The methods used when samples of journal articles are treated as the basis for measuring levels of quantification in national sociologies are examined. The data come from every identified example in English. It is found that operational definitions of 'quantitative' vary, while 'qualitative' work is characterised simply by the absence of sophisticated quantification, which is sometimes taken to imply quantitative incompetence rather than methodological choice. The articles used as data on the state of a whole national sociology are usually drawn from elite general journals in which many sociologists have never published, and ignore the authors' national backgrounds and publications elsewhere. It is concluded that there is a gap between concepts and operational definitions which it would be desirable to fill.