Making It Count: The Improvement of Social Research and Theory by Stanley LiebersonReview by: Jeffrey G. ReitzThe Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Autumn,1988), pp. 461-462Published by: Canadian Journal of SociologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3340822 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 00:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Canadian Journal of Sociology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheCanadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 00:43:44 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

construction of meaning, will eagerly await Ericson, Baranek and Chan's Negotaiting Control: A Study of News Sources and Acknowledging Order: A Study of News Content.

Department of Communication Philip Savage Simon Fraser University

Stanley Lieberson, Making It Count: The Improvement of Social Research and Theory. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1987, 257 pp.

This book is an extended essay on the logic of causal interference from non-experimental data. It identifies and examines a whole series of interesting analytic problems, mainly in- volving the use of control variables. Numerous examples are drawn from research on American race relations, on which the author can speak with considerable authority. The goal is to extract lessons for improving the theoretical uses of quantitative social research.

Among the specific topics discussed are: selection effects in the interpretation of statistical controls (where it is necessary to give special consideration to causal relations between the control variables and independent variables); "asymetric causation" (where the effects of changes in the values of an independent variable are different depending upon whether the change is in a positive or negative direction); "pseudo-causality" (where the status of specific causal variables inmore general theoretical schemes is doubtful); and "contamination" effects (where conditions in one category of a causal variable influence events in another category of that same variable). The book can be compared in some respects to Morris Rosenberg's The Logic of Survey Analysis. It is full of valuable methodological insight, and it underscores the need to learn more about the theoretical uses of social data.

One interesting feature of Lieberson's book, distinguishing it sharply from Rosen- berg's, is that Leiberson adopts the stance of a rebel attacking the establishment. The problem, he tells us, is that "Some of the normal current practices in empirical social research are actually counterproductive." "Normal" here means institutionalized. The methodological errors in question are sanctioned by the establishment. Thus, "Good social research, as we now define it, involves criteria and thought processes that are harmful because incorrect empirical conclusions are drawn that lead us to reject good ideas and accept false ones." Throughout the book there is scorn for the conventional methodological wisdom. For example, advice is directed to "researchers pursuing the truth rather than a result that others are willing to accept as part of a mutual self- deception." Lieberson's opening statement stakes out a territory well outside the inner circle: "Neither [my] critical review of present practices nor the proposals for change are fully compatible with any existing school of thought in social science."

Why this rebellion theme? Partly it is a literary device, enlivening what can otherwise be rather lengthy and tedious technical explanations. But aside from such literary advantages, the rebellion theme is puzzling. Needless to say, Lieberson is not rebelling against quantitative work per se. This is the same man, after all, whose recent book A Piece of the Pie contained a table of numbers so huge it had to be printed on oversized sheets folded up in a pocket glued to the back cover! Nor does Lieberson distance himself from current practitioners of quantitative social research. His illustrations from current research literature include many positive examples of valid research practices and insights. Lieberson provides an exegesis on existing methodological intuition; he is

construction of meaning, will eagerly await Ericson, Baranek and Chan's Negotaiting Control: A Study of News Sources and Acknowledging Order: A Study of News Content.

Department of Communication Philip Savage Simon Fraser University

Stanley Lieberson, Making It Count: The Improvement of Social Research and Theory. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1987, 257 pp.

This book is an extended essay on the logic of causal interference from non-experimental data. It identifies and examines a whole series of interesting analytic problems, mainly in- volving the use of control variables. Numerous examples are drawn from research on American race relations, on which the author can speak with considerable authority. The goal is to extract lessons for improving the theoretical uses of quantitative social research.

Among the specific topics discussed are: selection effects in the interpretation of statistical controls (where it is necessary to give special consideration to causal relations between the control variables and independent variables); "asymetric causation" (where the effects of changes in the values of an independent variable are different depending upon whether the change is in a positive or negative direction); "pseudo-causality" (where the status of specific causal variables inmore general theoretical schemes is doubtful); and "contamination" effects (where conditions in one category of a causal variable influence events in another category of that same variable). The book can be compared in some respects to Morris Rosenberg's The Logic of Survey Analysis. It is full of valuable methodological insight, and it underscores the need to learn more about the theoretical uses of social data.

One interesting feature of Lieberson's book, distinguishing it sharply from Rosen- berg's, is that Leiberson adopts the stance of a rebel attacking the establishment. The problem, he tells us, is that "Some of the normal current practices in empirical social research are actually counterproductive." "Normal" here means institutionalized. The methodological errors in question are sanctioned by the establishment. Thus, "Good social research, as we now define it, involves criteria and thought processes that are harmful because incorrect empirical conclusions are drawn that lead us to reject good ideas and accept false ones." Throughout the book there is scorn for the conventional methodological wisdom. For example, advice is directed to "researchers pursuing the truth rather than a result that others are willing to accept as part of a mutual self- deception." Lieberson's opening statement stakes out a territory well outside the inner circle: "Neither [my] critical review of present practices nor the proposals for change are fully compatible with any existing school of thought in social science."

Why this rebellion theme? Partly it is a literary device, enlivening what can otherwise be rather lengthy and tedious technical explanations. But aside from such literary advantages, the rebellion theme is puzzling. Needless to say, Lieberson is not rebelling against quantitative work per se. This is the same man, after all, whose recent book A Piece of the Pie contained a table of numbers so huge it had to be printed on oversized sheets folded up in a pocket glued to the back cover! Nor does Lieberson distance himself from current practitioners of quantitative social research. His illustrations from current research literature include many positive examples of valid research practices and insights. Lieberson provides an exegesis on existing methodological intuition; he is

461 461

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 00:43:44 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

working in the inductive tradition of methodology, toward the codification of emerging practice.

