Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:33:05.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exceptional Cases: Epistemic Contributions and Normative Expectations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2014

Ivan Ermakoff
Ivan Ermakoff*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin-Madison [ermakoff@ssc.wisc.edu].
Get access

Abstract

Exceptional cases are at odds with the typical: they stand out as bizarre and rare. What then could justify their systematic analysis? Elaborating the analytical distinction between anomalies, exceptions and outliers, this paper outlines three potential epistemic contributions of exceptional cases. First, exceptional cases reveal the limits of standard classification categories. In so doing, they problematize usual classificatory grids. Their input is critical. Second, exceptional cases point to new classes of objects. They acquire paradigmatic status when they exemplify the characteristic features of these new classes with utmost clarity. Third, exceptional cases magnify relational patterns that in more mundane contexts lack visibility. Here their contribution is heuristic. These three contributions become possible when we put at bay normative expectations of what should happen, and specify cases by reference to an analytical space of constitutive dimensions. To underscore the general significance of these observations, I draw on examples borrowed from different quarters of the social sciences: the sociology of organizations, ethnomethodology, comparative historical sociology and the history of science.

Résumé

Les cas exceptionnels apparaissent le plus souvent comme atypiques, bizarres ou rares. Dès lors comment justifier d’en proposer une analyse systématique ? À partir d’une distinction analytique entre les anomalies, les exceptions et les déviations, cet article met en avant trois contributions épistémiques des cas exceptionnels. Tout d’abord, les cas exceptionnels révèlent les limites des catégories et classifications standards. Ils permettent de problématiser les grilles classificatoires. Leur apport est critique. Ensuite, les cas exceptionnels permettent d’identifier de nouvelles classes d’objets. Ils acquièrent un statut paradigmatique lorsqu’ils manifestent les caractéristiques spécifiques de ces nouvelles classes. Enfin, les cas exceptionnels mettent en évidence des modèles relationnels qui dans des contextes plus ordinaires resteraient invisibles. Leur contribution est ici heuristique. Ces trois contributions deviennent possibles lorsque nous suspendons nos attentes normatives par rapport à ce qui devrait se passer, et spécifions les cas en référence à un espace analytique de dimensions constitutives. L’article s’appuie sur des exemples tirés principalement des sciences sociales : la sociologie des organisations, l’ethnométhodologie, la sociologie historique comparative et l’histoire des sciences.

Zusammenfassung

Außergewöhnliche Situationen werden meist als untypisch, komisch und selten dargestellt. Womit lässt sich dann aber ihre systematische Untersuchung rechtfertigen? Ausgehend von der Differenzierung zwischen Abweichungen, Ausnahmen und Sonderfällen, hebt dieser Beitrag drei epistemische Beiträge außergewöhnlicher Fälle hervor. Erstens verdeutlichen außergewöhnliche Fälle die Grenzen von Kategorien und Klassifizierungen. Ihr Beitrag ist kritisch. Zweitens verweisen außergewöhnliche Fälle auf neue Gegenstandsmodelle. Sie erhalten einen paradigmatischen Rang durch das Aufzeigen spezifischer Charakteristika dieser neuen Modelle. Drittens verdeutlichen außergewöhnliche Fälle Beziehungsmodelle, die in gewöhnlicheren Zusammenhängen unsichtbar bleiben. Ihr Beitrag ist hier heuristisch. Diese drei Beiträge sind möglich, wenn wir unsere normativen Verhaltensweisen bezüglich des Vorhersehbaren aufheben und die Fälle in Beziehung zu einem analytischen Raum konstitutiver Dimensionen setzen. Der Beitrag fußt hauptsächlich auf Beispielen aus den Sozialwissenschaften: Organisationssoziologie, Ethnomethodologie, vergleichende Geschichtssoziologie und Wissenschaftsgeschichte.

