Search

Discourse and ideology are interrelated concepts in social sciences and the humanities and are even occasionally employed interchangeably. This paper sheds light on their relationship in academic discourse and examines the role of sociology as a scientific field in its conceptualization. Using bibliometric analysis, we examined 15,716 academic publications mentioning "discourse" or "ideology" in their title and written in English by American and British scholars between 1966 and 2015. The investigation focused on the two terms' conceptual environment, areas of usage, journals, and the organizations to which the authors were affiliated. First, we conclude that although some sociology researchers have attempted to create a sociological definition for the concept of discourse, sociologists are not its most active users. The same is true for ideology. These concepts have established niches in other disciplines (political science and history for "ideology," and educational science and linguistics for "discourse"). Second, throughout the years, the field of discourse studies has become more diversified and fragmented than that of ideology. Third, the leading organizations in both fields are prestigious American and British universities, which indicates that discourse and ideology are elements of the intellectual elites' language. Fourth, the concept of discourse was more frequently applied than that of ideology in the years 2010–2015, and we expect that it will remain popular among scholars in the next decade. As for ideology, we believe that new social challenges could foster the rediscovery of this concept in the near future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the article, the author discusses the assessment of evidential value in sex research. Also cited are the disadvantages of using single-study papers in research like they maximize the danger of false positives and they undermine the critical test of theoretical and conceptual patterns, as well as the dangers of false positive psychology in psychological science.

How has sociology evolved over the last 40 years? In this paper, we examine networks built on thousands of sociology-relevant papers to map sociology's position in the wider social sciences and identify changes in the most prominent research fronts in the discipline. We find first that sociology seems to have traded centrality in the field of social sciences for internal cohesion: sociology is central, but not nearly as well bounded as neighboring disciplines such as economics or law. Internally, sociology appears to have moved away from research topics associated with fundamental social processes and toward social-problems research. We end by discussing strategies for extending this work to wider science production networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Human Development Index (HDI) implicitly defines "human development" and ranks countries accordingly. To elucidate the HDI's meaning of "human development," the paper examines the sensitivity of the HDI to changes in its components, namely social indicators of education, longevity and standard of living. The HDI is next compared with two alternatives, the Life Quality Index (LQI) and a Time Allocation lndex (TAI) developed in this paper from the HDI's components. Also considered is the likely uncertainly in the HDI and what it means for HDI rankings. It is concluded that the HDI's weighting of the gross domestic product is in good agreement with peoples' preferences as revealed in the LQI and the TAI; further, that the HDI places many times greater weight on education than is indicated by peoples' allocation of time in developed countries. Literacy is accorded very high weight in the HDI, but its measure is unreliable. The HDI ranking of highly developed nations is so close and so uncertain that it is meaningless. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay describes institutional ethnography as a method of inquiry pioneered by Dorothy E. Smith, and introduces a collection of papers which make distinctive contributions to the development of this novel form of investigation. Institutional ethnography is presented as a research strategy which emerges from Smith‘s wide-ranging explorations of the problematic of the everyday world. Smith‘s conception of the everyday world as problematic involves a critical departure from the concepts and procedures of more conventional sociologies. She argues for an alternative sociology which begins with the standpoint of the actor in everyday life, rather than from within a professional sociological discourse aligned with the society‘s ruling institutions. The familiar sociologies of everyday life do not suffice for this purpose, since they deal with local settings and social worlds, but stop short of examining how these are knitted into broader forms of social organization. In contrast, institutional ethnography examines how the scenes of everyday life are shaped by forms of social organization which cannot be fully grasped from within those scenes. The principal tasks of institutional ethnography include describing the coordination of activities in the everyday world, discovering how ideological accounts define those activities in relation to institutional imperatives, and examining the broader social relations in which local sites of activity are embedded. The four papers which follow demonstrate that specific contributions to institutional ethnography can be made in relation to a wide array of topics, methods, and interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As researchers, we cannot be outside society and thus activities such as "science," or "objectivity" are striated with procedures for minimizing or celebrating the presence of the researcher in the research product. Our recognition of the situated character of scientific knowledge is the context in which questions about the researchers‘ relation to the group s/he studies have arisen. The paper begins with a review of the Insider/Outsider debate which circles around the researcher‘s relation