Rural Sociology 55(1), 1990, pp. lOl-HICopyright © 1990 by the Rural Sociological Society

Partial Paradigm Shifts in the Social Sciences:Twenty Years of Research in Rural Sociology3

]. Steven Picou, Evans W. Curry,· and Richard H. Wells··Department oj Sociology and Anthropology, -Univer.ity oj South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama 36688*Department oj Sociology, Texo» Tech Univer.ity,Lubbock, Texas 79409**College oj Art. and Sciences; We.t Che.ter Univer.ityWe.t Che.ter, Pennsylvania 19380

ABSTRACT Falk and Zhao (1989) have recently suggested that increasedtheoretical diversity characterizes the last decade of published research inRural Sociology. We suggest that this claim is premature, given paradigmatictrends in the larger discipline of sociology. From a reanalysis of datasources and the use of an analytical framework based on the partial par­adigm concept, we conclude that rural sociology is attempting to furtherintegrate theory, methodology, and image of the subject matter within apositivistic partial paradigm framework. We further suggest that ruralsociologists continue their pursuit of a reflexive understanding of thepractice of social science as an integral part of their research agenda.

Introduction

Falk and Zhao's (1989) partial replication of Picou, Wells, and Ny­berg's (1978a) metatheoretical study of rural sociology provides anopportunity to address the nature of "paradigm" shifts in the socialsciences, in general, and in rural sociology, in particular. We willproceed with our commentary in the following manner. First, webriefly review Falk and Zhao's procedures, findings, and contentions;second, we apply a summary statistical test to their data to clarifyobserved empirical patterns; third, we suggest a conceptual approachfor research in the "sociology of rural sociology" which provides aframework for a reinterpretation of Falk and Zhao's metatheoreticalposition for rural sociology vis-a-vis sociology. Finally, we contendthat Falk and Zhao's declaration of increased theoretical diversity inrural sociology is, at best, premature and that the "normal sciencemodel" they offer for a "new" rural sociology reflects visible "partialparadigm" development over the last fifty years in general sociology.We conclude with a brief discussion of selected implications from ourobservations.

1 The authors acknowledge the assistance of Hilda Cruthirds, Katina Phillips, HermanTurk, and john Harrington in the preparation of the manuscript and the completionof this research.

102 Rural Sociology, Vol. 55, No.1, Spring 1990

The argument for theoretical diversity inRural Sociology

Falk and Zhao (1989) introduce their research by identifying Kuhn's(1962) initial conceptual position in the philosophy of science liter­ature as the framework for their study. Utilizing this general back­drop, they accurately replicate the classification and coding proce­dures (methodology) utilized by Picou et al. (1978a) and proceed toconduct a content analysis of eighty percent of the articles appearingin the journal Rural Sociology for the time period from 1976 through1985 (N = 349). Their empirical results are then compared to Picouet al.'s in three tables which contain: (1) a general classification ofarticles (Table 1, p. 590); (2) a classification of articles by Ritzer's(1975; 1980) paradigm categories (Table 2, p. 591); and (3) a classi­fication of articles by Mullin's (1973) theory groups (Table 3, p. 592).

From their interpretation of these data, Falk and Zhao suggest thatmore theoretical diversity currently exists in the articles appearingin Rural Sociology this past decade than for the previous decade. Inaddition, by referring directly to Kuhn's (1962) physical science modelof scientific change, Falk and Zhao contend that no Kuhnian-basedcrisis of monism existed for rural sociology during the sixties andseventies and, in fact, a crisis of change may now characterize ruralsociology. Falk and Zhao further conclude that the discipline of ruralsociology is changing its overall theoretical focus, becoming moreradical!critical, Marxist, and structural, and thereby identify a "newrural sociology." They conclude by offering a traditional positivist,normal science model as the appropriate agenda for the "new" ruralsociology.