Keywords

AnomalyExceptionOutlierParadigmSocial sciencesSociological theoryAnomalieExceptionDéviationParadigmeSciences socialesThéorie sociologiqueAnomalieAusnahmeAbweichungParadigmasSozialwissenschaftenSoziologische Theorie
Type
Exceptional Cases
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , August 2014 , pp. 223 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © A.E.S. 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, Andrew, 1992. “What Do Cases Do? Some Notes on Activity in Sociological Analysis”, in Ragin, Charles C. and Becker, Howard S., eds., What is a Case? (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 53-82).Google Scholar
Biggs, Michel, 2002. “A Century of American Exceptionalism”, Thesis, 11, 68: 110-121.Google Scholar
Biggs, Michel, 2005. “Strikes as Forest Fires: Chicago and Paris in the Late Nineteenth Century”, American Journal of Sociology, 110: 1684-1714.Google Scholar
Blumer, Herbert, 1986 [1969]. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method (Berkeley/Los Angeles, University of California Press).Google Scholar
Bollen, Kenneth A. and Jackman, Robert W., 1985. “Regression Diagnostics. An Expository Treatment of Outliers and Influential Cases”, Sociological Methods and Research, 13 (4): 510-542.Google Scholar
Brown, Clifford and Liebovitch, Larry, 2010. Fractal Analysis (Thousand Oaks, Sage).Google Scholar
Bruner, Jerome S. and Postman, Leo, 1949. “On the Perception of Incongruity: A Paradigm”, Journal of Personality, 18: 206-23.Google Scholar
Burawoy, Michael, 1998. “The Extended Case Method”, Sociological Theory, 16 (1): 4-33.Google Scholar
Burawoy, Michael, 1989. “Two Methods in Search of Science”, Theory and Society, 18 (6): 759-85.Google Scholar
Chalmers, Thomas W., 1952. Historic Researches. Chapters in the History of Physical and Chemical Discovery (New York, Scribner).Google Scholar
Coleman, James, 1990. Foundations of Social Theory (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Emigh, Rebecca Jean, 1997. “The Power of Negative Thinking: The Use of Negative Case Methodology in the Development of Sociological Theory”, Theory and Society, 26: 649-684.Google Scholar
Emigh, Rebecca Jean, 1998. “The Mystery of the Missing Middle-Tenants: The ‘Negative’ Case of Fixed-Term Leasing and Agricultural Investment in Fifteenth-Century Tuscany”, Theory and Society, 27: 351-375.Google Scholar
Ermakoff, Ivan, 2008. Ruling Oneself Out. A Theory of Collective Abdications (Durham, Duke University Press).Google Scholar
Ermakoff, Ivan, 2009. “Groups at the Crossroads. Turning Points and Contingency in Revolutionary Conjunctures”, 104th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco, August 2009 (http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/3/0/8/9/8/p308980_index.html?phpsessid=6e0c21bd61e75829d4b4384f61ce2f9c).Google Scholar
Ermakoff, Ivan, 2010a. “Motives and Alignment”, Social Science History, Special Section: Politics, Collective Uncertainty, and the Renunciation of Power, 34 (1): 97-109.Google Scholar
Ermakoff, Ivan, 2010b. “Theory of Practice, Rational Choice and Historical Change”, Theory and Society, 39: 527-553.Google Scholar
Franzosi, Roberto, 1994. “Outside and Inside the Regression ‘Black Box’. From Exploratory to Interior Data Analysis”, Quality and Quantity, 28: 21-54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franzosi, Roberto, 1995. The Puzzle of Strikes (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Freeland, Robert F., 1997. “Culture and Volition in Organizational Decision-Making”, Qualitive Sociology, 20 (1): 127-137.Google Scholar
Freeland, Robert F., 2001. The Struggle for Control of the Modern Corporation. Organizational Change at General Motors, 1924-1970 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold, 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall).Google Scholar
Glasser, Otto, 1959 [1931]. Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen und die Geschichte der Röntgenstrahlen. Zweite Auflage (Berlin/Göttingen/Heidelberg, Springer).Google Scholar
Goldberg, Chad Alan, 2007. Citizens and Paupers. Reliefs, Rights, and Race, from the Freedmen’s Bureau to Workfare (Chicago, Chicago University Press).Google Scholar
Katznelson, Ira, 1986. “Working-Class Formation: Constructing Cases and Comparisons”, in Katznelson Ira and Aristide R. Zolberg, eds., Working Class Formation. Nineteenth-Century Patterns in Western Europe and the United States (Princeton, Princeton University Press: 3-41).Google Scholar
