Handbook of Sociological Science: Contributions to Rigorous Sociology

Handbooks often succeed by surveying and summarizing an emerging domain of social life (the family, organizations, the state, social mobility, etc.), and then catalyzing a community of scholars in that domain by defining research agendas, crystalizing debates, and creating common understandings. The Handbook of Sociological Science is unique in that it is not focused on a particular domain of social life. Instead, it is dedicated to advancing a particular approach to sociological research, which editors Klarita Gërxhani, Nan Dirk de Graaf, and Werner Raub call “rigorous sociology.”

The need for rigorous sociology, as the editors see it, derives from the overly fragmented nature of sociology as a discipline: “It comprises a multitude of ‘approaches’ that do not share a common core of basic methodological standards for theoretical and empirical work . . . . Without a common core across approaches, theoretical and empirical work is hard to evaluate and to compare, and cumulative growth of knowledge is impeded” (p. 2). If sociologists adopt the principles of rigorous sociology, the editors argue, fragmentation will be reduced, and sociology will strengthen its ability to cumulate knowledge.

What is “rigorous sociology”? Interestingly, while the editors make a strong case in their introduction for the need for rigorous sociology, they do not provide a succinct definition of it. The lack of an explicit definition of rigorous sociology may reflect the fact that the idea is quite straightforward. To be rigorous, sociological research must possess: (1) conceptual clarity with clearly stated assumptions; (2) logically valid theoretical arguments with testable empirical implications; and (3) research designs, methodological approaches, and empirical evidence that are aligned with the theoretical argument. In short, it must adhere to scientific principles.

What is refreshing about this volume is how the various commissioned chapters ¹ engage with the theme of rigorous sociology. The perspectives articulated by the contributors vary in useful and insightful ways, yet they exhibit remarkable coherence about the characteristics of rigorous sociology. This is a testament to the excellent work of the editors; not only do the various authors largely agree—suggesting an editorial selection effect—but they also explicitly engage with each other—suggesting an editorial treatment effect that is all too rare in such handbooks.

As a result, one can usefully sit down and read the volume from cover to cover. When doing so in the case of the Handbook of Sociological Science, one is treated to a wide range of examples of contemporary sociology at its best—and most rigorous. The Handbook’s scope is stunning: it covers diverse approaches and topics, including cultural capital, the gender division of labor in the home, rational choice theory, stochastic network modeling, analytical sociology, ethnography, sociogenomics, historical sociology, and evolutionary sociology, among others. Rigorous sociology (i.e., practicing sociological scientists) can be found everywhere.

As the editors’ concerns about disciplinary fragmentation suggest, the Handbook is at least implicitly a critique of how some or much of contemporary sociology is practiced. Implicit in the notion of “rigorous sociology” is the idea that there exists such a thing as “non-rigorous sociology.” Yet a puzzling feature of this Handbook is how polite it is. Non-rigorous sociology is never discussed explicitly; no non-rigorous works are called out.

Moreover, while the editors and the authors go to great lengths to make the case for scientific rigor, they never really explain why the case needs prosecuting now. Why does one need to advocate for rigor at this stage in the evolution of sociology as a discipline? If one looks at the other social sciences, the need for rigor is taken for granted—because they take the idea that they are sciences as given. That doesn't mean that the specific characteristics of rigor in a discipline don't need to be explained, but that it is a matter for introductory textbooks, not handbooks. Indeed, sociology has many such textbooks itself.

One wonders, then, about the impetus for this handbook. Why did the editors and authors put in all this work? Why did the publisher think it worth publishing? An obvious inference is that they shared a belief that there is too much non-rigorous sociology out there. This, in and of itself, is not surprising. There is surely a lot of non-rigorous economics, psychology, and political science as well—work that does not live up to the established standards. Yet the idea of a handbook devoted to rigorous economics (or psychology, or political science) is hard for me to imagine.

One conjecture for this difference is that while non-rigorous work is produced in those other disciplines, it has greater difficulty seeing the light of day. In short, it doesn't get published or perhaps even submitted to journals—at least not until it has become more rigorous. If one accepts this conjecture, then a sensible inference is that the need for this handbook is because this is less true in sociology. Perhaps sociologists have less consensus about the value of rigor, or its defining features, than other disciplines. Or perhaps sociologists have greater difficulty enforcing the standards. (It is worth speculating why this might be the case, although that is an exercise for another day.)

I find this inference plausible, and consistent with my experience. In fact, this state of affairs led my colleagues and me to launch a new journal in 2013, coincidentally named Sociological Science. The point of that journal was to judge papers by their rigor, not their conclusions. And we did the hard work of editing the journal because we perceived a need for an outlet where that was the explicit goal.

Much like the contributors to this volume, in launching our journal we did not “name names”—that is, we did not explicitly critique what we saw as non-rigorous sociology. Yet reading this Handbook makes me wonder whether that is the right strategy, if one truly believes that sociology is, or should be, a science.

The danger of not calling out non-rigorous sociology is that “rigorous sociology” may then merely become a point of view. It can become one camp among many, with its own calls to action: “If you believe that conclusions should follow logically from the stated assumptions—join us!”“If you believe that we shouldn't make causal claims without careful identification—join us!” In some ways, this Handbook can be seen as a call to action along these lines.

The call to action is valuable. But the field needs more. If we say that you can pick and choose whether to subscribe to these statements—that they are not necessary conditions for the practice of sociology—then sociology will just be an arena for the expression of opinions and ideology, legitimated by the veneer of science. And ultimately, it will fail in the competition with other disciplines where scientific rigor is the price of entry. Sociologists already find many of their topics and insights being co-opted by scholars in other disciplines (c.f. Raj Chetty, Albert-László Barabási, etc.); having rigor be a choice is a losing proposition in that context, because rigor is what drives progress and the cumulation of knowledge.

This Handbook is an important step toward re-centering sociology on basic principles of scientific rigor. The need for this volume, however, is also a cause for introspection for the discipline. Ideally, the discipline will advance to the point where the adjective “rigorous” becomes implicit when people refer to sociology. The editors and contributors are to be commended for advancing this cause.