and female. These conflicts would be then reflected in society and Ward assumed there had been a "perpetual and vigorous struggle" among various "social forces" that shaped civilization.[7] [8] Ward was more optimistic than Marx and Gumplowicz and believed that it was possible to build on and reform present social structures with the help of sociological analysis.

Durkheim (1858-1917) saw society as a functioning organism. Functionalism concerns "the effort to impute, as rigorously as possible, to each feature, custom, or practice, its effect on the functioning of a supposedly stable, cohesive system",[9] The chief form of social conflict that Durkheim addressed was crime. Durkheim saw crime as "a factor in public health, an integral part of all healthy societies."[10] The collective conscience defines certain acts as "criminal." Crime thus plays a role in the evolution of morality and law: "[it] implies not only that the way remains open to necessary changes but that in certain cases it directly prepares these changes."[11]

Weber's (1864-1920) approach to conflict is contrasted with that of Marx. While Marx focused on the way individual behavior is conditioned by social structure, Weber emphasized the importance of "social action," i.e., the ability of individuals to affect their social relationships.[12]

[edit] Modern approaches

C. Wright Mills has been called the founder of modern conflict theory.[13] In Mills's view, social structures are created through conflict between people with differing interests and resources. Individuals and resources, in turn, are influenced by these structures and by the "unequal distribution of power and resources in the society."[13] The power elite of American society, (i.e., the military–industrial complex) had "emerged from the fusion of the corporate elite, the Pentagon, and the executive branch of government." Mills argued that the interests of this elite were opposed to those of the people. He theorized that the policies of the power elite would result in "increased escalation of conflict, production of weapons of mass destruction, and possibly the annihilation of the human race."[13]

Gene Sharp (born 21 January 1928) is a Professor Emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth and Nobel Peace Prize nominee.[14] He is known for his extensive writings on nonviolent struggle, which have influenced numerous anti-government resistance movements around the world. In 1983 he founded the Albert Einstein Institution, a non-profit organization devoted to studies and promotion of the use of nonviolent action in conflicts worldwide.[15] Sharp's key theme is that power is not monolithic; that is, it does not derive from some intrinsic quality of those who are in power. For Sharp, political power, the power of any state—regardless of its particular structural organization—ultimately derives from the subjects of the state. His fundamental belief is that any power structure relies upon the subjects' obedience to the orders of the ruler(s). If subjects do not obey, leaders have no power. Sharp has been called both the "Machiavelli of nonviolence" and the "Clausewitz of nonviolent warfare."[16]Sharp's scholarship has influenced resistance organizations around the world. Most recently the protest movement that toppled President Mubarak of Egypt drew extensively on his ideas, as well as the

Page 48: Critical Therory

youth movement in Tunisia and the earlier ones in the Eastern European color revolutions that had previously been inspired by Sharp's work.[17]

A recent articulation of conflict theory is found in Alan Sears' (Canadian sociologist) book A Good Book, in Theory: A Guide to Theoretical Thinking (2008):[18]

Societies are defined by inequality that produces conflict, rather than which produces order and consensus. This conflict based on inequality can only be overcome through a fundamental transformation of the existing relations in the society, and is productive of new social relations.

The disadvantaged have structural interests that run counter to the status quo, which, once they are assumed, will lead to social change. Thus, they are viewed as agents of change rather than objects one should feel sympathy for.

Human potential (e.g., capacity for creativity) is suppressed by conditions of exploitation and oppression, which are necessary in any society with an unequal division of labour. These and other qualities do not necessarily have to be stunted due to the requirements of the so-called "civilizing process," or "functional necessity": creativity is actually an engine for economic development and change.

The role of theory is in realizing human potential and transforming society, rather than maintaining the power structure. The opposite aim of theory would be the objectivity and detachment associated with positivism, where theory is a neutral, explanatory tool.

Consensus is a euphemism for ideology. Genuine consensus is not achieved, rather the more powerful in societies are able to impose their conceptions on others and have them accept their discourses. Consensus does not preserve social order, it entrenches stratification, e.g., the American dream.

The State serves the particular interests of the most powerful while claiming to represent the interests of all. Representation of disadvantaged groups in State processes may cultivate the notion of full participation, but this is an illusion/ideology.

Inequality on a global level is characterized by the purposeful underdevelopment of Third World countries, both during colonization and after national independence. The global system (i.e., development agencies such as World Bank and International Monetary Fund) benefits the most powerful countries and multi-national corporations, rather than the subjects of development, through economic, political, and military actions.

