Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article considers the implications of an approach to computer simulation called agent‐based modeling for process‐oriented analysis. It argues that many theoretical and methodological debates found in the latter field can be effectively advanced by the former. The argument is presented and then extended using a ubiquitous agent‐based model proposed to improve understanding of ethnic residential segregation. The argument has three strands. The first is that theoretical and methodological debates are unlikely to progress unless they can be "cashed out" empirically. The second is that agent‐based modeling (and its distinctive methodology) has capabilities to do this that existing research methods lack and, in fact, that agent‐based models are a natural way to represent "social process" as apparently conceived by process‐oriented analysis. The third is that possibilities exist for productive synthesis between agent‐based modeling and process‐oriented analysis with the former clarifying, instantiating, and perhaps even testing notions of process developed by the latter.

This article has two goals. Firstly, it shows how a relatively novel technique (Agent Based Modelling, hereafter ABM) can integrate different data types that are often used only in separate strands of research (interviews, experiments and surveys). It does this by comparing a well-known ABM of attitude dynamics with an alternative model using data from surveys and experiments. Secondly, the article explains ABM methodology and why it is important to the distinctiveness of ABM as a research method. In particular, the ramifications of differing approaches to ABM calibration and validation are discussed using the two different ABM as examples. The article concludes by showing how ABM might provide a progressive research strategy for integrating different data types and thus different disciplines in attitude research.

Although Agent Based Models (hereafter ABM) are now regularly reported in sociology journals, explaining the approach, describing models and reporting results leaves little opportunity to examine wider implications of ABM for sociological practice. This article uses an established ABM (the Schelling model) for this. The first part argues that ABM integrates qualitative and quantitative data distinctively, provides novel tools for understanding social causes and offers a significantly different perspective on theory building. The second part shows how the emerging ABM methodology is compatible with existing sociological practice while undermining several criticisms of ABM perceived to limit its sociological relevance.

In a 2007 article in Sociology, Gezelius offers an account of information exchange between Norwegian fishermen using game theoretic analysis of ethnographic data. In this article, I consider what his analysis reveals about using game theory in sociology. To be effective, this must combine systematic use of ethnography with effective application of game theory. In addition, the methods of simulation and evolutionary game theory are important tools to explain rich sets of norms and practices observable ethnographically.

In 1997, Robert Axelrod wondered in a highly influential paper "If people tend to become more alike in their beliefs, attitudes, and behavior when they interact, why do not all such differences eventually disappear?" Axelrod's question highlighted an ongoing quest for formal theoretical answers joined by researchers from a wide range of disciplines. Numerous models have been developed to understand why and under what conditions diversity in beliefs, attitudes and behavior can co-exist with the fact that very often in interactions, social influence reduces differences between people. Reviewing three prominent approaches, we discuss the theoretical ingredients that researchers added to classic models of social influence as well as their implications. Then, we propose two main frontiers for future research. First, there is urgent need for more theoretical work comparing, relating and integrating alternative models. Second, the field suffers from a strong imbalance between a proliferation of theoretical studies and a dearth of empirical work. More empirical work is needed testing and underpinning micro-level assumptions about social influence as well as macro-level predictions. In conclusion, we discuss major roadblocks that need to be overcome to achieve progress on each frontier. We also propose that a new generation of empirically-based computational social influence models can make unique contributions for understanding key societal challenges, like the possible effects of social media on societal polarization.