Statistical Analysis Packages
Hans-Jurgen Andre, Universitt zu Kln, Kln, Germany
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Abstract
This article outlines the main features of present-day statistical software by reviewing its development from the (late) 1950s to
the present time. It puts a focus on the management and analysis of social science data. The article concludes with
a discussion of present-day software alternatives for social scientists.
Introduction
Since World War II, social sciences have become increasingly
empirical. This does not mean that before World War II social
sciences were only doing theories without any links to real
world problems or that there were no empirical investigations
of real world phenomena. But it is certainly true that empirical
studies analyzing quantitative data were clearly outnumbered;
and the few that existed were using a methodology that was
much less statistically sophisticated than the quantitative
analyses that are published nowadays in top social sciences
journals. The main reason for this development is obvious: It is
the availability of user-friendly software that allows social
scientists to read, manipulate, and analyze complex data with
a few keystrokes or some simple commands, even if they are no
specialists in statistics or information science. And it is also true
that the most important changes in statistics in the last 50 years
are driven by technology. More specically, by the develop-
ment and universal availability of fast computers and of devices
to collect and store ever-increasing amounts of data (De
Leeuw, 2011; emphasis added).
Quantitative data can be analyzed with all kinds of tools:
with paper and pencil, pocket calculators, ofce software,
and specialized statistical software. This article focuses on
statistical software and not on software that can also be used
for statistics (software for statistics; e.g., a spreadsheet
program). It does so by putting a special emphasis on social
science data. While a statistical program simply needs a rect-
angular matrix of numbers to do its calculations, social
science data have a least two characteristics that need special
attention. First, the numbers are often not the result of
quantitative measurement, they rather indicate (code)
certain characteristics of the unit of analysis (e.g., being
a male or female respondent). Second, sometimes, for certain
units, no number is available, either because the corre-
sponding variable does not apply to that unit (e.g., the type
of job for a respondent that is unemployed) or because the
corresponding information is not available (e.g., when an
employed respondent refused to provide information about
his job). As a consequence, statistical software specically
designed for social science data must provide possibilities to
complement the data matrix with additional information
about the codes (labels) and missing data. Moreover, statis-
tical computations have to control for the missing informa-
tion. Finally, but this applies to all kinds of quantitative data,
data sets often require a great deal of manipulation before
they are ready for analysis. Therefore, any statistical software
376 International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 23
has to include some functionality for data manipulation,
sometimes nearly as complex as a data bank software that
allows to index, select, append, and merge all kinds of data
sets. One should also note that nowadays statistical software
is not conned to the analysis of numbers. The data may also
include text and thus statistical software also provides (often
limited) possibilities for text analysis.
Due to the rapidly changing software market, it is not
possible (and not useful) to give a complete overview of all
available statistical software. Instead, this article outlines the
main features of present-day statistical software by reviewing its
development from the (late) 1950s to the present time (Section
A Brief History of Statistical Analysis Packages). The article
concludes with a discussion of our present-day alternatives
(Section What Choices Do We Have Today?).
A Brief History of Statistical Analysis Packages
The following historical sketch describes the development
of statistical analysis packages in three steps that roughly
summarize the innovations of the 1960s/1970s, the 1980s, and
the 1990s. To understand the historical legacy of the rst
packages (and the innovations of their followers), we start with
a rsum of the tools that were available to social scientists
before the advent of statistical analysis packages.
The following historical sketch is closely linked to the
development of information technology. From the very begin-
ning, statistical applications were determined by the amount of
computation necessary to draw conclusions from the data. In
the early times of modern statistics computing time was clearly
a restriction. Salsburg (2002) estimated that Sir Ronald Fishers
computations for one table in his Studies in Crop Variation. I
took about 185 h on his mechanical desktop calculator.
Nowadays, with rst the electronic (mainframe) computer and
then the personal (micro) computer, computing time is
increasingly less of an obstacle. Moreover, the development of
programing tools and interfaces made this hardware more and
more user-friendly. In addition, the renement of graphical
interfaces has revolutionized the display and exploration of
data.