Although Sears associates the conflict theory approach with Marxism, he argues that it is the foundation for much "feminist, post-modernist, anti-racist, and lesbian-gay liberationist theories."[19]

[edit] Types of conflict theory

Conflict theory is most commonly associated with Marxism, but as a reaction to functionalism and the positivist method may also be associated with number of other perspectives, including:

Page 49: Critical Therory

Critical theory Feminist theory

Postmodern theory

Post-structural theory

Postcolonial theory

Queer theory

World systems theory

[edit] See also

Game theory Phronetic social science

Social defeat

Social-conflict theory

Sociology of peace, war, and social conflict

Structural functionalism

Conflict Management

[edit] References

1. ̂ Baird, Forrest E.; Walter Kaufmann (2008). From Plato to Derrida. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-158591-6.

2. ̂ Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto, introduction by Martin Malia (New York: Penguin group, 1998), pg. 35 ISBN 0-451-52710-0

3. ̂ Marx A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm

4. ̂ Fifty Key Sociologists: the Formative Theorists, John Scott Irving, 2007, pg 59

5. ̂ "Communicating Ideas: The Politics of Scholarly Publishing", Irving Louis Horowitz, 1986, pg 281

6. ̂ "Outlines of Sociology", pg 196

7. ̂ "Transforming Leadership", James MacGregor Burns, 2004, pg 189

8. ̂ "German Realpolitik and American Sociology: an Inquiry Into the Sources and Political Significance of the Sociology of Conflict", James Alfred Aho, 1975, ch. 6 'Lester F. Ward's Sociology of Conflict'

Page 50: Critical Therory

9. ̂ Bourricaud, F. 'The Sociology of Talcott Parsons' Chicago University Press. ISBN 0-226-06756-4. p. 94

10. ̂ Durkheim, E. (1938). The Rules of Sociological Method. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. p. 67.

11. ̂ Durkheim, (1938), pp. 70–81.

12. ̂ Livesay, C. Social Inequality: Theories: Weber. Sociology Central. A-Level Sociology Teaching Notes. Retrieved on: 2010-06-20.

13. ^ a b c Knapp, P. (1994). One World – Many Worlds: Contemporary Sociological Theory (2nd Ed.). Harpercollins College Div, pp. 228–246. Online summary Isbn 978-0-06-501218-7

14. ̂ "Gene Sharp: Author of the nonviolent revolution rulebook". BBC News. 21 February 2011.

15. ̂ Gene Sharp biography at Albert Einstein Institution web site.

16. ̂ Weber, Thomas. Gandhi as Disciple and Mentor. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004[page needed]

17. ̂ "Shy U.S. Intellectual Created Playbook Used in a Revolution". The New York Times. 16 February 2011.

18. ̂ Sears, Alan. (2008) A Good Book, In Theory: A Guide to Theoretical Thinking. North York: Higher Education University of Toronto Press, pg. 34-6.

19. ̂ Sears, pg. 36.

Stark, Rodney (2007). Sociology (10th ed.). thomas wadsworth. ISBN 0-495-09344-0.

Lenski, Gerhard E. (1966). Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratificaion. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-037165-2.

Collins, Randall (1994). Four Sociological Traditions: Selected Readings. Oxford University Press.. ISBN 0-19-508702-X.

Thio, Alex (2008). Sociology: A Brief Introduction (7th ed.). Pearson. ISBN 0-205-40785-4.

[hide]v · d · e Social and political philosophy

Philosophers Adi Shankara · Plato · Vaisheshika · Nyāya Sūtras · Augustine · Marsilius · Machiavelli · Grotius · Montesquieu · Comte · Bosanquet · Spencer · Malebranche · Durkheim · Santayana · Royce · Russell · Confucius · Hobbes · Leibniz · Hume · Kant · Rousseau · Locke · Burke · Smith · Bentham · Mill · Thoreau · Marx · Gandhi · Gentile · Maritain · Berlin · Schmitt · Debord · Camus · Sartre · Foucault · Rawls · Popper · Đilas · Habermas · Kirk · Oakeshott ·

Page 51: Critical Therory

Nozick · Alinsky · Chomsky · Baudrillard · Badiou · Strauss · Rand · Žižek · Walzer

Social theories

Anarchism · Authoritarianism · Conservatism · Liberalism · Libertarianism · National liberalism · Socialism · Utilitarianism · Conflict theory · Consensus theory

Social concepts

Society · War · Law · Justice · Peace · Rights · Revolution · Civil disobedience · Democracy · Social contract · more...

