Daniel Little

Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science

* Introduction Models Of Explanation * Causal Analysis * Rational Choice Theory * Interpretation Theory Variations And Elaborations * Functional and Structural ExplanationMaterialismEconomic AnthropologyStatistical Analysis Current Controversies * Methodological IndividualismRelativismToward Methodological Pluralism

Microfoundations, Method, and Causation: On the Philosophy of the Social Sciences

The convergence of inexactness and intelligibility in social phenomena makes social and historical inquiry fascinating. The social world is not chaotic and social processes are not unrelated strings of events. We can explain social patterns in ways that illuminate social outcomes. At the same time, the social world does not constitute a closed, determined system of variables and outcomes, in the same way that quantum chemistry systemizes the properties of all physical structures. Instead, the social sciences are a tangle of cross-cutting, overlapping sets of theories, hypotheses, causal models, idealized facts, interpretive principles, and bodies of empirical findings that may illuminate but do not reduce. In Microfoundations, Method, and Causation, Daniel Little combines a purely philosophical perspective on social science, with the theoretical and empirical practice of working scientists. Part 1 focuses on the theory of popular politics constructed within the context of analytical Marxism. In part 2, Little asks if rational choice theory provides an adequate basis for explaining patterns of social, political, and economic behavior in traditional China. The essays in part 3 reveal the philosophy of social science as understood by philosophers. Here, Little probes issues of objectivity, empiricism, and generalizations, and makes the case that social generalizations are not akin to laws of nature. Littles approach to social science research effectively points out the limits inherent in social theories, as well as questions and answers that may be posed to the social world. In a clear, compelling, and honest fashion, he urges both the social scientist and the philosopher who studies the social sciences, to make the most of empirical methods of research to develop hypotheses about the social world. As such, this is a must read for sociologists, social theorists, and philosophers.

New contributions to the philosophy of history

Introduction Historys Pathways.- Chapter One History and narrative.- Chapter Two Historical concepts and social ontology.- Chapter Three Large structures .- Chapter Four Causal mechanisms.- Chapter Five History of Technology.- Chapter Six Economic history.- Chapter Seven The involution debate.- Chapter Eight Mentalites.- Conclusion.- References

On the scope and limits of generalizations in the social sciences

This article disputes the common view that social science explanations depend on discovery of lawlike generalizations from which descriptions of social outcomes can be derived. It distinguishes between governing and phenomenal regularities, and argues that social regularities are phenomenal rather than governing. In place of nomological deductive arguments, the article maintains that social explanations depend on the discovery of causal mechanisms underlying various social processes. The metaphysical correlate of this argument is that there are no social kinds: types of social entities that share a common casual constitution giving rise to strong regularities of behavior. The article turns next to a consideration of the character of social causation and argues for a microfoundational interpretation of social causation: social causal powers are embodied in the constraints and opportunities that institutions present to individual agents. Finally, it is noted that these arguments have consequences for the credibility of social predictions: it is argued that predictions in social science are generally unreliable.

Rational-Choice Models and Asian Studies

The rational-choice paradigm has been attractive to many area specialists in their efforts to arrive at explanations of social and political behavior in various parts of the world. This model of explanation is simple yet powerful; we attempt to explain a pattern of social behavior or an enduring social arrangement as the aggregate outcome of the goal-directed choices of large numbers of rational agents. Why did the Nian rebellion occur? It was the result of the individual-level survival strategies of north China peasants (Perry 1980). Why did the central places of late imperial Sichuan conform to the hexagonal arrays predicted by central-place theory? Because participants—consumers, merchants, and officials—made rational decisions based on considerations of transport cost (Skinner 1964–65). Why was late imperial Chinese agriculture stagnant? Because none of the actors within the agricultural system had both the incentive and the capacity to invest in agricultural innovation (Lippit 1987).

Levels of the social

Publisher Summary “The social” is characterized from the concrete level of individuals in specific relations, to the global structures and institutions that constitute the modern world system, with many stops in between. The chapter considers how to think rigorously about social levels within the social and social scientific conceptualizing. The issue of “levels” within the social is formulated from several complementary perspectives: ontology, explanation, and description. It is scientifically important for social scientists to arrive at a more adequate understanding of the social ontology that underlies their work and such an ontology can be reasonably simple. The socially constituted agent within a set of social relations and institutions provides a rich basis for characterizing social phenomena, and permits hypothesizing of higher-level structures and institutions. Methodological localism, one of the perspectives in the question of social levels, is designed to capture the elements of truth involved in both individualism and structuralism. This perspective affirms that there are large social structures and facts that influence social outcomes, but it also insists that these structures are only possible insofar as they are embodied in the actions and states of socially constructed individuals.

Explaining Large-Scale Historical Change

A prominent historiographic theme in the past decade has been a movement away from causal explanation of large-scale processes and outcomes and toward narrative interpretation of singular historical processes. This article argues for the continued vitality of large-scale historical inquiry and surveys the historiographic issues that arise in large-scale historical explanation. The article proceeds through an examination of several important recent examples of large-scale history: comparative history of Europe and China, the history of alternative forms of industrial organization, and the history of technology. These three cases provide the basis for a conception of what may be called “conjunctural contingent meso-level” explanations: explanations that identify intermediate-level structures and processes and highlight both the structural factors that govern change and the multiple pathways that change can take.

Actor-Centered Sociology and the New Pragmatism

Theory and research in sociology need to be grounded in the fundamental truth that social phenomena are constituted by the actions and thoughts of socially constituted and socially situated individuals. This truism may be described as “methodological localism.” This does not imply that explanations must proceed from individual to social; but it does imply that we need to be confident that our hypotheses about social entities and processes have “microfoundations” at the level of the actors who constitute them. The article draws out an important consequence of this set of ideas: the necessity for sociology of developing a more adequate theory of the actor—an account of the ways the individual represents the world, the things that motivate him or her, and the ways that he or she arrives at actions and plans based on these features of practical cognition. To date the most common theory of the actor in the social sciences is the rational-intentional model and its cousin, rational choice theory. However, American pragmatism offers a significantly richer framework in terms of which to understand actors and their actions. This framework emphasizes habit, practice, and creativity in the genesis of action. Contemporary sociologists such as Neil Gross, Andrew Abbott, Mark Granovetter, and Hans Joas have taken this framework seriously in their theorizing with good effect. The article concludes that sociology gains when researchers arrive at more nuanced understandings of the constitutions and situations of the actors with whom they are concerned.

Guiding and Modelling Quality Improvement in Higher Education Institutions.

The article considers the process of creating quality improvement in higher education institutions from the point of view of current organisational theory and social-science modelling techniques. The author considers the higher education institution as a functioning complex of rules, norms and other organisational features and reviews the social mechanisms and processes through which agencies can stimulate quality improvement. The article provides a few examples of how these social processes might be modelled using social simulation techniques, including agent-based models, discrete event simulation and other modelling techniques developed for representing complex social processes of coordination and cooperation. A better representation of universities as complexes of organisations will support more effective quality improvement by higher education leaders and external agencies.

Mechanisms and Method

Causal mechanisms theory (CMT) has provided an important contribution to the theory of social explanation. This article considers whether CMT also makes a contribution to improvement of social science methodology. Methodology serves as a guide to the construction of research questions and explanatory hypotheses. Research is guided by background assumptions about the ontology of the domain of investigation. CMT provides a valuable ontology for social science research. Furthermore, it provides a valuable research heuristic: “seek out the causal mechanisms that underlie an outcome of interest.” CMT does indeed have valuable implications for social science investigation, hypothesis formation, and research strategy.