By way of introduction to this fascinating book, let me highlight two of
its many contributions. First, it is a good example of something all too
rare in sociology: testing competing general theories. Most of us either
try to develop or refine theories about how the social world works, and
cite convenient data as support, or we select and collect data that will
fit some general theoretical position. In the first case, the data playa
subor- dinate role-bits of evidence for our view of life. In the second,
the theory plays a subordinate role-a way to make sense of the social
behavior we have observed. McCaffrey's position subsumes these two. He
has gathered data on an important social agency, but with an im- plicit
problem in mind: which of the several theories about the social world he
was exposed to in graduate school would do the best job of interpreting
the data? Or, we might just as well turn it around. In a graduate
department such as Sociology at the State University of New York at
Stony Brook, there is a lively, never ending debate about the "truth" of
competing perspectives on the political and social world. By selecting a
data base and remaining alert to the kind of evidence each theory
required, McCaffrey circumvented the usual" data for a theory" vs. "a
theory for the data" dilemma that most of us live with.