The target of Lieberson's rebellion would appear not to be methodological practice in general, but rather official methodology, the methodology developed by our methodo- logical leadership. Lieberson's view is that our methodological leadership is falling down on the job of identifying and addressing key methodological problems actually confront- ing research practitioners. Many of his complaints about official methodology are quite widespread. The complaint is frequently heard that too much methodology seems preoccupied with maximizing variance explained though theories do not dictate this concern. There has long been a lament about the gap between theory and research, in that the important theories often concern a level of analysis which is higher than the one on which data are available. Our methodological thinkers tell us little about how to deal with these issues. Much of our methodological effort goes in other more prosaic directions such as refinements of multivariate modeling. Lieberson is calling for a redirection of effort by methodological specialists to deal with research problems affecting the theoretical advances of the discipline.

A redirection of methodological thinking might be beneficial, but Lieberson's own critiques and comments do not add up to a coherent revision of establishment methodol- ogy. His discussions are uneven, and some examples are much more persuasive than others. Lieberson may be right that an entirely revamped methodological framework would be an improvement, buthis discussion tells us much more about what is wrong than about how to fix it. Whether all the issues he discusses really are linked in such a way that they point to "a different way of thinking," or whether they just make us wish we had one, is very difficult to tell.

In sum, this book raises very interesting questions of undoubted importance, and as such is bound to prove useful to many readers. Unfortunately, the book may have difficulty finding its audience. The general sociologist (including most students) may find it too technical and may be frustrated by its lack of clear practical advice to researchers. The methodological specialists may be turned off by its hostility and negativism. This would be regrettable. It is to be hoped that problems of causal inference will become more fashionable in methodological circles, and that future issues of publications like Socio- logicalMethodology will devote more attention to them. Such a priority could make a real contribution to closing the gap between research and theory in sociology.

University of Toronto Jeffrey G. Reitz

John D. Kasarda, John O.G. Billy, and Kristen West, Status Enhancement and Fertility: Reproductive Responses to Social Mobility and Educational Opportunity. New York: Academic Press. 1986, 266 pp.

The purpose of this book is laudable, namely to bring some type of theoretical structure and coherence to the voluminous empirical research done in the social and economic factors influencing fertility both in the developing and developed countries in the last three decades. Others have attempted such a task, notably Bulatao and Lee in their edited

encyclopedic Determinants ofFertility in Developing Countries (Vols 1 and 2) with some success. This volume is different, however, in that it focusses mainly on the status of women and its effect on fertility. The reduction in scope enables the authors to bring to

working in the inductive tradition of methodology, toward the codification of emerging practice.

The target of Lieberson's rebellion would appear not to be methodological practice in general, but rather official methodology, the methodology developed by our methodo- logical leadership. Lieberson's view is that our methodological leadership is falling down on the job of identifying and addressing key methodological problems actually confront- ing research practitioners. Many of his complaints about official methodology are quite widespread. The complaint is frequently heard that too much methodology seems preoccupied with maximizing variance explained though theories do not dictate this concern. There has long been a lament about the gap between theory and research, in that the important theories often concern a level of analysis which is higher than the one on which data are available. Our methodological thinkers tell us little about how to deal with these issues. Much of our methodological effort goes in other more prosaic directions such as refinements of multivariate modeling. Lieberson is calling for a redirection of effort by methodological specialists to deal with research problems affecting the theoretical advances of the discipline.

A redirection of methodological thinking might be beneficial, but Lieberson's own critiques and comments do not add up to a coherent revision of establishment methodol- ogy. His discussions are uneven, and some examples are much more persuasive than others. Lieberson may be right that an entirely revamped methodological framework would be an improvement, buthis discussion tells us much more about what is wrong than about how to fix it. Whether all the issues he discusses really are linked in such a way that they point to "a different way of thinking," or whether they just make us wish we had one, is very difficult to tell.

In sum, this book raises very interesting questions of undoubted importance, and as such is bound to prove useful to many readers. Unfortunately, the book may have difficulty finding its audience. The general sociologist (including most students) may find it too technical and may be frustrated by its lack of clear practical advice to researchers. The methodological specialists may be turned off by its hostility and negativism. This would be regrettable. It is to be hoped that problems of causal inference will become more fashionable in methodological circles, and that future issues of publications like Socio- logicalMethodology will devote more attention to them. Such a priority could make a real contribution to closing the gap between research and theory in sociology.

University of Toronto Jeffrey G. Reitz

John D. Kasarda, John O.G. Billy, and Kristen West, Status Enhancement and Fertility: Reproductive Responses to Social Mobility and Educational Opportunity. New York: Academic Press. 1986, 266 pp.

The purpose of this book is laudable, namely to bring some type of theoretical structure and coherence to the voluminous empirical research done in the social and economic factors influencing fertility both in the developing and developed countries in the last three decades. Others have attempted such a task, notably Bulatao and Lee in their edited

encyclopedic Determinants ofFertility in Developing Countries (Vols 1 and 2) with some success. This volume is different, however, in that it focusses mainly on the status of women and its effect on fertility. The reduction in scope enables the authors to bring to

462 462

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 00:43:44 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions