Search

Sociology as a scholarly vocation within the university in South Africa is bedevilled with the claims of its demise. Both the discipline and a cross-section of its practitioners seem beset with 'status anxiety' and what I call 'status ambiguity.' In this presidential address, delivered to the 2005 Congress of the South African Sociological Association (SASA). I examine these claims. The paper examines the sources of the anxiety. It argues that the claims of sociology's death are grossly exaggerated, as Mark Twain might have put it. I argue that if we were to operate on a wider canvas we might have persuaded ourselves to the position that the ebbs and flows in a discipline like sociology are not evidence of 'death', 'fall' or whatever else we might want to call it: it is not even an evidence of a discipline that is yet to attain maturity. The key to doing 'sociology beyond despair' and the recovery of disciplinary nerve requires a commitment to endogeneity, with a distinct commitment to epistemic intervention in global sociology: it requires us to take our locales seriously: it requires us to take ourselves seriously. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The general objective of this research was to investigate the wellbeing (i.e. health and work–life interference) of dual-earner parents with different sociodemographic characteristics (i.e. age and gender) and family situations (i.e. number of children and household support). A cross-sectional survey design was used in which a convenience sample of dual-earner parents (n=207) with children in nursery schools in South Africa's Vaal Triangle region was taken. The sample group primarily consisted of white females between the ages of 40 and 50. Descriptive statistics, Cronbach alpha coefficients, product-moment correlations, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to analyse the data. The results indicate statistically significant differences in wellbeing outcomes in terms of family situation, specifically regarding physical ill health, number of children and household support. Further statistically significant differences were found in work–life interference (i.e. parent–work, spouse–work, domestic–work, religion/spiritual-work, work–parent, work–spouse, work–domestic and work–religion/spiritual interference) for dual-earner parents with different types of household support. In summary, the research provided evidence that dual-earner parents with different types of household support structures experience wellbeing and work–life interference differently. Based on the detailed findings, specific recommendations were made for future research and for dual-earner parents. Recommendations include investigating specific household support structure opportunities for dual-earner parents. This research builds on current literature related to dual-earner parents, especially within South Africa, where limited research has been done. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]