Data on theoretical diversity inRural Sociology

A review of the data presented by Falk and Zhao reveals a series ofpercentage shifts over time across various categories. As one movesfrom the 1965-1976 data to the 1976-1985 data, the observed re­duction in the proportion of articles classified within the "social factsparadigm" and "standard American sociology" theory group is theprimary empirical basis for their interpretation of increasing theo­retical diversity in rural sociology.

In an attempt to derive a more accurate evaluation of the nature,magnitude, and significance of these data, we calculated an index ofvariation for each distribution of the classification of articles for bothtime periods (Bohrnstedt and Knoke 1988). The index of qualitativevariation ranges from 0.0 to 1.0 with the 0.0 value indicating maxi­mum concentration and 1.0 indicating maximum variation (Bohrn­stedt and Knoke 1988:77). These results are presented in Table 1and reveal a pattern of modest increasing variation for both paradigm

Critique 103

Table 1. Index of qualitative variation by article type, theory clas­sification and period

Classification system

Article typeRitzer's paradigm groupMullins' theory group

1965-1976data (Tj)

0.77110.20880.4536

1976-1985data (T2)

0.55420.53010.6390

and theory groups in Rural Sociology.2 However, in terms of articletypes (Falk and Zhao 1989: Table 1), a pattern of increasing concen­tration was observed. This result is important and will be discussedin greater detail below.

From the indices of qualitative variation in Table 1, it appears thatFalk and Zhao's observations regarding increased theoretical varia­tion are justified. However, a visual inspection of the relevant tablesin their article reveals substantive percentage increases only for the"mixtures" category. Moreover, the shift in concentration of articletypes (Table 1) can be interpreted as an indicator of an historicallyincreasing consolidation of quantitative methodological techniquesreflecting a pattern of increasing quantification of the process oftheory development. This trend has also been identified as the majorcharacteristic of the larger discipline of sociology (Turk 1988; Wellsand Picou 1981) and has direct implications for understanding thenature of Falk and Zhao's contention that increased diversificationof theory has characterized rural sociology in recent years.

Partial paradigms: conceptualizing socialscience research

The paradigm concept introduced by Kuhn (1962) has had a pro­found impact on theoretical sociologists interested in the analyticalor historical development of the discipline. However, since its incep­tion, the paradigm concept itself has been a subject of much conten­tion and controversy among philosphers of science (Lakatos and Mus­grave 1970; Shapere 1964; Suppe 1974, 1977), as well as sociologists(Eckberg and Hill 1979; Hill and Eckberg 1981; Lemke and Picou1985; Wells and Picou 1981). A detailed review of these and otherrelevant works is available elsewhere (Wells and Picou 1981), and wewill not review them at this time. However, two important trends inthe more recent development of the paradigm concept should benoted: first, through the years, Kuhn (1962, 1970a, 1970b) has been

2 Because this index has no known sampling distribution, tests of statistical signifi­cance cannot be reported. Nevertheless, the index is still a useful measure of concen­tration of a multi-category nominal variable. This is particularly true in cases wherethe data approach a census enumeration rather than a sample.

104 Rural Sociology, Vol. 55, No.1, Spring 1990

forced to develop a more refined paradigm concept, which, whencoupled with research findings in the sociology of science, allows fora more accurate specification and measurement of the nature of "par­adigms" in both the natural and social sciences. Specifically, fromKuhn's (1962) initial writings, it is apparent that the paradigm conceptis not directly applicable to "proto-sciences," such as sociology, psy­chology, etc. (i.e., the social sciences). However, the question remains:How does a "proto-science" like rural sociology (or any of the socialsciences) develop a paradigm?

