Search

This article lists names of various books reviewed in the September 1, 1986 issue of the periodical "Canadian Journal of Sociology."

This section presents a list of books on sociology and social sciences.

This article presents a list of books received by the "Canadian Journal of Sociology" as of September 2004.

This section presents a bibliography of books on Canadian sociology.

A lists of books received for review consideration including "Lengthening the Arm of the Law: Enhancing Police Resources in the Twenty-First Century" by Julie Ayling, "Stat-Spotting: A Field Guide to Identifying Dubious Data" by Joel Best, and "From Rights to Needs: A History of Family Allowances in Canada, 1929-1992" by Raymond B. Blake.

The article presents a list of books related to the field of sociology, published in the March 1982 issue of "Canadian Journal of Sociology." Some of them are "Practice and Progress: British Sociology 1950-1980," edited by Philip Abrams, Rosemary Deem, Janet Finch, and Paul Rock, "Canadian Papers in Rural History," edited by Donald H. Akenson, "Methods of Social Research. Second edition," by Kenneth D. Bailey, "The Philosophy of Schooling," by Robin Barrow, "The Holocaust and the German Elite: Genocide and National Suicide in Germany," by Rainer C. Baum, "Sociology Reinterpreted: An Essay on Method and Vocation," by Peter L. Berger and Hansfried Keilner, "Inequality in an Age of Decline," by Paul Blumberg, "The Canadian Social Inheritance," by Jack J. Blyth, "The Logic of Social Action: An Introduction to Sociological Analysis," by Raymond Bouden, "The Question of Class Struggle: Social Foundations of Popular Radicalism during the Industrial Revolution," by Craig Calhoun and many others.

The article focuses on various books received by the June 1979 issue of the Canadian Journal of Sociology. Some of the books are: "The Survival of Domination Inferiorization and Everyday Life," by Barry D. Adam; "Canadian Papers in Rural History," edited by Donald H. Akenson; "Survey Design and Analysis: Current Issues," edited by Duane F. Alwin; "A Place on the Corner," by Elijah Anderson; "Work Attitudes and Labor Market Experience. Evidence From the National Longitudinal Surveys," by Paul J. Andrisani; "Politics and History," by Raymond Aron; "The Alternative in Eastern Europe," by Rudolf Bahro; "Sociologists, Economists and Democracy," by Brian Barry; "Hermeneutics and Social Science," by Zygmunt Bauman; "The Mad Genius Controversy," by George Becker; "Homosexuality: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women," by Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg; "Marriage and Family Interaction," by R.R. Bell; "Social Conflict and Mental Health Services," by Robert D. Borgman; "Socrates. The Original and Its Images," by Alan Blum; "Ecodynamics: A New Theory of Societal Evolution," by Kenneth E. Boulding; and "Sport. A Prison of Measured Time," by Jean-Marie Brohm.

The article presents a list of books received related to sociology. Some of the books include "Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach," by Ronald L. Akers; "Radical Social Work," by Roy Bailey and Mike Brake; "The Peoples Land: Eskimos and Whites in the Eastern Arctic," by Hugh Brody; "The Sociology of the Third World: Disparity and Involvement," by J.E. Goldthorpe; "Industrial Society: Structures, Roles and Relations," by Edward B. Harvey; "The Sociology of Language," by Thomas Luckmann; "Irish Settlements in eastern Canada," by John J. Mannon.

The article requests authors to contribute through their articles for the coming issue of 1985 of the journal "Canadian Journal of Sociology." This issue will entirely be devoted to the topic "The Politics of Social Research." The focus is the aftermath of social research, especially negative reactions to research from subjects, their representatives, or other interested parties.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The replication and extension of sociologist Wallace Clement's analysis of the overlap between the media and economic elites demonstrated the importance of specifying and refining methodology in order to insure more accurate results and thereby to improve theory development. Clement's analysis of the overlap between the media and economic elites demonstrated the importance of specifying and refining methodology in order to insure more accurate results and thereby to improve theory development. Clement reports on some variables for some complexes and on other variables for other complexes. For each complex, and for each individual within a complex, it would appear that he reported only those instances where there was direct or indirect overlap with economically dominant or other corporations, or where there was an indicator of upper-class background, ignoring those instances where there was not. Clement's means for determining which is the "main operating company" of a given media complex is methodologically problematic.

