Page 24 - The Importance of Common Metrics for Advacing Social Science Theory and Research

The Importance of Common Metrics for Advancing Social Science Theory and Research: A Workshop Summary
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13034.html

12 THE IMPORTANCE OF COMMON METRICS

Accumulating Evidence, Comparing Effects
According to Hauser, social scientific examples of standardization range
from qualitative classifications, like race/ethnicity and social class; to nu-
merical scales describing psychological traits, social standing, or economic
amounts; to normalized measures of the fit of statistical models and the
effects of variables in such models. He discussed social class, occupational
prestige, and occupational socioeconomic status as examples involving the
normalization of metrics.
Social class is a core concept of sociology. It is ubiquitous, yet there
is endless disagreement about how to measure it. In recent sociological
research, there have been three main contenders on how to measure social
1
class: a neo-Marxist classification developed by Erik Wright (1993), a neo-
Weberian classification developed by Robert Erikson and John Goldthorpe
(1992), and variants of the Edwards scale, a socioeconomic classification
2
of occupations by the U.S. Census Bureau that was developed in the 1930s.
The Edwards scale captures a central hierarchical dimension of the occu-
pational structure, but major classification changes in the Census Bureau’s
occupational system and the federal system more generally have made it
3
difficult to maintain in any comparable form. This system has a stronger
empirical than theoretical grounding. The Wright and Erikson-Goldthorpe
class schemes have a strong basis in sociological theory, but each also has
notable empirical weaknesses.
All three classification schemes exemplify the strengths and weaknesses
of common metrics. On the positive side, the schemes have been used
extensively in cumulative and comparative research, as well as for social
reporting. However, each of the three schemes competes with the other two,
thus reducing the set of comparable studies and observations.
In seeing how well the three schemes compare, Miech and Hauser
(2001) looked at health outcomes in relation to all three of these measures

1 Wright’s class scheme uses broad occupation categories plus distinctions of ownership, size
of establishment, and supervisory and management responsibility. It has chiefly been used by
Wright and his international collaborators and is a competitor to the Erickson-Goldthorpe
scheme.
2 The Erikson and Goldthorpe scheme uses many of the same ingredients but somewhat dif-
ferently. It was developed for an international comparative study of social mobility, is relatively
easy to construct, and is used much more than Wright’s scheme, especially in international
work. The problem is that it suppresses the main socioeconomic dimension that comes out so
clearly in the Edwards scale.
3 The Census Bureau follows the Standard Occupation Classification system, which is devel-
oped by an interagency group and agreed on by the Office of Management and Budget. This
is an example of a standardized metric that changes over time to meet users’ needs and the
changing work environment. It is not the result of the federal system making changes, but a
reflection of the changing economic environment.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.