Rebuttal to Barnes and Guinnane
本文回应巴恩斯和吉南的再反驳，指出其专业模型在概念和方法上存在缺陷，统计结果应谨慎对待，并呼吁采用新方法研究生育率变化与社会阶级的关系。
Barnes and Guinnane's ‘Rejoinder’ repeats their previous argument that the professional model of fertility decline produces statistical results which they see as impressive. They continue to ignore the evidence presented in part II of Fertility, class and gender , summarized in my reply to their original article, that the design of the model is both conceptually flawed and methodologically incoherent. It is reaffirmed that therefore its statistical results should be treated with all due scepticism in terms of their historical significance and capacity to inform us about the relationship between changing reproductive behaviour and the complexities of social class relations. Alternative approaches, liberated from the simplifying limitations of the professional model, are required to advance our understanding of the relationship between fertility change and social class.