The Myth of Community Studies

If community studies are to be undertaken they must be justified as one would justify any piece of sociological research, i.e. they must make it possible either (i) to test already existing propositions or (ii) to explore for hypotheses within a given conceptual framework. In particular one must expect of such studies that they should provide data in answer to questions about how particular aspects of society work, which may be drawn together to develop an understanding of the larger 'how' of social systems in general. Such can also provide the data upon which those theoreticians who wish to answer the question 'why society?' can develop their ideas. No distinction is here made between so-called 'pure' and 'applied' research, for whether the immediate object is to solve a practical problem or an academic one, the canons of sociological research are the same. In relation to so-called community studies we must therefore ask: (a) Are there propositions which can be tested in this context? (b) Is it a context in which one can explore for hypotheses and, if so, of what kind? (c) Is this a particular aspect of society the workings of which it is reasonable or even possible to isolate in order to examine the 'how' questions? In complex societies the critics of 'community studies' answer 'no' to this last question. If they are right, questions (a) and (b) become irrelevant. Question (c) must therefore be the starting point. It is doubtful whether the concept 'community' refers to a useful abstraction. Certainly confusion continues to reign over the uses of the term community, a confusion which has been added to rather than resolved by Kdinig's recently translated work.' The logic of Kdnig's argument supports the view that as a concept 'community' is not useful for serious sociological analysis. Yet in his conclusion