In order to answer this question, a brief review of research in thesociology of science and sociology of sociology literature is necessary.According to Eckberg and Hill (1979), functionalism, conflict, andother "so-called" sociological paradigms, are not paradigms in theKuhnian sense of the term. Indeed, they state the following:

If the paradigms (exemplars) exist in the discipline of soci­ology, they are difficult to find. Moreover, if they do exist,they (1) must not be discipline-wide, (2) must be found withinsubstantive areas of research, (3) must have communities ofpractitioners which coalesce around them, and (4) must beused to both generate and solve puzzles and thus generatea visible research tradition. (Eckberg and Hill 1979:935)

Wells and Picou (1981) discuss the implications of this interpreta­tion for the social sciences and, in particular, for the study of thetheoretical and methodological structure ofAmerican sociology. Theybegin with an overview of Kuhn's conceptual model and then advancewhat they define as "partial paradigms," which they believe to bemore applicable for research in the "sociology of sociology." In ad­dition, the "partial paradigm" concept provides a "middle-range"compromise to both the "pure" and "flexible" interpretations in theliterature of the Kuhnian model. The development of this conceptis based on the writings and findings of Bohme (1975), Freidheim(1978), Knorr (1975), Mulkay (1978), and Watson (1975), amongothers. The fact that both the natural and social scientific enterprisesare based on consensus, status, and other social structural consider­ations provides a sociological context for the conceptualization ofpartial paradigms in terms of a variety of research and teaching in­dicators of the "proper" subject matter and methodology (McCaan1978).3

Wells and Picou (1981) note that, for all practical purposes, soci­ology has lacked a period of Kuhnian normal science (full paradigm),but there has existed various degrees and types of community con-

3 Bierstedr's (1983:293) suggestion that the partial paradigm concept was "invented"reflects at best an inaccurate understanding of the derivation of this concept from therelevant literature in the sociology of science.

Critique 105

sensus regarding exemplars in sociology. From this position, the ar­gument for the existence of partial paradigms is advanced (i.e., " ...an incomplete disciplinary matrix based on significant, but less thancommunity-wide, commitment to a particular cluster of onotologicaland heuristic models, methodological exemplars, and values") (1981:48).

Wells and Picou (1981:48) also list three important points that arederived from the above definition:

First, only when a thoroughly tested theory distinguishes anarea can a paradigm be considered "full." Secondly, theconcept "paradigm" was designed by Kuhn to refer to ahighly variable social and cognitive reality. As a result, thecontent and development of a paradigm is by nature prob­lematic. Thirdly, paradigms contain components or seg­ments which, taken together, reflect the structure and con­tent of the paradigm.

The latter statement provides a point of departure for conceptual­izing measurable components of the development of knowledge inthe social sciences. Partial paradigms reflect patterns of consensus inthe social sciences concerning appropriate theory, methodology, im­age of the subject matter, and sources of research support. As such,discipline journal articles become one source of indicators of para­digm components."

Figure 1 provides a diagrammatical representation of these partialparadigm components, the social context in which they form, andtheir interrelationships. It also identifies a developing conceptualframework within the sociology of sociology for understanding thedynamics of the process of paradigm development. To answer ourprevious question, paradigms evolve from the historical pattern of"middle-range" integration of partial paradigm components.

Partial paradigm shifts in Rural Sociology

The partial paradigm framework briefly outlined above establishes aconceptual approach which, in turn, provides Falk and Zhao's (1989)empirical findings with a more refined framework for interpretation.The partial paradigm framework outlined in Figure 1 also brings toimmediate attention the limits of Falk and Zhao's data. For a com­prehensive understanding of partial paradigm change, it is necessaryto systematically analyze other components (i.e., methodology, image

4 We agree with Falk and Zhao that journals represent a limited source of data formaking metatheoretical generalizations about a discipline. However, we suggest formalethnographies, rather than impressions for future inquiry. Potential data sources in­clude course syllabuses, texts, and of course, the analysis of a wider array of journalpublications.

