Search

The recent challenge of Dynamical Systems Theory (also known as ComplexityTheory or Chaos Theory) to the social sciences, is based largely on the beliefthat processes in the social arena can be considered as analogous to those of the natural world, and that in consequence general theoretical advances in explaining the latter might with advantage be applied to the former. This paper aims to show that claims for Dynamical Systems Theory with respect to the understanding or measurement of social processes would be premature; the reasons for this lying not only in the unfamiliarity and operational difficulties of Dynamical Systems Theory in itself, but also in the problematic nature and history of our usage of the term 'social process'. Reviewing some examples of such usage from Sociology and Social Psychology, it is concluded that Dynamical Systems Theory might serve as a catalyst for a re-examination of existing orthodoxies and major concepts, but that progress would be retarded by the uncritical application of it's terminology, concepts, and techniques of mathematical modelling, without this prior and demanding first step. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the results of a secondary analysis of two surveys that were conducted to analyze issues concerning persuasive communication. The features of the survey on preferred options for local governments in the context of the discussion in the article are provided. The article further throws light of social characteristics of respondents who changed their preferences after briefing. The actual briefing procedure involved the face-to-face provision of information to each respondent by trained interviewers. The briefing had a standard format but contained specific details about each survey area and was intended to present impartially each of the reorganization options for that area. The briefing contained details about the proposed area and population, estimated start-up costs, and estimated longer term annual savings for each option, with the assumption that Service provision would remain at the existing level. In the present study the researchers used a secondary analysis of two large surveys that were conducted for the LGC, to determine the underlying factors that distinguished the changers (those who changed their views) from the nonchangers.