Search

Unethical behavior by journal authors is rare, but some referees of manuscripts shirk their duties. Referees have ethical responsibilities to review manuscripts promptly, to write constructive comments for authors, to be tactful in their comments, and to avoid sectarian bias. An ethical question to which there is no agreed-upon answer is what to do when asked to review a paper that one has already reviewed for another journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a hypothetical format, evidence is advanced to support the proposition that sociology is in a critical stage of its development. The argument presented is that sociology very soon must abandon, at least in large part, its traditional assumptions favoring antireductionism and purposeful (teleological) explanations for human social behavior to avoid losing all academic recognition as a science (or even pre-science)
Although it was rather clearly foreseen early in the last quarter of the 20th century that sociobiology would eventually absorb the scientific aspects of sociology and supplant it (Sade, 1975:263), the speed with which this occurred was remarkable. By the mid-1980s, the trends in this direction were commonly recognized, and by the end of the 20th century, essentially nothing remained of sociology within the academic community. This paper outlines in a historical context the factors responsible for this eventuality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In view of the revanchist ideology that often passes under the rubric of sociobiology, a perspective that insists on the learned nature of social behavior is welcome. Undoubtedly, a search for the causes and careers of human behavior is a legitimate enterprise in sociology, but in the context of Molm's paper, a different question must be raised regarding behaviorist sociology. The root criticism of behavioral sociology, it seems to me, is the one she attributes to symbolic interactionism. The view that human emit behavior, Molm contends, is not a mechanistic theory at all because operant behaviors are not automatically elicited by any prior stimulus, they simply occur not elicited by a stimulus. If something that is yet to happen is the cause of the behavior that is about to be emitted, then surely it is the anticipation of receiving the reinforcement that is causing the behavior. I am sure Molm is correct that the argument about behavioral sociology is really about behavioral sociology is really about the goals and aims of science.

Who votes in ASA elections? This article examines data on voter turnout from two recent presidential contests of the American Sociological Association in an analysis of the determinants of election participation. Extending the 1981 Ridgeway and Moore study of voting dynamics in the ASA, we hypothesize that intraorganizational networks and particular demographic characteristics link ASA members to the discipline in a manner analogous to the way such factors operate in the national electorate. On the basis of data compiled from 1985 and 1986 ASA election returns, we find that network factors are the most salient determinants of voting behavior. We conclude that those organizational ties that effectively link members, however directly or indirectly, to the larger Association are the most predictive of propensity to vote. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A growing number of sociologists who study the world of work are critical of the distinctions generally made between professions and other occupations. Such distinctions, it has been argued, are more sell-serving for the professions than they are descriptive of significant differences in various forms of work. The earliest and best statement of this problem was posed by Everett Hughes, who has always urged his students to examine distinctions between professions and occupations with a critical, sociological eye. Professions really argue for self-accountability as the primary and best check against any improper behavior. The argument states that professionals require independence from supervision in order to do their work properly. Professional work requires practitioners to make judgments under pressure and for unique cases. Under these circumstances standardization of tasks and judgments over whether or not a practitioner meets the standards is impractical.

Sociologists have begun to take their own behavior more seriously and the sociology of sociology has become a growth industry. C.W. Peek reports over 250 articles on the sociology of sociologists up to 1967 and production since that time has probably increased. Several books have appeared since then. Since it is impossible to draw a conclusion from what is obviously a process, only a final parable is necessary. What may be necessary for the future is a change in the disciplines central theological position. During the 1960s, sociologists were good Calvinists. Most interpreted the expansion as a clear sign of grace. In the 17th century, there was a reaction to the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election and irresistible grace when Jacobus Arminius suggested instead that man faced alternatives and was actually free to make choices. Instead of the grim determination of Calvin, he presented a theology of hope, even if grace was not guaranteed. It is that opportunity and those choices that sociologists face in the 1970s. They must be used effectively or else sociology may be remembered in the future as only later-day versions of the Gnostic or the Albigensian heresies.