Kenneth D. Bailey

Interpreting Smallest Space Analysis

Two kinds of SSA (smallest space analysis) are distinguished: R-SSA, which uses as input a matrix of R-distance coefficients (distances among pairs of variables); and Q-SSA, which uses as input a matrix of Q-distance coefficients (distances among pairs of objects). While both types are common in the literature, only researchers using Q-SSA have attempted to interpret the coordinates of the space. It is shown that the coordinates can be interpreted in R-SSA, and that this interpretation yields valuable information that is otherwise lost. Also, SSA and factor analysis are compared from a facet analysis perspective. Finally, an R-SSA is compared with an R-factor analysis of the same data.

Theory Building in Sociology: Assessing Theoretical Cumulation.

Introduction - Jonathan H Turner Can Sociology Be A Cumulative Science? Theory Growth, Social Processes, and Metatheory - Joseph Berger, David G Wagner and Morris Zelditch Jr Structures of Social Positions and Structures of Social Relations - Peter M Blau Rational Choice Foundations of Social Order - Michael Hechter The Paradox of Social Order - Ralph H Turner Code, Structure, and Action - Richard Munch Building a Theory of Structuration from a Parsonian Point of View Toward A Microtheory of Structuring - Jonathan H Turner and Randall Collins Commentary - Bryan S Turner Some Reflections on Cumulative Theorizing in Sociology

Social Research in Developing Countries: Surveys and Censuses in The Third World.

This collection of papers by various authors focuses on the problems of conducting social surveys in developing countries. Consideration is also given to the alternatives to the social survey and to ways of combining data collection methodologies that might be more appropriate in developing country situations. Sections are included on research strategy including censuses sample surveys and KAP surveys; sampling; data collection; interviewing and field organization; methodological marriages; and ethical and political issues in social research. The papers include both those that have been previously published elsewhere and original contributions.

Social Entropy Theory: An overview

Social Entropy Theory (SET) is a very general macrosociological systems theory. The present paper is an overview which presents selected salient features of the larger model. Special attention is given to the specification of macrosociological variables which can serve as social indicators in a comparative framework of societal development. First, the goals of the SET model are stated. Then the basic model is sketched, and entropy is discussed as a measure of system state. Attention then turns to the specification of a holistic set of macrosociological systems variables. By seeking all correlates of the level (L), six salient global components are developed. These are population (P), information (I), spatial area (S), technology (T), organization (O), and level of living (L). This PISTOL (or PILOTS) model seems to be exhaustive and forms a comparative framework (when suitable indicators are specified for all components) for the analysis of social systems at all levels of development. A distinction is made among global, mutable, and immutable properties.

Entropy, Social Entropy and Money: A Living Systems Theory Perspective

Entropy is a measure of system disorganization. This article discusses how entropy occurs and is measured in physical, biological and social systems, with particular emphasis on social systems. The role of money-information markers in the recurring organization and disorganization of social entities is identified as an important aspect of social entropy. The discussion integrates living systems theory, social entropy theory, and macro accounting theory.

The conceptualization of validity: Current perspectives☆

Abstract Virtually all recent discussions of validity in the sociological literature deal with techniques for validity assessment, rather than with clarification of the concept of validity. These new techniques have successfully utilized statistical methods, principally factor analysis and path analysis, in developing sophisticated and rigorous techniques for validity assessment. Unfortunately, however, a great deal of confusion surrounds the basic definition of validity. Thus, the conceptual underpinning lacks the rigor and precision of the statistical techniques. Unfortunately, the statistical rigor of the assessment techniques will not compensate for the conceptual weakness of validity. The present paper attempts to rectify this by clarifying the notion of validity. It is shown that much of the confusion in the extant literature stems from the fact that sociologists virtually always utilize a two-level measurement model (e.g., conceptual/empirical or conceptual/operational), when the actual process of measurement necessarily utilizes three levels (the conceptual, empirical, and operational). A three-level model is proposed which lessens the confusion surrounding validity and which shows that three types of validity exist—Type a validity, Type B validity, and Type C validity. Utilization of these three types greatly clarifies the concept of validity.

Sociocybernetics and social entropy theory

Purpose – To present the contributions of sociocybernetics, particularly as developed by Felix Geyer, and to compare sociocybernetics with social entropy theory (SET).Design/methodology/approach – This paper first outlines the problems with earlier approaches, and then briefly discusses the four approaches constituting the “new” social systems theory: sociocybernetics, social‐autopoiesis theory, living systems theory (LST), and SET. Next the six chief contributions of sociocybernetics are discussed. Then sociocybernetics is compared with SET. The paper ends with a brief comparison of Geyers sociocybernetics with the other two new approaches, social autopoiesis and LST.Findings – Sociocybernetics is found to be a context‐specific, observer‐dependent approach that relies heavily on second‐order cybernetics. The comparison of sociocybernetics with SET also finds that the latter complements the former in valuable ways. Geyers approach to sociocybernetics is also found to be compatible with both social autop...

System entropy analysis

A number of entropy models of social systems have been developed recently. Unfortunately, the complementarity of these approaches remains largely unanalysed, due to terminological and conceptual differences among them. There is an urgent need for a meta‐theoretical framework that will facilitate the analysis and comparison of all social entropy models. System entropy analysis (SEA), as presented here, is designed to fill this need. It is a second‐order, meta‐analytic tool which analyses each approach in terms of its major concepts, its basic units of analysis, its definition and measurement of entropy, and its specification of microstates and macrostates. First discusses the need for SEA, and then specifies its structure. Concludes with an application of SEA to the comparison and integration of three entropy approaches: synergetics, complexity theory and social entropy theory (SET).

Why H does not measure information: the role of the “special case” legerdemain solution in the maintenance of anomalies in normal science

Anomalies or contradictions threaten a paradigm, and if they cannot be ignored, they must be either shown to be false, or must be resolved. Two common anomalies in the systems literature are examined: the contention that H measures information; and the contention that heat increase leads to entropy increase. It is shown that when faced with such anomalies, paradigm adherents often resort to legerdemain solutions, which appear to resolve the anomaly, either verbally or mathematically. Legerdemain solutions generally utilize special cases such as maximum or minimum values or equilibrium conditions, and will not hold for the general case. Thus they do not resolve the anomaly, but only appear to (hence the name “legerdemain”). It is shown further that legerdemain solutions are often responses to anomalies which are not major contradictions, but are rather the result of confusion in second-order or meta-paradigms. The satisfactory solution lies not in an appeal to a legerdemain solution, but in adherence to the consistent general principles of the primary paradigm, even if this necessitates some revision of terminology or principles in the secondary paradigm.

Social ecology and living systems theory

Social ecology studies the manner in which human societies adapt to their environment. This includes not only the impact of the society on the environment, but also the impact of the environment on the society. In fact, as societies adapt to their environment, they alter it, and this altered environment subsequently impacts back upon the society. Living Systems Theory (LST) discusses twenty critical subsystems which process either matter/energy or information in living systems, including social systems. This paper first presents a general model of social ecology. It then concentrates upon the ten subsystems of LST which process matter/energy, and analyzes how knowledge of these subsystem processes can be applied to our model of social ecology. These ten subsystems—the reproducer, boundary, ingestor, distributor, converter, producer, matter–energy storage, extruder, motor, and supporter—are all shown to occupy key roles in ecological adaptation, and the role of each is explicated.