18
GERALD L. YOUNG
book. For example, he describes the basic assumption of functional
analysis :
that the systems to which it is applied have defined structures with
built-in tendencies to self-maintenance; and that relationships between
items within such structures can be elucidated by examining how they
operate either to perpetuate the structure or to bring about its development in a predictable direction.
Here are the ecological concepts of organization (defined structures) ;
balance (tendencies to self-maintenance) ; interaction and interdependence (relationships between items in operational terms) ; and succession
(development in a predictable direction). Similarly, exchange theory,
with social exchange defined as occurring “when behavior is oriented
according to the rewards and deprivations expected from interaction
with others” may be expected to “derive testable hypotheses concerning
the group structures that will emerge”. Here again there is obvious
connection with, and implications for, human ecology.
More directly within a recognized human ecological framework falls
the work of Bailey (1968) and Cartwright (1969), who are making overt
attempts to formulate theoretical methodology applicable to studies in
human ecology. Bailey suggests that “human ecology has promise as a
viable macroscociological approach” and attempts to construct an
adequate ecological frame of reference through a general systems
approach as a “redefinition and extension of Duncan and Schnore’s
(1959) concept of the ecological complex”. Cartwright credits human
ecology with an early theoretical framework in the “Chicago School
Ecosystem Theory” based especially on the work of Park (1936a) and
carried into contemporary work by Duncan (1964). Cartwright also
theorizes on the role of the analysis of area units of study, again based on
an earlier work by Duncan (1961). He also attempts to update Schmid’s
(1960) work in factor analysis and the work of a number of researchers
in multi-variate analysis and typology, especially that of Shevky and
Bell (1955), raising this to examination of a “correlation matrix”; he
later admits what has bothered human ecologists since the inception of
the concept“resu1ts obtained in ecological research depend, to a
considerable extent, on the way the ecological unit is defined”. Much of
the rest of his paper is given to attempts to refine, mathematically, the
definition of the ecological unit.
The problem of the unit most appropriate to ecological research will
be mentioned a number of times in this section of the paper in connection with the various social science approaches in ecology. Later, a
number of the units most commonly defined will be examined more
closely.
GERALD L. YOUNG
book. For example, he describes the basic assumption of functional
analysis :
that the systems to which it is applied have defined structures with
built-in tendencies to self-maintenance; and that relationships between
items within such structures can be elucidated by examining how they
operate either to perpetuate the structure or to bring about its development in a predictable direction.
Here are the ecological concepts of organization (defined structures) ;
balance (tendencies to self-maintenance) ; interaction and interdependence (relationships between items in operational terms) ; and succession
(development in a predictable direction). Similarly, exchange theory,
with social exchange defined as occurring “when behavior is oriented
according to the rewards and deprivations expected from interaction
with others” may be expected to “derive testable hypotheses concerning
the group structures that will emerge”. Here again there is obvious
connection with, and implications for, human ecology.
More directly within a recognized human ecological framework falls
the work of Bailey (1968) and Cartwright (1969), who are making overt
attempts to formulate theoretical methodology applicable to studies in
human ecology. Bailey suggests that “human ecology has promise as a
viable macroscociological approach” and attempts to construct an
adequate ecological frame of reference through a general systems
approach as a “redefinition and extension of Duncan and Schnore’s
(1959) concept of the ecological complex”. Cartwright credits human
ecology with an early theoretical framework in the “Chicago School
Ecosystem Theory” based especially on the work of Park (1936a) and
carried into contemporary work by Duncan (1964). Cartwright also
theorizes on the role of the analysis of area units of study, again based on
an earlier work by Duncan (1961). He also attempts to update Schmid’s
(1960) work in factor analysis and the work of a number of researchers
in multi-variate analysis and typology, especially that of Shevky and
Bell (1955), raising this to examination of a “correlation matrix”; he
later admits what has bothered human ecologists since the inception of
the concept“resu1ts obtained in ecological research depend, to a
considerable extent, on the way the ecological unit is defined”. Much of
the rest of his paper is given to attempts to refine, mathematically, the
definition of the ecological unit.
The problem of the unit most appropriate to ecological research will
be mentioned a number of times in this section of the paper in connection with the various social science approaches in ecology. Later, a
number of the units most commonly defined will be examined more
closely.