Related articles

Philosophy of economics · Philosophy of education · Philosophy of history · Jurisprudence · Philosophy of social science · Philosophy of love · Philosophy of sex

Portal · Category · Task Force · Discussion · ChangesView page ratingsRate this pageWhat's this?TrustworthyObjectiveCompleteWell-written

I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional) Categories:

Sociological theories Social philosophy

Theories of history

Sociocultural evolution

Identity politics

Log in / create account

Article

Discussion

Read

Edit

View history

Main page

Page 52: Critical Therory

Contents

Featured content

Current events

Random article

Donate to Wikipedia

Interaction

Help About Wikipedia

Community portal

Recent changes

Contact Wikipedia

Toolbox

Print/export

Languages

العربية Български

Deutsch

Eesti

Español

Français

עברית

Nederlands

日本語

Polski

Українська

中文

This page was last modified on 14 November 2011 at 06:09.

Page 53: Critical Therory

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details.Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Contact us

Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Mobile view

Please read:A personal appeal fromWikipedia founder Jimmy Wales Read now

Quantitative researchFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2009)

This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. See the talk page for details. WikiProject Sociology or the Sociology Portal may be able to help recruit an expert. (November 2009)

Sociology

Page 54: Critical Therory

Portal

Theory · History

Positivism · Antipositivism

Functionalism · Conflict theory

Middle-range · Mathematical

Critical theory · Socialization

Structure and agency

Research methods

Quantitative · Qualitative

Historical · Computational

Ethnographic

Topics · Subfields

Cities · Class · Crime · Culture

Deviance · Demography · Education

Economy · Environment · Family

Gender · Health · Industry · Internet

Knowledge · Law · Medicine

Politics · Mobility · Race and ethnicity

Rationalization · Religion · Science

Secularization · Social networks

Social psychology · Stratification

Categories · Lists

Journals · Sociologists

Article index · Outline

v · d · e

In the social sciences, quantitative research refers to the systematic empirical investigation of social phenomena via statistical, mathematical or computational techniques. The objective of quantitative research is to develop and employ mathematical models, theories and/or hypotheses pertaining to phenomena. The process of measurement is central to quantitative research because it provides the fundamental connection between empirical observation and mathematical expression of quantitative relationships.

In layman's terms, this means that the quantitative researcher asks a specific, narrow question and collects numerical data from participants to answer the question. The researcher analyzes the

Page 55: Critical Therory

data with the help of statistics. The researcher is hoping the numbers will yield an unbiased result that can be generalized to some larger population. Qualitative research, on the other hand, asks broad questions and collects word data from participants. The researcher looks for themes and describes the information in themes and patterns exclusive to that set of participants.

Quantitative research is used widely in social sciences such as psychology, economics, sociology, and political science, and less frequently in anthropology and history. Research in mathematical sciences such as physics is also 'quantitative' by definition, though this use of the term differs in context. In the social sciences, the term relates to empirical methods, originating in both philosophical positivism and the history of statistics, which contrast qualitative research methods.

Qualitative methods produce information only on the particular cases studied, and any more general conclusions are only hypotheses. Quantitative methods can be used to verify, which of such hypotheses are true.

A comprehensive analysis of 1274 articles published in the top two American sociology journals between 1935 and 2005 found that roughly two thirds of these articles used quantitative methods.[1]

Contents

 [hide]  1 Overview 2 Use of statistics

3 Measurement

4 Relationship with qualitative methods

5 Examples

6 See also

7 References

[edit] Overview

Quantitative research is generally made using scientific methods, which can include:

The generation of models, theories and hypotheses The development of instruments and methods for measurement

Experimental control and manipulation of variables

Collection of empirical data

Page 56: Critical Therory

Modeling and analysis of data

Evaluation of results

In the social sciences particularly, quantitative research is often contrasted with qualitative research which is the examination, analysis and interpretation of observations for the purpose of discovering underlying meanings and patterns of relationships, including classifications of types of phenomena and entities, in a manner that does not involve mathematical models. Approaches to quantitative psychology were first modelled on quantitative approaches in the physical sciences by Gustav Fechner in his work on psychophysics, which built on the work of Ernst Heinrich Weber. Although a distinction is commonly drawn between qualitative and quantitative aspects of scientific investigation, it has been argued that the two go hand in hand. For example, based on analysis of the history of science, Kuhn (1961, p. 162) concludes that “large amounts of qualitative work have usually been prerequisite to fruitful quantification in the physical sciences”.[2] Qualitative research is often used to gain a general sense of phenomena and to form theories that can be tested using further quantitative research. For instance, in the social sciences qualitative research methods are often used to gain better understanding of such things as intentionality (from the speech response of the researchee) and meaning (why did this person/group say something and what did it mean to them?) (Kieron Yeoman).

