Distance between Numerical Monograph and Mathematical Sociology

Abstract

Browsing through studies based on survey data analyses, we notice that approaches are divided into two different types : the so called verification of mathematical models and numerical monographs. The former aims to verify formalized hypothesis by empirical analyses. On the other hand, the latter tries to accumulate numerical evidence. Although most of the researchers themselves do not indicate their own directions, the difference can be traced to that of deductive formalization and inductive description of sociological theory.
Kenji Kosaka (2000) made the first contribution to clarify the former approach in the course of theorizing mathematical sociology. In this paper, I emphasize the importance of the other approach, namely describing monographs with numerical evidence.
After reviewing the methodological arguments, the differences are demonstrated by comparing empirical analyses of status identification in Japan conducted by Kosaka (2000) and Kikkawa (1999).
Then empirical studies of justice in contemporary Japan, on which researchers' numerous efforts have been unfruitful as yet, are examined. This shows the irrelevance of their methodological heterogeneity, as well as the strategic relevance of numerical monographs in sociological social psychology, especially when mathematical methods are found to produce deadlocked results.