Search

Most social scientists agree that case studies are useful for "theory building," but ethnographic methods papers often look to survey research for case selection strategies. This is due to a common but untenable distinction between theoretical and empirical generalization, which obscures how theoretically inclined ethnographers make implicit external validity claims. I analyze several exemplary ethnographies to show that (a) the distinction between theoretically and empirically oriented ethnography revolves around competing conventions for making claims that others accept as provisionally externally valid, (b) comparative-historical sociology provides a framework for evaluating how theoretically oriented ethnographies make such claims, and (c) each approach to making validity claims is optimized by different kinds of cases. Empirically oriented ethnographies make inductive claims via "pointy" cases wherein a phenomenon is pronounced or bifurcated. Theoretically oriented ethnographers are like post-Millian historical sociologist who triangulate past studies with resolutive or negative cases to make constitutive arguments.

Science is an ethical community whose practitioners aim to discover information about the natural world and to explain discernible patterns that might be detected. Those who pursue science generally embrace certain epistemic values that help establish the moral boundaries of the community, while the twin pillars of rationality and empiricism serve as the foundations upon which scientists establish their truth claims. Yet however robust the assertions might appear, they nevertheless are the by-products of an exclusively human endeavor directly impacted by those sociological forces that apply throughout the social universe, including the scientist's social location and the importance of enhancing one's reputation. The current paper identifies key sociological factors that help shape "scientific bias" and the nature of the justifications used to defend truth claims. A case study of one community committed to a sociological paradigm demonstrates the utility of the explanatory framework advanced. A more self-conscious awareness of the forces at play that create such biases can help mitigate their deleterious impacts that subvert the quest for explanatory knowledge and valid truth claims about observable phenomena.

In this paper I seek to delineate how the relationship between social work and sociology has been regarded in more recent years as represented by textbooks. In the light of such writing, I review the nature, themes and extent of sociological interest in social work in the past and the present. I set out a partial and provisional agenda for interlacing disciplinary and professional work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In recent decades, social isolation has been increasingly linked to serious health conditions. However, social integration (SI) is a complex concept that has not been systematically explored or defined in nursing. It is essential for nurses and healthcare providers to have a clearer concept of SI to better provide holistic care to support optimal health. Purpose: This concept analysis aimed to clarify the concept of SI in health research and to identify attributes, antecedents, and consequences of the concept of SI to enhance understanding of the concept and its implications for human health. Methods: Walker and Avant's framework was used as the methodology for the concept analysis of SI. A literature search using PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases on SI was conducted with keywords: "integration," "social integration," "social relationships," "social participation," "community integration," "socialization." Studies included in the search were published from 2001 to 2021. Results: SI is affected by multidimensional individual, societal, and environmental factors. Defining attributes are productive activities, social relationships, community engagement, and leisure activities. SI is effective in promoting multiple aspects of health as well as healthy aging and overall well‐being. Conclusion: The analysis contributes to a comprehensive and fundamental understanding of SI and contributes to helping nurses better understand patients' circumstances that promote or inhibit SI. This knowledge will support the development of interventions that support optimal health and well‐being, in assisting patients to remain integrated or reintegrate into society during and following an illness or injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Low‐dose computed tomography lung cancer screening has mortality benefits. Yet, uptake has been low. To inform strategies to better deliver and promote screening, in 2018, we interviewed 27 long‐term smokers immediately following lung cancer screening in Australia, prior to receiving scan results. Existing lung screening studies employ the Health Belief Model. Reflecting growing acknowledgement of the centrality of emotions to screening uptake, we draw on psychological and sociological theories on emotions to thematically and abductively analyse the emotional dimensions of lung cancer screening, with implications for screening promotion and delivery. As smokers, interviewees described feeling stigmatised, with female participants internalising and male participants resisting stigma. Guilt and fear related to lung cancer were described as screening motivators. The screening itself elicited mild positive emotions. Notably, interviewees expressed gratitude for the care implicitly shown through lung screening to smokers. More than individual risk assessment, findings suggest lung screening campaigns should prioritise emotions. Peer workers have been found to increase cancer screening uptake in marginalised communities, however the risk to confidentiality—especially for female smokers—limits its feasibility in lung cancer screening. Instead, we suggest involving peer consultants in developing targeted screening strategies that foreground emotions. Furthermore, findings suggest prioritising humanistic care in lung screening delivery. Such an approach may be especially important for smokers from low socioeconomic backgrounds, who perceive lung cancer screening and smoking as sources of stigma and face a higher risk of dying from lung cancer and lower engagement with screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]