Although quantitative investigation of the world has existed since people first began to record events or objects that had been counted, the modern idea of quantitative processes have their roots in Auguste Comte's positivist framework. Positivism emphasized the use of the scientific method through observation to empiricially test hypotheses explaining and predicting what, where, why, how, and when phenomena occurred. Positivist scholars like Comte believed only scientific methods rather than previous spiritual explanations for human behavior could advance science.

[edit] Use of statistics

Statistics is the most widely used branch of mathematics in quantitative research outside of the physical sciences, and also finds applications within the physical sciences, such as in statistical mechanics. Statistical methods are used extensively within fields such as economics, social sciences and biology. Quantitative research using statistical methods starts with the collection of data, based on the hypothesis or theory. Usually a big sample of data is collected - this would require verification, validation and recording before the analysis can take place. Software packages such as SPSS and R are typically used for this purpose. Causal relationships are studied by manipulating factors thought to influence the phenomena of interest while controlling other variables relevant to the experimental outcomes. In the field of health, for example, researchers might measure and study the relationship between dietary intake and measurable physiological effects such as weight loss, controlling for other key variables such as exercise. Quantitatively based opinion surveys are widely used in the media, with statistics such as the proportion of respondents in favor of a position commonly reported. In opinion surveys, respondents are asked a set of structured questions and their responses are tabulated. In the field of climate science, researchers compile and compare statistics such as temperature or atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.

Page 57: Critical Therory

Empirical relationships and associations are also frequently studied by using some form of General linear model, non-linear model, or by using factor analysis. A fundamental principle in quantitative research is that correlation does not imply causation. This principle follows from the fact that it is always possible a spurious relationship exists for variables between which covariance is found in some degree. Associations may be examined between any combination of continuous and categorical variables using methods of statistics.

[edit] Measurement

Views regarding the role of measurement in quantitative research are somewhat divergent. Measurement is often regarded as being only a means by which observations are expressed numerically in order to investigate causal relations or associations. However, it has been argued that measurement often plays a more important role in quantitative research. For example, Kuhn argued that within quantitative research, the results that are shown can prove to be strange. This is because accepting a theory based on results of quantitative data could prove to be a natural phenomenon. He argued that such abnormalities are interesting when done during the process of obtaining data, as seen below:

When measurement departs from theory, it is likely to yield mere numbers, and their very neutrality makes them particularly sterile as a source of remedial suggestions. But numbers register the departure from theory with an authority and finesse that no qualitative technique can duplicate, and that departure is often enough to start a search (Kuhn, 1961, p. 180).

In classical physics, the theory and definitions which underpin measurement are generally deterministic in nature. In contrast, probabilistic measurement models known as the Rasch model and Item response theory models are generally employed in the social sciences. Psychometrics is the field of study concerned with the theory and technique for measuring social and psychological attributes and phenomena. This field is central to much quantitative research that is undertaken within the social sciences.

Quantitative research may involve the use of proxies as stand-ins for other quantities that cannot be directly measured. Tree-ring width, for example, is considered a reliable proxy of ambient environmental conditions such as the warmth of growing seasons or amount of rainfall. Although scientists cannot directly measure the temperature of past years, tree-ring width and other climate proxies have been used to provide a semi-quantitative record of average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere back to 1000 A.D. When used in this way, the proxy record (tree ring width, say) only reconstructs a certain amount of the variance of the original record. The proxy may be calibrated (for example, during the period of the instrumental record) to determine how much variation is captured, including whether both short and long term variation is revealed. In the case of tree-ring width, different species in different places may show more or less sensitivity to, say, rainfall or temperature: when reconstructing a temperature record there is considerable skill in selecting proxies that are well correlated with the desired variable.

[edit] Relationship with qualitative methods

Page 58: Critical Therory

In most physical and biological sciences, the use of either quantitative or qualitative methods is uncontroversial, and each is used when appropriate. In the social sciences, particularly in sociology, social anthropology and psychology, the use of one or other type of method can be a matter of controversy and even ideology, with particular schools of thought within each discipline favouring one type of method and pouring scorn on to the other. The majority tendency throughout the history of social science, however, is to use eclectic approaches-by combining both methods. Qualitative methods might be used to understand the meaning of the conclusions produced by quantitative methods. Using quantitative methods, it is possible to give precise and testable expression to qualitative ideas. This combination of quantitative and qualitative data gathering is often referred to as mixed-methods research.

