Search

This paper makes a case for academic research and writing that looks beyond the learning potential of technology and, instead, seeks to develop social scientific accounts of the often compromised and constrained realities of education technology use ‘on the ground’. The paper discusses how this ‘critical’ approach differs from the ways that educational technology scholarship has tended to be pursued to date. These differences include viewing technology as being socially constructed and negotiated rather than imbued with pre-determined characteristics; developing objective and realistic accounts of technology use in situ; and producing ‘context rich’ analyses of the social conflicts and politics that underpin the use of technology in educational settings. The paper concludes by encouraging academic researchers and writers to show greater interest in the issues of democracy and social justice that surround educational technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses spatial inequality as an emerging specialty area in sociology. Rural sociologists have long attended to spatial inequalities. The authors tend to view their work as uniquely centered on the rural experience, as opposed to occupying the forefront of spatializing stratification theory and of sociology as a whole. First the development of sociological interest in spatial inequality is discussed, providing an overview of factors that have contributed to a spatial trend in the study of stratification. Then, the implications for rural sociology are discussed, describing how rural sociologists contribute to research on spatial inequality, and distinguishes the approach of rural sociology from those of other subfields and disciplines. Finally, some examples of research in this emerging specialty area are highlighted by drawing from papers included in this issue. The authors call for the development of research based on qualitative approaches to provide deeper insights into the processes linking space with stratification, both from the perspective of people who are disadvantaged and from the standpoint of those who enjoy an advantage because of such a connection. They encourage the development of international and cross-national research on spatial inequality to broaden the understanding of the links between space and inequality.

Distinguishing between an explanatory and a normative interest in social stratification, this paper considers the relation between class analysis and the value of equality. Starting from the familiar distinction between (in) equality of position and (in) equality of opportunity, and noting the extent to which mobility research focuses on the latter, it suggests that class positions can themselves be characterized in terms of the opportunities they yield to those occupying them. This enables the clear identification of the kinds of inequality that are and are not addressed by research findings presented in terms of class categories and odds ratios. The significance of those findings from a normative perspective is then discussed, and their limitations are emphasized - though the paper also explains in what ways they are indeed of normative relevance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article talks about the issue on developing services and developing knowledge on social inequalities and mental health. The first two papers are primarily concerned with making the case for substantial changes in service provision. In their paper, Joe Miller and Calvin Bell provide a very convincing case for bringing a social inequalities perspective to work with men with mental health difficulties. The third paper, by Sharon Jennings, provides a description and commentary of her efforts to safeguard Black mental health projects, by careful attention to the process of their development. The following six papers all describe the work of projects that were explicitly established to help people survive the ways in which social inequality had affected their mental health. Finally, one of the assumptions behind the development of this Special Issue is that knowledge about social inequalities and mental health needs to be developed by service users, service providers and researchers working together.

Individual freedom has been regarded as one of the most important criteria for a desirable society and life. Recently, the theories of liberalism and distributive justice have received increasing attention as a theoretical basis for tackling problems pertaining to socioeconomic inequality and poverty. However, few quantitative analyses focus on the meaning of freedom in the context of socioeconomic inequality and political order in an existing liberal-democratic society. In this paper, I construct a self-rated measure of freedom—the overall perceived freedom scale—and examine (1) whether socioeconomic inequality is related to inequality of freedom, (2) whether freedom is related to subjective well-being, and (3) whether freedom affects people's political attitude toward inequalities. Analyses using data from a 2005 Japanese national survey ( N = 1320) reveal the following results: (1) people with higher personal income (not household income), higher education, and better health tend to perceive greater freedom, (2) people with higher perceived freedom are more likely to be satisfied with their life, and (3) individuals with higher perceived freedom are more likely to oppose the government's egalitarian policy, and their opposition is based on the liberal principle of freedom and self-responsibility. On the basis of these findings, the double-edged possibility of individual freedom and liberalism as an “enhancer” and “moderator” of socioeconomic inequalities and political conflicts is suggested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increase in national earnings inequality in Great Britain over the last two decades has predominantly been a result of increasing earnings inequality within the regions of Great Britain, and not rising inequality between regions. However, there is a severe lack of empirical research exploring the evolution of earnings inequality within regions. This paper investigates the causes of rising within-region inequality in Great Britain. It examines the changes that have taken place between 1976 and 1995, and regional quantile regressions are estimated to reveal those factors that have contributed to the rise in within-region inequality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the potential impact and practical difficulties of mainstreaming equalities in support at home for minority and majority ethnic older people, drawing on two linked empirical research projects. Social care providers have long faced difficulties in catering for diversity of need. Recently, diversity within minority ethnic groups has increased, and there is now a statutory duty to promote equality. Research findings illustrate the complexity of exclusionary processes, with particular reference to the example of health care. There is a gap between the high-level commitment to mainstreaming equality and people's lived experiences. Autonomy and choice are central to community care legislation, policy and practice guidance, but in reality, the research shows that choices are limited for both minority and majority older people. More user-focused approaches and grassroots involvement may offer ways forward, despite some limitations of current models. In conclusion, the potentiality of a broad mainstreaming equality perspective is highlighted, but challenges include a need for a more grounded approach, better engagement with user groups and a need to focus on understanding issues of implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discussion of the persistence of social class inequalities in health has led to greater interest being paid to differences between the classes in lay health beliefs. Recent work on lay health beliefs, however, has mainly viewed social class as a proxy for wider aspects of lifestyle and paid less attention to its occupational component. Part of this can be explained by its predominant focus on the health beliefs of women. This paper remedies this imbalance by focusing on male Glaswegians' perceptions of the health effects of their occupations. It shows that not only were respondents very aware of the influence their jobs had on their health but that they also took action to redress the balance, either by compensating for such effects or controlling their work environment to minimise their influence. Respondents' degree of commitment to their work also had a direct bearing on their coping styles. Although traditional occupational class measures were found to obscure much of how occupation influences health, unskilled and semi-skilled workers did suffer the greatest limitations in coping with the health effects of work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]