Search

The paper discusses a survey of British academic human geographers enquiring about change and diversification within personal research activities, their nature, motivations and impacts. It argues that this is widespread and a significant aspect of the production of contemporary geographical knowledge. The findings highlight the range of motivations underpinning research change, its impacts and mediation through the institutional context of British human geography. It concludes that despite a more prescriptive institutional context geographers have a degree of autonomy, albeit somewhat fettered, to shape their own research trajectories to some extent. This provides some important capacity with which to engage with imminent challenges facing the discipline in the UK). The paper complements recent critical histories of geography and sociological accounts of the discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a multi-layered exploration of the diversity management field in the UK. In doing so, it aims to address two problematic tendencies in the current diversity research: the focus on single-level explorations, and the polarization between critical and mainstream approaches. Using Bourdieu's concept of field, I develop a theoretical framework that conceptualizes the field of diversity management in three constituents: diversity discourse, diversity practice and diversity practitioners. The framework is used to analyse empirical evidence generated through semi-structured interviews with 19 diversity managers of large private-sector companies. This study reveals the presence of a gap between the diversity discourse and practice, and the absence of any standard set of qualifications and skills requirement for practitioners. The findings demonstrate the twofold role of discourse in drawing the boundaries of the diversity management field. First, it is instrumental in constructing diversity management as distinct from equal opportunities. Second, the use discourse functions as a mechanism to control the entry of practitioners into this field, which otherwise has low entry barriers. The paper offers a contribution to management research in general and equality and diversity research in particular through its original use of Bourdieuan sociology in an empirical study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Management academics have tended to rely on ethics codes developed by social researchers in related fields to inform their research practice. The point of this paper is to question whether this remains a viable approach in the current climate that is characterized by a significant increase in ethical regulation across the social sciences. We suggest that management researchers face ethical issues of a different nature to those most frequently confronted by other social science researchers, and argue for more explicit acknowledgement of contextual factors involved in management research. An exploratory analysis of the content of ethics codes formulated by nine social scientific associations is undertaken to identify the main ethical principles they cover and to analyse their underlying ethical tone. Drawing attention to the principle of reciprocity, which is found in very few codes, we suggest that an ethics code could be used to formulate new ways of thinking about management research relationships. Despite the risk that ethics codes may encourage instrumental compliance with minimal ethical obligations, we suggest they also have the potential to reflect a more aspirational agenda. The development of an ethics code for management research should therefore be seen as a potentially worthwhile project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents the authors' comments on the report by John Westergaard and Ray Pahl to the University Grants Committee (UGC) on the institutional state of sociology in British universities. The paper has its limitations. Both authors were members of the working group of the UGC for the subject review, and so among the signatories of the report. At the time of writing this, the report is still only in the pipeline for publication so there are no reactions yet from sociologists to either argue or agree with the report. Nor can we make we make up for possible bias from inside commitment by offering startling benefit of inside view. Not because our lips are sealed; but because we do not think there is much unexpected to expose. We have no breathtaking revelations to make, for example, about mechanisms or pressures which might have been at work to induce the subject review panel to give the report a shape or direction at odds with some of its members' views. Circumstantial pressures there certainly were; but of a kind needing no special insight to anticipate or detect. The working group's recommendations bear no doubt a clear imprint from awareness of the acute, and politically determined, shortage of funds for higher education.

The article focuses on the paper "British sociology and public intellectuals: consumer society and imperial decline," by Bryan Turner. Philippe Fontaine reviews the fact that sociologist have failed to document the gradual fall Great Britain from world power status, and discusses R. W. Cornell's views on the connection between empire and sociology. The anti-intellectual sentiment seen by Turner in Great Britain is critiqued, as well as Turner's insistence that social scientists chose certain topics to structure their investigations.

In a previous paper published in "British Journal of Sociology," the author made the claim that despite decades of intensive investigation, not a single researcher had ever shown that class difference in education was indeed unfair and unjust. It was a charge that was underwritten by a simple, if technical, argument, which drew attention to what, in logic, would have to be shown if such a difference was to be regarded as an inequality, rather than as just another difference in a differentiated society. In this case, it was suggested that, other things being equal, the researcher would have to meet one of two conditions. He would have to show that the different classes were similarly disposed to education or, alternatively, if there were evidence, as in Great Britain, of considerable working-class indifference to education, he would need to demonstrate that such indifference was itself the result of structural or cultural inequality. Only then, it was argued, could the researcher be said to have reasonably shown that class difference in education was unfair; for only then could the researcher be reasonably sure that such a difference was not, after all, just another difference.

Mannheim's 1923 essay 'The Problem of Generations' has often been described as the seminal theoretical treatment of generations as a sociological phenomenon. Yet in practice scant attention has been paid to the sociology of generations by British sociologists. This is despite the notion of generation being widespread in everyday language as a way of understanding differences between age groups and as a means of locating individuals and groups within historical time. This paper aims to raise the profile of the sociology of generations within British sociology. It is shown that Mannheim's essay can be read as a text which contributes to our understanding of key sociological issues, in addition to 'the problem of generations'. These issues include the nature of time, the relationship between biology and the social, and socio-psychological connections of language and knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The career experience of men and women in British university sociology since 1950 is compared, using published data for the whole group and fresh data from a sample of departments. It is shown that, when like is compared with like, the outcomes for men and for women have not been as different as is often suggested; family reasons were more salient in women's careers, but in the end have not made much difference to their destinations. But the proportions of women recruited have varied over time, and the experience of both sexes has been strongly influenced by historical factors affecting different periods. Within the constraints which those have imposed, individuals have not all made the same choices, and that too has affected the outcomes.

