ABSTRACT
Urbanization is a dynamic process. The student of the city necessarily studies social change. Analysts writing from vantage points all along the ideological, political, and theoretical spectrum show uncharacteristic consensus on one point—urbanization and societal development are irrevocably intertwined. Historians are viewed as chroniclers of particular idiographic events or sequences of events, while sociologists are thought to seek general nomothetic explanations of social change. Charles Tilly adroitly portrays this common image: The division of labor, then, resembles the division between the mycologist and the mushroom collector, between the critic and the translator, between the political analyst and city hall reporter, between brains and brawn. When most sociologists think of methodology and methodologists, they usually think of quantitative data and its collection, manipulation, and analysis. Indeed, the spectacular development of increasingly sophisticated techniques in statistical analysis is an outstanding achievement of North American social science. Timing of incorporation and type of colonization are also theoretical variables of considerable significance.