to those she studies. Where the researcher enters the research site as an Insider - someone whose biography (gender, race, class, sexual orientation and so on) gives her a lived familiarity with the group being researched - that tacit knowledge informs her research producing a different knowledge than that available to the Outsider - a researcher who does not have an intimate knowledge of the group being researched prior to their entry into the group. This paper describes the research issues that arise and the various strategies researchers have used to manage them. The argument then shifts to query the social boundaries implicit in the construction of research Insiders and Outsiders. Reflecting on research that explored mothering for schooling, the article shows that researchers are rarely Insiders or Outsiders. Rather, research is constructed in a relationship with many Others. The interaction of individual biography and social location shape the research relation in complex ways which undercut the common-sense translation of historical familiarity into epistemological privilege. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper argues, by way of empirical example, that the long-accepted contention that participant-observation research can best be accomplished by strangers who become like natives is by no means the only or even best approach. Rather, natives can be trained to distance themselves from their own group, making use of inherently objective sociological and anthropological perspectives. Such natives-as-strangers are more likely to be cognizant of nuances in the cultural life being studied. Using the example of the author's research among Jews, the paper also outlines some of the risks of this native-as-stranger approach, foremost among them being the tendencies to take too much for granted and to become alienated from one's native group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I draw on Piaget and Habermas to underline the importance of the theoretical distinction between social relations of constraint and social relations of cooperation for reflecting upon inter-institutional projects. I argue that the socio-cultural approach to collaboration has some important limitations that restrict ideological critic and emancipatory research. The limitations of this approach can be located in its epistemological assumptions, a homogenized notion of culture and a weakness in articulating the intrapersonal, inter-personal, inter-group/positional and social representational/ideological levels of analysis. As an empirical example of this I discuss the Sloan centres for family research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I suggest that to better understand knowledge construction in science, and the role of social processes and collaboration in it, it is useful to distinguish between “elaborative knowledge” and “emergent knowledge.” Elaborative knowledge is constructed for solving clearly defined problems in established theoretical frameworks, and emergent knowledge refers to the knowledge constructed to reach a hierarchically higher and more complex level of scientific understanding. There are also two types of collaboration. On the one hand there is “dialogical collaboration” in which team members contribute to reaching the common clearly defined objective so that a team as a whole becomes qualitatively more complex than its members alone. On the other hand there is “unidirectional collaboration” where the result of collaboration is determined by one person, should be distinguished. There is evidence from multiple perspectives indicating that “elaborative knowledge” can be developed in both kinds of collaboration and sometimes ‘dialogical collaboration” is necessary for knowledge construction. However, for building “emergent knowledge,” it is argued, only individual or “unidirectional collaboration” is productive, and “dialogical collaboration” can hinder or even prevent the construction of this kind of knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Significant efforts have been invested in improving our understanding of how to accelerate and magnify the impact of research on clinical practice. While approaches to fostering translation of research into practice are numerous, none appears to be superior and the evidence for their effectiveness is mixed. Lessons learned from formative evaluation have given us a greater appreciation of the contribution of context to successful implementation of quality improvement interventions. While formative evaluation is a powerful tool for addressing context effects during implementation, lessons learned from the social sciences (including management and operations research, sociology, and public health) show us that there are also powerful preimplementation tools available to us. This paper discusses how we might integrate these tools into implementation research. We provide a theoretical framework for our need to understand organizational contexts and how organizational characteristics can alert us to situations where preimplementation tools will prove most valuable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social cohesion has emerged as a powerful hybrid concept used by academics and policy analysts. Academics use the concept to underline the social and economic failings of modernity, linking it to the decline of communal values and civic participation. Policy analysts use it to highlight the social and economic inequities caused by globalization. The desired effect of using this concept is often to influence governments to implement policies that will enhance social cohesion by reducing social and economic disparities. Despite its widespread use, however, statistical measures of social cohesion tend to overlook local, non-Western strategies of social inclusion as well as the social impact of non-Western economic systems, such as the mixed economy typical of many Aboriginal communities in North America. In this paper, we develop a model of social cohesion that addresses these omissions through the use of social