The Time Before Statistical Analysis Packages
Before the advent of statistical software on electronic com-
puters social scientists had to live with mechanical computers
and tabulating machines. Larger data sets that could not be
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.03023-3

handled manually had to be transferred on cards using
specialized coding systems that represented the information in
digital form by the presence or absence of holes in predened
positions. These punch cards are also called Hollerith or IBM
cards, because Herman Hollerith invented both the storage
medium and the processing technology (tabulating machines)
to analyze the stored information. He founded the Tabulating
Machine Company, which was one of four companies that
merged to form Computing Tabulating Recording Company,
later renamed IBM. The Eleventh United States census in 1890
was the rst census to use this technology. From then on, until
the 1950s, this technology was used in all industrialized
countries to process business, government, and scientic data.
In the 1950s, magnetic tapes and new electronic input devices
were introduced to store mass data. However, not till the
1960s, the punch card technology was gradually replaced by
magnetic tapes as more capable electronic computers became
available.
The early times of (quantitative) social research were
dominated by punch cards and tabulating machines. Since the
punch card provided only 80 columns to store information, all
kinds of coding systems were invented to store as much as
possible information on one card. If one card did not sufce for
the data of one unit of analysis, one had to use several cards for
each unit, but then also to make sure that the whole card deck
with all the information for the entire sample remained in
correct order. Biographies and obituaries of older social scien-
tists are full of anecdotes about how they fought with tabu-
lating machines, multiple punch systems, and disordered card
decks that fell down on the oor. It was not before the advent
of the transistor based (so-called second generation) electronic
computer in the 1960s (e.g., the IBM 7090), that some larger
pieces of software developed that allowed nonspecialists to
manage and analyze social science data.
One was the DATATEXT package (Armor and Couch, 1972)
developed at the end of the 1960s in Harvard, the other was
a package of statistical routines for biomedical research (BMD),
which was developed at the end of the 1950s at the University
of California in Los Angeles (Dixon and University of
California, 1967). (For better readability, in this article all
package names are written in capital letters.) Both were still
carrying the footprints of the punch card times. DATATEXT
provided, besides statistics, all kinds of routines to cope with
messy card decks and multiple punch systems. BMD was
simply a collection of programs; each one for a specic statis-
tical method (e.g., analysis of variance), but all using the same
command language and inputoutput system that expected the
data to be prepared in advance in a rectangular data matrix.
Program commands had to be written on punch cards using
certain columns for command names and other columns for
the command parameters. While DATATEXT used command
keywords, BMD was controlled entirely by numbers.
The exclusive mode of processing and analyzing data was
the so-called batch mode. Program commands were written on
punched cards and, together with a card deck of data, were
input into the computer. Depending on the power of the
computer and the number of other active batch jobs on
the computer, it took some time (sometimes even days)
until the user would see an output of the program results. Very
often, the output only showed an error message, because the
Statistical Analysis Packages 377
user misspelled a command or did not follow the xed input
scheme for the commands. Then the whole process had to be
repeated again, often several times until all errors were elimi-
nated. At these times, the statistical analyses were simple
(compared to nowadays level of sophistication), but the
process was very time consuming and not all social scientists
(especially outside the US) had access to electronic computers.
Not surprisingly, only a small and selective group of social
scientists used this technology.
The Time of the Mainframes
The explosion in the use of computers began with the third
generation of electronic computers using integrated circuits or
microchips. The IBM System 360, rst shipped in 1965, is an
example of such a third generation computer. These were still
large (mainframe) computers, both in terms of size and prize.
Hence, only larger organizations could afford them. In most
cases, they were part of a computing center that offered
computer time as well as input and output devices to a larger
group of users. Input devices could still be card readers, but
increasingly became computer terminals equipped with
a keyboard and a screen. In principle, this allowed some kind of
interaction between the user and the computer or its software.
Several users could work concurrently with the computer, as
operating systems included routines to share computing
resources between users (so-called time-sharing systems).
This new generation of electronic computers was very
consequential for all statistical analysis packages that existed so
far. Designed for second generation computers and their
operating systems, they were simply incompatible and could
not be used anymore. As a collection of single statistical
programs, BMD easily made the transition and, equipped with
a new name: BMDP, used keywords (and not numbers) for the
commands (University of California and Dixon, 1975).
However, BMDPs target group were health scientists. Social
scientists missed an alternative to DATATEXT, whose transition
to the new generation of electronic computers came too late.
