The Functions of Formalisation in Sociology
The importance of formalisation in sociology is frequently challenged. The most forthright indictment comes from Sorokin,2 whose criticisms are well enough known not to require repetition in detail. To summarise them briefly, formalisation is either simply a shorthand, or unnecessary or absurd. The first charge, though sometimes justified, overlooks the importance which parsimony of explanation and the identifiability of the variables can have in the development of a theory or hypothesis; thus there are certain studies which, despite their incapacity for deductive reasoning beyond the form of syllogism, are sufficiently clear and coherent for a more powerful language to be applied to them eventually. The second charge — that formalisation is unnecessary — is hardly worth dwelling on: once a logical system has been constructed, one can find out whether it is useful or necessary but one cannot determine whether it is useless or unnecessary; a paradox which is not uncommon in the history of science. As for the third charge of absurdity, it derives from the questionable proposition that things are by nature necessarily either qualitative or quantitative.
KeywordsSociological Theory Ecological Analysis Negative Decision Sociological Concept Formal Translation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.P. Sorokin, Tendances et deboires de la sociologie americaine (Paris: Aubier, 1959).Google Scholar
- 3.see W. Torgerson, Theory and Methods of Scaling (New York: Wiley, 1958).Google Scholar
- It is taken up by Claude Berge, La theorie des graphes et ses applications (Paris Dunod, 1958), pp. 128 ff.Google Scholar
- 5.See Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert K. Merton, “Friendship as social process: a substantive and methodological analysis” in Morroe Berger et al., Freedom and Control in Modern Societies (New York: Van Nostrand, 1954) pp. 16–66.Google Scholar
- 6.See Leon Festiger, “Matrix analysis of group structures” in P. Lazarsfeld and Morris Rosenberg, The Language of Social Research (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1955) pp. 357–68.Google Scholar
- See also P. Lazarsfeld, “The algebra of dichotomous systems” in H. Solomon Studies in Item Analysis and Prediction (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1961).Google Scholar
- 9.Herbert Simon, Models of Man (New York: Wiley, 1957) Chapter VI: “A formal theory of interactions in social groups”.Google Scholar
- 11.Allan Barton and Bo Anderson, “Change in an organisational system: formalisation of a qualitative study” in A. Etzioni Complex Organisations (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961).Google Scholar
- 14.See for example S. Goldberg, Introduction to difference equations (New York: Wiley, 1958).Google Scholar
- 18.Cf. G. Gurvitch, “La conscience collective dans la sociologie de Durkheim”, in Essais de sociologie (Paris: Sirey, 1939).Google Scholar
- 19.Cf. A. Vierkandt, Gesellschaftslehre (Stuttgart: 1923).Google Scholar