Observations of Social Processes and Their Formal Representations

Author(s): Charles Tilly

Source: Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Dec., 2004), pp. 595-602
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3648934 .
Accessed: 16/02/2015 17:12
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Sociological Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.52.255.53 on Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:12:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Observationsof Social Processesand TheirFormalRepresentations

CHARLES TILLY

ColumbiaUniversity
Distinctionsbetweenquantitativeand qualitativesocial science misrepresent
the
actualchoicesconfronting
socialprocesses.Analysts
analystsofobservations
concerning
choosebetweenadoptingand avoiding
regularly
(ifnotalwaysself-consciously)
formal
representations
of social processes.Despite widespreadprejudicesto the contrary,
are availableand helpful
evidence,including
formalisms
for all sortsofsocial scientific
thosecommonly
labeledas qualitative.Availableformalismsvaryin two important
regards:(1) fromdirectto analogicalrepresentation
oftheevidenceat hand;and (2)
and evidence.Adopbetween
fromnumericalto topologicalcorrespondence
formalism
tion offormalisms
hence the
facilitatesthe identification
of erroneousarguments,
correction
of analyticerrorsand theproductionof moreadequateexplanations.

Social scientific
journalsliketo advertisetheircatholicity(or theirtolerance)bylisting
a widevarietyof scholarsas membersof theireditorialboards. More yearsago thanI
care to recall,thejournals Theoryand Societyand Social ScienceResearchrecruited
me to theireditorialboards. Somehowneitherone evergot aroundto firingme. As a
consequence,I stillregularlyreviewpaperssubmittedto thetwojournalsand at least
scan everyissue. No chance of confusingone withthe other:selectan articlefrom
Theoryand Societyat random,and you have almost no chance of encounteringa
of data. Choose an article
table,a mathematicalformula,or a graphicrepresentation
fromSocial ScienceResearch,on the otherhand, withgreatassurancethatyou will
encounternumbers,graphs,and/ortables. Two different
versionsof social science
seem to be in play.
Yet the enticingcomparisonleads easilyto a falseconclusion.Sociologistswould
spend less timeventilatinguselesslyif no one had ever inventedthe vivid but misleading conceptual and institutionaldivision betweenqualitativeand quantitative
research.Of course, a reader of sociologicaljournals will find some of them (like
Social ScienceResearch)fillingtheirpages withnumbersand others(like Theoryand
Society)dependingalmostentirelyon verbaldistinctions.
Clearly,stylesof reporting
sociological research differconsiderablyfrom one segmentof the discipline to
another.Indeed, if the qualitative-quantitative
divisionapplied only to styleof presentation,it would do littleharm,especiallyifits usersrecognizedit as a continuum
ratherthan as a dichotomy.
The distinctionbecomes much more slippery,however,if applied to research
methods.Even whenit eventuallyproducesnumbers,afterall, thebulkof sociological
researchinvolvesmakingnonquantitative
observationsbeforeany quantitativetransformationor analysisof theevidence.For all theirfinalquantitativeform,interviewbased surveysbegin not withnumbersbut withconversationsbetweeninterviewers
and respondents.Even demographerswho start their work with published vital
statisticsare actuallydrawingtheirevidencefrompreviouslywrittenregistrations
of
individualbirths,deaths,and marriages,each one describedin its particularity.
Sociological Theory 22.:4 December 2004
? American Sociological Association. 1307 New York Avenue NW, Washington,DC 20005-4701

This content downloaded from 200.52.255.53 on Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:12:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

