Socioeconomic Stratification in Family Research.
Socioeconomic Stratification in Family Research.
复制标题
家庭研究中的社会经济分层。
DOI：
10.2307/353413
复制
发表时间：
1995
影响因子：
6
通讯作者：
P. Graham
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Smith;P. Graham
指出了分层理论和测量中尚未解决的问题，并讨论了对家庭研究的影响。提出了有用措施的来源。此外，还介绍了 1991 年至 1993 年六种主要期刊上发表的家庭研究文章中社会经济分层概念的使用情况的调查结果。结果表明，家庭研究人员广泛利用了各种社会经济变量。强调了两个必要条件，即需要将社会经济概念置于理论背景中，以及需要更多地了解各种社会经济措施的相对力量，以解释重要的家庭变量和变量之间的关系。社会经济分层的研究在社会科学中有着悠久而复杂的历史。已经争论了几十年而没有明确解决方案的基本理论和方法论问题近年来又出现了更多有争议的问题。社会为何分层、分层的维度以及因此采用的适当分层变量都是未解决的问题。也许这就是为什么最近的家庭研究人员通常以非理论的方式使用社会经济变量，而很少明显关注相关的理论和方法论问题的原因之一。然而，尽管存在尚未解决的争议，家庭搜索者可能会从更广泛的理论背景下看待他们使用的社会经济指标中受益。毕竟，家庭理论家和研究人员通过从符号互动、社会交换和系统框架的角度看待各种家庭行为，获得了见解，尽管这些理论观点存在分歧。彼此相互影响，但没有一个被普遍接受为有效的。家庭理论和研究也可以受益于对相关测量问题的更彻底的考虑，以及努力确定对解释家庭变量最有用的社会经济措施。本文的中心目标是提高人们对使用社会经济概念家庭理论和研究时需要考虑的问题和替代方案的认识。为此，我们将（a）指出基本理论和方法论问题以及对家庭的一些影响，（b）介绍1991年至1993年在《婚姻与家庭杂志》以及选定的社会学和心理学期刊上发表的家庭研究文章中社会经济概念的使用情况的调查结果，以及（c）指出测量策略并建议所需的研究。分层问题 分层理论中的长期基本问题 社会阶层和社会经济地位是所有社会和行为科学家都知道其含义的概念。问题在于，不同的社会和行为科学家对这些概念赋予了不同的含义，因为他们有意识或无意识地在基本分层问题上采取了不同的立场。以下段落将说明这些问题是什么，但感兴趣的读者可以在最近对分层历史和理论问题的几次讨论中找到更完整的分析（例如，Borgatta & Borgatta，1994；Boudon & Burricaud，1989；Crompton，1993；Langman，1987）。分层理论中的长期基本问题涉及三个问题的不同答案。社会为何分层？它们沿着什么维度或哪些维度进行分层？层级结构又是怎样的？对分层起源的不同解释。分层理论家一般都假设现代社会中的人们按照某种价值或价值观进行等级排列，但他们对于这些等级制度为何存在提出了截然不同的想法。关于社会分层的主要观点是冲突观、功能主义观和市场观。 ……
Unresolved issues in stratification theory and measurement are pointed out and implications for family research are discussed. Sources of useful measures are suggested. In addition, the results of a survey of the use of socioeconomic stratification concepts in family research articles published from 1991 through 1993 in six major journals are presented. The results indicate that family researchers make extensive use of various socioeconomic variables. Two imperatives are emphasized, namely the need to place socioeconomic concepts in theoretical context and the need to learn more about the relative powers of various socioeconomic measures to account for important family variables and relationships among variables. The study of socioeconomic stratification has a long and complex history in the social sciences. Basic theoretical and methodological issues that have been debated for many decades without definitive resolution have been joined in recent years by additional contentious issues. Why societies are stratified, the dimension or dimensions of stratification and, consequently, the appropriate stratification variables to employ are unresolved issues. Perhaps that is one reason why recent family researchers have generally used socioeconomic variables in an atheoretical manner, with little apparent concern for relevant theoretical and methodological issues. Despite the unresolved controversies, however, family searchers might benefit from viewing the socioeconomic measures they use in terms of broader theoretical contexts. After all, family theorists and researchers have gained insights by viewing various family behaviors in terms of symbolic interaction, social exchange, and systems frameworks, even though these theoretical perspectives diverge from. each other and none is universally accepted as valid. Family theory and research can also benefit from more thorough consideration of relevant measurement issues and from efforts to identify the socioeconomic measures that are most useful in accounting for family variables. The central objective of this article is to increase awareness of the issues and alternatives that need to be considered when one uses socioeconomic concepts family theory and research. To that end we will (a) point out basic theoretical and methodological issues and some implications for the family, (b) present the results of a survey of the use of socioeconomic concepts in family research articles published from 1991 through 1993 in Journal of Marriage and the Family and selected sociological and psychological journals, and (c) indicate measurement Strategies and recommend needed research. STRATIFICATION ISSUES Long-Term Basic Issues in Stratification Theory Social class and socioeconomic status are concepts whose meanings are known to all social and behavioral scientists. The problem is that different social and behavioral scientists attribute different meanings for these concepts because they consciously or unconsciously take different positions on basic stratification issues. The following paragraphs will suggest what these issues are, but interested readers can find more complete analyses in several recent discussions of stratification history and theoretical issues (e.g., Borgatta & Borgatta, 1994; Boudon & Burricaud, 1989; Crompton, 1993; Langman, 1987). The long-term basic issues in stratification theory involve divergent answers to three questions. Why are societies stratified? Along what dimension or dimensions are they stratified? And what is the shape of the stratification hierarchy? Divergent explanations of the origins of stratification. Stratification theorists in general have assumed that people in modern societies are hierarchically arranged in terms of some value or values, but they have presented very different ideas about why these hierarchies exist. The dominant perspectives on why societies are stratified are the conflict view, the functionalist view, and the market view. …