Search

Both within and outside of sociology, there are conversations about methods to reduce error and improve research quality—one such method is preregistration and its counterpart, registered reports. Preregistration is the process of detailing research questions, variables, analysis plans, etc. before conducting research. Registered reports take this one step further, with a paper being reviewed on the merit of these plans, not its findings. In this manuscript, I detail preregistration's and registered reports' strengths and weaknesses for improving the quality of sociological research. I conclude by considering the implications of a structural-level adoption of preregistration and registered reports. Importantly, I do not recommend that all sociologists use preregistration and registered reports for all studies. Rather, I discuss the potential benefits and genuine limitations of preregistration and registered reports for the individual sociologist and the discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I will try to consider the usual allegations of determinism that are directed towards Bourdieu's notion of habitus from a slightly different perspective. One of the most common arguments found in these types of charges is that Bourdieu unsuccessfully attempted to reconcile objective and subjective aspects of social life under one notion. According to critics, habitus is not a viable solution to structure vs. agency debate simply because it cannot be both determined by social structure and open to contingency of autonomous subjective interpretations of the social world. I will show that this critique of Bourdieu actually is inspired by incompatibilist philosophy which maintains that regarding human action either determinism or free will can be true. However, those sociologists who, in criticising Bourdieu's understanding of habitus, follow the incompatibilist line of reasoning usually overlook the compatibilist side of this old debate in moral philosophy. In that regard, I will argue that Frankfurt and Taylor's compatibilist account of second order desires and strong evaluations can help us to better understand how habitus can be determined by environmental social factors and, at the same, time not only foster free will, but also provide a theoretical insight into radical forms of social change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Itobiad: Journal of the Human & Social Science Researches / İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi is the property of Itobiad: Journal of the Human & Social Science Researches 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.)

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The article aims to analyse the concept of structural violence to outline its essential theoretical references. THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND METHODS: The main problem raised in the text is the distinction of structural violence against other forms of violence. The article uses the method of conceptual analysis supplemented with case studies. THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION: The definition of structural violence proposed in the paper emphasizes the presence of intentional or unintentional systemic conditions that violate or limit the rights of individuals or groups. In the order of analysis, structural violence is first distinguished from other forms of violence: personal and legitimist. There are three forms of structural violence manifestation: social injustice, direct violence caused by an unjust social system, and a permanent threat embedded in the social system. In connection with the above, the possibility of identifying structural violence with theoretical tools developed by John Rawls to specify the conditions of structural justice is indicated. As a critical complement to this approach, a caveat is discussed that shows that however useful, Rawls's approach may not be sufficient. Finally, the issue of cultural and symbolic violence is analysed. RESEARCH RESULTS: The conclusion drawn from the presented analysis is that structural violence is inextricably linked with social structure. A significant difficulty in minimizing it is that its sources are often invisible, remaining somewhat outside the framework of the current social paradigm. Therefore, the fight against this type of violence requires far-reaching interventions at the level of public awareness. CONCLUSIONS, INNOVATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations that can be derived from the above considerations focus on the need to conduct social campaigns that have the opportunity to gradually change social awareness and the often unconscious social status quo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]