Received: from pewtrusts.com (pewtrusts.com [204.242.21.3]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.6/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with SMTP id PAA04704 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 15:11:23 -0600 (MDT) Received: from PEW-Message_Server by pewtrusts.com with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:12:06 -0500 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 16:08:16 -0500 From: "Jonathon E. Mote" To: socgrad@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: tracking -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline >but I obviously don't have the time others do to monitor/participate in >such an exhaustive discussion. Sure, make us all feel like unproductive schlubs. > I'll add two comments for the rest of you to chew on, if you like. >1) I don't think the dynamics of 'socially constructed' can accurately be >reduced to 'self-selected'. That seems to me a good example of the sort >of oversimplification positivistically-inclined theorists and quantitative >studies often make, with unrealistic results (not reflective of real >social life). Nothing much to chew on there. Unhappiness with the direction that quantification had taken economics was a big reason I chose not to continue my studies in that discipline. With that said, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Quantitative methods are a helpful tool as long as they don't drive the analysis. >2) Not every social fact, it seems to me, can be tested quantitatively - >partly because quantitative methods are inadequate for dealing with >truly complex dynamics, and partly because some dynamics have >proven irreducible (so far) to precise categorization. That's not true. There are plenty of quantitate methods that can deal with complex dynamics---they just aren't being used (that much) in the social sciences. As I've said before, the formalization and sophistication of technique of such methods are at a very high level. Jonathon E. Mote jem@pewtrusts.com