Search

C. Wright Mills’ The Sociological Imagination (1959) represents one of the most influential texts of postwar American sociology. The title has become a catchphrase that stands for a style of thought that transcends both theoretical dogma and the constraints of mere methodological rule following. This article sets out to show that Mills’ vision of the sociological imagination had more in common with the then dominant lines of scholarship than his broadside against Parsonian grand theory and Lazarsfeldian abstracted empiricism in the main part of the book would suggest. Among the tools that Mills introduced as fostering the sociological imagination were 2 × 2 tables. The article traces the use of such tables over time and across scholarly communities and shows that, contrary to Mills’ own estimate, these tables describe a common nexus between his own work and that of Parsons and Lazarsfeld. All three scholars made ample use of this formal tool to construct sociological arguments at central places of their oeuvre. Given its shared use across otherwise divergent schools, the 2 × 2 table is a prime example for what historians of science have called paper tools, i.e. statistical formulas, algorithms, tables, diagrams, graphs, etc., that structure scientific research across different schools of thought and theoretical approaches. Drawing on the notion of paper tools, the article advances a post-Kuhnian perspective on the history of sociology that shifts the research focus from substantive ideas to formal tools and demonstrates elements of commensurability among presumably incommensurable schools of thought.

PurposeExpanding on an invited talk at the 1st Paper Development Workshop of the Qualitative Management Accounting Research Group, the purpose of this study is to offer some suggestions for developing qualitative accounting papers. Emphasis is put on the potential of qualitative research to situate evocative accounts of the organisational functionings of accounting in their wider social contexts.Design/methodology/approachTo think about paper development as an exercise in communicating worthwhile findings to the readership by interweaving the researcher’s impressions of the field, recorded field material and different social theories to create qualitative accounting scholarship.FindingsQualitative accounting papers can, through the use of different theories, show the embedding of the organisational in the social. Development of qualitative accounting papers is an achievement that emerges in the process of writing.Practical implicationsOutlines five summary recommendations for paper development.Originality/valueReflects on paper development designed to create qualitative accounting research.

The use of film making by college students, instead of term paper writing, to understand sociological ideas and the implications of role behavior is examined. The technical art of film making, equipment, and production costs are provided. (DE)

Objectives. To investigate the rate of manuscript submission to a major peer-reviewed journal (American Journal of Public Health) by gender, comparing periods before and during the pandemic. Methods. We used data from January 1 to May 12, 2020, and defined the start of the pandemic period by country as the first date of 50 or more confirmed cases. We used an algorithm to classify gender based on first name and nation of origin. We included authors whose gender could be estimated with a certainty of at least 95%. Results. Submission rates were higher overall during the pandemic compared with before. Increases were higher for submissions from men compared with women (41.9% vs 10.9% for corresponding author). For the United States, submissions increased 23.8% for men but only 7.9% for women. Women authored 29.4% of COVID-19–related articles. Conclusions. Our findings suggest that the pandemic exacerbated gender imbalances in scientific research.

Introducing a new method, we measure real estate agents' intentions to act upon a discriminatory request on the housing market. Our results show that realtors are willing to discriminate on request and that the method of mystery mails allows scholars to measure and contextualize these discriminatory intentions in a detailed and elaborate way.

Social cohesion is beneficial to economic restructuring, social change, and political action. At its core, it involves building shared values and communities of interpretation, reducing disparities in wealth and income, and generally enabling people to have a sense of belonging, inclusion, participation, recognition, and legitimacy. A family, as a major social institution, is central to the functioning of any society and is therefore potentially the bedrock of creating and maintaining social cohesion. This article draws inextricable links between the role of the family and the creation of social cohesion by evaluating South Africa’s White Paper on Families. First, it defines and unpacks social cohesion and contextualises the family environment. This is done through an evaluation of the available literature on social cohesion in the family. Second, an evaluation of legislation and the White Paper on family is presented. Third, the aid of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory is used to examine the various environments concerning social cohesion in the family. The White Paper on family recognises the family in aspects other than the concept of the family cycle, a key component of the developing individual who should be nurtured from infancy to adulthood. In addition, gaps in the policy are highlighted by looking at implementation challenges of the constitutional provisions and examining the way in which these gaps lead to social and economic exclusion and attendant poverty as the cardinal result.

