Generally speaking, there is little difference in the way researchers interpret or understand the concepts of social education and identification. In the case of William Roy and Caroline Percell, one can observe a convergence of views, which can be highlighted as leading principles for evaluating interactions in social environments. Moreover, there are some common opinions as well as some differences, which are based on the specifics of the research of each of the scientists and will be described below if possible.
The work of Caroline Hodges Percell practices a thoroughly scientific approach to all experimental social processes. It is hard to decline the importance of social theory and research, examples of which are given in the paper. Each of Purcell’s ideas suggests underlying patterns in all social theories. She distinguishes such theories as knowledge about groups of individuals, not in terms of percentages or probabilities (Persell 27). Sociology makes it possible to adequately assess the possibilities and chances of individuals for particular preferences and actions in certain situations. Accordingly, this science can formulate or predict people’s behavioural nuances quite convincingly, even in cases of uncertainty about people’s own goals and actions.
Furthermore, there is likewise a definition of the dependence of social formation on features of time and space. It is mostly Roy’s version, appealing to the philosophy of Descartes and citing the example of France at the time of Louis XIV and the social movements of that time (Roy 67). In addition, he argues for the importance of personal space and compares people’s dependence on this level of freedom with basic human needs. However, he does not deny the division of society into groups according to hierarchies in space, which he attributes to racial, gender or class divisions (Roy 71). There is no doubt that such a position has a right to life, although it deserves maximum challenge.
In the general format by which these sources are similar, there is the notion of space as a significant determinant of sociological factors. Roy argues that one’s place and location determine one’s social identity, behaviour, and belonging in the first place (Roy 73). Purcell is not far behind him, who considers the relationship between a person’s race and ethnicity and their potential position in society to be unambiguous, depending on their composition (Persell 35). Thus, even while paying attention to the same issue from different angles, researchers draw similar conclusions in the course of their analysis.
However, the main difference between the authors lies in the types of approaches to the question. Purcell prefers a scientific approach, designing studies and collecting relevant data. Her conclusions are based not only on her observations but likewise on masses of processed information. Much of this information is categorized, structured, and evaluated accordingly; some of the data are derived from experiments and have the highest priority and impressiveness.
Another author, on the other hand, prefers a historical approach to the direct process of observation or mathematical description of the problem. By examining the work of renowned psychologists, sociologists and philosophers, Roy reaches similar conclusions to Purcell concerning questions of social organization (Roy 73). Interestingly, this approach does not prevent William Roy from reaching similar conclusions on the other side of the question. There is no denying that both of these authors have a significant influence on the field and should be required in the study of the subject to improve understanding of it.
Works Cited
Persell, Caroline Hodges. Understanding Society: An Introduction to Sociology. Harpercollins College Division, 1990.
Roy, William G. Making Societies: The Historical Construction of Our World. Pine Forge Press, 2001.