The paper indicates how a critical sociology could contribute to environmental impact assessment (EIA). It argues how sociologists must become involved in evaluating the EIA process itself. Topics examined include: how EIA excludes and frames social issues; why social science should precede natural science; the social construction of impact science; bias and the circulation of EIA consultants; and fairness when talking in public hearings. The author proposes an activist role for sociologists. Many EIA conventions described in this paper are examples of knowledge as a discursive source of power. Applied to EIA hearings, conversation analysis and discourse analysis could pry open conventions and suggest tactics for lay people, minorities and women to overcome obstacles, and make the hearing process more fair. The role for critical sociology in EIA that author has outlined is not neutral, or cloaked in claims to objectivity. It begins from the premise that knowledge is socially constructed.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This section discusses articles and issues which reflect the attempt to assess and evaluate important aspects of the publishing record in Canadian sociology during the last millennium as important reflections of the evolution of the discipline in Canada during the last century. In one of the classic documents of Canadian sociology, Everett Hughes suggested that sociology in this country should be framed by what he called the more-so principle, that is, what are the features of Canadian life from which we would learn more about as an aspect of society that we would not learn about as much elsewhere. He suggested that sociology in Canada had to be rooted in and must begin with its own societal context. Thus it can be concluded that as the societal context changes, Canadian sociology itself should reflect both the unique aspects of the society's character as well as the evolution of the society. The occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association provided a significant opportunity for sociologists in Canada to reflect on their organizational history and the practice of their craft in Canada. The results of this work is contained in an article by William K. Carroll, Linda Christensen-Ruffman, Raymond F. Currie, and Deborah Harrison.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Two central questions are explored in this paper. First, what are the essentially American elements of American interpretive sociology as an intellectual discipline or set of related disciplines and second, at what points has American interpretive sociology borrowed significant elements from European traditions to redirect and revitalize its basic paradigms. These questions are addressed by using an approach to the sociology of knowledge that assesses the dominant features of selected disciplinary paradigms and discourse styles with particular attention to periods of crisis or change. In its concern with meaning and consciousness, interpretive sociology has historically drawn upon European currents of thought. With recent developments in the sociology of everyday life and semiotic studies, interpretive sociology has taken on new dimensions.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" has generated a great deal of controversy in the philosophy of science, but its treatment in sociology has been rather different. Generally, Kuhn's analysis has been used as a framework to explain why social science is not like natural science with its developed "paradigms." Jeffrey C. Alexander's recent paper in this journal, "Paradigm revision and Parsonianism," follows a rather different strategy; it uses the development of thought among the followers and students of Talcott Parsons to argue that theoretical change, at least in social science, does not conform to Kuhn's model. Alexander's brief account of theory revision is very close indeed to the account which Kuhn gives of normal science and written in almost Kuhnian language. Alexander disagrees not with Kuhn's view of normal science but with a caricature of Kuhn's view of scientific revolutions extrapolated to all science. This critical comment will show that Alexander seriously distorts Kuhn's views both of the development of natural scientific theories and of the applicability of the natural science model to social science.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

When the notion that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada became the chief object of discord during the Meech Lake constitutional debate, sociologists were offered a golden opportunity to participate in shaping the evolving understandings that Canadians have of their country. But this opportunity was not grasped. This paper evaluates some of the discursive conditions that have produced the apparent indifference of Anglo-Canadian sociologists to this most crucial of sociological questions as it applies to their own country: what is a society? Of particular interest are the general underconceptualization in sociology of "society," and the conceptual confusion that links "society" to "nation," "state," and "country." Canada's political-economic autonomy relative to the United States is quite limited, and Canadian "sense of society" is vague and is challenged from within.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper raises doubts about the traditional justification of the autonomy of the sociological object in terms of the "discovery" of "society" as demarcated from the state. Against the tendency to homogenize social theory from an overly "Anglosaxon" or liberal image of its early history, it offers a triadic, "knowledge-geographical" tableau of interpretations of the social object-and-project, which aligns it more closely with political ideology, resisting any clear-cut delineations in state vs. society terms. In the threepartite space of emerging social science, the French and German-Italian branches stuck significantly closer to the political and staatswissenschaftliche tradition than the Anglosaxon branch, and exemplified not so much a rupture with as an innovatory continuation of "Aristotelian" political philosophy, extending and generalizing its scope of analysis from state sovereignty towards a more inclusive theory of the generation and distribution of social power. This approach introduces a new specification of the unity and diversity of the sociological object-and-project, which may be re-described as that of knowledgeable organization: an appelation which at once defines the classical promise and the classical hubris of the sociological tradition in its three intellectual-geographical zones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this article the author replies back to the writer Emily M. Nett's critical comment on "The Inadequacy of the Monolithic Model of the Family." Nett raises so many points in her comment, some major, some minor, that the author cannot possibly reply to all of them. Starting from the observation that much of what is written by sociologists about families today seems to fail to reflect the salient features affecting families today, the author searched the relevant literature in order to deduce the dominant assumptions concerning families which underlie this literature and which result in this effect. One set of assumptions which is very widely accepted is that the family plays certain universal functions. If people assume that a function is being subserved, this makes it unnecessary to investigate to what degree it actually is being subserved. This re-conceptualization introduces a dynamic element into the analysis of families. It also allows for the identification of incongruities between dimensions without the need to come to the conclusion that the family is threatened by chaos or by extinction because a particular type of incongruity is becoming more frequent, since there is no assumption that congruency between levels of interaction between dimensions is natural to begin with.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this article sociologist David Cheal responds to the criticism of his writings on sociology. Sociologist Bonnie Fox describes that Cheal's argument about polycentric closure is characterized by "sexist, racist innuendo." Fox complains that post-modernists are leading sociology into a dangerous abandonment of the study of society for the examination of the texts. Cheal responds to this statement and states that in most of his academic career, he has tested hypotheses. The write-up discusses Professor R. Brym's constructions of disputes in which Cheal is also involved. The literary critic Charles Newman states that the term post-mortem describes the world created by a generation strong enough to dissolve the old order. Post-modernist such as Jane Flax recognize that the thinking fragments of Cheal are inconsistent with the enlightenment belief that conflicts between truth, knowledge and power which can be overdone by grounding claims to authority in reason.