106 Rural Sociology, Vol. 55, No.1, Spring 1990

+

ENVIRONMENT

POLITICAL AND SOCIAL.".,.".. -- ----

~ -/" . -/' "

,/ "-

/ 'I \I \

I \

I \\I,II

I/

//

/",,,-

~_--L__";" ~

\

\\ ,

-,<,

Figure 1. Diagrammatical representation of partial paradigm conceptual framework

of the subject matter, and funding patterns), as well as their inter­relationships.

From these conceptual and statistical deliberations, along with dataon publications in Rural Sociology available elsewhere (Picou et al.1978a; Stokes and Miller 1985), we suggest that contemporary ruralsociology, in a manner very similar to general sociology, is shiftingtoward the partial paradigmatic posture commonly referred to as"quantitative structuralism" (Wells and Picou 1981) or "instrumentalpositivism" (Bryant 1985).

From our reanalysis of the Rural Sociology data, we observed thatthere was an increasing concentration ofarticles by classification (Falkand Zhao 1989, Table 1). Indeed, Falk and Zhao's (p. 590) data revealthat research reports, empirical reports, and methodological reportscomprise approximately seventy-eight percent of all articles analyzed.Picou et al. (1978a:364-66) documented that over ninety percent ofthe Rural Sociology articles in their 1965-1976 data set utilized survey

Critique 107

methods. This finding was also replicated by Falk and Zhao's (p. 590)data for 1976-1985. In addition, this dominance ofquantitative tech­niques in Rural Sociology has been empirically documented and de­scribed as " ... a problem of methodological homogeneity with itsaccompanying informational limitations" (Stokes and Miller 1985:556). Indirect empirical evidence also exists for a dominant "subjectmatter image" or "unit of analysis" in Rural Sociology (i.e., the indi­vidual) (Stokes and Miller 1985:553).

In short, when all available data are considered from a partialparadigm framework, the increased theoretical diversity observed inFalk and Zhao's research can be viewed as modest shifts and adjust­ments of theoretical approaches to the requirements and applicationsof quantitative techniques.

These shifts in the research structure of rural sociology are occur­ring in a parallel fashion to an historically evolving partial paradigmin American sociology. This dominant characteristic of Americansociology has been noted to be quite distinct from analogous "visible"developments in European sociology (Bryant 1984). This general pat­tern in the larger discipline of sociology provides the context foridentifying and understanding current developments in rural soci­ology.

For American sociology, Turk's (1988) extension of Wells and Pi­cou's (1981) research to include The AmericanJournal ofSociology, SocialForces, and The American Sociology Review and reports of similar contentanalyses of the periodicals Sociology of Education (Shifflet and Picou1978) and The Journal of Marriage and Family (Dietrich and Picou1989) all identify one inescapable conclusion-discipline develop­ment in American sociology has been historically characterized byincreasing interrelationships between theory, methodology, and im­age of the subject matter. In Wells and Picou's (1981:153-54) words,through the years American sociology reflects:

. . . the increasing integration of theory and methodologydeveloped primarily within the context of an image of thesubject matter which is characterized by a microfocus andis specified through a conception of the social that is sociallygenerated and objectively defined. Such a microfocus allowsfor the utilization of individuals as data sources, and theresulting information is most often viewed as being observ­able and subject to measurement.

Moreover, these innumerable data sources clearly support Turk's(1988:25) contention:

. . . the dominance of . . . quantification within the disci­pline's main journal, within its methodology annual, and intasks supported by its main funding source suggest that useof any theory will rest more and more upon its relevance to

108 Rural Sociology, Vol. 55, No.1, Spring 1990

societal and world affairs and upon its implementation bythe dominant methodologies, which are those of the natural

. sciences (emphasis original).

Falk and Zhao's (596) assessment of methodological developmentin Rural Sociology as reft.ecting increased diversity appears to be amisrepresentation of Stokes and Miller's (1985) data, as well as theirinterpretation (Stokes and Miller 1985:553). This oversight obscuresthe nature of partial paradigm changes in the discipline of ruralsociology, which leads them to overemphasize the importance of theobserved shifts in the theory component.

