Samenvatting MOSI
Versie 2
1
,Inhoudsopgave
1: Week 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 3
1.1: HC 1 ............................................................................................................................................. 3
1.2: Hedström Chapter 1 ..................................................................................................................... 6
1.3: Hedström Chapter 2 ..................................................................................................................... 7
1.4: Watts ............................................................................................................................................ 9
1.5: Coleman ....................................................................................................................................... 9
2: Week 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 10
2.1 HC 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 10
2.2 Hobbes ......................................................................................................................................... 13
2.3 Easly & Kleinberg ....................................................................................................................... 13
2.4 Tutorial .................................................................................................................................. 18
3: Week 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 19
3.1 HC 3 ............................................................................................................................................ 19
3.2 Axelrod ........................................................................................................................................ 23
4: Week 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 26
4.1 HC 4 ............................................................................................................................................ 26
4.2 Hedstöm Chapter 3 ...................................................................................................................... 30
2
,1: Week 1
1.1: HC 1
Sociology as a problem-guided, empirical theoretical discipline
Theory making to understand problems (something we don’t understand). Not theorizing to theorize.
Doing this while using empirical testing the theory.
➔ PTE: problem → theory → empirical research → new p.
Coleman’s diagram
Wants to understand the relation between social conditions and collective effects. There is no causal
relation between macro condition and collective effects. There is always a link between social
conditions to the individuals (to their goals, expectations etc..) this determines their behaviour. The
link between their goals possibilities, options to the individual choices. But the individual choices are
interdependent (e.g. people sitting in the lecture makes other people sitting in the back, or something).
This is the transformation rule → difficult to understand.
Bridge assumption: what should happen under these conditions, it determines the conditions that an
individual is in
Transformation rule: what is the interdependence between the people.
Residential segregation
Segregation by: race, religion etc..
There are some types of problems (something we don’t understand) in this topic:
1. Descriptive problems
- Trends over time
- Cross-section: comparing North and South
2. Explanatory problems
Why is residential segregation rather stable over time?
Why are there hardly any differences in residential segregation between North and South?
3. Problems of institutional design
How to reduce or mitigate residential segregation?
4. Normative problems
How much residential segregation is normatively acceptable?
What are acceptable costs of reducing or mitigating residential segregation?
What are possible causes of segregation?
3
, 1. Actors’ preferences and perceptions (prejudice, perception of being unwelcome a by-effect of
integration)
2. Constraints: income inequality/prices on the housing market.
Common sense
Answers to these question (for example above) sometimes seem straightforward. This is due to the
common sense, a ‘bias’ that brings routine knowledge to our life, it is practical and non-formal
(gezond verstand).
➔ When a theory sounds logically acceptable and true but when the totally opposite is suggested
it seems true as well. (e.g. : “Soldiers from rural backgrounds were usually in better spirits
during their army life than soldiers from city backgrounds.”)
➔ To avoid this Hedström introduced 5 important aspects of theory building.
1. Making things more precise: less ambiguous
For example:
Residential segregation (2)
Roughly: A city is more integrated, the more equal the distributions of Whites and Non-Whites are in
all neighborhoods. When in country X 5% is minority, than you expect that in every area of a city 5%
of them is a minority.
Segregation index: The % of minorities (of the total) that has to move to reach a distribution in each
neighborhood that is proportional to the distribution in the population
An area is more segregated if more members of the minority group need to move to have perfect
integration.
➔ For example: A = 400 Dutch and 100 Turkish
A1=400 Dutch 0 Turkish
A2=0 Dutch 100 Turkish
➔ In this case 100 turkish people have to move to A1. (100/100*100% = 1*100%= 100%)
➔ For example: B = 400 Dutch and 100 Turkish
B1=200 Dutch 20 Turkish
B2=200 Dutch 80 Turkish
➔ In this case 30 Turkish have to move to B1. (30/100*100% = 0,3*100%= 30%.)
In de VS zijn er grote verschillen (SI van 80).
2. Think about a mechanism
Adding the mechanism like in the explanandum-scheme. This gives a testable hypothesis.
corroborating = bevestiging
In this way: you can reduce the chances of common-sense-bias.
4
Versie 2
1
,Inhoudsopgave
1: Week 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 3
1.1: HC 1 ............................................................................................................................................. 3
1.2: Hedström Chapter 1 ..................................................................................................................... 6
1.3: Hedström Chapter 2 ..................................................................................................................... 7
1.4: Watts ............................................................................................................................................ 9
1.5: Coleman ....................................................................................................................................... 9
2: Week 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 10
2.1 HC 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 10
2.2 Hobbes ......................................................................................................................................... 13
2.3 Easly & Kleinberg ....................................................................................................................... 13
2.4 Tutorial .................................................................................................................................. 18
3: Week 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 19
3.1 HC 3 ............................................................................................................................................ 19
3.2 Axelrod ........................................................................................................................................ 23
4: Week 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 26
4.1 HC 4 ............................................................................................................................................ 26
4.2 Hedstöm Chapter 3 ...................................................................................................................... 30
2
,1: Week 1
1.1: HC 1
Sociology as a problem-guided, empirical theoretical discipline
Theory making to understand problems (something we don’t understand). Not theorizing to theorize.
Doing this while using empirical testing the theory.
➔ PTE: problem → theory → empirical research → new p.
Coleman’s diagram
Wants to understand the relation between social conditions and collective effects. There is no causal
relation between macro condition and collective effects. There is always a link between social
conditions to the individuals (to their goals, expectations etc..) this determines their behaviour. The
link between their goals possibilities, options to the individual choices. But the individual choices are
interdependent (e.g. people sitting in the lecture makes other people sitting in the back, or something).
This is the transformation rule → difficult to understand.
Bridge assumption: what should happen under these conditions, it determines the conditions that an
individual is in
Transformation rule: what is the interdependence between the people.
Residential segregation
Segregation by: race, religion etc..
There are some types of problems (something we don’t understand) in this topic:
1. Descriptive problems
- Trends over time
- Cross-section: comparing North and South
2. Explanatory problems
Why is residential segregation rather stable over time?
Why are there hardly any differences in residential segregation between North and South?
3. Problems of institutional design
How to reduce or mitigate residential segregation?
4. Normative problems
How much residential segregation is normatively acceptable?
What are acceptable costs of reducing or mitigating residential segregation?
What are possible causes of segregation?
3
, 1. Actors’ preferences and perceptions (prejudice, perception of being unwelcome a by-effect of
integration)
2. Constraints: income inequality/prices on the housing market.
Common sense
Answers to these question (for example above) sometimes seem straightforward. This is due to the
common sense, a ‘bias’ that brings routine knowledge to our life, it is practical and non-formal
(gezond verstand).
➔ When a theory sounds logically acceptable and true but when the totally opposite is suggested
it seems true as well. (e.g. : “Soldiers from rural backgrounds were usually in better spirits
during their army life than soldiers from city backgrounds.”)
➔ To avoid this Hedström introduced 5 important aspects of theory building.
1. Making things more precise: less ambiguous
For example:
Residential segregation (2)
Roughly: A city is more integrated, the more equal the distributions of Whites and Non-Whites are in
all neighborhoods. When in country X 5% is minority, than you expect that in every area of a city 5%
of them is a minority.
Segregation index: The % of minorities (of the total) that has to move to reach a distribution in each
neighborhood that is proportional to the distribution in the population
An area is more segregated if more members of the minority group need to move to have perfect
integration.
➔ For example: A = 400 Dutch and 100 Turkish
A1=400 Dutch 0 Turkish
A2=0 Dutch 100 Turkish
➔ In this case 100 turkish people have to move to A1. (100/100*100% = 1*100%= 100%)
➔ For example: B = 400 Dutch and 100 Turkish
B1=200 Dutch 20 Turkish
B2=200 Dutch 80 Turkish
➔ In this case 30 Turkish have to move to B1. (30/100*100% = 0,3*100%= 30%.)
In de VS zijn er grote verschillen (SI van 80).
2. Think about a mechanism
Adding the mechanism like in the explanandum-scheme. This gives a testable hypothesis.
corroborating = bevestiging
In this way: you can reduce the chances of common-sense-bias.
4