At that point, a new software, the Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS), had already started its success (Nie et al.,
1970). It was developed around 1968 by social scientists at the
University of Chicago and its fast diffusion in the market
showed that its designers had built a product that satised the
needs of its target group, the social scientists. One of the
reasons for its success story was the program manual, which
besides describing the commands provided applied intro-
ductions into all statistical techniques; and these introductions
were easy to read even for those without a comprehensive
statistical education (however, at the cost of not documenting
the algorithms used for the statistical techniques). Wellman
(1998) considered it one of sociologys most inuential books
because it allowed ordinary researchers to do their own
statistical analyses. Another reason for the success of SPSS was
its availability on different computers and operating systems.
In the 1970s, SPSS dominated as the tool for social science data
analysis, while BMDP remained a specialist tool for the
statisticians.
Although written for a new generation of computers, both
packages still had features that reminded of the punch card era.
A prominent example is that SPSS expected parameters for its
378 Statistical Analysis Packages
commands to start exactly in the 16th column of the command
line. Although, as mentioned, usermachine interaction was
possible, BMDP and SPSS expected a batch of commands (a
program), which then would be executed without interven-
tion by the user. The way designers of statistical analysis
packages thought about their users at that time was still not
much different from the former batch mode times. When
intervention was not possible, and when program output was
mostly provided by line printers, possibly in a distant
computing center with quite some turnaround time, users
chose the safe way of producing results. They rather asked for
everything (.ALL BY ALL, STATISTICS ALL), instead of
asking for the results that were important. Moreover, most of
the data management functions of DATATEXT were lost. BMDP
as well as SPSS expected a rectangular matrix and the user had
to use the supplied data generation commands for data
management and cleaning.
All in all, statistical analysis packages introduced with the
third generation of electronic computers were characterized, on
the one hand, by providing easy access to the statistical tools of
data analysis, but also, on the other hand, by the absence of any
tools for data management. Moreover, they did not use the
potential for user intervention and processed the commands in
batch mode. Finally, a more technical point: The typical storage
medium of that time was the magnetic tape, which could only
be read and written sequentially. Random access memory was
scarce and mostly processed sequentially (as if it would be
a magnetic tape). Certainly, sequential storage media are
a severe restriction for complex data bank systems. Neverthe-
less, the data management gap was lled in the second half of
the 1970s by two software products: SIR/DBMS and SAS.
The mnemonic SIR stands for a data bank management
system (Robinson et al., 1980) that was quite popular in the
social sciences because it provided, on the one side, simple
commands to manage a relational data bank and, on the other
hand, the ability to output the contents of this data bank to any
kind of statistical analysis package. For example, the German
Socio-Economic Panel Study, a renowned panel study of the
German resident population was managed for quite a while
with SIR/DBMS. However, as more and more statistical analysis
packages included the most important data management
procedures into their functionality, SIR/DBMS more or less
became a niche product.
SAS was developed almost as the same time as SPSS by
computational statisticians at North Carolina State University
(SAS Institute, 2013). While at the beginning a statistical soft-
ware for large agricultural data sets, it developed into
a comprehensive statistical package with often more function-
ality than its competitors and with a strong emphasis on
handling large and complex data. For a long time, it was
available only on IBM mainframes, which clearly restricted its
diffusion. Later on, when it was available on all kinds of
machines it became quite popular and a serious competitor for
SPSS. In 1976, the inventors of SAS formed the SAS Institute
Inc. and increasingly marketed SAS as a high-end software
product mostly targeted at researchers in private business. The
accompanying price policy made SAS difcult to afford for
researchers in publicly funded academic organizations and
hence restricted its popularity in this part of the market for
statistical software.
All in all, the most important statistical software packages
during the era of the mainframes were (in alphabetical order)
BMDP, SAS, and SPSS. According to De Leeuw, the three
competitors differed mainly in the type of clients they were
targeting. And of course health scientists, social scientists, and
business clients all needed the standard repertoire of statistical
techniques, but in addition some more specialized methods
important in their eld. Thus the packages diverged somewhat,
although their basic components were very much the same
(De Leeuw, 2011). This does not mean that no other statistical
analysis packages were available. On the contrary, important
centers of statistics or survey research and individual
researchers developed similar systems: for example, to name
just a few, MINITAB from Penn State, OSIRIS from the Institute
for Social Research at the University of Michigan, P-STAT from
Princeton, GENSTAT from Rothamsted Experimental Station,
or ALMO developed by Kurt Holm.
