This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0048393109342715v1 39/3/481    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Turner, S. P. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Shrinking Merton

University of South Florida, Tampa, turner{at}shell.cas.usf.edu

Agassi, Sztompka, Kincaid, and Crothers argue, in various ways, that Merton should not be held responsible for his published views on theory construction, and they provide psychological or strategic explanations for his failure to resolve issues with these views. I argue that this line of defense is unnecessary. A better case for Merton would be that theories in his middle-range sense were a nontechnical alternative solution to the problem of spurious correlation. Middle-range theory was not, however, a solution to the problem of diverse approaches. Merton also did not resolve the problems with his account of functionalism, and the problems undermine the claim that he had a distinctive "structural" approach all along.

Key Words: Robert K. Merton • middle-range theory • theory construction • spurious correlation • Paul Lazarsfeld

This version was published on September 1, 2009

Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 39, No. 3, 481-489 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0048393109342715


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?