596

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

includea wide varietyof publicationsexplicitly

Althoughthisarticle'sreferences
in
the
formalisms
of
social
adopting
study
processes,theessayitselffallsfarshortof a
of
in
formalisms
social
science. It neitherreviewsprevious
comprehensivesurvey
claims forand againstthe qualitative-quantitative
divisionnor covers the fullrange
of available social scientific
formalisms.
Drawingmainlyon myown long,varied,but
stillhighlyselectiveexperiencein social research,I argueherethe following:
* Dichotomizationof social scientific
researchmethodsand subjectsinto qualitativeand quantitativedoes moreharmthangood.
* Such a divisionmisrepresents
the actual choicesfacingsocial researchers.
* It also obscuresa genuine,consequentialchoice betweenusing and avoiding
formalismsin thetransformation
and analysisof evidenceon social processes.
* Formalismsare available and useful for the analysis of all sorts of social
scientificevidence,includingthe evidencecommonlygatheredin fieldsthat
participantsoftencall qualitative.
* Formalismshave two signal advantagesfor social research:first,when well
chosentheydisciplinean inquiryfromtheoutset;second,theymake it easierto
discover that an otherwiseplausible formulationactually is mistakenand
therefore
easierto improveon previousknowledge.
* Everysocial scientisttherefore
willbenefitfromseriousexposureto formalisms,
eveniftheyplay a minorpartin thepractitioner's
own researchand writing.

If thesepointsare correct,theyimplythatgraduateeducationin social scienceshould

in theanalysisof evidence
regularlyincludeseriousexposureto theuse of formalisms
social
concerning
processes.
It certainlymakes no sense to divide social phenomenaat large into inherently,
irreduciblyqualitativeor quantitative;no such distinctionexistsin nature(Podolny
2003; Katz 2002, 2001; White2002; Darrow 2001; Mahoney2000, 1999; Ragin 2000;
Desrosieres1998; Munck 1998; Tufte 1997; Ragin and Becker 1992). What is more,
the qualitative-quantitative
divide obscuresa contrastof great importancefor the
of social research,between(1) employingrigorous,theoretically
informed
integrity
formalismsfor confrontationwith the evidenceat hand; and (2) interpreting
the
evidence directlywithoutthe disciplineof formalisms.In the hope of dispelling
confusioninducedby thequantitative-qualitative
thisbriefarticlefocuses
distinction,
on theplace of formalisms
in social research.
I mean an explicitrepresentation
of a setof elementsand of relations
By formalism
among them.Formalismsthatmatterhererepresentelementsof social processesand
relationsamong those elements.Relationsmay consistof cause and effect,but they
also mayinvolveproximity,
Familiarexamples
connection,or similarity.
simultaneity,
in social science include probability-basedstatisticalmodels, network analyses,
of conversation,time-budgets,
identification
of
grammars,otherrigoroustreatments
sequences,measurementmodels,collectivebiography,lifetables,analysisof games,
formalrecastingof narratives,simulations,mathematicalmodels, spatial mapping,
and straightforward
tabularcomparisons,so long as thosecomparisonsare theoreticallymotivated.
Such representations
countas formalisms
wheninvestigators
adopt or createthem
in logical independenceof theirobservationsof social processes and then make
and the observations.Thus, a
rigorouscomparisonsbetweenthe representations
demographerconstructsa lifetable forthepopulationat hand and comparesit with

This content downloaded from 200.52.255.53 on Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:12:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

OBSERVATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

597

over
the Coale-DemenySouth model on the expectationthatits patternof mortality
lifetimes
willmoregreatlyresemblethoseof Italyand Spain thanthoseof Swedenand
Norway (Coale and Demeny 1966); a politicalscientistsets up a game to represent
in newlyindependent
choicesfacedbymembersoflinguistic
minorities
countries(Laitin
a
uses
to
or
network
models
the
1998);
sociologist
argumentthat greater
specify
connectionamong persons prior to some crucial,riskycollectiveaction promotes
in thataction(Diani and McAdam 2003; Fernandezand McAdam 1988).
participation
In social research,formalismssometimesfigurein the initialdiscipliningof the
into standardizedcatevidence,as when coders translateresponsesof interviewees
in
as
when
researchers
often
clustermultiple
data,
egories. They
help
reordering
or optimism.
into
indicators
of
more
such
as
radicalism
orientations
responses
general
At times they serve for the examinationof bias in the selectionof respondents,
sources,or information.
Theyplay centralpartsin hypothesistesting,as investigators
work out the logic of one explanationor another,and thendeterminewhetherthe
evidencematchesthatlogic.
A commonprejudice,to be sure,dividesthe social worldintophenomenathatare
suitableforquantification(populationdistributions,
social mobility,etc.) and those
that are irreduciblyqualitative:conversation,narratives,biography,ethnography,
and historyoftenserveas examples.Formalismsclearlycan and do apply,however,
to thesephenomenaas well (see, e.g., Sawyer2003; Maynard2003; Murmann2003;
Kosto 2001; Mohr 2000, 1998; Wengraf2000; Collier 1999; Steinberg1999; Fitch
1998;Franzosi 1998a, 1998b;Kalb 1997;Roy 1997;Markoff1996;Stinchcombe1996;
van Leeuwenand Maas 1996; White 1995; Aminzade 1993; Bearman1993;Steinmetz
in
discardor modifyformalisms
1993; Voss 1993). Althoughresearchers
frequently
or
to
the
of
formalself-conscious
matches,
response inadequate surprising
employment
ismsdisciplines
of argumentand evidence.
theencounter
How so? Most social researcherslearn more frombeing wrongthan frombeing
right-providedtheythenrecognizethattheywerewrong,see whytheywerewrong,
and go on to improvetheirarguments.Post hoc interpretation
of data minimizesthe
to
contradictions
between
and
evidence,whileadopopportunity recognize
argument
tion of formalismsincreasesthat opportunity.Formalismsblindlyfollowedinduce
blindness.Intelligently
adopted,however,theyimprovevision.Beingobligedto spell
out the argument,to check its logical implications,and to examine whetherthe
evidence conformsto the argumentpromotesboth visual acuity and intellectual
responsibility.
can learnthetruth
My claimrestson theassumptionthat,withinlimits,researchers
about social processes.At a minimum,theycan distinguishbetweentotallyinadof social processes,thusopeningthewayto
equate and lessinadequaterepresentations
If
on thecontrary,
reliable
thatsocial processesare
think,
knowledge.
increasingly
you
chaoticand/orthatinvestigators
have no way of comparingtheadequacy
intrinsically
of competingaccounts,you will necessarilyrejectmy advocacy of formalismsas a
delusion and a waste of energy.In that case, you will have to figureout your own
alternative
fordoingsocial scienceat all. At thispoint,I assumethatany
justification
readers
and falsification.
clingto thepossibilityof verification
remaining
Let me repeat:I claim nothinglike fullfamiliarity
withthe researchmethodsand
formalismscurrentlyemployedin social science. Over a checkeredcareer,I have
assembledand analyzeddata on urban residentialareas (e.g., Tilly 1961),conducted
sample surveys(e.g., Tilly 1965), recast Census data into analyticalcomparisons
(e.g., Tilly 1968), combined criminal and other administrativestatisticswith
newspaperreportsin analyses of the changinggeographyof crime and violence

This content downloaded from 200.52.255.53 on Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:12:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

