Search

The authors describe the image of a silhouette of William Edward Burghardt Du Bois which was featured in the cover of the journal. They discuss the reasons that Du Bois's image is a meaningful choice, their deep appreciation for Du Bois's approach to social analysis, and information on a journal's paper and what happens when one submits a paper to the journal.

This paper argues that the efficiency of the price-setting process in the stock market is contingent on the coherence of a stock's position in the industry-based classificatory structure that guides valuation. While this structure helps investors interpret ambiguous economic news, it is imperfect because stocks vary in the extent to which they are coherently classified, as revealed by the stocks 'position in the network of coverage by securities analysts. The main hypotheses are that incoherent stocks are traded more often because such stocks are more likely to be subject to differences in the interpretive models used to understand material information; and that both volume and volatility are higher for incoherent stocks because convergence on a common interpretation relies more heavily on self-recursive market dynamics. These hypotheses are validated via analyses of market activity in the aftermath of first-quarter earnings announcements for U.S.- based firms from 1995 to 2001. The results help reorient research away from debates as to whether financial-market activity is excessive and toward the mechanisms that underlie such activity. More generally the approach advanced in this paper illustrates how structural sociology may illuminate the structural bounds on market efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Networks of citations among the papers on a research topic reflect the structure of scholarship on that topic. Reference-network data for research areas from several disciplines show substantial variation in the structure of scholarship, ranging from the frequent and disproportionate citation of recent work to the frequent and disproportionate citation of foundational documents. The variation is inconsistent with the pattern expected of a simple physical sciences-behavioral sciences-humanities dimension. Citation-context analyses of references in the networks of various fields suggest that variation in network structure is due in part to differences in why authors cite their colleagues' work: Disproportionate citation of foundational documents occurs when authors cite papers as examples of perspectives or general approaches rather than as support for specific points. Differences in use patterns for citations can help us understand other differences among scholarly communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many concepts in sociology are difficult or impossible to objectively measure. This limitation forces a reliance on subjective measures that typically contain both systematic and random measurement errors. Systematic errors, or "biases," are the focus of this paper Campbell and Fiske's (1959) multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) research design is the best known social scientific procedure for uncovering systematic errors, but the data requirements for classical MTMM designs are too demanding for many areas of sociology in which secondary data are the norm. We show that the benefits of the MTMM design are available under more relaxed conditions. In addition, we illustrate how researchers can examine the determinants of systematic errors and gain insights into the potential for confounding or spurious effects caused by systematic errors. We demonstrate the usefulness of these methods using the subjective measures of liberal democracy used in several recent ASR papers and provide additional examples, including measures of the reputational quality of graduate programs and job evaluations for comparable-worth investigations. We conclude that sociologists can do far more to understand the systematic error present in their subjective variables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper unifies two strands of theoretical method in sociology. On the one hand, the structuralist or network program of research involves the fundamental rule that basic data and analytic procedures of sociology must focus on social relations. This leads to theories about structural stability or change, for example, although the network approach generally has been stronger on technique than on explanatory theory. An interest in theoretical explanation is the basis of the second theoretical method, which is drawn from the expectation states theoretical research program: namely, the idea of a dynamic co-causal process involving an unobservable relational construct termed an expectation state and an observable form of social behavior. The paper outlines the basic ideas of each of these two theoretical methods. It then proposes a new theoretical method which synthesizes the two and whose function is to provide a procedure for constructing explanatory models of social structural stability and change. This new method is termed "E-state structuralism." An extended example is provided of how the method is used to construct a theory, first presenting the theory in axiomatic form and then empirically testing it. The subject matter of the theory is the over-time transformation in the structure of dominance relations among a small group of animals. The paper concludes with a review of how the generic method was exemplified in the particular theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using data from a national survey of public attitudes toward homeless people, this paper evaluates the applicability of the contact hypothesis to in-group/out-group relations that