Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 13:59:37 -0500 From: Pamela Paxton To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: quantitative methods to the rescue! All right, I'll bite... here's a list of brainstormed ideas for areas where higher power stats have 'helped out.' We can argue about whether they meet the criteria for 'solved' later... In the area of democracy, quantitative methods have allowed the most accurate and 'free of bias' measures of democracy. These measures help determine USaid to various countries and also embarrass countries with serious violations. Some countries actively fight against the release of published lists of democracy scores. In this instance, I don't think a method could 'solve' the problem, since methods can't overthrow authortarian regimes. But, they can help make it more uncomfortable for those in power. Also, inequality in networks is now something that is acknowledged, thanks to network methods. Counseling and other help for disadvantaged people takes that into consideration where they didn't before. Fertility studies have also been helpful in moving some developing countries toward lower birth rates. Or, how about the statistical information used in 'comparable worth' trials across the country? Some of those rulings have made wages more equitable across government employee groups. Another thing to consider is that the use of quantitative methods has helped us realize that some social problems exist! What I mean is that quantitative research requires the collection of statistics and those statistics reveal information that was previously hidden. Back to cross-national examples, it wasn't until some countries began collecting data that we understood the extent of female illiteracy, infant mortality, or infectious diseases. Or how about our identification of the group called 'the underclass?' Or our identification of countries as core or peripheral in the world system? Also, another thing to consider is that it is only with advanced statistical methods (i.e. structural equation models) that we can estimate measurement error or subjective bias. Those are two issues that trouble all kinds of social science research. so, there are a few suggestions. I can brainstorm some more later maybe, but these were all I could think of for the moment. I guess Steve could argue that these advances haven't 'solved' anything but there were already some posts about how nothing we (as social scientists) can do will 'solve' a problem. I like to think that we can just get a better picture and give better advice by using the best methods possible. Pam *********************************************************************** Pamela Paxton 'there is definitely, Department of Sociology definitely, definitely University of North Carolina no logic to human CB#3210, Hamilton Hall behavior.' Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3210 -Bjork email: ppaxton@gibbs.oit.unc.edu ***********************************************************************