Reason analysis is a long neglected method of data collection and analysis. This article describes the method and shows some fields of practical application. The methods and principles of reason analysis were first expounded by Lazarsfeld (1935). Reason analysis explores how respondents answer “why” questions during survey interviews. Typically, respondents are asked a simple question inquiring about the reasons that led them to make a specific decision or action. Data obtained in this way are often used to construct a simple classification of respondents. In reality, respondents often have many reasons for making a particular decision, but usually only mention one to an interviewer. Reason analysis contends that responses to ‘why’ questions are a combination of some or all reasons used by the respondent to formulate an answer to an interviewers’ question. Consequently, reason analysis constructs a “tree” of questions and an “accounting scheme” or model of the decision or action being studied. Using this framework, responses are grouped into classes and types according to their (dis)similarity. With the development of software tools it is now easy to estimate reason analysis models of survey response. One key advantage of reason analysis is that it facilitates developing a deeper understanding of the latent structure of groups; and hence allows a more precise estimation of individual level effects in studies of decision-making. As the demand for “structural estimation” models of decision making and action increase, it is likely the reason analysis will become a more influential methodological approach in the 21st century.
Reason analysis is a long neglected method of data collection and analysis. This article describes the method and shows some fields of practical application. The methods and principles of reason analysis were first expounded by Lazarsfeld (1935). Reason analysis explores how respondents answer “why” questions during survey interviews. Typically, respondents are asked a simple question inquiring about the reasons that led them to make a specific decision or action. Data obtained in this way are often used to construct a simple classification of respondents. In reality, respondents often have many reasons for making a particular decision, but usually only mention one to an interviewer. Reason analysis contends that responses to ‘why’ questions are a combination of some or all reasons used by the respondent to formulate an answer to an interviewers’ question. Consequently, reason analysis constructs a “tree” of questions and an “accounting scheme” or model of the decision or action being studied. Using this framework, responses are grouped into classes and types according to their (dis)similarity. With the development of software tools it is now easy to estimate reason analysis models of survey response. One key advantage of reason analysis is that it facilitates developing a deeper understanding of the latent structure of groups; and hence allows a more precise estimation of individual level effects in studies of decision-making. As the demand for “structural estimation” models of decision making and action increase, it is likely the reason analysis will become a more influential methodological approach in the 21st century., Hynek Jeřábek., and Obsahuje bibliografii a bibliografické odkazy
During the 1960s Paul F. Lazarsfeld, co-founder of the renowned Columbia school, worked to promote a useful new research methodology. Th is paper analyses these activities. In a series of papers, Lazarsfeld demonstrated that the roots of empirical research, the useful methodology he developed, lie in the work of early European scholars. Building on his belief that quantifi cation does not need numbers, he showed that Hermann Conring, with his “classifi catory statistics,” had predated Frédéric Le Play and his “ family budgets” and Adolphe Quételet and his “probability statistics” by almost two centuries. In another paper he highlighted the importance of Max Weber’s empirical studies on agrarian and industrial workers within the frame of his life work. His seminars at Columbia University with Robert K. Merton and at the Sorbonne with Raymond Boudon opened up transatlantic cooperation on empirical research between New York and Paris for decades to come. and Paul F. Lazarsfeld, spoluzakladatel slavné Kolumbijské školy, hledal v šedesátých letech podporu pro svou novou metodologii. Článek analyzuje tyto Lazarsfeldovy aktivity. Souborem statí se mu podařilo ukázat, že kořeny empirického výzkumu, jehož užitečnou metodologii vyvinul, je možno najít v dílech raných evropských badatelů. S představou, že kvantifi kace nepotřebuje čísla, ukázal, že Hermann Conring a jeho „klasifi kační statistika“ předešla „rodinné rozpočty“ Frédérica Le Playe a „pravděpodobnostní statistiku“ Adolpha Quételeta téměř o dvě staletí. V další stati objevil, že důležitou částí životního díla Maxe Webera byly jeho empirické studie zemědělských a průmyslových dělníků v Německu na přelomu 19. a 20. století. Jeho semináře na Kolumbijské univerzitě spolu s Robertem K. Mertonem a na Sorbonně s Raymondem Boudonem otevřely cestu transatlantické spolupráci v empirickém sociálním výzkumu mezi New Yorkem a Paříží v příštích desetiletích.
William Foote Whyte’s Street Corner Society is a classic study in which research was carried out on an Italian slum in a large US city. The methodology and conclusions of the study, however, depart from the standard typology. It was not community research, or a case study, and it did not even fit the narrative model of qualitative research. Whyte’s study did not use quantitative methods and yet reached analytical conclusions. Interpersonal relations are its primary focus. It tries to reveal the patterns of recurring group activities with the objective of capturing the hierarchy in small groups and the rules these groups are guided by. This article examines the motivations of Whyte’s influential study, his research strategy and his main method – participant observation. In the concluding section of this article there is a discussion of the basic paradigmatic debate in which Norman K. Denzin, Laurel Richardson and others criticised the methodology of the Street Corner Society while Arthur J. Vidich and other scholars praised this study’s innovative approach
William Foote Whyte’s Street Corner Society is a classic study in which research was carried out on an Italian slum in a large US city. The methodology and conclusions of the study, however, depart from the standard typology. It was not community research, or a case study, and it did not even fit the narrative model of qualitative research. Whyte’s study did not use quantitative methods and yet reached analytical conclusions. Interpersonal relations are its primary focus. It tries to reveal the patterns of recurring group activities with the objective of capturing the hierarchy in small groups and the rules these groups are guided by. This article examines the motivations of Whyte’s influential study, his research strategy and his main method - participant observation. In the concluding section of this article there is a discussion of the basic paradigmatic debate in which , Norman K. Denzin, Laurel Richardson and others criticised the methodology of the Street Corner Society while Arthur J. Vidich and other scholars praised this study’s innovative approach., Hynek Jeřábek., and Obsahuje bibliografii