fail to meet the optimal conditions specified in the contact literature. Past efforts are extended by (1) moving beyond face-to-face encounters to consider multiple types of in- group exposure to a highly stigmatized out-group, (2) examining a variety of attitudinal outcomes, and (3) incorporating community context as a possible antecedent of such outcomes. Even after taking selection and social desirability processes into account, all types of exposure are found to affect public attitudes in the predicted (favorable) direction. Moreover, the size of the local homeless population-our primary measure of context-shapes opportunities for most forms of exposure and thus influences attitudes indirectly. These findings suggest that the scope of the contact hypothesis needs to be widened rather than narrowed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In medical consultations, court examination, and other such institutional interactions, claims, reports, and accounts may be questioned or challenged by showing that they are insufficiently precise. So too, in ordinary interaction participants may apply standards of relevant precision. In conversation, speakers commonly make extreme, hyperbolic, or exaggerated claims in the service of some local interactional task or contingency (e.g., to strengthen or dramatize a claim). Although there is considerable tolerance in conversation for extreme or hyperbolic claims (as in, "I have no money," "everybody has to lie"), some such claims are treated as having been overstated, and the speaker subsequently modifies them to be more precise, and to avoid misunderstanding. This paper examines how some claims are revealed as having been overstated, as exaggerations, and how they are repaired. The distinctive conversational practices identified here, through which exaggerations come to be revised, contribute to the sociological understanding of how the maintenance of intersubjectivity is a constant and central concern in social life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the ethnographic technique of the focused revisit -- rare in sociology but common in anthropology -- when an ethnographer returns to the site of a previous study. Discrepancies between earlier and later accounts can be attributed to differences in: (1) the relation of observer to participant, (2) theory brought to the field by the ethnographer, (3) internal processes within the field site itself, or (4) forces external to the field site. Focused revisits tend to settle on one or another of these four explanations, giving rise to four types of focused revisits. Using examples, the limits of each type of focused revisit are explored with a view to developing a reflexive ethnography that combines all four approaches. The principles of the focused revisit are then extended to rolling, punctuated, heuristic, archeological, and valedictory revisits. In centering attention on ethnography-as-revisit sociologists directly confront the dilemmas of participating in the world they study -- a world that undergoes (real) historical change that can only be grasped using a (constructed) theoretical lens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How does one identify a phenomenon as radically new or "unprecedented"? Do, in fact, "unprecedented" phenomena exist at all, as presumably some degree of continuity marks every state of affairs? If however, the idea of continuity is taken too far, are we not at risk of domesticating a radical tendency by conceptually transmuting it into something that is already known? These questions are of pressing importance since September 11th, as commentators warn that America and its allies face radically new enemies in the guise of "rogue" states, movements, and terrorist organizations. Yet sociology has had to grapple with similar issues before. In the 1930s and 1940s, the consolidation of fascist and Nazi movements also taxed sociological understanding and competence to the maximum. This article describes aspects of American sociology's response to that earlier challenge, contrasting it with the approach of Hannah Arendt, who condemned the discipline for systematically failing to appreciate the uniqueness, enormity, and gravity of the events that assailed the epoch. Arendt's critique of sociological methods is followed by a case study--Theodore Abel's investigation into National Socialism--that lends some credence to her misgivings. The work of other sociologists of this period--notably, Talcott Parsons's--is also briefly considered. The concluding section of the paper examines the theoretical problems involved in seeking to conceptualize an "unprecedented" event (movement, institution). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article asserts that mainstream sociology, or more specifically the nonproblematic sociology found in introductory sociology textbooks treats gender, race and class in profoundly unequal ways. Inequalities of Race, Class and Gender are quantified in Introductory Sociology Textbooks. By the mid-1990s, sociology textbook authors were no longer de-emphasizing gender in comparison to race and class. Discussion of the role of socialization in relation to group differentiation is more common for gender and is discussed in more detail than for either class. While there is on average almost one page more of aggregate cross-societal text on class than on gender, the proportion of texts including a significant amount is identical for class and gender. Thus, the overriding impression about mainstream sociology conveyed by the F&H paper fails to capture the growing impact of feminist questions on research agendas in the field of social stratification in general as well as on introductory textbook authors.