Implications

Falk and Zhao's (1989) research has several important implicationsfor the discipline of rural sociology. As noted well over a decade ago,"perhaps the most crucial concern of rural sociology's immediateresponse to its present situation would be continued critical, self­appraisal" (Picou et al. 1978a:577-78). In fact, a specific call for thereplication of this original study was also made at that time (Picou etal. 1978b:605). Falk and Zhao's (1989) research makes a direct con­tribution to discipline development in rural sociology by providing aforum for enlightened analysis and discussion. In this context weapplaud their efforts.

An additional implication of Falk and Zhao's research relates di­rectly to the implicit and explicit research agendas they propose forfuture studies in the sociology of rural sociology. For example, theyallude to a number of hypotheses regarding the dynamics of partialparadigm development in rural sociology in terms of age of research­ers, background and training, and the adoption of alternative theo­retical approaches (e.g., Marxist, structural, etc.), Since similar hy­potheses have been evaluated for the physical sciences (e.g., McCann1978), researchers in the sociology of rural sociology should continuethe specification and development of empirical information on thedynamics and structure of the discipline. Falk and Zhao's researchwill undoubtedly serve as a model for more detailed, conceptuallyinformed studies well into the future.

With regard to their conclusions and interpretations, however, wefeel that it is a bit premature to announce increased theoretical di­versity as characterizing this partial paradigm component (theory).We have noted both conceptual and empirical sources which tend tosupport an alternative reinterpretation. Specifically, we suggest thatrural sociology, in a manner similar to general sociology, has contin­ued an attempted integration of theoretical, methodological, andsubject-matter concerns within a positivistic partial paradigm. Thispattern reft.ects guidance by methodology (Faia 1986) and is consis­tent with their conclusion that "research ... is the force behind thediscipline's very existence" (Falk and Zhao 1989:597).

Critique 109

Finally, we close with a brief comment regarding the issue of "cri­sis" in rural sociology. Picou et al. (1978a) specifically describe a "crisisof exhaustion" in rural sociology which was derived from a non­Kuhnian conception of "intellectual crisis." That is, an internal "cri­sis" of a system of thought (i.e., rural sociology) was suggested indirect contrast to the appearance of Kuhn's view of "normal science"(Birnbaum 1971; Merton 1975; Picou et al. 1978a:570-75). There­fore, from our perspective, rural sociology was indeed in a crisis whichreflected, in Kuhnian terminology, a limited partial paradigm in needof an anomaly. Because one can argue that "a crisis defined as real,is real in its consequences," we hope that the "anomaly" is theoreticalself-consciousness (Connolly 1973) and that rural sociologists will con­tinue to pursue a reflexive understanding of the nature and elementsof the practice and applications of social science.

References

Bierstedt, Robert1983 Review ofR. H. Wells andJ. S. Picou, American Sociology. Social Forces 62:

1:293-94.Birnbaum, Norman

1971 "The crisis in Marxist sociology." Pp. 108-31 in J. D. Colfax and J. L. Roach(eds.), Radical Sociology. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Bohme, Gernot1975 "The social function of cognitive structures: a concept of the scientific com­

munity within a theory of action." Pp. 205-25 in K. Knorr, H. Strasser, andH. Zillian (eds.), Determinants and Controls of Scientific Development. Dor­drecht-Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Co.

Bohrnstedt, George W., and David Knoke1988 Statistics for Social Data Analysis (2nd Ed.). Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock Pub­

lishers, Inc.Bryant, Christopher G. A.

1984 "Development and direction in sociology: the American way and others."The British Journal of Sociology 35 (4):608-18.

1985 Positivism in Social Theory and Research. New York: St. Martin's Press.Connolly, William E.

1973 "Theoretical self-consciousness." Polity 6 (Fall):5-35.Dietrich, Kathy A., and J. Steven Picou

1989 Theory and research in primary socialization research. Paper presented atthe annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, August, SanFrancisco, California.

