Search

Merton proposed middle range theories, not as ends in themselves, but as bases for a consolidation to explain broader phenomenon. More than a half century has passed since Merton's consolidation proposal and in that time a number of experimentally tested middle range theories have been developed. Certainly, the next step should be a consolidation. Yet, to our knowledge, no one has previously offered a consolidation of experimentally tested theories and applied it for explanation. This paper offers a consolidation of middle range theories formulated to explain the rise of the pristine state. Two theories of this consolidation, Status Characteristics Theory and Elementary Theory, form the core of what Analytic Sociologists have called a toolbox of theories. Our toolbox forms an integrated consolidation in two ways. First, the social structures modeled by the theories form a path-dependent process of increasing benefits gained by the elites of the structures. Second, the end conditions of each step of the process are the initial conditions of the next. Whereas the theories in our toolbox have previously been seen as applying exclusively to microstructures, we have encountered no difficulties in scaling them up to apply to macrostructures. While we hope the consolidation has validity in explaining the occurrence of pristine states, this paper's significance lies in its demonstration that today social theories can be consolidated and applied for explanation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study of group processes has benefited from longstanding programs of theory-driven research on status and power. The present work constructs a bridge between two formal theories of status and power: Status Characteristics Theory and Network Exchange Theory. Two theoretical models, one for "status value" and one for "status influence," illuminate the underlying mechanisms whereby status differences between individuals lead to power differences in negotiated exchange. The two models generate precise hypotheses that are tested against new and previously published data. The results generally support both models, indicating that status characteristics create power in negotiated exchange relations in contrasting ways. We conclude with a discussion of the broader theoretical and empirical implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some sociologists argue that sociological theory does not grow and the reason why it does not grow is that the discipline lacks a core of highly developed, almost universally accepted, paradigms; even worse, because it is reflexive, its criteria of problem and theory choice are so noncognitive that there are no paradigms, hence no progress, in its future. We do not question that sociology lacks a core of almost universally accepted paradigms, nor that highly developed paradigms may be a sufficient condition of theory growth, but we question both that universal acceptance of them is necessary and that sociology has nothing like them. We argue that theoretical research programs—sets of strategies, sets of interrelated theories embodying these strategies, and empirical models interpreting these theories—are sufficient for theoretical growth. An examination of three theoretical research programs in this article shows that they perform some of the same functions for theory growth as, in Kuhn, are performed by paradigms. Sociology may lack a universally accepted core, but there are theoretical research programs in sociology, and therefore already there is theory growth if it is looked for in the right place. Nor is there any warrant for the view that because its criteria of problem and theory choice are inescapably noncognitive, there are no paradigms, hence no progress, in sociology's future. If that were true, not only would sociology lack paradigms, but also theoretical research programs. We conclude from our study that sociology need not wait on the emergence of a universally accepted core. It is sufficient for the growth of theory that it develops further its existing theoretical research programs and that it encourages the creation of new programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much research on power development in exchange networks has demonstrated the effect of an actor's structural location on the exchange outcomes s/he experiences, without explicit attention to the process by which exchanges are completed. Our concern is with this process and, in particular, with the evaluation of some theoretical models of such negotiations. Observations of negotiations in two contrasting network exchange structures form the empirical basis for the examination of ideas from "resistance" theory, proposed by Heckathorn (1980) and Willer (1981), and simulation models built on simple actor decision strategies. We find that resistance ideas ate consistent with gross differences in negotiation patterns in the two structures and that at least some aspects of differences in negotiation can be accounted for by simple random activity channeled by network-based constraints on actors' opportunity sets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper demonstrates that paths of social determination cannot be drawn on the basis of Abells method and uses an example case to show how they are drawn using theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In sociology, work in formal theory is more extensive and intensive today than at any time in the past, but remains invisible to some, including S. Zhao [(1996) "The Beginning of the End or the End of the Beginning: The Theory Construction Movement Revisited," Sociological Forum, Vol 11, No. 2, pp. 305-318]. I trace the growth of formal theory in sociology focusing on theoretical research programs and show that, whereas formal theory came after the books on theory construction, it was not based on them. Elementary Theory's research program provides an example of that discontinuity. Some misunderstandings concerning formal theory can be traced to the Maryland Theory Conference of 1990 and a critique of selected ideas of that Conference is offered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We evaluate four theories that predict the distribution of power in exchange networks. All four theories--core theory, equidependence theory, exchange-resistance theory, and expected value theory--assume actors rationally pursue self-interests. Three of the theories add social psychological assumptions that place the pursuit of self interest in an interactive context. Predictions of exchange earnings by the four theories are evaluated against data from eight experimental networks, including types of networks not previously studied These networks vary conditions that affect the chances that a position can be excluded from exchange. We find that when the theories base predictions on a network position's structural potential for exclusion, exchange-resistance theory provides the best fit, but when predictions are based on actual experiences of exclusion, expected value theory fits best. Our discussion focuses on the distinction between the a priori potential for exclusion versus experienced exclusion as factors in the genesis of power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many theories address the problem of how a social structure affects the experiences and behaviors of its members This paper offers a network-exchange theory to solve this problem. Previous research has shown that the nature and outcomes of negotiations among individual or corporate actors can be inferred from their network positions. The impact of this research has been limited because its theory does not enable the researcher to locate power positions in the networks. We offer a theory that is both consistent with all previously reported experimental research and is generalized to conditions not considered by other formulations. In addition to supporting derived hypotheses pertaining to network-based power, our experiments demonstrate, among other things, that certain unstable networks break down to form stable substructures and that some networks contain overlapping but autonomous domains of power and exchange. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article responds to Charles W. Smith's commentary on a review of the book, A Critique of Sociological Reasoning. No author can be expected to be pleased with an unfavorable review of his work. It is clear that Smith is not pleased with my review. Sociology is a field noted for its variety of viewpoints. Thus I see no reason to challenge Smith's assertion that his book has been repeatedly praised for its clarity and lucidity. However, my critical comments were more fundamental than clarity and lucidity. Theory needs to carefully distinguish between matters of concept usage, which are issues of the form and relation of concepts, and matters of fact once these concepts are formed. For example. Smith asserts, There are similarly little graduations of punishment since the objective of punishment is to reassert the authority of cultural norms, not to rehabilitate the offender. I see no way to interpret this statement as anything but an empirical generalization about the way that norms are enforced everywhere, and the universal objective of the punishment. Thus there either are or are not graduations of punishment for norm violations. My sources say there are. I understand this to be a matter of fact though subject to somewhat different facts depending upon the conceptual framework involved. Instead of taking the opportunity to clarify his position on the relations of conceptual formulations to information from the world. Smith spends most of his reply attacking some positions he believes I endorse. I see no value in extending further my reply.