The question of the relationship between concepts and data is central to sociological methodology. It is also an issue that divides quantitative and ethnographic approaches. The most influential ethnographic treatment of this problem is that provided by Herbert Blumer. This article offers a detailed account and a critical assessment of Blumer's position. Its conclusion is that while his discussion of the problem is instructive he fails to provide a convincing solution.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ADLER, P. A.
and P. ADLER (1980) “Symbolic interactionism,” pp. 20-61 in J. D. Douglaset al. (eds.) Introduction to the Sociologies of Everyday Life.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
2.
ATHENS, L.
(1984) “Blumer's method of naturalistic inquiry: a critical appraisal,” pp. 241-257 in N. K. Denzin (ed.) Studies in Symbolic Interaction (Vol. 5). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
3.
BECKER, H. S.
(1988) “Herbert Blumer's conceptual impact.”Symbolic Interaction11: 13-21.
4.
BLALOCK, H.
(1982) Conceptualization and Measurement in the Social Sciences.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
5.
BLUMER, H. (1928) “Method in social psychology.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.
6.
BLUMER, H.
(1931) “Science without concepts.”Amer. J. of Sociology36: 515-533.
7.
BLUMER, H.
(1939) Critiques of Research in the Social Sciences: An Appraisal of Thomas and Znaniecki'sThe Polish Peasant in Europe and America.New York: Social Science Research Council.
8.
BLUMER, H.
(1940) “The problem of the concept in social psychology.”Amer. J. of Sociology45: 707-719.
9.
BLUMER, H.
(1948) “Public opinion and public opinion polling.”Amer. Soc. Rev.13: 542-544.
10.
BLUMER, H.
(1954) “What is wrong with social theory?”Amer. Soc. Rev.19: 3-10.
11.
BLUMER, H.
(1955) “Attitudes and the social act.”Social Problems3: 59-65.
12.
BLUMER, H.
(1956) “Sociological analysis and the `variable.' ”Amer. Soc. Rev.21: 683-690.
13.
BLUMER, H.
(1969) “The methodological position of symbolic interactionism,” pp. 1-60 in H. Blumer (ed.) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
14.
BLUMER, H.
(1973) “A note on symbolic interactionism: reply to Huber.”Amer. Soc. Rev.38: 797-798.
15.
BLUMER, H.
(1982) “George Herbert Mead,” in B. Rhea (ed.) The Future of the Sociological Classics.London: Allen & Unwin.
16.
BRUYN, S. T.
(1966) The Human Perspective: The Methodology of Participant Observation.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
17.
DENZIN, N. K.
(1978) The Research Act (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
18.
GLASER, B.
and A. STRAUSS (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory.Chicago: Aldine.
19.
HAMMERSLEY, M.
(1986) “Measurement in ethnography,” pp. 49-60 in M. Hammersley (ed.) Case Studies in Classroom Research.Milton Keynes, England: Open Univ. Press.
20.
HAMMERSLEY, M.
(1989) The Dilemma of Qualitative Method: Herbert Blumer and the Chicago Tradition.London: Routledge.
21.
HAMMERSLEY, M.
and P. ATKINSON (1983) Ethnography in Practice.London: Tavistock.
22.
HEMPEL, C. G.
(1952) Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical Science.Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
23.
HUBER, J.
(1973) “Symbolic interaction as a pragmatic perspective: the bias of emergent theory.”Amer. Soc. Rev.38: 274-284.
24.
KAPLAN, A.
(1964) The Conduct of Inquiry.San Francisco: Chandler.
25.
LAUER, R. H.
and W. H. HANDEL (1977) Social Psychology: The Theory and Application of Symbolic Interactionism.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
26.
LINDESMITH, A.
(1937) The Nature of Opiate Addiction.Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
27.
LINDESMITH, A.
(1968) Addiction and Opiates.Chicago: Aldine.
28.
LOFLAND, J.
and L. LOFLAND (1984) Analyzing Social Settings.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
29.
LUNDBERG, G. A.
(1929) Social Research.New York: Longmans, Green.
30.
LUNDBERG, G. A.
(1936) “Quantitative methods in social psychology.”Amer. Soc. Rev.1: 38-60.
31.
LUNDBERG, G. A.
(1942) “Operational definitions in the social sciences.”Amer. J. of Sociology47: 727-745.
32.
MATZA, D.
(1964) Delinquency and Drift.New York: John Wiley.
33.
RAUMA, D.
(1981) “Herbert Blumer, the scientific attitude and the problem of demarcation,” pp. 507-514 in G. Stone and H. Faberman (eds.) Social Psychology Through Symbolic Interaction.New York: John Wiley.
34.
RIDLEY, M.
(1986) Evolution and Classification.London: Longman.
35.
SCHATZMAN, L.
and A. STRAUSS (1973) Field Research.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
36.
SHIBUTANI, T.
(1988) “Herbert Blumer's contributions to twentieth century sociology.”Symbolic Interaction11: 23-31.
37.
SOKAL, R. R.
and P.H.A. SNEATH (1963) Principles of Numerical Taxonomy.San Francisco: Freeman.
38.
THOMAS, W. I.
and F. ZNANIECKI (1918-20) The Polish Peasant in Europe and America.Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
39.
TUCKER, C. W.
(1988) “Herbert Blumer: a pilgrimage with pragmatism.”Symbolic Interaction11: 99-124.
40.
VAN PARIJS, P.
(1981) Evolutionary Explanation in the Social Sciences.London: Tavistock.
41.
WALLER, W.
(1934) “Insight and scientific method.”Amer. J. of Sociology40: 285-297.
42.
WATKINS, P.
(1986) Story of the W and Z.Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
43.
WILLIAMS, R.
(1976) Symbolic interactionism: fusion of theory and research,” pp. 115-137 in D. C. Thorns (ed.) New Directions in Sociology.London: David & Charles.
44.
WINCH, P.
(1958) The Idea of a Social Science.London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
45.
WISDOM, J. O.
(1987) Philosophy of the Social Sciences 1: A Meta-scientific Introduction.Alderspot, England: Avebury/Gower.
46.
ZELLER, R. A.
and E. G. CARMINES (1980) Measurement in the Social Sciences: The Link Between Theory and Data.Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
47.
ZIMMERMAN, D. H.
and D. L. WIEDER (1970) “Ethnomethodology and the problem of social order: comment on Denzin,” pp. 285-295 in J. D. Douglas (ed.) Understanding Everyday Life.London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
48.
ZNANIECKI, F.
(1934) The Method of Sociology.New York: Farrar & Rinehart.