[edit] Examples

Research that consists of the percentage amounts of all the elements that make up Earth's atmosphere.

Survey that concludes that the average patient has to wait two hours in the waiting room of a certain doctor before being selected.

An experiment in which group x was given two tablets of Aspirin a day and Group y was given two tablets of a placebo a day where each participant is randomly assigned to one or other of the groups. The numerical factors such as two tablets, percent of elements and the time of waiting make the situations and results quantitative.

In finance, quantitative research into the stock markets is used to develop models to price complex trades, and develop algorithms to exploit investment hypotheses, as seen in quantitative Hedge Funds and Trading Strategy Indices.

[edit] See also

Statistics Positivism

Sociological positivism

Market research

Quantitative marketing research

Statistical survey

Qualitative research

Case study research

Antipositivism

Hedge Fund

Page 59: Critical Therory

Trading Strategy Index

[edit] References

1. ̂ Hunter, Laura and Erin Leahey. 2008. "Collaborative Research in Sociology: Trends and Contributing Factors". American Sociologist 39:290–306

2. ̂ Thomas S. Kuhn, The Function of Measurement in Modern Physical Science

View page ratingsRate this pageWhat's this?TrustworthyObjectiveCompleteWell-written

I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional) Categories:

Research Scientific method

Quantitative research

Evaluation methods

Research methods

Log in / create account

Article

Discussion

Read

Edit

View history

Main page Contents

Featured content

Current events

Random article

Page 60: Critical Therory

Donate to Wikipedia

Interaction

Help About Wikipedia

Community portal

Recent changes

Contact Wikipedia

Toolbox

Print/export

Languages

العربية Česky

Cymraeg

Dansk

Deutsch

Español

Français

Bahasa Indonesia

עברית

Latina

日本語

Norsk (bokmål)

Norsk (nynorsk)

Polski

Suomi

Svenska

Türkçe

Page 61: Critical Therory

中文

This page was last modified on 21 November 2011 at 06:15.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details.Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Contact us

Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Mobile view

Please read:A personal appeal fromWikipedia founder Jimmy Wales

Read now

Qualitative researchFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2010)

Sociology

Page 62: Critical Therory

Portal

Theory · History

Positivism · Antipositivism

Functionalism · Conflict theory

Middle-range · Mathematical

Critical theory · Socialization

Structure and agency

Research methods

Quantitative · Qualitative

Historical · Computational

Ethnographic

Topics · Subfields

Cities · Class · Crime · Culture

Deviance · Demography · Education

Economy · Environment · Family

Gender · Health · Industry · Internet

Knowledge · Law · Medicine

Politics · Mobility · Race and ethnicity

Rationalization · Religion · Science

Secularization · Social networks

Social psychology · Stratification

Categories · Lists

Journals · Sociologists

Article index · Outline

Page 63: Critical Therory

v · d · e

For the journal, see Qualitative Research.

Qualitative research is a method of inquiry employed in many different academic disciplines, traditionally in the social sciences, but also in market research and further contexts.[1] Qualitative researchers aim to gather an in-depth understanding of human behavior and the reasons that govern such behavior. The qualitative method investigates the why and how of decision making, not just what, where, when. Hence, smaller but focused samples are more often needed than large samples.

In the conventional view, qualitative methods produce information only on the particular cases studied, and any more general conclusions are only propositions (informed assertions). Quantitative methods can then be used to seek empirical support for such research hypotheses. This view has been disputed by Oxford University professor Bent Flyvbjerg, who argues that qualitative methods and case study research may be used both for hypotheses-testing and for generalizing beyond the particular cases studied.[2]

Contents

[hide]

1 Data collection 2 Data analysis

o 2.1 Interpretive techniques

2.1.1 Coding

o 2.2 Recursive abstraction

o 2.3 Mechanical techniques

3 Paradigmatic differences

4 Validation

5 Academic research

6 See also

7 Notes

8 References

9 External links

[edit] Data collection

Page 64: Critical Therory

Qualitative researchers may use different approaches in collecting data, such as the grounded theory practice, narratology, storytelling, classical ethnography, or shadowing. Qualitative methods are also loosely present in other methodological approaches, such as action research or actor-network theory. Forms of the data collected can include interviews and group discussions, observation and reflection field notes, various texts, pictures, and other materials.

