Advertisement

Socionics pp 15-35 | Cite as

From “Clean” Mechanisms to “Dirty” Models: Methodological Perspectives of an Up-Scaling of Actor Constellations

  • Uwe Schimank
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3413)

Abstract

Quantitative and qualitative directions of an up-scaling of sociological and socionic models are discussed. In sociology, problems of up-scaling result from the fact that explanations of structural dynamics do not work with laws but with mechanisms. In contrast to scientific laws or simple correlations, a mechanism is a step-by-step analytical description of the social dynamics which bring about the respective structural effect. If models are up-scaled, the relations between their various independent and dependent variables become more and more ”fuzzy” and a tension can be identified between ”clean” mechanisms and ”dirty” models. Although sociological and socionic models are always constructed for specific cases, with all implications of ”dirtiness”, it will be argued that ”clean” mechanisms are not only helpful but indispensable: The ”dirtier” the models become with up-scaling, the ”cleaner” must be the mechanisms used in modelling to support scientific generalization.

Keywords

Structural Dynamic Social Network Analysis Actor Constellation Dirty Hand Explanatory Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hirsch, P., Michaels, S., Friedman, R.: “dirty hands” versus ”clean models”: Is sociology in danger of being seduced by economics? American Sociological Review, pp. 317–336 (1987)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Elster, J.: Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1989)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scharpf, F.W.: Games Real Actors Play. In: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research, Westview, Boulder,CO (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hedström, P., Swedberg, R. (eds.): Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hedström, P.: Mechanisms, Models, and the Micro-to-Macro Link. Working Papers on Social Mechanisms. Stockholm University, Department of Sociology (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boudon, R.: Theories of Social Change. A Critical Appraisal. Polity Press, Oxford (1986)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Esser, H.: Soziologie —Spezielle Grundlagen. Band 1: Situationslogik und Handeln, Campus, Frankfurt/M (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coleman, J.: Introduction to Mathematical Sociology. Free Press, New York (1964)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Esser, H.: Soziologie —Allgemeine Grundlagen. Campus, Frankfurt/M (1993)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parsons, T.: The Structure of Social Action. Free Press, New York (1949)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Luhmann, N.: Soziale Systeme. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M (1984)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dittrich, P., Kron, T.: Complex Reflexive Agents asModels of Social Actors. In: Proceedings of the SICE Workshop on Artificial Society/Organization/Economy, Tokyo, Japan. Meeting of Systems Engineering, Gkajutsu Sougou Center, vol. 25, pp. 79–88 (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dittrich, P., Kron, T., Banzhaf, W.: On the Scalability of Social Order.Modelling the Problem of Double and Multi Contigency Following Luhmann. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 6 (2003), http://jass.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/1/3.html
  14. 14.
    Kron, T., Lasarczyk, C., Schimank, U.: Doppelte Kontingenz und die Bedeutung von Netzwerken für Kommunkationssysteme. Ergebnisse einer Simulationsstudie. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 374–395 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kirsch, W.: Einführung in die Theorie der Entscheidungsprozesse. Gabler, Wiesbaden (1977)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ashby, W.R.: Einführung in die Kybernetik. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M (1956)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schimank, U.: Theoretische Modelle sozialer Strukturdynamiken: Ein Gefüge von Generalisierungsniveaus. In: Mayntz, R. (ed.) Akteure, Mechanismen und Modelle, pp. 151–178. Campus, Frankfurt/M (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schimank, U.: Handeln und Strukturen. Leske + Budrich, Opladen (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lindblom, C.E.: The Intelligence of Democracy. In: Decision Making Through Mutual Adjustment. Free Press, New York (1965)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Luhmann, N.: Warum AGIL? Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, pp. 127–139 (1988)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Simmel, G.: Soziologie. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin (1968)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scharpf, F.W.: Games Real Actors Could Play: The Problem of Connectedness. Number 90/8 in MPIFG Discussion paper. Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung, Köln (1990)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schelling, T.: What is Game Theory? In: Choice and Consequence, pp. 213–242. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1984)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schütz, A., Luckmann, T.: Strukturen der Lebenswelt. Band 1, vol. 1, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M (1977)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schimank, U.: Gesellschaftliche Teilsysteme als Akteurfiktionen. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 619–639 (1988)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Berger Peter, L., Luckmann, T.: The Social Construction of Reality. Penguin, Harmondsworth (1966)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Esser, H.: Soziologie — Spezielle Grundlagen. Band 5: Institutionen, vol. 5, Campus, Frankfurt/M (2000)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mayntz, R., Scharpf, F.W.: Der Ansatz des akteurzentrierten Institutionalismus. In: Mayntz, R., Scharpf, F.W. (eds.) Gesellschaftliche Selbstregelung und politische Steuerung, pp. 39–72. Campus, Frankfurt/M (1995)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Powell, W., Maggio, P. (eds.): The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1991)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W.: The Iron Cage Revisited. American Sociological Review, 147–160 (1983)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Granovetter, M.: Threshold Models of Collective Behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 1420–1443 (1978)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Elster, J.: The Cement of Society: A Study of Social Order. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hedström, P.: Rational Imitation. In: Hedström, P., Swedberg, R. (eds.) Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, pp. 306–327. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tsebelis, G.: Nested Games. In: Rational Choice in Comparative Politics, University of California Press, Berkeley (1990)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wasserman, S., Faust, K.: Social Network Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jansen, D.: Analyse sozialer Netzwerke. Leske + Budrich, Opladen (1999)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Coleman, J.S., Katz, E., Menzel, H.: Medical Innovation. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis (1966)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Snow, D., Zurcher, L., Ekeland-Olsen, S.: Social Networks and Social Movements: A Microstructural Approach to Differential Recruitment. American Sociological Review, 787–801 (1980)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Granovetter, M.: The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 1360–1380 (1973)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Weise, P.: Homo oeconomicus und homo sociologicus. Die Schreckensmänner der Sozialwissenschaften. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 148–161 (1989)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schimank, U.: Hochschulforschung im Schatten der Lehre. Campus, Frankfurt/M (1995)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Axelrod, R.: The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kehm, B.M.: Universitätskrisen im Spiegel von Hochschulromanen. In: Stölting, E., Schimank, U., eds.: Die Krise der Universität. Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden, Leviathan Sonderheft 20/2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Cohen, M.D., March, J.G.: Leadership and Ambiguity. In: The American College President. McGraw Hill, New York (1974)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    March, J.G., Simon, H.: Organizations. Wiley, New York (1958)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schelling, T.: Economic Reasoning and the Ethics of Policy. In: Choice and Consequence, pp. 1–26. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1984)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Axelrod, R.: An Evolutionary Approach to Norms. American Potitical Science Review, 1095–1111 (1986)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bachmann, R.: Kooperation, Vertrauen und Macht in Systemen Verteilter Künstlicher Intelligenz. In: Malsch, T. (ed.) Sozionik — Soziologische Ansichten über künstliche Sozialität, pp. 197–234. Sigma, Berlin (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Uwe Schimank
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für SoziologieFernUniversität in HagenHagenGermany

Personalised recommendations