On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:00:51 -0400 Kelley Walker
<kelley at interpactinc.com> writes:
> At 11:26 AM 4/16/01 -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
> >Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema wrote:
> >
> >>The book came across to me as an expression of sanctimonious
> >>schmuckery with a veneer of pseudo-objective social science.
> >
> >Emphasis on the pseudo. His sample isn't representative of anything
> in the
> >statistical sense, other than being a reflection of Wolfe's sense
> of what
> >suburban middle America is like. Quoting myself:
>
> DOUG! it isn't supposed to be and he doesn't claim it to be.
Then what is Wolfe's sample supposed to be representative of then? Pray tell, by what right does Wolfe then have to draw any conclusions concerning American public opinion from his sample if as you say it is not only not statistically representative of sububrban middle America but does not even claim to be?
> please
> don't
> criticize people on ethnographical methods if you don't understand
> how it
> works and only know statoid econodrone methods or something. see, m.
>
> burawoy's discussions about ethnography and different ways of using
> them to
> say something about society. we don't study individuals!
OK, the study of individuals is the domain of psychology and social psychology. No problem there. What then is the domain of sociology? Some twenty years ago or so, the sociologist Bruce Mayhew in a polemic in the journal Social Forces argued that the proper subject matter for sociology was the study of social networks. Sociology was thus not reducible to psychology or even social psychology. However, as I also recall, he was not very keen on qualitative methods either as a form of social research, presumably because in many cases it is not clear how representative a particular sample and thus how generalizable the results from the study of the sample are.
>
> worse! he isn't supposed to have a representative sample. it's an
> ethnography and his sample isn't supposed to random or
> representative.
In which case raises the issue of how generalizable are the findings of such research.
>
> but, i already complained to you about how shoddy YOUR review of him
> was
> when you wrote it.
>
> by reinforcing this crap about statistically rep samples you are
> reinforcing positivist methodology crap that is aligned with some of
> the
> worst social engineering crud around and you give no room for people
> like
> me and ESPECIALLY feminists who've used ethography and gotten denied
> jobs
> because they weren't "number crunching" and other nonsense.
In that case I would say two cheers at least for positivism if that means the taking of a minimally rigorous approach to social research. BTW I am not sure that all feminists would agree with your rejection of so-called positivism. Thats like saying that all feminists embrace pomo or reject Marxism IMO. Thus I am inclined to take Doug's word on the quality of Wolfe's research.
Jim F. ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.