Search

The article analyzes the scientific theories of Thomas Kuhn and its application to contemporary sociology. Kuhn sees science at any given point in time as dominated by a specific paradigm (defined for the moment as a fundamental image of a science's subject matter). Normal science is a period of accumulation of knowledge in which scientists work on, and expand, the reigning paradigm. Inevitably, however, such work spawns anomalies, or things that cannot be explained within the existing paradigm. If these anomalies mount, a crisis stage is reached, which ultimately may end in a revolution in which the reigning paradigm is overthrown and a new one takes its place at the center of the science. Thus a new reigning paradigm is born and the stage is set for the cycle to repeat itself. It is during the period of revolution that great changes in scientific status take place. This view clearly places Kuhn at odds with the lay and textbook conception of scientific development, which suggests that scientific progress is cumulative. In response to those who criticized his vagueness about the concept of a paradigm in his first edition, Kuhn offers a very narrow definition of a paradigm in the epilogue to the second edition. There he equates paradigms with exemplars, or the concrete puzzle solutions which when employed as models or examples, can replace explicit rules as a basis for the solution of the remaining puzzles of normal science.

This paper has several objectives. First, it demonstrates the utility of employing an array of metatheoretical tools (paradigm, paradigm bridging micro -- macro, integrated paradigm, theoretical syntheses) to analyze the recent history of mainstream American sociological theory. Second, it shows that we have moved through three rather well defined epochs in sociological theory over the last three decades and are entering a fourth. Third, it demonstrates that the trend in recent years has been away from theoretical separatism and exclusivity, and toward theoretical synthesis and integration. Finally, and relatedly, the integrated sociological paradigm that I sketched a decade ago, or at least something very much like it, it shown to be now much closer to being a reality, perhaps even a defining reality, in sociological theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes and makes the case for sociological metatheorizing, or the systematic study of sociological theory. Three types of metatheorizing are delineated on the basis of their end products: the attainment of a deeper understanding of theory, the creation of new theory, and the creation of an overarching theoretical perspective (a metatheory). The basic problems in metatheorizing are reviewed and it is concluded that the most basic difficulty has been the lack of a clear definition of the subfield. Some thoughts on the future of metatheorizing in sociology are offered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reports that even though metatheory and more generally metasociology, already encompasses a considerable and burgeoning body of work, it remains an ill-defined area within sociology. In spite of, or perhaps because of, its inchoate state, metatheory has recently come under substantial attack. The recent spate of assaults on metatheory by a number of important sociological theorists can be seen as evidence of the coming of age of metatheory as an area of thought and research. Were it not of increasing significance, metatheory would not have been singled out for attack by such thinkers. These critiques will be used in this article as a springboard to begin to define and clarify sociological metatheory. It is also the aim of this article to position metatheory in the context of meta-analyses in fields outside of sociology, metasociology in general and other specific types of meta-analysis within sociology. Still another goal is to lay out some of the issues that metatheory needs to confront in the near future.

The general domain of this paper is politics, the struggles for power, within sociology. Within this general context, a more specific arena of interest is the rise of micro-sociological theory, especially exchange theory, phenomenological sociology, and ethnomethodology. The excessive reach and intellectual problems of radical microsociology aside, the fact remains that micro-theories and the micro-oriented paradigms with which they are associated are on the ascendancy in contemporary sociology. The critical review of radical microsociology is useful in this context, not only in itself, but also because it points up several lessons that should be of utility to the supporters of all micro-theories. While radical microsociology focuses, for scientific reasons, on interaction, other micro-sociologies could well push for a focus on other aspects of the micro-domain, especially cognitive processes. Beyond the specific lessons of the critical analysis of radical micro-sociology, there is the more general issue of the implications of the rise in micro-theories and micro-paradigms.

In 1983 Richard Hall viewed the sociological study of the professions as near death. However, had Hall examined the recent British literature he would have come to a very different conclusion. Our survey shows that this is a very active area of research and theorizing and that there are important lessons in it for American students of the professions. First, unlike the American literature, work in Britain has not been dominated by fruitless efforts to find the characteristics that differentiate professions from other occupations. Second, the British literature contains four distinctive characteristics that differentiate it from the American literature. They are a focus on inter- and intraprofessional conflicts, the relationship between the professions and the polity, the link between the professions and social stratification, and theoretical roots in the classic ideas of observers such as Marx and Weber. Third, the realities examined in the British literature lead us to conclude that the professions will continue to be an active social force. It is imperative that the American literature be redirected to deal with these developments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a letter to the editor in response to the article by Snizek about the relationship between theory and method proposed in a paradigmatic analysis of sociology, in the November 1976 issue.