Search

This article presents information on the periodical, Sociological Methodology. Sociological Methodology is a journal that seeks to publish excellent contributions to each and every one of the many and diverse research methodologies that sociologists use in their research,or that they would want to use, if they knew of these methods or how to adapt them to sociological analysis. Many think of sociological methodology as a synonym for statistics or quantitative research methods. These Pavlovian responses are unfortunate. The editors of Sociological Methodology have consistently sought outstanding papers on all sociologically useful methods, including those that are generally perceived to be non-statistical and non-quantitative. Sociological Methodology is a refereed journal. The editor picks referees to render opinions on papers,makes editorial decisions based substantially (but not entirely) on referee reports, protects reviewers' identities from wounded authors,and does his best to protect authors from unfair, incompetent, or simply mistaken reviews. The editor also does his best to protect authors from his own errors by attending carefully to the comments of reviewers and by honoring any reasoned request for reconsideration and re-review. The system works on a web of redundant checks and balances,overseen by the editor.

Subscribers to the British Sociological Association will be aware that its newsletter, Network, has recently been carrying correspondence on the ethics of covert observation, provoked by Roger Homan's paper, in a previous Sociological Review, 'Interpersonal Communication in Pentecostal Meetings'. Homan, himself, has contributed to this correspondence and defended his stance at more length in a paper, published with a rejoinder by Martin Bulmer, in the British Journal of Sociology.[1] I am not, however, convinced that we have yet reached some of the core issues in this area, because the ethical discussion has become so far removed from an adequate understanding of the nature of fieldwork. In this paper, I want to reunite these two topics, partly because I believe ethical debate to be a rather futile activity if it is not grounded in everyday practice and partly to show that there are so many grey moral areas in ethnography that an over-academic analysis may ultimately be inimical to our continued use of this approach to social life. Although I shall concentrate on field practice, this should not be taken to imply a disregard for planning and writing-up research. Plainly the ethical questions are at least as important, but their better documentation makes an extended consideration a less urgent matter for this present paper. By ethnography I intend to include all research based upon naturalistic modes of inquiry within a predominantly inductivist theoretical framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Class analysis has recently been criticised from a variety of standpoints. In this paper we argue that much of this criticism is misplaced and that, as a research programme, the promise of class analysis is far from exhausted. The first part of the paper clarifies the nature and purpose of class analysis, as we would understand it, and in particular distinguishes it from the class analysis of Marxist sociology. The second part then makes the case for the continuing relevance of class analysis, in our conception of it, by reviewing findings from three central areas of current research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a critical overview of current concepts and analytic practices in stress research and considers how they can be changed to make the research more consistent with core sociological interests. An overarching concern of the paper is the analytic use of basic information about people's social and institutional affiliations and statuses. It is important that such information be treated not simply as data that need to be controlled statistically; we must examine the bearing of these data on each domain of the stress process: the exposure to and meaning of stressors, access to stress mediators, and the psychological, physical, and behavioral manifestations of stress. The conceptualization and measurement of stressors should move away from their focus on particular events or chronic strains and should seek instead to observe and assess over time constellations of stressors made up of both events and strains. Moreover, the effects of the mediators—coping and social support—are evaluated most fruitfully in terms of their effects in limiting the number, severity, and diffusion of stressors in these constellations. Finally, sociological stress researchers should not be bound to outcomes that better serve the intellectual interests of those who work with biomedical and epidemiological models of stress, nor should the research be committed exclusively to a single outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In my contribution, I intend to move from Positivismusstreit in order to work through the complex and in part unexplored rapport of Popper with the topic of Society. It is possible to point out some parts in Popper’s paper that was presented in Tübingen that reinforce the idea of a social connotation of science present in Popper’s conception of epistemology. These parts, in my opinion, have two immediate and significant consequences: on one hand, they support the thesis of one of the scholars of Popper, Ian Jarvie, who, in a volume from 2001, suggested a rereading of the epistemological reflections of Popper from a social approach. Second, these parts offer a perspective on the reading which represents new hindsight regarding the conception of ‘Social’ of the two key scholars Popper and Adorno. Through a reconstruction of the initial positions, this article will attempt to present the Popperian interpretation of the relationship between Science and Society and the role of Sociology. If opportunely reconsidered, these aspects may actually be an instrument through which it is possible to pinpoint an absolutely unexpected common theme between the participants at Tübingen. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article is concerned with the status of generalisation in interpretive sociology. The case made is that generalisation is inevitable, desirable and possible. It is held that interpretivism must employ a special kind of generalisation, characterised here as moderatum. However, an acknowledgement that such generalisations can be made must bring us to specify the limits of generalisation in interpretive research. These limits are the limits of interpretivism itself and the paper concludes that this implies the adoption of methodological pluralism in order to realise the full potential of the method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper considers the phenomenon of institutionalized sport from a sociology of religion perspective, with the intention of providing a systematic basis for the frequent but often too-facile analogies drawn between sport and religion. Sensitizing dimensions are drawn from sport in order to render this complex phenomenon more amenable to conceptual analysis. Several prominent sociological definitions of religion are introduced, and institutional sport is assessed for "goodness of fit" with these definitions. The analytic emphasis is on symbols, but the utility of the sociology of religion foci of beliefs and practices is also detailed. Both participants and spectators are seen to symbolize, to hold beliefs, and to engage in ritual practices pertaining to sport. After finding considerable support for the general contention that sport is at least quasi-religious in nature, projections are offered for future research and for broader theoretical development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research note argues that in discussions about autobiography as a research tool in sociology there has been relative neglect of ethical issues. It suggests that the nature of autobiography as a form of personal document requires a re-examination of ethical principles important to sociology and feminist research practice. This paper aims to begin to approach some of these issues through an analysis of the complexities of autobiography's methodological relationship to the private and public domains, and, in particular, of the nature of the relationship between researcher and subject(s). The problematic relationship of the autobiographer, or self, to other subjects in accounts is examined and it is argued that feminists' ethical concerns with power relations in research remain pertinent in the production and use of autobiography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A review of recent survey research suggests that the importance of the reflected-appraisal process has been exaggerated by the symbolic interactionists. Communication barriers make it difficult to make accurate reflected appraisals and for some attributes, institutionalized indicators of performance are used rather than the reflected (or perceived) appraisals of others. In the second part of the paper, data from children in fourth- through eighth-grade classrooms are reanalyzed in order to estimate the effect of the reflected appraisals of peers on self-appraisals of physical attractiveness. The results suggest that the reflected appraisals of peers are an important source of self-appraisals of physical attractiveness, and reflected appraisals are likely to be more important for attributes that are defined in terms of the perceptions of others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper situates metatheorizing in a postpositivist approach to social science. Postpositivism contends that social science is organized around competing traditions, which are comprised of generalized discourse and research programs. Following an examination of the relations between discourse and programs, the dynamics fueling social scientific competition are outlined. Because that competition is subject to recurrent distortions and there[ore cannot insure that the best arguments win, it is proposed that metatheorizing assume an adjudicative posture and evaluate the conflicting claims of rival schools. This suggestion is elaborated in the context of Ritzer's pioneering work on metatheorizing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Postmodern claims for the lack of general coherence in social life and therefore in social research are merely a version of recurrent attempts to accept incoherence as adequate in explanations. Incoherence, however, is less sharply distinguished from the synthetic and generalizing theories that it is held to have replaced than its proponents and critics suppose. Generalizing approaches, in fact, were built around contradictions that contributed to their instability and facilitated postmodern fragmentation. In this paper we demonstrate the central contradictions in social theory, showing their common occurrence in apparently opposed positions. Both postmodernism and what it seeks to replace are features of a conservative and unproductive social science. We trace the contradictory continuties through major modern schools of social theory in order to clear the ground for a progressive social science which accepts contradictions as problems that must be solved creatively in the practice of social research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides a comment to the study by Robert J. Johnson and Frederic D. Wolinsky regarding their evaluation of the "Journal of Health and Social Behavior" relevant to the observations connected with the period from 1977 to 1987. Is is claimed that the decline of the the periodical's stature based on attempts to broaden its scope of journal coverage, reduction in subscription and changes in editorial policy. There is an implication that two committee reports caused a decline in citation which serves as the author's measure in stature. The frequency of citation of particular articles depends on many things including the content, quality of reported work, the author's reputation, the number of investigators and the visibility and reputation of a journal. It is argued that the change in the journal's image has lessened its visibility in the stress area and reduced the impact of some papers.

