Main trends of research in the social and human ... - unesdoc - Unesco

NOTES
Cross-cultural, cross-societal and cross-national research 683
I. See G. P. MURDOCK, ‘The Cross-Cultural Survey’, American Sociological Review
5 (3), 1940, pp. 361-370; A. J. KOBBEN, ‘New Ways of Presenting an Old Idea: The
Statistical Method in Social Anthropology’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute 82 (z), 1952, pp. 129-146.
2. For a detailed discussion see R. M. MARSH, Comparative Sociology: A Codification
of Cross-Societal Analysis, New York, Harcourt, 1967. Chap. I.
3. For an early discussion of such distinctions see H. C. J. DUIJKER and S. ROKKAN,
‘Organizational Aspects of Cross-National Social Research‘, Journal of Social
Issues IO (4, 1954, pp. 8-24.
4. For listings of such studies see S. ROKKAN, S. VERBA, J. VIET and E. ALMASY,
Comparative Survey Analysis: A Trend Report and Bibliography, Paris, Mouton,
1969.
5. For a summary of the findings see S. M. MILLER, ‘Comparative Social Mobility’,
Current Sociology 9, 1960, pp. 1-89. For a further listing of the literature see S.
ROKKAN et al., op. cit.
6. See S. ROKKAN et al., op. cit., Sect. III. 22.
7. See C. OSGOOD, ‘On the Strategy of Cross-National Research into Subjective
Culture’, Social Science Information 6 (I), Feb. 1967, pp. 6-37.
8. For details see G. GERMAN, ‘Social Stratification and Social Mobility in Four
Latin American Cities: A Note on the Research Design’, Amirica Latina 6 (3), 1963,
pp. 91-93, and the various studies listed in S. ROKKAN et al., op. cit., Sect. III. 43.
9. See H. DUIJKER and S. ROKKAN, op cit.
IO. T. HUSBN (ed.), International Study of Achievement in Mathematics, Stockholm,
Almqvist & Wiksell; New York, Wiley, 1967, 2 vols.: see especially the timetable
of the project, pp. 62-63.
I I. K. DAVIS, ‘Problems and Solutions in International Comparison for Social Science
Purposes’, paper for the International Conference on Comparative Social Research
in Developing Countries, Buenos Aires, Sept. 1964. The arguments for the archiving
of cross-country data have been marshalled in B. RUSSETT et al., World
Halidbook of Political and Social Indicators, New Haven, Yale Univ. Press, 1964,
and in P. ALKER, Jr., ‘Research Possibilities Using Aggregate Political and Social
Data’, in: S. ROKKAN (ed.), Comparative Research across Cultures and Nations,
Paris, Mouton, 1968.
This is a synthesis of several formulations in the writings of LAZARSFELD and his
collaborators: see especially P. KENDALL and P. F. LAZARSFELD, ‘Problems of
Survey Analysis’, in: R. K. MERTON and P. F. LAZARSFELD (eds.), Continuities in
Social Research: Studies in the Scope and Method of ‘The American Soldier’,
Glencoe, Free Press, 1950, pp. 133-196; E. A. SUCHMAN, The Comparative Method
in Social Research, Ithaca (N.Y.), Cornel1 University, 1955, 88 pp., mimeo; P. F.
LAZARSFELD and M. ROSENBERG (eds.), The Language of Social Research, Glencoe,
Free Press, 1955,especiallySect. IV, ‘Formal Aspects ofResearch onHumanGroups’,
pp. 290-384; P. F. LAZARSFELD and H. MENZEL, ‘On the Relationships between
Individual and Collective Properties’, in : A. ETZIONI (ed.), Complex Organizations,
New York, Holt, 1961, pp. 422-440.
Adapted from S. ROKKAN, ‘The Comparative Study of Political Participation’, in :
A. RANNEY (ed.), Essays on the Behavioral Study of Politics, Urbana (Ill.), Univ.
of Illinois Press, 1962, pp. 58-59.
T. K. HOPKINS and I. WALLERSTEIN.
‘The Comparative Study of National Societies’,
Social Science Information 6 (5), 1967, pp. 25-58.
This particular example is taken from S. ROKKAN and A. CAMPBELL, ‘Citizen Participation
in Political Life: Norway and the United States of America’, International
Social Science Journal 12 (4, 1960, pp. 69-99.
For convenient collections of such cross-classifications see I. D. COULT and R. W.
HABENSTEIN, Cross-Tabulations of Murdock‘s World Ethnographic Sample, Colum-