David Levinson

The Substantive Contributions of Worldwide Cross-Cultural Studies Using Secondary Data:

Humans seem to want to make sense of their world, to explain why things happen. Without minimizing the creative contribution of theorists, a major problem for social science is to recognize those well-meaning but incorrect theories that pass for knowledge. As Peter Caws (1969: 1378) put it: &dquo;Just as mutations arise naturally but are not all beneficial, so hypotheses [theories] emerge naturally but are not all correct. If progress is to occur, therefore, we require a superfluity of hypotheses and also a mechanism of selection.&dquo; The cross-cultural research strategy provides us with one systematic and objective way of eliminating theories that presumably should, but in fact do not, predict cultural variation. We are obliged to be skeptical about those theories that (when appropriately tested) fail to be supported, and we

The Growth of Hologeistic Studies : 1889-1975

This paper reports on the growth of hologeistic, cross-cultural studies since 1889. The rapid rate of recent hologeistic research is demonstrated graphically. The productivity of hologeistic work is quantitatively re viewed, and the development of an invisible college or network of re searchers is outlined. Factors such as data banking, methodology theory, and money are examined as stimuli for the recent growth in this field. Speculations about theory testing and the future are made.

Holocultural Studies Based on the Human Relations Area Files

a study designed to test or develop a theory through the statistical analysis of data about ten or more nonliterate societies from three or more distinct geographical regions of the world. There are now over three hundred such studies in print. The ninetytwo holocultural studies listed in the appendix are all based on the HRAF Files. That is, either all or some of the data used in each of these studies was taken from ethnographic materials included in the Files. This report is a revised version of the preliminary report which appeared in the September, 1977, issue of the HRAF Newsletter; it is also a partial update of &dquo;Studies Based on the Human Relations Area Files: An Annotated Bibliography&dquo; which appeared in this journal in 1974 (Vol. 9: 41-54). But the 1974 bibliography listed all studies based on the Files. Here, I list only holocultural ones. The information presented here and the Appendix which lists the ninety-two studies are taken from A Guide to Social Theory: W orldu;ide Cross-Cultural Tests (Levinson 1977). A Guide to Social Theory lists some 1379 theoretical propositions and supplies twenty-four items of information about each of the holocultural studies used to develop or test them.

Family Violence in Cross-Cultural Perspective

The purpose of this chapter is to review and discuss the contributions cross-cultural studies have made or might make to our understanding of family violence. To cover as much territory as possible I have defined cross-cultural studies broadly to include any information collection and analysis approach that involves either the implicit or explicit comparison of two or more cultural groups. Cultural group is defined broadly as well, to include nations, political subdivisions within nations, ethnic groups, small-scale (primitive, nonliterate) societies, peasant societies, and so on. Following the work of Gelles and Straus (1979) family violence is defined as the action of a family member that will very likely cause physical pain to another family member. The term beating, such as wife beating or husband beating, is used throughout the chapter to refer to any violent act ranging from a slap to a beating with a stick to murder with a handgun.

A Holocultural Bibliography: Update Number One

This bibliographic update lists 73 holocultural studies not cited in earlier holocultural bibliographies .