598

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

strikedata witha widevarietyof evidenceon

(e.g., Lodhi and Tilly1973),synthesized
in
industrial
and
social
changes
organization(e.g., Shorterand Tilly1974),constructed
collectivebiographies(e.g., Lees and Tilly 1974), produced geographicanalyses of
urbanchangeand contentious
events(e.g.,Schweitzer
and Tilly1982),carriedon simple
and
formalnetworkanalyses(e.g.,
conducted
demographicanalyses(e.g., Tilly 1984),
Tilly1997a).
Straddlingfieldsoftenseparatedas quantitativeand qualitative,I oftenhave had
to write on historiography,
on quantificationin history,and on methodological
problemsin the studyof politicalprocesses(e.g., Tilly2002a, 2001a, 2001b, 1997b).
But I can onlyclaimto have made a substantialmethodologicalcontribution
to social
sciencein one area: withregardto theinvention,improvement,
and analysisof event
sorts of political processes,especiallyconflictprocesses (for
catalogs for different
reviewsof event catalogs, see Franzosi 2004, 1995; Tilly 2002b, 1995; Beissinger
2001; Olzak 1992, 1989; Rucht,Koopmans, and Neidhardt1998; White 1995).
on
Nevertheless,
myvariedresearchexperienceprovidessome groundforreflection
formalisms.
Take thecase of historicalresearch,whichsome analyststreatas quinteshenceinaccessibleto formalisms.
That characterization
of histosentiallyinterpretive,
ricalresearchrestson a double misunderstanding:
identification
of historicalresearch
withthecollectionofevidence,and identification
of historicalanalysiswiththe
entirely
of narratives.
As a historian,ofcourseI have done plentyof both.I have spent
writing
years in European and Americanarchives,carefullyreadingand copyingout such
sourcesas administrative
Formalismsappear only fleetingly
in that
correspondence.
phase of theresearch,and mainlyin theformof schemasemployedby theauthorsof
thetexts.I also have written
myshareof historicalnarratives,
tellingsequentialstories
in an effortto show thatrelationsamong theirelementsparallel-or, forthatmatter,
failto parallel-those in a generalargument,
myown or someoneelse's.No one should
take thisessayas a polemicagainstsloggingarchivalworkand synthetic
narrative.
Let us assume,then,thatgood historicalworkalwaysincludesrespectful
collection
of evidenceand oftenculminatesin synthetic
narratives.Formalismsplay theirparts
in thespace betweentheinitialcollectionof archivalmaterialand thefinalproduction
ofnarratives.In myown historicalresearch,formalisms
fromearly
figureprominently
in the orderingof evidence to late in its analysis; they range fromestimatesof
in the sourcesto tabularanalysis,block modeling,and standardstatistical
selectivity
treatments
(see, e.g., Tilly 1995:393-405).As it happens,manyotherhistoriansrush
fromsourcesto reasonednarrativeswithoutpausingto employformalisms,
or evento
reflectveryself-consciously
on thelogicalstructure
of theirarguments,
henceon what
theevidenceshouldshowiftheirargumentsare correct.Preciselyat thatpointlies the
difference
betweensocial scientificand conventionalformsof history(Tilly 2001c,
1987, 1985, 1981; Monkkonen1994; Landes and Tilly 1971).
Historyjoins withsocial sciencewhen its organizingargumentsbecome explicit,
falsifiable,and theoreticallyinformed.Formalismscementthe junction. Relevant
formalisms
rangeacross demographicaccountingformulas,sequenceanalyses,models of discourse,economicmodels,mathematicalmodels,networkanalyses,statistical
treatmentof the evidence,and much more (e.g., Franzosi 2004; Gould 2003, 1995;
Btithe2002; Kaufman2002; Roehnerand Syme2002; Abbott2001; Hoffman,PostelVinay,and Rosenthal2000; Bearman,Faris, and Moody 1999,Shapiroand Markoff
1998; Mohr and Franzosi 1997; Padgettand Ansell 1993). Good formalismsmake
explicitthe analyst'sclaims about relationsamong the elementsunder observation.
and modificationas a result
Theytherebymake thoseclaimsavailable to falsification
of comparisonwiththeevidence.

This content downloaded from 200.52.255.53 on Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:12:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

OBSERVATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

599

Speaking more generally, available formalismsvary in roughly the way

described by Figure 1. In one dimension,we observe variation in how closely
the structureof the formal representationcorrespondsto the structureof the
available evidence. In the other,we observe variationin the extentto which the
formalismrelies on numbers,as distinguishedfrom its reliance on topological
relations among its elements. (Purists including my son-in-law, the algebraic
geometer,point out that a more precise descriptionwould run from standard
metricsto topologies withoutmetrics,but the approximationwill do.) These are
of course continua: verticallyfrom creation of mathematicalmodels in precise
mimicryof the data structureto formationof analogical schemes facilitating
recognitionthat ideal and observed patternsresemble each other, horizontally
fromemployingprecise numericalrepresentationsto identifying
spatial relations
the
elements.
among
The catchall "schematics" appears in the topological-analogicalcorner of
the diagramto situatediagramsand flowchartsin whichconnectinglines,arrows,
or cause-effect
and/orspatialcontiguity
representproximity,
simultaneity,
similarity,
relations.(Figure 1 itselfpresentsan elementaryschematic,includingweak claims
about similaritiesand principlesof variation.) Spatial maps appear in the upper
cornerto capturetheirdirectrepresentation
of the elements'distribution
right-hand
in topological, not numerical,space, as when country-by-country
maps show
us worldwidevariationsin the extentof poverty,inequality,or Internetaccess.
Simulationnestlesin the lower left-handcornerbecause (despite the existenceof
mechanicaland even theatricalsimulations),on the whole, social scientificpractitionersof simulationworkwithnumericalapproximationsof the processestheyare
tryingto reproduceand are satisfiedif theycan produce recognizableanalogies to
thoseprocesses.

Direct

Mathematical
models
statistics
Probability-based
Measurement
models

Directness
of
Correspondence

Spatialmaps
Network
analysis

Tabularanalysis

Schematics

Simulation
Analogical

Numerical

Topological
FormofCorrespondence

in social science.
Figure 1. A roughtypologyof formalrepresentations

This content downloaded from 200.52.255.53 on Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:12:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

600

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

Tabular analysis occupies the diagram's center.From the simple yes-no/yes-no

truthtable to the multidimensionalarray by period, category,and/orplace, the
venerabletableprovidesa visible,vigorousversionof formalrepresentation.
It almost
always depends on a radical reductionof the data's complexity-henceits vertical
nominalor
placementbetween"direct"and "analogical." It also generallysubstitutes
ordinalforcardinalmeasurement,
even whereindividualobservationsfallintointerval scales-hence itslocationhalfwaybetweennumericaland topologicalcorrespondence to the originalevidence.Some tabularpresentations-forexample,thoseof the
Census-hide thetheorythatgoes implicitly
intotheirconstruction
(see, e.g., Kertzer
and Arel 2002; Curtis 2001). But those tables that investigatorscreate themselves
almostcompelthemto make argumentsin theform"themoreX, themoreY"; "ifX,
not Y"; "X plus Y is a necessaryconditionfor Z"; and the like. In short,tabular
in its elementary
version.
analysisillustratestheuse of formalisms
My placementof analyticmodes in thespace surelywillbothersome practitioners,
such as those users of simulationwho make precise comparisonsbetweentheir
models' outputsand some parallel set of empiricalobservations.But in generalthe
diagrammakesthiscrucialpoint:formalisms
varygreatlyin structure,
style,and logical
To apply formalisms
in social sciencedoes not mean conforming
to a
underpinnings.
dominant
of
how
the
choice
world
works.
On
the
the
single
understanding
contrary,
commitstheirusersto substantially
different
theoretical
and metaamongformalisms
theoretical
That
is
in
not
their
vice
but
their
virtue.
To
formalisms
understandings.
adopt
thecourseof social scientific
workmeansmakingtheadoptionof argumentsexplicit,
thatyou were
serious,and consequential.It meansincreasingthechanceof discovering
of learningsomething
new.
wrongand, therefore,