This article comments on Sociology: Proscience or Antiscience, a position paper written by Randall Collins. Randall Collins' (1989) recent position paper seeks to defend sociology proper from disparate attacks questioning its status as a science. Interestingly, Collins's citations supporting the premise of external attack on sociology are actually quite limited. His single extensive example involves more the quest of sociobiologists to legitimate themselves through a general critique of all social science rather than a focused assault on sociology itself. Singled out specifically by Collins are approaches that deviate from his version of sociological theory, rather than from the scientific project of sociology per se. In Collins's discussion, Michael Foucault's complex ideas are homogenized and described by a nominalist label that has no basis in his work. Collins characterizes Foucault as a discourse theorist who reduces society to a text and social action to the field of discourse. Collins simply has displaced by Foucault's emphasis on the field of power. Collins reduces the complex work of important theorists to misleading and nominalist labels that compartmentalize and trivialize serious thought. Discourse analysis cannot replace the investigation of, and theorizing about, social action and societal structures. If the above comments are instructive, however, then there is a place for textual analysis when confronted by the obfuscating metatheoretical discussions and the biblical exegesis of the classics that passes for much of sociological theory today.

The sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) has challenged many of the "core" conceptions of theory and method that remain entrenched in sociology textbooks. In conjunction with recent developments in history and philosophy of science, sociologists of science speak of the disunity of science and describe the local-historical origins of particular scientific facts and laws. "Core" sociology textbooks devote no attention to the methodological implications of recent sociology of science. Elementary textbooks present upbeat versions of the discipline that emphasize sociology's scientific methodology; they describe sociological methods as implementations of a general research process designed along hypothetico-deductive lines. Viewed from the vantage point of SSK, such widely disseminated elementary versions of sociology promote an asociological conception of science. In this paper we suggest that the "epistemic flattening" accomplished by SSK's research on the natural sciences provides a valuable antidote to current anxieties about the coherence and scientific status of sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper offers a theory linking choice processes with the experience of transitory emotion and the development of enduring affective attachments to nested collectivities, i.e., subgroups within a larger group, organization, or society. According to the theory, persons become emotionally attached to groups that strengthen their generalized sense of control. The underlying propositions are that: (1) choice processes that foster a high sense of control produce positive emotion (happiness, pride, gratitude); (2) such positive emotion strengthens affective attachments to groups perceived as most responsible for the choice opportunity; and (3) such positive emotion strengthens attachments to proximal subgroups more than to larger, more encompassing collectivities. Complementary predictions obtain for lack of choice, negative emotion (sadness, shame, hostility), and the weakening of collective attachments. The theory explicates a subtle social process important to individual/group relations, and suggests conditions likely to produce behavior directed at the collective welfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Easterlin's cohort-size hypothesis suggests that crime rates fluctuate according to the relative size of the birth cohort. We examine the hypothesis using arrest statistics from the Uniform Crime Reports for the years 1953 through 1989. This paper extends an earlier ASR article (Steffensmeier et al. 1987) and tests three hypotheses derived from the Easterlin framework: (1) whether cohort size is positively related to age-period-specific crime rates, net of age and period effects; (2) whether the effect of cohort size is stronger for property crimes than for violent crimes; and (3) whether the effect of cohort size is stronger for young adults than for older adults or is consistently additive across the life course. Results using two different procedures to assess the cohort-size effect generally contradict the hypotheses, leading us to question the usefulness of cohort size as an explanation of periodicity in crime rates and possibly in other social phenomena as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simplistic either/or notions of "culture versus social structure" have impeded the development of a broader theoretical context from which to examine questions raised by the continuing debate on the "ghetto underclass." In this paper I present a framework that integrates social structural and cultural arguments. I hope elaboration of this framework can move social scientists beyond the narrow confines of the underclass debate in two ways: (1) by outlining empirical and theoretical issues that guide further research, and (2) by suggesting variables that have to be taken into account to arrive at a satisfactory explanation of one of the most important domestic problems in the last quarter of the twentieth century--the rise of social dislocations in inner-city ghettos.

This section presents a speech by Herbert J. Gans, president of the American Sociological Association (ASA), delivered at the annual meeting of the ASA in 1988. Sociology has established a presence in many kinds of policy analysis and is moving into large numbers of other practice areas, even if sociologists' ideas continue to be largely absent from U.S. political thinking. Too many people still dislike sociology or are not interested in it. Many sociologists find nothing wrong with this state of affairs. The author believes that these feelings are mistaken. Maintaining some relationship with the American public is part of sociologists as members of society and as recipients of its funds, public or private. This essay has three major parts. The first describes some of the research needed to analyze sociology's roles in the U.S. The second part discusses some ways in which sociologists can improve relations with the public. In the last part of the paper, the focus is sociology itself, offering some ideas on what sociologists can do better for themselves even as they do better by the public.

