Otis Dudley Duncan
Leo A. Goodman,Robert M. Hauser,Yu Xie
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/pro.2019.a914696
2019-01-01
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society held at Philadelphia for promoting useful knowledge
Abstract:Otis Dudley Duncan Leo A. Goodman, Robert M. Hauser, Yu Xie, and Mustafa Emirbayer Click for larger view View full resolution Otis Dudley Duncan 2 december 1921 . 16 november 2004 [End Page 177] Otis Dudley Duncan died at the age of 82 on November 16, 2004. It is our view, and we expect that it is also the view of all others who are able to judge quantitative sociology, that Otis Dudley Duncan was the most important quantitative sociologist in the world in the latter half of the 20th century. One of Dudley’s special characteristics was the breadth of his interests: scholarly as well as non-scholarly interests, sociological as well as non-sociological interests, scientific as well as non-scientific interests; and other kinds of interests, as well: classical and contemporary music, electronic music, musicology, poetry, and graphic design. Another of his special characteristics was the fact that he knew when to wrap up his work in one area of study and turn to another—a characteristic that his many successful students did not always share. In rough chronological order, several of the main themes of his work covered the following areas of study: demography and human ecology, social stratification, the social psychology of social mobility, social indicators, statistical methods and models, quantitative reasoning in sociology and demography and social science more generally, measurement and scientific method, and the sociological analysis of music. A complete bibliography of Duncan’s published work is appended, as prepared by Professor Mustafa Emirbayer of the University of Wisconsin–Madison. We mention several highlights of Otis Dudley Duncan’s scientific contributions. Throughout his career, Duncan took interest in a subject, studied it exhaustively, developed new concepts and methods appropriate to it, and, then, after making a major contribution, took on another topic. Two constancies in his work were a focus on populations and an avoidance of typological thinking. Ultimately, he recognized that the fundamental problem vexing sociological inquiry was population heterogeneity. In opening up new areas of inquiry and tools appropriate to them, Duncan was often followed by others who hoped to extend and improve upon his methods and findings. But he never looked back, except with a fresh perspective. Defining Demography One early indication of Duncan’s concern with populations was his collaborative editorial work, with Philip M. Hauser, on The Study of Population, a classic volume that not only covered every aspect of the field as then understood, but also introduced what has become the standard definition of demography: “Demography is the study of the size, territorial distribution, and composition of population, changes therein, and the components of such changes, which may be identified [End Page 178] as natality, mortality, territorial movement (migration), and social mobility (change of status)” (Hauser and Duncan 1959, 2). The Warner School of Social Stratification In collaboration with Harold Pfautz, a fellow graduate student at the University of Chicago, Duncan wrote a devastating critique of the then-popular works on social stratification of the anthropologist, W. Lloyd Warner (Pfautz and Duncan 1950). Pfautz and Duncan leveled three major arguments against the validity of the work of Warner and his associates. One was that Warner, a social anthropologist, had failed to consider the differences between the small towns that he studied (e.g., “Jonesville”) and the larger and largely urban society that America had become—or to acknowledge others’ work on social stratification and inequality in that society. A second was that Warner’s work was ideological in character by espousing maintenance of and accommodation to existing stratification regimes. The third, two-part criticism was methodological. Warner’s methods relied on a scheme called evaluated participation (EP) to determine the class positions of individuals in a community. In the words of Pfautz and Duncan, “It involves the content analysis of ‘indirect interviews’ to ‘discover’ the social class system, as well as to get at the ‘social participation’ and ‘status reputation’ of community members to whom references are made in the body of the interviews. Data from this source are summarized on ‘status personality cards’ and form the basis for an ‘estimate of class position’” (1950, 206–207). However, Warner...