Eckberg, Douglas Lee, and Lester Hill1979 "The paradigm concept and sociology: a critical review." American Socio­

logical Review 44:925-37.Faia, Michael A.

1986 "Review of Randall Collins, Three Sociological Traditions. New York: Ox­ford University Press, 1985; and Randall Collins (ed.). Three SociologicalTraditions: Selected Readings. Oxford University Press, 1985." Contem­porary Sociology 15 (May):485-86.

Falk, William, and Shanyang Zhoa1989 "Paradigms, theories and methods in contemporary rural sociology: a partial

replication and extension." Rural Sociology 54 (4):587-600.

110 Rural Sociology, Vol. 55, No.1, Spring 1990

Freidheim, Elizabeth A.1978 "A quantitative procedure ofclassifying the content of theory research works."

Sociological Quarterly 19:234-52.Hill, Lester, and Douglas Lee Eckberg

1981 "Clarifying confusions about paradigms: a reply to Ritzer." American Socio­logical Review 46(2):248-52.

Knorr, Karen D.1975 "The nature of scientific consensus and the case of the social sciences." Pp.

227-56 in Karen Knorr et al. (eds.), Determinants and Controls of ScientificDevelopment. Dordrecht-Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Kuhn, Thomas S.1962 The Structure ofScientific Revolutions. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.1970a The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd edition). Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.1970b "Reflections on my critics." Pp. 231-78 in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.),

Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Lakatos, Imere, and A. Musgrave (eds.)1970 Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Lemke, James W., and J. Steven Picou

1985 "The relevance of Kuhn's model of science to discipline development insociology. Sociological Spectrum 5 (1-2): 1-16.

McCann, H. Gilman1978 Chemistry Transformed: The Paradigmatic Shift from Phlogeston to Oxy­

gen. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Merton, Robert K.

1975 "Structural analysis and sociology." Pp. 21-52 in P. M. Blau (ed.), Approachesto the Study of Social Structure. New York: Free Press.

Mulkay, Michael1978 "Consensus in science." Social Science Information 17:107-22.

Mullins, Nicholas C.1973 Theories and Theory Groups in Contemporary American Sociology. New

York: Harper and Row Publishers.Picou, J. Steven, Richard H. Wells, and Kenneth L. Nyberg

1978a "Paradigms, theories and methods in contemporary rural sociology." RuralSociology 43:559-83.

1978b "Reply to Bealer: the skeptic as ritualist." Rural Sociology 43:596-609.Ritzer, George

1975 Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm Science. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.1980 Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm Science (Revised Edition). Boston: Allyn and

Bacon, Inc.Shapere, Dudley

1964 "The structure of scientific revolutions." Philosophical Review 73:383-94.Shifflet, Peggy, and J. Steven Picou

1978 "Theoretical trends in the sociology of education." Paper presented at theannual meetings of the Southwestern Sociological Association, March, Hous­ton, Texas.

Stokes, C. Shannon, and Michael K. Miller1985 "A methodological review of fifty years of research in rural sociology." Rural

Sociology 50 (Winter):539-60.Suppe, Frederick

1974 The Structure of Scientific Theories (1st ed.), Urbana: University of IllinoisPress.

1977 The Structure of Scientific Theories (2nd ed.). Urbana: University of IllinoisPress.

Critique 111

Turk, Herman1988 "Sociological theory." Pp. 18-41 in Edgar F. Borgatta and Karen S. Cook

(eds.), The Future of Sociology. Newsburg Park, CA: Sage Publications.Watson, Robert I.

1975 "Prescriptive theory and the social sciences." Pp. 11-35 in K. Knorr, H.Strasser, and H. Zilian (eds.), Determinants and Controls of Scientific De­velopment. Dordrecht-Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Wells, Richard H., and J. Steven Picou1981 American Sociology: Theoretical and Methodological Structure. Washing­

ton, DC: University Press of America.