Qualitative research often categorizes data into patterns as the primary basis for organizing and reporting results.[citation needed] Qualitative researchers typically rely on the following methods for gathering information: Participant Observation, Non-participant Observation, Field Notes, Reflexive Journals, Structured Interview, Semi-structured Interview, Unstructured Interview, and Analysis of documents and materials.[3]

The ways of participating and observing can vary widely from setting to setting. Participant observation is a strategy of reflexive learning, not a single method of observing.[4] In participant observation [5] researchers typically become members of a culture, group, or setting, and adopt roles to conform to that setting. In doing so, the aim is for the researcher to gain a closer insight into the culture's practices, motivations and emotions. It is argued that the researchers' ability to understand the experiences of the culture may be inhibited if they observe without participating[citation needed].

Some distinctive qualitative methods are the use of focus groups and key informant interviews. The focus group technique involves a moderator facilitating a small group discussion between selected individuals on a particular topic. This is a particularly popular method in market research and testing new initiatives with users/workers.

One traditional and specialized form of qualitative research is called cognitive testing or pilot testing which is used in the development of quantitative survey items. Survey items are piloted on study participants to test the reliability and validity of the items.

In the academic social sciences the most frequently used qualitative research approaches include the following:

1. Ethnographic Research, used for investigating cultures by collecting and describing data that is intended to help in the development of a theory. This method is also called “ethnomethodology” or "methodology of the people". An example of applied ethnographic research, is the study of a particular culture and their understanding of the role of a particular disease in their cultural framework.

2. Critical Social Research , used by a researcher to understand how people communicate and develop symbolic meanings.

3. Ethical Inquiry , an intellectual analysis of ethical problems. It includes the study of ethics as related to obligation, rights, duty, right and wrong, choice etc.

4. Foundational Research, examines the foundations for a science, analyses the beliefs and develops ways to specify how a knowledge base should change in light of new information.

5. Historical Research, allows one to discuss past and present events in the context of the present condition, and allows one to reflect and provide possible answers to current issues and

Page 65: Critical Therory

problems. Historical research helps us in answering questions such as: Where have we come from, where are we, who are we now and where are we going?

6. Grounded Theory , is an inductive type of research, based or “grounded” in the observations or data from which it was developed; it uses a variety of data sources, including quantitative data, review of records, interviews, observation and surveys.

7. Phenomenology , describes the “subjective reality” of an event, as perceived by the study population; it is the study of a phenomenon.

8. Philosophical Research, is conducted by field experts within the boundaries of a specific field of study or profession, the best qualified individual in any field of study to use an intellectual analyses, in order to clarify definitions, identify ethics, or make a value judgment concerning an issue in their field of study.

[edit] Data analysis

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2010)

[edit] Interpretive techniques

The most common analysis of qualitative data is observer impression. That is, expert or bystander observers examine the data, interpret it via forming an impression and report their impression in a structured and sometimes quantitative form.

[edit] CodingMain article: Coding (social sciences)

Coding is an interpretive technique that both organizes the data and provides a means to introduce the interpretations of it into certain quantitative methods. Most coding requires the analyst to read the data and demarcate segments within it. Each segment is labeled with a “code” – usually a word or short phrase that suggests how the associated data segments inform the research objectives. When coding is complete, the analyst prepares reports via a mix of: summarizing the prevalence of codes, discussing similarities and differences in related codes across distinct original sources/contexts, or comparing the relationship between one or more codes.

Some qualitative data that is highly structured (e.g., open-end responses from surveys or tightly defined interview questions) is typically coded without additional segmenting of the content. In these cases, codes are often applied as a layer on top of the data. Quantitative analysis of these codes is typically the capstone analytical step for this type of qualitative data.

Contemporary qualitative data analyses are sometimes supported by computer programs, termed Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software. These programs do not supplant the

Page 66: Critical Therory

interpretive nature of coding but rather are aimed at enhancing the analyst’s efficiency at data storage/retrieval and at applying the codes to the data. Many programs offer efficiencies in editing and revising coding, which allow for work sharing, peer review, and recursive examination of data.

A frequent criticism of coding method is that it seeks to transform qualitative data into quantitative data, thereby draining the data of its variety, richness, and individual character. Analysts respond to this criticism by thoroughly expositing their definitions of codes and linking those codes soundly to the underlying data, therein bringing back some of the richness that might be absent from a mere list of codes.

