@prandyMarriageSocialDistance2003

(2003) - Kenneth Prandy, Paul Lambert

Journal: Sociology
Link:: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00380385030373001
DOI:: 10.1177/00380385030373001
Links::
Tags:: #paper #Methods #CambridgeScale #KeyVariables
Cite Key:: [@prandyMarriageSocialDistance2003]

Abstract

There is a danger that the Cambridge Scale, which is based on data collected thirty years ago, is becoming out of date.This article considers an alternative basis for a social interaction-based social distance scale, that of marriage (or cohabitation) rather than friendship.This has considerable advantages in terms of the ready, lowcost availability of large-scale, representative data (usually from a census). It also makes easily possible the construction of comparable scales for many other countries.The article discusses the theoretical background to the approach and the justification for expecting that marriage and friendship would reflect equivalent structures of stratification arrangements. In order to provide direct comparability, a new scale was constructed, based on 1971 census data and using more satisfactory statistical techniques. Empirical analyses using this measure fully support the argument that this alternative method of deriving a scale leads to essentially the same results as the original.The way is therefore open for an updating of the scale and its extension to a number of other countries, under the generic heading of CAMSIS.

Notes

“There is a danger that the Cambridge Scale, which is based on data collected thirty years ago, is becoming out of date.” (Prandy and Lambert, 2003, p. 397)

“Empirical analyses using this measure fully support the argument that this alternative method of deriving a scale leads to essentially the same results as the original.” (Prandy and Lambert, 2003, p. 397)

“The first publication describing it appeared nearly thirty years ago (Stewart et al., 1973; see also Stewart et al., 1980). A revised version was produced later (Prandy, 1990), but this was mainly in order to provide a version consistent with the new Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) and still used data from samples for which the interviewing was carried out in the late 1960s and early 1970s.” (Prandy and Lambert, 2003, p. 398)

“The idea of ‘social space’ based on a sociological conception of social distance (as distinct, as he put it, from the ‘purely psychological’ one of Park and Bogardus) can be found in the work of Sorokin and in the key perception that ‘man’s social position is the totality of his relationships toward all groups of a population and, within each of them, towards its members’ (Sorokin, 1927: 6).” (Prandy and Lambert, 2003, p. 399)

“The usual progression from this point is, following Weber, to see such relationships as ones of status. It is interesting that the two approaches in terms of social space, that of Bourdieu and the originators of the Cambridge Scale, are both critical of Weber’s division of class and status” (Prandy and Lambert, 2003, p. 399)

“The space, which again it has to be made clear is determined by the points within it, is a structural feature that is firmly rooted in everyday action such as friendship and marriage.” (Prandy and Lambert, 2003, p. 400)

“In the specific case of Britain some 30 years or so ago, the social space was shown to be very clearly and overwhelmingly one-dimensional and the points, the occupational groups, were ranged fairly evenly along that dimension (Stewart et al., 1973; Stewart et al., 1980). Distances along that dimension were then taken as ‘scores’ for occupations on the Cambridge Scale (with some revision later (Prandy, 1990)).” (Prandy and Lambert, 2003, p. 400)

“As we have emphasized earlier, the ‘social space’ that is determined and its dimensions are sui generis; they are not indirect measures of something else.” (Prandy and Lambert, 2003, p. 405)