Some of these other packages also introduced important
innovations to the design of statistical software. GLIM, for
example, was notable for encouraging an interactive, iterative
approach to statistical modeling, besides providing a unied
framework for tting a wide range of generalized linear models
(the GLIM syntax could be summarized on two (!) sheets of
paper). It also allowed users to dene their own macros and
hence, provided an open programing environment compared
to the closed shops of SPSS and its competitors. SYSTAT, to
name another example, was a statistical analysis package that
put a special emphasis on statistical graphics.
The Advent of the Microcomputer
Indeed, by the end of the mainframe era, the terrain was
prepared for social scientists to do statistical analyses them-
selves. The software was there, its use was increasingly included
in university teaching, and even the computers came a bit closer
to the users with so-called mini computers such as Digital
Equipments Vax or HewlettPackards HP3000 that provided
computer resources to smaller workgroups. Yet, it was IBMs
personal (micro) computer that really democratized the use of
statistical analysis packages. Indeed, with a PC on ones desk,
everybody could manage and analyze large amounts of data.
Besides bringing (rapidly increasing) storage and computing
resources to the individual researcher, the main innovation of
this fourth generation of computers was its user interface. From
the very beginning, the user had total control on what was
going on in his computer. But quite soon, operating systems for
microcomputers provided graphical user interfaces (GUIs) with
windows, icons, menus, and pointers that made usermachine
interaction much easier.
All major statistical analysis packages made the transition to
this new world of personal computing. Commands could be
written and executed in a command window or chosen from
a menu, and the results were shown in a separate output
window that could be copied and pasted into other software
(e.g., in word processors for report writing). From now on,
statistical analysis packages could be used interactively.
Commands and their results could be easily tested and revised,
if the results did not match the research interests of the user.
Commands need not to be remembered or taken from an
accompanying printed manual, because the packages included

help menus, and manuals were stored electronically with the
program. Nevertheless, for replicating the analysis and for
computer-intensive tasks, the nal commands had to be stored
in a syntax le that could be executed again in a batch-mode-
like fashion; a small reminiscence of the good old times, but
useful and necessary. What also remained from the mainframe
time was the massive output. Statistical analysis packages
transferred from the mainframe era were still showing all
numbers that ever could be of interest. Obviously, the inter-
jection of GLIM was not heard to show only those numbers
that the user needs for making the next decision.
During the microcomputer era we also observed a second
generation of statistical software that made use of the new
technologies and did not have the baggage of the mainframe
era. Some of them made heavy use of the new graphical
capabilities and emphasized visualization and exploratory data
analysis. JMP, a computer program developed in the 1980s by
the JMP business unit of SAS Institute, was such an example. It
was created to take advantage of the GUI introduced by Apples
Macintosh, but nowadays is available also for other operating
systems. The most prominent feature of JMP is its ability to
really look at multivariate data and to screen the data from
different perspectives.
STATA is another example of second generation statistical
software. It was created in 1985 by the UCLA graduate William
Gould together with his colleagues at Computing Resource
Center, a private company, which in 1993 moved to Texas and
now is named StataCorp LP (Cox, 2005). STATA is also
a general-purpose statistical analysis package and at rst sight,
looks very similar to its relatives from the rst generation
(BMDP, SAS, and SPSS). It also had a command line interface,
and did not get a GUI until 2003. However, from the start, it
emphasized computation speed, extensibility, and user-
contributed code. Computation speed is of utmost impor-
tance, if one wants to support the interactive use of the
program. To this end, STATA is reading and writing all the data
into the (fast) computer memory, while its relatives read and
write the data (often sequentially) from slower memory
devices. Within STATA one can also write macros and programs
and in doing so, extend the program functionality to ones own
needs. Users can publish their programs on the Internet or on
Statacorps servers. STATA itself makes heavy use of the
Internet, both to update the program, but also to download
data and user code. More than its relatives (perhaps with the
exception of SAS) it tries to tie in its users. One could even
speak of the STATA community. It organizes user conferences,
has a book series and a peer-reviewed journal, provides an e-
mail Listserver for user discussions, and the very informative
program documentation, both in terms of applications and
technicalities, is available with the program and online.
Nowadays, STATA is very popular in economics, sociology, and
political science, with a strong focus in academia. It is especially
attractive for its computing speed, extendibility, and prize.