In this thoughtful paper, Mechanic discusses the differences between quantitative and qualitative researchers, focusing on health-related issues. It should, of course, be evident to readers that the issues he discusses have applicability far beyond medical sociology. The same issues arise in all kinds of social research and the excellent examples he gives can be expanded easily to examples in areas including education, criminology, industrial relations, social stratification, and others. In my reading of his paper, Mechanic discusses both differences between methods at a single point in time and differences in measuring process across time. As a quantitative survey researcher, I will comment on my perceptions of the similarities and differences between observational and survey methods for cross-sectional research. I then discuss some methods for bridging the gap that do not involve diaries. Finally, I discuss procedures for measuring process using observational and diary methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents information related to November 1986 issue of the journal "Sociology." Sociology is, however, a general journal, so it is expected that papers should not be on topics only of interest to specialists in a particular field, and that work in specialized areas should as far as possible be written in a way which makes it accessible to those outside that field. There could be a useful role for articles whose aim is to introduce specialist work of potentially wider interest to the sociological general reader, and we should like to encourage those who normally submit elsewhere to write them. The journal has already institutionalized the `Trend Report'. In addition to this, bibliographical surveys, which might help to update those whose primary commitment is to teaching as well as to inform those whose central interests are elsewhere, would be welcomed, as would short articles on practical issues of research method. It would be helpful if proposals for articles of this kind could be discussed in advance with the Editor; offers, or ideas which others might act on, will be welcomed. Some work of this kind may be invited; it will all, however, be subject to the usual refereeing process.