[edit] Recursive abstraction

Some qualitative datasets are analyzed without coding. A common method here is recursive abstraction, where datasets are summarized, those summaries are then further summarized, and so on. The end result is a more compact summary that would have been difficult to accurately discern without the preceding steps of distillation.

A frequent criticism of recursive abstraction is that the final conclusions are several times removed from the underlying data. While it is true that poor initial summaries will certainly yield an inaccurate final report, qualitative analysts can respond to this criticism. They do so, like those using coding method, by documenting the reasoning behind each summary step, citing examples from the data where statements were included and where statements were excluded from the intermediate summary.

[edit] Mechanical techniques

Some techniques rely on leveraging computers to scan and sort large sets of qualitative data. At their most basic level, mechanical techniques rely on counting words, phrases, or coincidences of tokens within the data. Often referred to as content analysis, the output from these techniques is amenable to many advanced statistical analyses.

Mechanical techniques are particularly well-suited for a few scenarios. One such scenario is for datasets that are simply too large for a human to effectively analyze, or where analysis of them would be cost prohibitive relative to the value of information they contain. Another scenario is when the chief value of a dataset is the extent to which it contains “red flags” (e.g., searching for reports of certain adverse events within a lengthy journal dataset from patients in a clinical trial) or “green flags” (e.g., searching for mentions of your brand in positive reviews of marketplace products).

A frequent criticism of mechanical techniques is the absence of a human interpreter. And while masters of these methods are able to write sophisticated software to mimic some human decisions, the bulk of the “analysis” is nonhuman. Analysts respond by proving the value of their methods relative to either a) hiring and training a human team to analyze the data or b) letting the data go untouched, leaving any actionable nuggets undiscovered.

Page 67: Critical Therory

[edit] Paradigmatic differences

Contemporary qualitative research has been conducted from a large number of various paradigms that influence conceptual and metatheoretical concerns of legitimacy, control, data analysis, ontology, and epistemology, among others. Research conducted in the last 10 years has been characterized by a distinct turn toward more interpretive, postmodern, and critical practices.[6] Guba and Lincoln (2005) identify five main paradigms of contemporary qualitative research: positivism, postpositivism, critical theories, constructivism, and participatory/cooperative paradigms.[6] Each of the paradigms listed by Guba and Lincoln are characterized by axiomatic differences in axiology, intended action of research, control of research process/outcomes, relationship to foundations of truth and knowledge, validity (see below), textual representation and voice of the researcher/participants, and commensurability with other paradigms. In particular, commensurability involves the extent to which paradigmatic concerns “can be retrofitted to each other in ways that make the simultaneous practice of both possible”.[7] Positivist and postpositivist paradigms share commensurable assumptions but are largely incommensurable with critical, constructivist, and participatory paradigms. Likewise, critical, constructivist, and participatory paradigms are commensurable on certain issues (e.g., intended action and textual representation).

[edit] Validation

A central issue in qualitative research is validity (also known as credibility and/or dependability). There are many different ways of establishing validity, including: member check, interviewer corroboration, peer debriefing, prolonged engagement, negative case analysis, auditability, confirmability, bracketing, and balance. Most of these methods were coined, or at least extensively described by Lincoln and Guba (1985)[8]

[edit] Academic research

By the end of the 1970s many leading journals began to publish qualitative research articles[9] and several new journals emerged which published only qualitative research studies and articles about qualitative research methods.[10]

In the 1980s and 1990s, the new qualitative research journals became more multidisciplinary in focus moving beyond qualitative research’s traditional disciplinary roots of anthropology, sociology, and philosophy.[10]

The new millennium saw a dramatic increase in the number of journals specializing in qualitative research with at least one new qualitative research journal being launched each year.

[edit] See also

Analytic induction Ethnography Phronetic social science

Page 68: Critical Therory

Case study

Content analysis

Critical ethnography

Critical theory

Dialectical research

Discourse analysis

Educational psychology

Ethnomethodology

Focus group

Grounded theory

Hermeneutics

Online research communities

Participatory action research

Phenomenology (science)

Phenomenography

Qualitative economics

Quantitative research

Qualitative marketing research

Qualitative psychological research

Sampling (case studies)

Semiotics

Sensemaking

Theoretical sampling

[edit] Notes

1. ̂ Denzin, Norman K. & Lincoln, Yvonna S. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ISBN 0-7619-2757-3

2. ̂ Bent Flyvbjerg, 2006, "Five Misunderstandings About Case Study Research." Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 12, no. 2, April, pp. 219-245.; Bent Flyvbjerg, 2011, "Case Study," in Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds., The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th Edition (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), pp. 301-316.

