Scholarlink

<p>This paper focuses on the methodology (i.e., the philosophy of science) of the so-called Cologne School of sociology, which was founded after World War&#xa0;II by René König. Although there is extensive literature about the history of Cologne Sociology, its methodology has not yet been examined in detail. That is the subject of this article. The first step is to reconstruct the rules and assumptions underlying this methodology. Since the underlying methodology is critical rationalism, this methodology is applied to describe the strengths and weaknesses of the Cologne methodology. A&#xa0;major strength was the rigorous testing of descriptive hypotheses and middle-range theories. Weaknesses included the lack of micro–macro modeling and the absence of systematic application of general action theories. The paper also discusses the introduction of methodological individualism and the codification of the Cologne methodology in the 1960s and early 1970s. The final part outlines the diffusion of the Cologne methodology as a&#xa0;precursor of modern analytical–empirical sociology, along with suggestions for further research.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The Methodology of the Cologne School of Sociology as a Precursor of Analytical–Empirical Sociology: Strengths and Weaknesses

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月17日

查看全文
  • Karl-Dieter Opp

摘要

This paper focuses on the methodology (i.e., the philosophy of science) of the so-called Cologne School of sociology, which was founded after World War II by René König. Although there is extensive literature about the history of Cologne Sociology, its methodology has not yet been examined in detail. That is the subject of this article. The first step is to reconstruct the rules and assumptions underlying this methodology. Since the underlying methodology is critical rationalism, this methodology is applied to describe the strengths and weaknesses of the Cologne methodology. A major strength was the rigorous testing of descriptive hypotheses and middle-range theories. Weaknesses included the lack of micro–macro modeling and the absence of systematic application of general action theories. The paper also discusses the introduction of methodological individualism and the codification of the Cologne methodology in the 1960s and early 1970s. The final part outlines the diffusion of the Cologne methodology as a precursor of modern analytical–empirical sociology, along with suggestions for further research.