Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2rsb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T12:40:57.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Comparative Method in the Social Sciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Gideon Sjoberg
Gideon Sjoberg*
Affiliation:
University of Texas
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

American social scientists, with the possible exception of the anthropologists, have typically been ethnocentric in their writings and research. Most of their studies are simply unique to a particular institutional complex, possessing little generality beyond a single socio-cultural system. Nevertheless, social scientists nowadays are evincing increased interest in comparative studies. They are coming to realize that many of their generalizations may be found wanting when tested in the laboratory of world cultures. For the solution of many significant problems cross-cultural comparison seems essential—the relationships among the variables involved must be examined under diverse cultural conditions.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , April 1955, pp. 106 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Aberle, D. F. et al., “The Functional Prerequisites of a Society,” Ethics, LX, 1950, pp. 100–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Firey, Walter and Belknap, Ivan, “The Problem of Standardizing Observations in Sociology,” Proceedings of the Southwestern Sociological Society, I, 1951, pp. 60–67. (mimeo.)Google Scholar
3. Kluckhohn, Clyde, “Universal Categories of Culture,” in A. L. Kroeber, Anthropology Today, University of Chicago Press, 1953, pp. 507–523.Google Scholar
4. Kluckhohn, Florence, “Dominant and Substitute Profiles of Cultural Orientations: Their Significance for the Analysis of Social Stratification,” Social Forces, XXVIII, pp. 376–393.Google Scholar
5. Malinowski, B., A Scientific Theory of Culture, University of North Carolina Press, 1944.Google Scholar
6. Miner, Horace, The Primitive City of Timbuctoo, Princeton University Press, 1953.Google Scholar
7. Murdock, George P., Social Structure, Macmillan Co., 1949.Google Scholar
8. Murdock, George P. et al., Outline of Cultural Materials, 3rd rev. ed., Human Relations Area Files, Inc., 1950.Google Scholar
9. Parsons, Talcott, The Structure of Social Action, The Free Press, 1949.Google Scholar
10. Parsons, Talcott and Shils, Edward A. (eds.), Toward a General Theory of Action, Harvard University Press, 1951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Parsons, Talcott et al., Working Papers in the Theory of Action, The Free Press, 1953.Google Scholar
12. Sjoberg, Gideon, “Strategy and Social Power: Some Preliminary Formulations,” Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, XXXIII, 1953, pp. 297–308.Google Scholar
13. von Neumann, John and Morgenstern, Oskar, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 2nd ed., Princeton University Press, 1947.Google Scholar
14. Wisdom, John O., Foundations of Inference in Natural Science, Methuen & Co., 1952.Google Scholar
15. Wissler, Clark, Man and Culture, Thomas Y. Crowell, 1923.Google Scholar