Papers in Progress. Please do not cite or quote without permission.
Abstract: A useful method for historical explanation is analysis in terms of power. This means assessing the power, or ability to affect the outcome in question, of focal actors and entities, determining their use of that power, and, perhaps, accounting for that use. The first of these depends, in part, methodologically on deductive theory: the power of one entity depends on what others can be expected to do, and theory can help assess that. The second is mostly historical accounting, but may need theory to determine what goals are feasible for actors. In the third, theory such as rational choice may be especially useful when the power-holding actor is an aggregate of individuals. These points are illustrated with examples drawn from the American Revolution.
Abstract: Conceptions of the human individual lie at the heart of all group process theories. Applying evolutionary reasoning—reasoning concerning what predispositions are likely to have evolved—to those conceptions can make those conceptions more accurate and thus improve theories based on them. I look at, in turn, exchange processes, identity processes, and status processes. For exchange processes, evolutionary reasoning suggests numerous predispositions that would affect exchange, many to cope with the problem of cheating by others and ourselves. In fact, evolutionary reasoning suggests that concerns with our own identity may exist principally to improve our exchange outcomes. Concerning status processes, evolutionary reasoning suggests that awarding prestige must have evolved in the context of exchange, such that the person receiving prestige also incurs performance obligations. These points and others I elaborate lead to several suggestions of areas for future research and numerous specific predictions.
Abstract: Covariational analysis, the dominant methodology used for explanation in sociology, deals inadequately with three types of factors frequently important in social phenomena: constants and near-constants, inaction, and intentions. I show some of these problems by analyzing simulated data with linear regression. To overcome them, I propose a methodology called "social power analysis," in which the aim is to assess actors’ abilities to affect a given phenomenon and their use of those abilities. After introducing its key measures and describing its use through extended discussion of one hypothetical situation, I apply social power analysis to the simulated data, showing how it makes better sense of the data than did covariational analysis. Finally, I sketch how to go about analyzing the importance of parents in status attainment using this methodology.
Abstract: This study describes a quantitative method, social power analysis, that can be used for explanation of singular and rare cases. The method consists of determining the power of relevant actors concerning the phenomenon to be explained, and determining their use of that power with respect to given goals. I begin by specifying mathematical measures for power and power use. Then, to show how social power analysis may be carried out, I use it to analyze a transformation in ethnic relations that occurred between 1950 and 1990 in a Mexican community. The method allows us to rank order the power of six relevant actors concerning ethnic relations in the community, and to determine their power use in the transformation. This provides a basic explanation for the event. More generally, the example shows that social power analysis can quantify explanation of singular cases, providing a rigor to explanations that will facilitate challenging and improving them, as well as comparison with other cases.