Search

Copyright of Canadian Review of Sociology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell 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 looks Canadian sociology. It responds to several articles within the issue by sociologists Karen Stanbridge, D. B. Tindall, and Neil McLaughlin commenting on the author's previously published essay "Committing Canadian Sociology". According to the author, most of the critiques leveled at him in these articles are based on issues of epistemology rather than substantive sociological explanation. Topics discussed include sociologist Harold Innis, sociological methodology, and the relationship between ideographic and nomothetic explanation.

Copyright of Canadian Review of Sociology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell 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 author considers the scholarly field of political sociology in Canada, arguing that its interdisciplinary features lead to ambiguity in its study. Topics considered include mass media and politics, rational choice in politics, scholarly judgement, history, and ethics. A historical overview of the field from the 1920s to the present is provided.

Copyright of Canadian Review of Sociology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell 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 discusses the research and scholarship of feminist scholars on family sociology in Canada from the 1960s through the mid 2010s, including the feminist sociology of families. The relationship between neoliberalism and gender, including the alleged indifference of neoliberal government policies to gender of income earners, is discussed. An overview of Canada's national statistics agency Statistics Canada's data on labor, including on domestic labor, gender divisions in labor, women's employment and unpaid household work, is provided.

The article discusses the concept of a uniquely Canadian form of sociology (CS), with a particular focus on the relationship between CS and the sociology of Canada (SOC). It references the essay "Committing Canadian Sociology" by sociologist Ralph Matthews. The author critiques Matthews's arguments for a distinctive CS, claiming that his approach gives disproportionate weight to idiographic explanations, is not indisputably unique, and may have an adverse effect upon audiences. Topics discussed include the relationship between idiographic and nomothetic explanations, environmental sociology, and resource allocation.

The article looks issues of methodology and Canadian uniqueness in Canadian sociology. It references the essay "Committing Canadian Sociology: Developing a Canadian Sociology and Sociology of Canada" by sociologist Ralph Matthews. According to the author, Matthews overstates the importance of Canadian uniqueness while neglecting the significant role of theoretical pluralism in the field of sociology. It is suggested that Canadian sociology should remain globally oriented and should engage with both American and European intellectual traditions.

Copyright of Canadian Review of Sociology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell 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 Review of Sociology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell 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 Review of Sociology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell 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.)