Kendall, Patricia L. and Wolf, Katherine W., 1955. “The Two Purposes of Deviant Case Analysis”, in Lazarsfeld Paul F. and Morris Rosenberg, eds., The language of Social Research (New York, Free Press: 167-170).Google Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O. and Verba, Sidney, 1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Koertge, Noretta, 1991. “Ideology, Science and a Free Society”, in Munévar Gonzalo, ed., Beyond Reason. Essays on the Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend (Dordrecht/Boston, Kluwer: 225-241).Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S., 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, third edition (Chicago/ London, The University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre, 1963. “Proofs and Refutations I, II, & III”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of science, 14: 1-25, 120-139, 221-225.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre, 1978. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Philosophical Papers volume 1, edited by Worrall, John and Currie, Gregory (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Lebow, Richard Ned., 2000-2001. “Contingency, Catalysts, and International System Change”, Political Science Quarterly, 115 (4): 591-616.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend, 1971. “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method”, The American Political Science Review, 65 (3): 682-693.Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour M., 1996. American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword (New York, W.W. Norton).Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin and Marks, Gary, 2000. It Didn’t Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States (New York, W.W. Norton).Google Scholar
Livet, Pierre, 2005. “Les diverses formes du raisonnement par cas”, in Passeron Jean-Claude et Jacques Revel, dir., Penser par cas (Paris, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales : 229-254.Google Scholar
Mandelbrot, Benoit B., 1983. The Fractal Geometry of Nature (New York, W. H. Freeman).Google Scholar
Morsey, Rudolf, 1992. Das „Ermächtigungsgesetz“ vom 24. März 1933. Quellen zur Geschichte und Interpretation des „Gesetzes zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich“ (Düsseldorf, Droste Verlag).Google Scholar
Nolan, Mary, 1997. “Against Exceptionalisms”, The American Historical Review, 102 (3): 769-774.Google Scholar
Oliver, Pamela E. and Myers, Daniel J., 2003. “The Coevolution of Social Movements”, Mobilization 8: 1-24.Google Scholar
Paige, Jeffery M., 1999. “Conjuncture, Comparison, and Conditional Theory in Macrosocial Inquiry”, American Journal of Sociology, 105 (3): 781-800.Google Scholar
Passeron, Jean-Claude et Revel, Jacques, 2005. “Penser par cas. Raisonner à partir de singularités”, in Passeron Jean-Claude et Jacques Revel, dir., Penser par cas (Paris, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales : 7-44).Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, 1991. Democracy and the Market (New York/Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragin, Charles C., 1987. The Comparative Method. Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies (Berkeley/ Los Angeles, The University of California Press).Google Scholar
Ragin, Charles C., 1992. “Introduction: Cases of ‘What is a Case?’”, in Ragin Charles C. and Howard S. Becker, eds., What is a Case? (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 1-18).Google Scholar
Ragin Charles, C. and Becker, Howard S., eds., 1992. What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., 1968. “Sequencing in Conversational Openings”, American Anthropologist, 70 (6): 1075-1095.Google Scholar
Seawright, Jason and Gerring, John, 2008. “Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research”, Political Research Quarterly, 61: 294-308.Google Scholar
Seidman, Gay W., 1994. Manufacturing Militance. Workers’ Movements in Brazil and South Africa, 1970-1985 (Berkeley, University of California Press).Google Scholar
Sombart, Werner, 1906. Warum gibt es in den Vereinigten Staaten keinen Sozialismus? (Tübingen, J.C.B. Mohr).Google Scholar
Star, Susan Leigh and Gerson, Elihu M., 1987. “The Management and Dynamic of Anomalies in Scientific Work”, The Sociological Quarterly, 28 (2): 147-169.Google Scholar
Swenson, Peter A., 2002. Capitalists against Markets. The Making of Labor Markets and Welfare States in the United States and Sweden (Oxford, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Turcotte, Donald L., 1997. Fractals and Chaos in Geology and Geophysics, second edition (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Vaughan, Diane. 1996. The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA (Chicago/ London, The University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Voss, Kim, 1993. The Making of American Exceptionalism: The Knights of Labor and Class Formation in the Nineteenth Century (Ithaca, Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Wagner-Pacifici, Robin, 2000. Theorizing the Standoff. Contingency in Action (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Walton, John, 1992. “Making the theoretical Case”, in Ragin Charles C. and Howard S. Becker, eds., What is a Case? (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 121-137).Google Scholar
Zolberg, Aristide R. 1986. “How Many Exceptionalisms?”, in Katznelson Ira and Aristide R. Zolberg, eds., Working Class Formation. Nineteenth-Century Patterns in Western Europe and the United States (Princeton, Princeton University Press: 397-455).Google Scholar