indicators that measure both the behavior and perceptions of Inuit living in the Canadian Arctic with respect to the social, cultural and economic conditions of Arctic communities. We explain how and why measuring social cohesion is optimized by combining both culturally-specific and non-specific social indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to present a sociological analysis of social support related to disaster sociology in general and earthquakes specifically. The analysis is based on field research conducted a year after the 17 August 1999 East Marmara earthquake where 18000 people died; 50000 people injured; 5000 buildings collapsed and 340000 of them damaged; 14513 businesses closed; 150000 people became unemployed; and 129338 forced to live in prefabricated houses. The research primarily aims to understand the support needs by focusing mainly on the following issues about the earthquake survivors: (i) which and what support types and areas are mostly desired by them; (ii) which independent variables are the most effective on their demands; and (iii) from which persons or institutions have they received support and wanted to be supported by. Marginal development of the civil society; high degree of expectations of almost everything from the state; psychological factors being less influential compared with West and education being the primary influential factor are some of the significant results of this research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This section introduces a series of articles on financing sociological research. The late Alvin Gouldner presented us with a fundamental paradox that those who supply the greatest resources for the institutional development of sociology are precisely those who most distort its quest for knowledge. The problem of financing sociological research is not the burden of individual researchers, it is the challenge to a discipline and a profession that must take account of a shifting cultural-political climate and be accountable to a restive public. The paper by Martin Bulmer examines the unique role of the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, under the directorship of Breadsley Ruml, in distributing relatively large amounts of money for social research during the 1920s. Highlighting the entry of more direct federal government support for basic social science research, Roberta Balstand Miller's paper, The Social Sciences and the Politics of Science: the 1940s, examines the debate about the inclusion of the social sciences in the legislation that established the National Science Foundation.

Abstract The goal of this paper is to provide researchers who are not experts in psychometric theory with a concise guide to instrument selection, development and evaluation. Issues of context factors related to the setting or population in which an instrument will be used and psychometrics the functioning of an instrument within a given context are reviewed and discussed. Finally, four categories or types of instruments, and the psychometric analyses that are necessary for establishing the reliability and validity of each type, are described. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper has attempted to outline the present situation and trends in scholarly cooperation between Latin American and U.S. social science, tracing significant changes in recent years, and identifying policy-shifts in foundations and other granting agencies as a primary cause of such changes. It has briefly analyzed the current structure of international cooperation. Finally, it has presented the most coherent position running contrary to growing optimism, which would predict a mutually advantageous cooperative framework.
Changes implemented by foundations and granting agencies have carried cross-national cooperation to a level beyond which U.S. scientific establishments cannot or are not likely to go. In other words, the alternative to the new forms of cooperative research is probably no cooperation at all. Tins is, in essence, what the radical critique argues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been much recent debate in the health economics literature as to the (near) equivalence of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that whether such a (near) equivalence exists depends on whether one defines economic evaluations as 'CBA' or 'CEA' on the basis of either what is measured or what question the analyst is seeking to answer. The former basis of definition is popular within the 'decision science' approach to economic evaluation, but does not seem to have any theoretical support. If the latter, more theoretically correct, basis is accepted, there is no longer a case for the (near) equivalence of CBA and CEA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I argue that the selection of appropriate statistical procedures is at best haphazard without a careful consideration of the consequences of one's research, and that significant distortions often will result when applied concerns are ignored. I advance the hypothesis that typical conceptions of basic research in sociology preclude the proper use of statistics. From this it follows that mainstream, quantitative sociology can begin to save itself only by taking seriously the question of applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines some of the reasons why the social sciences were excluded from the legislation that established the National Science Foundation in 1946. Although the social sciences had been used increasingly before the war in the interest of rational social planning by the federal government and had been supported during the war, they nevertheless were weaker after the war than before it. The failure to include the social sciences in NSF was due to three factors. opposition by key scientists, conservatives' fears that social science research would emphasize potential political problems such as racial inequality, and the failure of social scientists to make a strong bid for their inclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]