From Statistical Program Packages to Statistical Analysis
Languages
In the early 1990s, another type rather than a new generation of
statistical software came into play. These were not prepro-
grammed analysis packages, but rather programing languages
Statistical Analysis Packages 379
with a strong focus on statistical analysis. All of them have the S
language as common ancestor, which starting from 1975
grew out of Bell laboratories; hence, a rather old develop-
ment and not a new generation (Chambers, 2008: pp. 475
478). According to De Leeuw, a statistician, the statistical
techniques [.] were considerably more up-to-date than tech-
niques typically found in SPSS or SAS (De Leeuw, 2011: p. 5).
But it remained a tool for the specialists, although it was freely
available for some time to academic institutions. Also its
commercial version S-PLUS hardly diffused into the wider
circle of applied researchers.
The followers of S in the 1990s were LISP-STAT and R. Both
languages are open source products and available on the
personal computer, which explains at least in the case of R
their popularity in and outside the community of statisticians.
LISP-STAT was developed by Tierney (2009) and provided
statistical tools embedded in a Lisp interpreter (Lisp is
a programing language that is often used in articial intelli-
gence research). Using a (general) programing language as the
environment provides lots of opportunities for extending
LISP-STAT. According to the Web site, it puts an emphasis on
providing a framework for exploring the use of dynamic
graphical methods. But LISP-STATs development ceased by
the end of the twentieth century.
R was written as an alternative implementation of the S
language (Ihaka and Gentleman, 1996). Due to its extendibility
by user-written programs and easy availability as an open
source product, its dispersion in the market has increased
dramatically in recent years. De Leeuw says: R is many things
to many people: a rapid prototyping environment for statistical
techniques, a vehicle for computational statistics, an environ-
ment for routine statistical analysis, and a basis for teaching
statistics at all levels. Or, going back to the origins of S,
a convenient interpreter to wrap existing compiled code
(De Leeuw, 2011: p. 6). But the extendibility is also a problem.
For example, it is quite possible that several user programs
exist, which address the same problem. Which one to choose?
Sometimes the documentation for this user-written code is
insufcient and who tests whether the programing is reliable
and efcient? If social scientists want to have the same basic
functionality as their old statistical analysis packages, i.e.,
labeling variables and values, coding missing data, etc., they
have to download several user-written programs to their base R
installation. Which the most useful ones are, can certainly be
found somewhere in the Internet. But how does the applied
social researcher nd this information, if it is not in textbooks
on R, which by the way are mostly written by statisticians and
for their audience.
What Choices Do We Have Today?
Without the innovations of information technology, the anal-
ysis of social science data would not have come so far. With the
help of the computer, we collect and store data in virtually
unlimited amounts; and it provides us with the computation
power to do all kinds of sophisticated statistical analyses. For
example, maximum likelihood as a method of estimation has
been known for centuries, but it needed the electronic computer
to apply it to real-world data. Moreover, classical parametric
380 Statistical Analysis Packages
procedures have been supplemented with computer-intensive,
nonparametric methods such as resampling to compute stan-
dard errors and condence intervals. Bayesian statistics have
become popular in recent years due to the availability of Markov
chain Monte Carlo methods, which allow sampling from
probability distributions, which is critical in Bayesian Statistics.
Finally, the availability of computing power and GUIs has made
the dream of really looking at data come true.
Besides the development of the hardware, the Internet of
computers worldwide has revolutionized the acquisition,
storage, and access to social science data. Whereas the classical
statistical problem was to make the most out of limited data,
today the challenge is to process large data samples. Only with
the power of present-day computers, social scientists have all
the means to analyze these vast amounts of information.
With respect to software, our historical account has shown
the alternatives that are available to social scientists today.
Basically, there are three: (1) general-purpose programs like
SPSS, SAS, or STATA (BMDP has become a niche product), (2)
statistical analysis languages, most prominently R, or (3) other
software that can also be used for statistics. As Brian Ripley,
Professor of Applied Statistics at the University of Oxford, once
said at a conference of the Royal Statistical Society: Lets not
kid ourselves: the most widely used piece of software for
statistics is Excel (Ripley, 2002). Naturally, statistical add-ons
exist also for this third alternative (e.g., ANALYZE-IT, NUMXL,
or SIGMAXL). Besides these main alternatives, there are lots of
other programs often designed for specic purposes; e.g.,
MPLUS for structural equation modeling, HLM for multilevel
regression, and many others. Wikipedia is an excellent infor-
mation source for all kinds of software and provides an up-to-
date list and comparison of statistical packages. The Journal of
Statistical Software, according to its Web site, publishes arti-
cles, book reviews, code snippets, and software reviews on the
subject of statistical software and algorithms. Software reviews
can also be found in major statistical journals.