This section presents the list of authors of the December 1989 issue of the British Journal of Sociology.

This section presents the articles published in the December 1989 issue of the British Journal of Sociology.

This article focuses on ethnomethodology in Great Britain. Immediately on publication in 1967, Harold Garfinkel's Studies in Ethnomethodology made a strong and controversial impact on British sociology, which attracted attention than was altogether beneficial to the longer term health of the enterprise within the British concept. Initial interest and misplaced enthusiasm quickly faded, sometimes replaced by a resentment that ethnomethodology had not lived up to the image rather arbitrarily created for it. Other fashions came along, and the volume of comment expanded, especially the gratuitous and negative kind. The number who have remained well disposed to ethnomethodology through the period is small, a substantial proportion of them being linked through the Sociology Department at Manchester University in England. Studies of a more or less ethnomethodological sort have covered a range of substantive topics including the formulation of arguments in sociology texts, the analysis of newspaper headlines and stories, courtroom proceedings, interviews, interrogations, educational and business simulations, classroom organization, doctor-patient encounters, moral categories and political speeches, among others.

This article argues that contemporary British historical sociology is cognitively high-powered and of immense importance for sociology as a whole. A novelty of the exposition that is more or less dictated by such a claim is the specification of intellectual advance. Contemporary historical sociology is not another research program promising to deliver the goods at some future date, instead it is actually possible to point to sustained achievements which have implications for core concerns of the discipline. The term historical sociology is used broadly to include comparative as well as historical studies. A distinction will be made between a general sense of the past and the practice of historical sociology. One obvious way to underline the difference is by insisting that all sociologists, though with greater or lesser degrees of self-consciousness, posses the former. If historical sociology is a discrete speciality, it has a unique capacity to speak to fundamental presuppositions of most practicing sociologists. It must also be admitted that it is not always possible to separate British historical sociology from developments elsewhere. It has been pointed out that sociology was created by the emergence of modern societies whose precise physiognomy has thereafter been the central preoccupation of the subject.

This articles provides an overview of the topics on British sociology discussed in the September 1989 issue of The British Journal of Sociology. Pahl and Westergaard's reports to the University Grants Council on the institutional state of sociology in the British universities, represents a sociography of the sociological establishment at the last moment of a constitution of more or less autonomous universities which is not to pass to national management by the Universities' Funding Council. While Albrow's view of the nature of sociology offers illuminating contrast with the view taken by W. G. Runciman. Runciman dismissed some other fashionable explanations and went on to put forward his own terms of the nature of the subject. The significance of education in the political economy of modern society differs sharply in liberal and Marxist theory. For liberal it is central to the determination of both production and distribution. For Marxists it is a dependent variable about which Marx himself wrote little. In more recent writing the contrast continues, mainly because of opposed interpretations of the changes in the structure of employment and the incidence of the changes in the structure of employment and the incidence of social mobility both of which entail theories of the relation between education and employment.

The participant-observer study of the Cheshire Home in Great Britain which is described in this article was intended to bring some fieldwork evidence to bear on popular speculations in the field of the sociology of knowledge. These speculations are best known through the writing of Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, which draws heavily on the work of Alfred Schutz. Berber's sociology of knowledge draws heavily on notions of socialization which are derived from Goffman's studies of institutional life and from a too simple interpretation of G. H. Mead. This article therefore examines a Cheshire Home as a marginal world which perhaps gave a base for a counter reality and a cluster of counter identities by focusing on processes of resocialization. In view of the great weight given by Berger and Luckmann to temporality as a constituent of reality, special attention was given to the temporal framework within which inmates apprehended both daily agenda and personal biographies. The picture that emerges is of a remarkably tenacious normality. The Cheshire Home was not a base for a counter reality. The three categories which give shape and meaning to the lives of most adults held firm and were still prime categories for interpreting their lives and the world and for structuring relationships.

The article discusses the trends in publications on the economic and social history of Great Britain and Ireland from 1925-1974. The twentieth century has been characterized by an unprecedented growth in knowledge. The businesses both of the production and the diffusion of knowledge have come to constitute major sectors of modern economies, with enormous social consequences. While certain aspects of these key features of recent economic and social change have naturally attracted the attention of economic historians, they have not examined at all rigorously the manner in which their own subject has grown. It largely takes the form of the counting of scientific journals and the numbers of articles they contain. Such indicators show that the growth of knowledge is exponential. The more there is of it, the faster it grows. Price calls this the fundamental law of any analysis of science. The social sciences and the humanities too have undergone remarkable information explosions, but their growth has not been quantified to the same extent, as has the literature of chemistry, biology, physics, or mathematics. Traditional historiography in particular has not been conceived in a quantitative way. The methods of the social sciences have barely been turned on to the social sciences; the methods of history have hardly begun to be turned on to history itself.

The article comments on the present situation and development in the social sciences in Great Britain. The social sciences in general, and in specifically, had a long pre-history. An intelligent observer in the year 1800 would not have had a word for sociology, and would not have known the phrase social science. Economics, and to a lesser degree politics, were firmly established in the universities before 1939. The importance of politics in the conduct of administration and the making of policy was recognized. The experience of economic depression was productive of a diffuse belief in planning which resulted in a new readiness of mind to accept social research. In 1945 this resulted in a growth of demand for social science education and information. All the social sciences grew steadily in the following years. Partly through the encouragement of UNESCO, national associations came into existence in such fields as politics and sociology. They were no novelty in economics. Social administration as a subject of study advanced with the growth of a welfare state. But the real revolution was to follow, and it still continues.