This article presents the author's comments on the paper Canada's Impossible Science: Historical and Institutional Origins of the Coming Crisis in Anglo-Canadian Sociology. Do grand visions and preoccupations with how we ought to be doing our work have a place in the contemporary world of Anglo-Canadian sociology or should we avert our gaze from the flood of imperatives that we are implored to take seriously and just get on with it? Get on with the teaching? Get on with the scramble for resources and recognition? Get on with the construction of our world, the consensual observations that once on the page are us, the texts of sociology? Recognition and reputation do flow from publication and engaged teaching. That much we know or should know. So why not just do it and, thereby, perhaps, banish or, at least, reduce the innervating gloom of collective self-doubt that seems to be so much with us these days? So why not stop wringing our hands about our journals and simply fill their pages with worthy observations? So why not stop complaining about the quality of our meetings and take up the challenge of finding there those who can understand our specialized ways of talking and writing? McLaughlin provides us with plenty of reasons why not,

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article presents a reply to the article "A Critical Comment on Hagan and O'Donnell's "Sexual Stereotyping and Judicial Sentencing: A Legal Test of the Sociological Wisdom," by K. Wayne Taylor, Neena L. Chappell and Stephen Brickey, published in the January 1, 1980 issue of "Canadian Journal of Sociology." The authors say that Taylor, Chappell and Brickey have done a strange thing. They have disregarded the results of a log-linear analysis, a system that provides a powerful set of tools for the analysis of contingency tables, and chosen instead to draw inferences based on the more limited methods of conventional tabular analysis. Furthermore, in doing this, they have violated the standards of their own time-honored tradition of research. The authors say that the logical thing to do is to return to the saturated model. The model includes all possible effects involving sex and indicates that the most likely candidate for inclusion in the final model is an interaction term consisting of sex and ethnicity on sentence.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Jan Pakulski and Malcolm Waters, The Death of Class. London: Sage, 1996, 173 pp., paper. What would sociology lose if it abandoned the concept of class? Nothing, according to Jan [...]

Simone Abram, Jacqueline Waldren and Donald V. L. Macleod, eds., Tourists and Tourism: Identifying with People and Places. Oxford: Berg, 1997, 245 pp. This collection of papers, all but two [...]

The article discusses the future of Anglo-Canadian sociology as a scientific discipline. Several prominent members of the field have speculated on the possible imminent demise of the discipline and point to loss of identity and autonomy as the primary cause. The author examines the issue thoroughly, concluding that the direction of Anglo-Canadian sociology lies in the professional attitudes and activities of its members. Suggestions for future avenues of sociological research and activity are provided.

The article discusses the state Anglo-Canadian sociology as a scientific discipline. The author addresses several claims made by contemporary sociologists that Canadian sociology is experiencing a progressive loss of autonomy and identity. With the intention of revitalizing debate and examination of the field and widening the scope and epistemological context, the author examines the role of national sociological institutions in the promotion of new research and the professionalization of the field.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Actor-system-dynamics (abbreviated as ASD henceforth) emerged in the 1970s out of early social systems analysis. Social relations, groups, organizations, and societies were conceptualized as sets of inter-related parts with internal structures and processes. The common assumption espoused by some system theorists that the same concepts and principles of organization underlie the different disciplines (physics, biology, technology; sociology, economics) was rejected from the outset. ASD theory emphasizes the remarkable capacity of capitalist systems to survive and develop, in part through the establishment of more or less effective regulatory including accounting mechanisms. ASD stresses that regulatory mechanisms themselves are often transformative in character - they change perceptions, modify practices, evoke new strategies, create new power relations and the like. Modern societies have developed and continue to develop revolutionary powers - driven to a great extent by dynamic capitalism - at the same time that they have bounded knowledge of these powers and their consequences. Unintended consequences abound: social as well as ecological systems are disturbed, stressed and transformed.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article presents an immanent critique of the social imaginary of otherness based in a definition of the cultural difference between English Canada as an absent nation and Quebec as an absent region. This is grounded in an examination of the dialogical forms of the life worlds in each society across three interrelated contexts of social discourse, world view, utterance and word.

The article provides a comparative analysis of the historical constitution of philosophical and sociological thought in Quebec. It reveals that in contrast to other Western societies, the human sciences in Quebec fulfilled the cognitive and social functions ascribed to philosophy elsewhere. This is particularly striking at the level of their inverted conceptualization of Quebec as a global society. The human sciences would have created both the mythical and societal ground allowing then, the emergence of a philosophical project.