REFERENCES
of Chicago Press.
Abbott,A. 2001. TimeMatters.On Theoryand Method.Chicago, IL: University
Aminzade,R. 1993. Ballotsand Barricades.Class Formationand RepublicanPoliticsin France,1830-1871.
Press.
Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversity
Bearman,P. S. 1993. RelationsintoRhetorics.Local Elite Social Structurein Norfolk,England,1540-1640.
New Brunswick,NJ: RutgersUniversity
Press.
Bearman,P. S., R. Faris, and J. Moody. 1999. "Blockingthe Future:New SolutionsforOld Problemsin
HistoricalSocial Science."Social ScienceHistory23:501-534.
Beissinger,M. 2001. NationalistMobilizationand the Collapse of the Soviet State. Cambridge,UK:
Press.
CambridgeUniversity
Btithe,T. 2002. "TakingTemporalitySeriously:ModelingHistoryand theUse of Narrativesas Evidence."
AmericanPoliticalScienceReview96:481-494.
Coale, A. J. and P. Demeny. 1966. Regional Model Life Tables and Stable Populations.Princeton,NJ:
PrincetonUniversity
Press.
Collier,R. B. 1999. Paths TowardDemocracy.The WorkingClass and Elites in WesternEuropeand South
America.New York: CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Curtis,B. 2001. ThePoliticsofPopulation.StateFormation,
Statistics,and theCensusof Canada, 1840-1875.
of TorontoPress.
Toronto,Ontario:University
Darrow, D. 2001. "From Communeto Household: Statisticsand the Social Constructionof Chaianov's
Theoryof Peasant Economy."ComparativeStudiesin Societyand History43:788-818.
Desrosieres,A. 1998. The Politicsof Large Numbers.A Historyof StatisticalReasoning.Cambridge,MA:
Harvard University
Press.
and Networks.
RelationalApproachesto Collective
Diani, M. and D. McAdam (eds.). 2003. Social Movements
Action.Oxford,UK: OxfordUniversity
Press.
Fields
Fernandez,R. and D. McAdam. 1988."Social Networksand Social Movements:Multiorganizational
and Recruitment
to MississippiFreedomSummer."SociologicalForum3:357-382.

This content downloaded from 200.52.255.53 on Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:12:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

OBSERVATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

601

New York:
and Interpersonal
Connection.
Fitch,K. L. 1998.SpeakingRelationally.Culture,Communication,
Guilford.
Franzosi, R. 1995. The Puzzle of Strikes.Class and State Strategiesin PostwarItaly. Cambridge,UK:
Press.
CambridgeUniversity
. 1998a. "NarrativeAnalysis,or Why (and How) SociologistsShould Be Interestedin Narrative."
AnnualReviewof Sociology24:517-554.
. 1998b."Narrativeas Data: Linguisticand StatisticalTools fortheQuantitativeStudyof Historical
Events."International
Reviewof Social History43(Supplement6):81-104.
. 2004. From Wordsto Numbers.A Journeyin theMethodologyof Social Science.Cambridge,UK:
.Press.
CambridgeUniversity
Identities.Class, Community,
and Protestin Parisfrom1848 to theCommune.
Gould, R. V. 1995.Insurgent
of Chicago Press.
Chicago, IL: University
. 2003. Collisionof Wills.How Ambiguity
aboutSocial Rank BreedsConflict.Chicago,IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Hoffman,P. T., G. Postel-Vinay,and J.-L. Rosenthal.2000. PricelessMarkets.The PoliticalEconomyof
Creditin Paris. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
theNetherlands,
Kalb, D. 1997. ExpandingClass. Powerand EverydayPoliticsin IndustrialCommunities,
1850-1950.Durham,NC: Duke University
Press.
Katz, J.2001. "From How to Why.On LuminousDescriptionand Causal Inferencein Ethnography(Part
2:443-473.
1)." Ethnography
. 2002. "From How to Why.On LuminousDescriptionand Causal Inferencein Ethnography(Part
3:63-90.
2)." Ethnography
Kaufman,J. 2002. For theCommonGood?AmericanCivicLife and theGoldenAge of Fraternity.
Oxford,
UK: OxfordUniversity
Press.
and Languagein
Kertzer,D. I. and D. Arel(eds.). 2002. Censusand Identity.The PoliticsofRace, Ethnicity,
NationalCensuses.Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniversity
Press.
inMedievalCatalonia.Power,Order,and theWritten
Word,1000-1200.
Kosto, A. J.2001.MakingAgreements
Press.
Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniversity
Landes, D. S. and C. Tilly. 1971. Historyas Social Science.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lees, L. and C. Tilly. 1974. "Le Peuple de Juin 1848." Annales; Economies,Soci'tes, Civilisations29:
1061-1091.
and CollectiveViolencein Nineteenth-Century
Lodhi, A. Q. and C. Tilly.1973."Urbanization,Criminality
France." AmericanJournalof Sociology79:296-318.
Mahoney, J. 1999. "Nominal, Ordinal, and NarrativeAppraisal in Macrocausal Analysis."American
Journalof Sociology104:1154-1196.
. 2000. "Strategiesof Causal Inferencein Small-N Analysis."SociologicalMethodsand Research
28:387-424.
Markoff,J. 1996. The Abolitionof Feudalism.Peasants,Lords, and Legislatorsin theFrenchRevolution.
Press.
Park: PennsylvaniaState University
University
OrderinEverydayTalk and ClinicalSettings.
Maynard,D. W. 2003. Bad News,Good News. Conversational
of Chicago Press.
Chicago, IL: University
AnnualReviewof Sociology24:345-370.
Mohr, J. 1998. "MeasuringMeaning Structures."
(ed.). 2000. "Relational Analysis and InstitutionalMeanings: Formal Models for the Study of
Culture."Poetics27(2-3, specialissue).
Mohr, J.W. and R. Franzosi (eds.). 1997. "Special Double Issue on New Directionsin Formalizationand
HistoricalAnalysis."Theoryand Society28(2-3).
Monkkonen,E. H. (ed.). 1994. EngagingthePast. The Uses ofHistoryAcrosstheSocial Sciences.Durham,
NC: Duke University
Press.
Munck, G. L. 1998. "Canons of ResearchDesign in QualitativeAnalysis."Studiesin ComparativeInternationalDevelopment33:18-45.
and
Murmann,J. P. 2003. Knowledgeand Competitive
Advantage.The Coevolutionof Firms,Technology,
NationalInstitutions.
Press.
Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniversity
Olzak,S. 1989."AnalysisofEventsin theStudyofCollectiveAction."AnnualReviewofSociology15:119-141.
S1992.The Dynamicsof EthnicCompetition
and Conflict.Stanford,CA: StanfordUniversity
Press.
Padgett,J. F. and C. K. Ansell. 1993. "Robust Actionand the Rise of the Medici, 1400-1434."American
Journalof Sociology98:1259-1319.
Podolny,J.2003. "A PictureIs Wortha Thousand Symbols:A Sociologist'sView of theEconomicPursuit
of Truth."AmericanEconomicReviewPapers and Proceedings92:169-174.
of Chicago Press.
Ragin, C. C. 2000. Fuzzy-SetSocial Science.Chicago, IL: University

This content downloaded from 200.52.255.53 on Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:12:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

602

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

Ragin, C. C. and H. S. Becker(eds.). 1992. WhatIs a Case? ExploringtheFoundationsof Social Inquiry.