This paper investigates the direction and magnitude of the effects of personal, kinship, market, and contextual attributes of visa applicants on their desirability as immigrants to the United States, as judged by members of the professional staff of the U.S. Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy. Two classic sociological questions underlie this politically relevant topic: how do societies choose their members? and how do societies allocate scarce benefits? Using the factorial survey pioneered by P.H. Rossi, we obtained from the Commission staff, numerical ratings of the desirability as immigrants of fictitious visa applicants embodying the full range of potentially relevant characteristics discussed in the political arena. Although the ratings were obtained by a number-assignment technique believed to generate a continuous variable, we accommodate the variable's possible ordinality by performing all analyses twice- using both ordinary-least-squares techniques and maximum-likelihood ordered. response techniques. The results are unambiguous: although a lawful and coherent set of rules guides each respondent's ratings, leading to a personal point system for the selection of immigrants, no two staff members' point systems are alike, not even qualitatively. In the complex weave of agreements and disagreements, three conclusions emerge. First, there is unanimous support for granting preference to visa applicants who have a job offer or a United States-citizen sibling. Second, there is severe disagreement by applicant's region of origin. Third, there is a range of disagreement on other attributes, for example, on whether the United States should favor the immigration, ceteris paribus, of older versus younger applicants or of male versus female applicants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses the lack of theoretical work on young children in sociology by presenting an interpretive approach to childhood socialization. This approach extends traditional views of human development by demonstrating that socialization is a collective process that occurs in a social, rather than in a private, realm. To illustrate the interpretive approach, we present a multilayered analysis of two phases of a lengthy verbal routine (discussione) among Italian nursery school children. The analysis demonstrates how (1) the routine of discussione is. produced sociolinguistically; (2) the production of the routine builds on, and extends shared knowledge basic to peer culture; and (3) the children, in the course of producing the routine, attempt to deal with aspects of the world they do not fully grasp and, thereby, move closer toward appropriating certain elements of the adult culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many theories address the problem of how a social structure affects the experiences and behaviors of its members This paper offers a network-exchange theory to solve this problem. Previous research has shown that the nature and outcomes of negotiations among individual or corporate actors can be inferred from their network positions. The impact of this research has been limited because its theory does not enable the researcher to locate power positions in the networks. We offer a theory that is both consistent with all previously reported experimental research and is generalized to conditions not considered by other formulations. In addition to supporting derived hypotheses pertaining to network-based power, our experiments demonstrate, among other things, that certain unstable networks break down to form stable substructures and that some networks contain overlapping but autonomous domains of power and exchange. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper documents a recurring but often overlooked pattern in adult socialization and proposes the mechanism that produces this regularity in role assimilation. Three broad stages (Expectancy, Disillusionment and Reconciliation) produce a curvilinear pattern over time in the adoption of "ideal-typical" role attitudes, beliefs and values. The migration of individuals to and from urban areas and their medical care preferences provide a unique case for the illustration of two crucial, organizational elements of the socialization process: context and networks. Data from Taiwan (1970, N=618) indicate that for both in-migrants and out-migrants, preferences for western as opposed to indigenous medical care parallel proposed changes in initiate networks. The pattern is neither smooth nor unidimensional nor the same between contexts. Additional analyses that incorporate Granovetter's (1973) "strength of weak ties" idea are consistent with the network explanation. The concluding discussion focuses on factors that might influence the duration of and fluctuation between socialization stages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sociology faces a peculiar paradox: Every general sociological proposition is both true and false. On the one hand, one can easily find exceptions to most of the propositions which are advanced as genera! sociological principles. Yet, there are many instances in which genera! sociological principles are supported by empirical findings. As a consequence, it is not clear when some sociological principle is to be counted as false. This paper argues that a proper assessment of the state of sociological knowledge and the possibility of cumulative growth in sociology depends on resolving the true-false paradox. We argue that the paradox can be resolved if sociologists make the scope of their theories explicit. We offer a formulation of scope restrictions, demonstrate how the formulation resolves the true-false paradox, and illustrate the differences between the method proposed here and other strategies for making sociological theories conditional. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the author's views on American Sociological Review (ASR) policies and the philosophical assumptions that underlie them. Most "revise and resubmits" result from our judgment that the problems in the paper have at least a chance of being fixed. If the paper is "marginal" we generally think it is because the author didn't do something that would make the paper better, so we ask for a revision. My personal perception is that ASR is so much in need of interesting papers that we bend over backwards to "bring papers along" if they have a good idea and defensible empirical materials. The most common case, however, is that there are many issues some raised by one reviewer, others raised by a second, still others by the editor or a member of the editorial group. Some issues are clear, others more an expression of uneasiness. Usually, we send the revision of such a paper back to one or two "old" reviewers and also send it to one or two new reviewers. Our experience is that "old" reviewers tend to look at their notes to see if the author has responded.

This article narrates the author's comments on editing, reviewing and publishing articles in the American Sociological Review (ASR). Some people complained that the ASR had been unsympathetic to their kind of sociology and that a special issue was the only sure way to remedy the situation. So far, my own appraisal is that neither their diagnosis nor their proposed cure is appropriate. In both the previous and the current editorial regimes the Deputy Editors have been responsible for assigning all reviewers. The Deputy Editors have varied scholarly histories, preferences and prejudices. However, they generally make reviewer assignments and about which they are most familiar and about which they tend to be positive. In any case they are usually do desperate to find appropriate, skilled and conscientious reviewers that they do not have enough degrees of freedom to be able to choose individuals whose prejudices they know. Even if the review process were discriminatory I think that special issues would be a dangerous and costly remedy. The ASR should be a journal that publishes the best papers available regardless of topic or research style. It is important that readers know that when a paper is published in the ASR it is not because of politics or fashion but because a reasonable, fair and rigorous peer review process has selected it on the basis of quality.