This bulk of software and alternatives has pros and cons.
One of the advantages is that users can compare. This does not
only mean looking for the best alternative, it also implies that
users can test the reliability of the available software. In most
cases, social scientists will not have the expertise to check the
accuracy of the underlying algorithms, but if alternative soft-
ware does not reproduce the results of their favorite software,
then possibly something is wrong and they should consult an
expert. For example, regular tests of statistical software show
that numerical accuracy cannot be taken for granted (see, e.g.,
Keeling and Pavur, 2007). One of the disadvantages is, of
course, that the uninformed user is easily lost. This is especially
true for open source products, as the example of R shows (see
the discussion above). This does not mean that proprietary
products are without problems, but with such a contested
market for statistical software every commercial provider of
statistical software has a high interest in providing a reliable
product (naturally, the incentive is lower for providers of
software that is not designed for statistics in the rst place).
Our historical review has shown the rise and fall of various
software products. As a nal point, this raises the question of
what makes a product successful in an obviously very
dynamic market with signicant competitors, some of them
even providing their products for free. One precondition is, of
course, being at the forefront of data management and data
analysis. A second condition is user friendliness, which does
not necessarily mean simplicity. Users accept that data anal-
ysis may be a complicated matter and therefore, will accept
some complexity, but the easier this complexity is to under-
stand through the handling of the program, the more user-
friendly the software is. Third, having a clear and solvent
target group seems to be a precondition for commercial
success. SAS, focusing primarily on private business, is
a typical example of this strategy (SPSS, now owned by IBM,
seems to go in the same direction of focusing on users in
private business). Academia, on the other hand, is an unreli-
able and unfaithful clientele. First, they know everything
better and try to do it themselves. Second, academia,
compared to private business, is rather poor. Hence, if a soft-
ware provider is not able to tie in its users or has something to
sell that others do not supply, it is quite probable that the
software will not survive.
See also: Data Bases and Statistical Systems: Applied Social
Research; Empirical Social Research, History of; Quantication
in the History of the Social Sciences.
Bibliography
Armor, D.J., Couch, A.S., 1972. Data-Text Primer: An Introduction to Computerized
Social Data Analysis. Free Press, New York.
Chambers, J.M., 2008. Software for Data Analysis: Programming with R. Springer-
Verlag, New York.
Cox, N.J., 2005. A brief history of stata on its 20th anniversary. The Stata Journal 5
(1), 218.
De Leeuw, J., 2011. Statistical software overview. In: Lovric, M. (Ed.), International
Encyclopedia of Statistical Science. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 14701473.
Dixon, W.J., University of California, 1967. BMD: Biomedical Computer Programs.
University of California, Los Angeles. Health Sciences Computing Facility.
Ihaka, R., Gentleman, R., 1996. R: a language for data analysis and graphics. Journal
of Computational and Graphical Statistics 5 (3), 299314.
Keeling, K.B., Pavur, R.J., 2007. A comparative study of the reliability of nine
statistical software packages. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 51 (8),
38113831.
Nie, N.H., Bent, D.H., Hull, C.H., 1970. SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Ripley, B.D., 2002. Statistical Methods Need Software: A View of Statistical
Computing. Presentation at the conference of the Royal Statistical Society, Ply-
mouth, 36 September 2002. Retrieved 7.10.13 from: http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/
ripley/RSS2002.pdf.
Robinson, B.N., Anderson, G.D., Cohen, E., Gazdzik, W.F., 1980. SIR Scientic
Information Retrieval. Users Manual, second ed. SIR INC, Evanston, IL.
Salsburg, D., 2002. The Lady Tasting Tea: How Statistics Revolutionized Science in the
Twentieth Century. Henry Holt and Company.
SAS Institute, 2013. SAS Company History. Retrieved 4.10.13 from: http://www.sas.
com/company/about/history.html.
Tierney, L., 2009. LISP-STAT: An Object-Oriented Environment for Statistical
Computing and Dynamic Graphics. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
University of California, Dixon, W.J., 1975. BMDP: Biomedical Computer Programs.
University of California Press, Los Angeles.
Wellman, B., 1998. Doing it ourselves. In: Clawson, D. (Ed.), Required Reading:
Sociologys Most Inuential Books. University of Massachusetts Press, MA,
pp. 7178.