Press.
Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniversity
inHistory.Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity
Roehner,B. M. and T. Syme.2002. Patternand Repertoire
Press.
Roy, W. G. 1997. SocializingCapital. The Rise of theLarge IndustrialCorporationin America.Princeton,
NJ: PrincetonUniversity
Press.
in theStudyof
Rucht,D., R. Koopmans, and F. Neidhardt(eds.). 1998.ActsofDissent.New Developments
Protest.Berlin,Germany:Sigma Rainer Bohn Verlag.
Sawyer,R. K. 2003. GroupCreativity.Music, Theater,Collaboration.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Schweitzer,R. A. and C. Tilly. 1982. "How London and Its ConflictsChanged Shape, 1758-1834."
HistoricalMethods5:67-77.
Demands.A ContentAnalysisof theCahiersde Doleances
Shapiro,G. and J. Markoff.1998. Revolutionary
Press.
of 1789. Stanford,CA: StanfordUniversity
Press.
Shorter,E. and C. Tilly. 1974.StrikesinFrance,1830-1968.Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniversity
Formation,CollectiveAction,and Discoursein Early
Steinberg,M. W. 1999.FightingWords.Working-Class
Press.
Nineteenth-Century
England.Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity
Steinmetz,G. 1993. Regulatingthe Social. The WelfareState and Local Politics in ImperialGermany.
Press.
Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversity
The PoliticalEconomyof the
Stinchcombe,A. L. 1996. Sugar Island Slaveryin theAge of Enlightenment.
Press.
CaribbeanWorld.Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversity
Tilly, C. 1961. "Occupational Rank and Grade of Residence in a Metropolis." AmericanJournalof
Sociology67:323-330.
. 1965. Migrationto an AmericanCity.Newark:Division of Urban Affairsand School of Agriculof Delaware.
ture,University
. 1968. "Race and Migrationto theAmericanCity."Pp. 135-158in TheMetropolitan
Enigma,edited
Press.
by J.Q. Wilson. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity
1981. As SociologyMeets History.New York: AcademicPress.
1984. "DemographicOriginsof the European Proletariat."Pp. 1-85 in Proletarianization
and
FamilyLife,editedby D. Levine.Orlando,FL: AcademicPress.
1985. Big Structures,
Large Processes,Huge Comparisons.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
1987. "Formalizationand Quantification
in HistoricalAnalysis."Pp. 27-52 in Quantitative
History
of Societyand Economy:.Some International
Studies,edited by K. H. Jarauschand W. Schr6der.St.
Katharinen:ScriptaMercaturaeVerlag.
1995. PopularContention
in GreatBritain,1758-1834.Cambridge,MA: Harvard University
Press.
1997a. "Parliamentarization
of Popular Contentionin Great Britain,1758-1834." Theoryand
Society26:245-273.
. 1997b. "Means and Ends of Comparisonin Macrosociology."ComparativeSocial Research16:
43-53.
. 2001a. "Historical Analysis of Political Processes." Pp. 567-588 in Handbook of Sociological
Theory,editedby J.H. Turner.New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
2001b. "Mechanismsin PoliticalProcesses."AnnualReviewof PoliticalScience4:21-41.
2001c. "HistoricalSociology."Pp. 6753-6757 in International
Encyclopediaof theBehavioraland
Social Sciences,editedby ???.Amsterdam:Elsevier.
. 2002a. "Neuere Angloamerikanische
Sozialgeschichte."in Kompass der Geschichtswissenschaft,
editedby G. Lottesand J. Eibach. G6ttingen:Vandenhoeckand Ruprecht.
. 2002b. "EventCatalogs as Theories."SociologicalTheory20:248-254.
Evidence
andNarrative.
CT: GraphicsPress.
Tufte,E. R. 1997.VisualExplanations.
ImagesandQuantities,
Cheshire,
van Leeuwen,M. H. D. and I. Maas. 1996. "Long-TermSocial Mobility:ResearchAgenda and a Case
and Change11:399-433.
Study(Berlin,1825-1957)." Continuity
Voss, K. 1993. The Makingof AmericanExceptionalism.The Knightsof Labor and Class Formationin the
Nineteenth
Press.
Century.Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity
T. 2000."Uncovering
theGeneralfromWithintheParticular.
FromContingencies
to Typologiesinthe
Wengraf,
ofCases." Pp. 140-164in The Turnto BiographicalMethodsin Social Science.Comparative
Understanding
Issues and Examples,editedby P. Chamberlayne,
J. Bornat,and T. Wengraf.London, UK: Routledge.
White,H. C. 2002. MarketsfromNetworks.SocioeconomicModels ofProduction.Princeton,NJ: Princeton
Press.
University
White,J. W. 1995. Ikki. Social Conflictand PoliticalProtestin Early ModernJapan.Ithaca, NY: Cornell
Press.
University

This content downloaded from 200.52.255.53 on Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:12:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions