Suchergebnisse

This second and concluding part of the paper deals with a third problem area; the relationship between values and explanation. It is discussed by examining Myrdal's distinctions between valuations and value premises and between theoretical and practical research; Stretton's conception of the role of the `valuing skill' in all kinds of socio-historical research; and MacIntyre's arguments concerning categories and accounts that combine either evaluation and description or evaluation and explanation. Like the first part of the paper, it is illustrated by studies in the history and sociology of revolutions. Again, the main aim is methodological clarification.

In two consecutive issues of Sociology an analysis is offered of the relationship between values and analysis. By analysis is meant three fundamental stages and characteristics of socio-historical research, viz., identification, description and explanation. In examining these analytical stages and characteristics different expressions for the dimensions of values are elucidated and the various possibilities for the intrusion of values are discussed. The first part of the paper focuses upon the relationship between values and identification and description; the next is concerned with the relationship between values and explanation. Throughout the paper the relationship between values and the three analytical stages and characteristics is illustrated by reference to studies in the history and sociology of socio-political revolutions. This paper cannot claim to be an exhaustive analysis but it does seek to clarify the relationship between values and analysis and, in so doing, to provide some insight into the study of revolution. The latter is, however, a by-product of the analysis. The main aim is to provide methodological clarification.