nextGEN, a listserv and advocacy collective founded and maintained by graduate students across the international field of writing studies, 1 kairotically begun in response to controversial interactions on the WPA-Listserv in March 2018 (Laughner, 2019; “Where We Are,” 2020; Beare, 2021). Following the release of Vershawn Ashanti Young's 2019 CCCC Call for Papers, the backlash on WPA-L discussed, and in many ways perpetuated, the on-going racialized, linguistic discrimination within writing studies, writ large. As graduate students contributed to these conversations, this situation clearly illustrated their systemic dismissal from disciplinary conversations. In this white paper, we highlight four tactical strategies used by nextGEN since its inception to demonstrate the importance of coalitional literacies in digital advocacy spaces. Finally, we conclude by briefly looking forward to future challenges and possibilities for the next generation of nextGEN. Overall, we offer this argument as a “white paper” because it is our–the authors–understanding and situating of the systemic problems that defined the emergence and early work of nextGEN. 2 We offer readers a specific history, scholarly framework, and model for building and sustaining an international listserv and advocacy space for and by graduate students through coalitional literacies of digital safety and solidarity.

Inter-professional education (IPE) can support professionals in developing their ability to work collaboratively. This position paper from the European Forum for Primary Care considers the design and implementation of IPE within primary care. This paper is based on workshops and is an evidence review of good practice. Enablers of IPE programmes are involving patients in the design and delivery, providing a holistic focus, focussing on practical actions, deploying multi-modal learning formats and activities, including more than two professions, evaluating formative and summative aspects, and encouraging team-based working. Guidance for the successful implementation of IPE is set out with examples from qualifying and continuing professional development programmes.

In China, master's students in humanities and social sciences (HSS) are becoming the main target of Chinese-language predatory journals. Existing research has not paid enough attention to why these students publish papers in Chinese-language predatory journals. This research interviewed 30 HSS master's students with different majors using semi-structured interviews and Grounded Theory to analyze the data; it found that research discrimination, research context, self-awareness, and individual demand are the main reasons why students publish papers in Chinese-language predatory journals. This study provides the following suggestions in an effort to solve the problem of Chinese-language predatory journals. First, the Chinese government should draw up a blacklist of Chinese-language predatory journals. Second, the research evaluation departments of Chinese universities and research institutions should evaluate the research results of HSS master's students based on this list. Third, Chinese universities or scientific research institutions should strengthen the training of HSS master tutors and increase their awareness of Chinese-language predatory journals. And finally, Chinese HSS master's students should be taught about the hazards of Chinese-language predatory journals in research integrity and ethics courses, and refuse to publish papers in Chinese-language predatory journals.

Healthcare professionals (HCPs) are increasingly undertaking health professional education (HPE) research and scholarship. This discussion paper highlights key transition points experienced by HCPs newly engaging in HPE research and scholarship, using conceptual thresholds as a theoretical lens. The identified thresholds are: (1) recognising limits, (2) navigating discourses and (3) negotiating identities, and our paper evidences the epistemic, discursive and existential repositioning underpinning these thresholds. Supporting HCPs to successfully navigate the rich and vibrant world of HPE research and scholarship requires a multi-faceted strategy involving individual upskilling, co-construction of resources and strategies, and enhancing the invitational quality of HPE research activities, environments and communities.

Why does the cross-disciplinary field of “development studies” have relatively low “journal impact indicators” in comparison with other mono-disciplinary fields of study? We argue that a reasonable explanation is the existence of a “paper drain” phenomenon: a certain proportion of the papers dealing with development is eventually published in journals that are assigned to other (non-development) fields. We conceptualize the paper drain phenomenon and empirically estimate its size for the field of development studies. Running an algorithmic procedure on the Scopus database, we identify six “key development issues” and estimate that the subject category of “development” is approximately publishing 28% of the papers dealings with these issues within the Social Sciences. The remaining 72% are “draining” to other (non-development) categories. We offer some recommendations in order to rise the scientific impact (and influence) of development studies, such as increasing the number of journals covered by the impact indicators.