MEASUREMENT IN SOCIAL-STRATIFICATION
MEASUREMENT IN SOCIAL-STRATIFICATION
复制标题
DOI：
10.1146/annurev.so.03.080177.000411
复制
发表时间：
1977-01-01
影响因子：
10.5
通讯作者：
HAUG, MR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
HAUG, MR
有效的测量涉及一个理论概念化和操作定义的过程，该过程基于理论和所选择的标度技术之间的对应规则。对概念清晰度的要求是衡量社会分层的一个主要障碍：这一领域的理论是复杂的、矛盾的、多种多样的，并且“难以在操作上表达，就像它们是宏大的一样”(Jackson&Curtis 1968：112)。这篇论文的目的不是回顾理论问题；这是近年来被其他人(Svalastoga 1964,1965；Bottomore 1966；Lenski 1966；Tumin 1967；Allardt 1968；Runciman 1968；Parsons 1970；Eisenstadt 1971)提出的问题。相反，主要目标是介绍和批判性地审查由美国、加拿大和英国研究人员开发的一些测量设备。幸运的是，社会分层中有一些核心概念允许这些测量尝试，即使在没有达成一致的理论基础的情况下，或者正如博托莫尔(1966：10)所建议的那样，“社会分层的一些普遍特征是不存在争议的。”首先，社会分层实际上是社会不平等的同义词。阶层不是简单的名义类别，而是按顺序排列的等级排列的集合。这些区别表明了第二个普遍特征，即阶层是社会性的，等级是基于不同价值的社会定义或归属的。然而，这些价值判断的范围和依据受到一些争议。关于产生这种判断的至少两种特征的存在几乎没有分歧：生物差异，如年龄、性别或种族，以及后天差异，如权力、财富或声望。但对于其中哪一种还没有理论上的共识
Valid measurement involves a process of theoretical conceptualization and operational definition based on rules of correspondence between the theory and the scaling techniques selected. The requirement of prior conceptual clarity is a major obstacle in the measurement of social stratification: theories in this field are complex, contradictory, diverse, and" as difficult to express operationally as they are grand"(Jackson & Curtis 1968: 112). It is not the purpose of this paper to review the theoretical issues; that has been well done by others in recent years (Svalastoga 1964, 1965; Bottomore 1966; Lenski 1966; Tumin 1967; Allardt 1968; Runciman 1968; Parsons 1970; Eisenstadt 1971). Rather, the major objective is to present and critically review some of the measurement devices that have been developed by US, Canadian, and British researchers. Fortunately, there are some core concepts in social stratification that have permitted these attempts at measurement, even in the absence of an agreed-upon theoretical base, or as Bottomore suggests (1966: 10)," some general features of social stratification which are not in dispute." In the first place, social stratification is virtually synonymous with social inequal-ity.'Strata are not simply nominal categories, but hierarchically arranged sets with distinctions by ordinal rank. These distinctions indicate a second general feature, namely that stratification is social, the ranks based on societal definitions or attributions of differential value. The arenas and grounds for these value judgments, however, are subject to some controversy. There is little disagreement concerning the existence of at least two types of characteristics generating such judgments: biological distinctions, such as age, sex, or race, and acquired distinctions, such as power, wealth, or prestige. But there is no theoretical consensus as to which of these