The importance of being systematically surprisable: Comparative social simulation as experimental technique

We argue that computer simulation can serve as a functional equivalent for the experimental method in sociology, with respect to theory development. To this end we present accounts of experimentation and simulation by experimenting/simulating scientists and sociologists of science. From these analyses we conclude desirable features of a simulation method: generality, surprisability and power to separate. That means that it should be widely applicable, capable of surprising the researcher, and capable of separating surprising results that originate from sociological features of the model from those that stem from technical features. We demonstrate three methods that may provide these features: emergence, fixing points of reference, and comparative response testing. We develop the latter method in greater depth by discussing an exemplary simulation study.

[1]  D. Campbell,et al.  Evolving Methods for Enhancing Validity@@@Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science: Selected Papers , 1990 .

[2]  D. Meadows,et al.  The Limits to Growth , 1972 .

[3]  Thomas Malsch,et al.  Die Provokation der „Artificial Societies“ , 1997 .

[4]  Bruce Bueno de Mesquita,et al.  Forecasting Political Events: The Future of Hong Kong , 1985 .

[5]  Jacquelyn W. White Influence tactics as a function of gender, insult, and goal , 1988 .

[6]  J. Forrester Principles of systems : text and workbook, chapters 1 through 10 , 1968 .

[7]  James S. Coleman,et al.  Systems of Social Exchange , 1972 .

[8]  Peter Tyson,et al.  Artificial societies , 1997 .

[9]  Kathleen M. Carley Computational and mathematical organization theory: Perspective and directions , 1995, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[10]  I. Hacking,et al.  Representing and Intervening. , 1986 .

[11]  C. Snijders,et al.  Trust and Commitments , 1996 .

[12]  K. Popper,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery , 1960 .

[13]  Marjolein C. Achterkamp,et al.  Exchange and challenge in collective decision making , 1997 .

[14]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[15]  Leo P. Kadanoff,et al.  Singularities and Blowups , 1997 .

[16]  Allan Franklin,et al.  Experiment, right or wrong , 1990 .

[17]  Bruce Bueno de Mesquita,et al.  European Community Decision Making , 1994 .

[18]  E. J. Dean,et al.  Computational Physics--Fortran Version. , 1990 .

[19]  M.F.P. Rojer CAO-onderhandelingen: een voorspelbaar, logisch en rationeel proces? , 1996 .

[20]  Harold Dwight Lasswell,et al.  Politics : who gets what, when, how : with postscript (1958) , 1958 .

[21]  Andreas Flache,et al.  The double edge of networks , 1996 .

[22]  Frans Stokman,et al.  The Exchange Of Voting Positions: An Object-Oriented Model Of Policy Networks , 1994 .

[23]  H. M. Collins,et al.  The Place of the ‘Core-Set’ in Modern Science: Social Contingency with Methodological Propriety in Science , 1981, History of science; an annual review of literature, research and teaching.

[24]  Robert Axelrod Advancing the art of simulation in the social sciences , 1997 .