3. ̂ Marshall, Catherine & Rossman, Gretchen B. (1998). Designing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ISBN 0-7619-1340-8

4. ̂ Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002) Qualitative communication research methods: Second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. ISBN 0-7619-2493-0

5. ̂ "Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector’s Field Guide". techsociety.com. Retrieved 7 October 2010.

6. ^ a b Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). “Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging influences" In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.), pp. 191-215. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ISBN 0-7619-2757-3

7. ̂ Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). “Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging influences" (p. 200). In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.), pp. 191-215. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ISBN 0-7619-2757-3

8. ̂ Lincoln Y and Guba EG (1985) Naturalist Inquiry, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

9. ̂ Loseke, Donileen R. & Cahil, Spencer E. (2007). “Publishing qualitative manuscripts: Lessons learned”. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice: Concise Paperback Edition, pp. 491-506. London: Sage. ISBN 978-1-7619-4776-9

Page 69: Critical Therory

10. ^ a b Denzin, Norman K. & Lincoln, Yvonna S. (2005). “Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research”. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.), pp. 1-33. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ISBN 0-7619-2757-3

[edit] References

Adler, P. A. & Adler, P. (1987). : context and meaning in social inquiry / edited by Richard Jessor, Anne Colby, and Richard A. Shweder] OCLC 46597302

Boas, Franz (1943). Recent anthropology. Science, 98, 311-314, 334-337.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research ( 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

DeWalt, K. M. & DeWalt, B. R. (2002). Participant observation. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Fischer, C.T. (Ed.) (2005). Qualitative research methods for psychologists: Introduction through empirical studies. Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-088470-4.

Flyvbjerg , B. (2006). "Five Misunderstandings About Case Study Research." Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 12, no. 2, April 2006, pp. 219-245.

Flyvbjerg , B. (2011). "Case Study," in Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds., The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th Edition (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), pp. 301-316.

Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Holliday, A. R. (2007). Doing and Writing Qualitative Research, 2nd Edition. London: Sage Publications

Kaminski, Marek M. (2004). Games Prisoners Play. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-11721-7.

Mahoney, J & Goertz, G. (2006) A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research, Political Analysis, 14, 227–249. doi:10.1093/pan/mpj017

Malinowski, B. (1922/1961). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. New York: E. P. Dutton.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pamela Maykut, Richard Morehouse. 1994 Beginning Qualitative Research. Falmer Press.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods ( 3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pawluch D. & Shaffir W. & Miall C. (2005). Doing Ethnography: Studying Everyday Life. Toronto, ON Canada: Canadian Scholars' Press.

Page 70: Critical Therory

Ragin, C. C. (1994). Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method, Pine Forge Press, ISBN 0-8039-9021-9

Stebbins, Robert A. (2001) Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Taylor, Steven J. , Bogdan, Robert, Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods, Wiley, 1998, ISBN 0-471-16868-8

Van Maanen, J. (1988) Tales of the field: on writing ethnography, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wolcott, H. F. (1995). The art of fieldwork. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Wolcott, H. F. (1999). Ethnography: A way of seeing. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Ziman, John (2000). Real Science: what it is, and what it means. Cambridge, Uk: Cambridge University Press.

[edit] External links

C.Wright Mills, On intellectual Craftsmanship, The Sociological Imagination,1959 Participant Observation, Qualitative research methods: a Data collector's field guide

View page ratingsRate this page

What's this?

Trustworthy

Objective

Complete

Well-written

I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional)

Categories:

Qualitative research Scientific method

Evaluation methods

Research methods

Log in / create account

Page 71: Critical Therory

Article

Discussion

Read

Edit

View history

Main page Contents

Featured content

Current events

Random article

Donate to Wikipedia

Interaction

Help About Wikipedia

Community portal

Recent changes

Contact Wikipedia

Toolbox

Print/export

Languages

العربية Az ə rbaycanca

Česky

Dansk

Deutsch

Eesti

Español

Page 72: Critical Therory

Français

한국어

हि�न्दी�

Hrvatski

Bahasa Indonesia

Íslenska

עברית

日本語

Suomi

Svenska

తెలు�గు�

中文

This page was last modified on 19 November 2011 at 23:17.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details.Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Contact us

Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Mobile view