Why are case studies the right methodology for sociology?
Theory must be made to fit and explain reality, not the other way around. Social science in the 20th century rushed into quantification, overusing statistical models to disguise conceptual confusion.
1/n
Metrics such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or Soviet Net Material Product (NMP) purport to reflect social reality to a degree that exceeds their theoretical validity.
These problems have only partially been acknowledged as in the recent replication crisis.
2/n
Case studies provide a basis for constructing novel theory and datasets. They also provide the background against which existing theories of society can be checked.
If a theory fails to explain a certain set of events, it is likely incorrect, or at least incomplete.
3/n
Most importantly, case studies are useful because it is impossible to run a scientific experiment on a societal scale.
Much as in the field of geology, in the analysis of society we must also rely on natural experiments to guide our pursuit of knowledge.
4/n
This is why we used the case study methodology in Bismarck Analysis’ paper on the development of nuclear weapons, which you can read here:
There are many things our society could learn from China that don't necessarily imply adopting all its values.
Our unwillingness to do so ironically reflects how we're a much less 'free' society than we like to think.
1/n
Xi Jinping isn't a great founder, while he is a live player and competent statesman, he isn't the individual who made or re-made China into what it is.
Further I don't yet think he has introduced any new social technologies to his society.
2/n
As late as 1941, the United States’ nuclear weapons research program was practically non-existent.
Most important work was being carried out by independent scientists at universities, the small “Uranium Committee” notwithstanding.
1/n
The Uranium Committee had been formed thanks to the famous Einstein-Szilard letter, which warned FDR of the potential of nuclear weapons technology and, more importantly, the risks of the Germans developing the first atom bomb.
But the committee was basically inactive.
2/n
Meanwhile in Britain, a group of scientists called the MAUD Committee were carrying out more productive research.
James Conant, the president of Harvard and second highest-ranking government research administrator, visited them in March 1941 to coordinate research.
3/n
This case study is based on research conducted primarily in 2018 and which formed the basis for Zachary Lerangis’ recent article on the physicist Leo Szilard in @palladiummag, which you can read here:
Great maps. They give a guide to the revealed preferences of social fabric of various cities. Further they make a good proxy for when a country industrialized. The more recent the industrialization, the more skyscrapers.
At least in Germany and the Netherlands, the absence of skyscrapers is policy. After WW2 as devastated cities were rebuilt there were fears of an Americanization of the continent.
In Central Europe skyscrapers were never built, but arguably despite careful reconstruction, Americanization happened.
Today outlying villages and small towns are slowly evolving into car reliant suburbs. A phenomena seen in Eastern Europe as well!
After a bad breakup, I remember quipping to a friend who asked what I had learned from the experience: "Insecure attachment."
It was interesting to try and work through that over the years. It got better, but only after two years of frankly erratic behavior. I was hurting badly.
Ultimately I think I came out stronger. I appreciate the maturity, but not how I got there. I jokingly compared it to a different friend to learning to meditate in a full body cast. You might think meditation is useful, but no you aren't grateful to the truck.