Search

This paper advances a psychosocial hypothesis in understanding relations between recipients, and providers, of health and social care. In doing so, it draws on psychoanalytically informed work which considers the relation between the internal and external worlds and more generally the wider social context. The particular hypothesis in this paper relates to an understanding of an abusive form of relating underpinned by shame and envy. The paper suggests that exposure to these feeling states is more prevalent in a social world marked by increasing inequalities and environmental failures. This argument is underpinned with reference to qualitative and quantitative research, suggesting that antagonistic relationships are increasing and are part of a significant change in the culture. The argument is illustrated by a single detailed description of an initial consultation in an NHS psychotherapy service. An examination of the social context suggests how unhelpful or abusive relations may be manifest between health care providers and recipients, in care organizations and in the wider social world. This aspect of the argument is constructed with reference to relevant organizational and sociological literature. It is suggested that established relations of this type act to limit development, in this case a social development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using the concepts of "duration" and "temporal patterns," this paper discusses how key steps during sampling change, if researchers take temporality seriously: When defining cases, scholars have to select a suitable temporal scale and reflect on possible changes of boundaries and properties of cases. When defining the population or field, researchers need to set an appropriate time frame and define periods within this time frame to be analyzed. When selecting the actual cases for analysis, researchers have to choose an appropriate sampling procedure, decide upon relevant periods of analysis as well as the number of points in time to be analyzed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lay perceptions and experiences of social location have been commonly framed with reference to social class. However, complex responses to, and ambivalence over, class categories have raised interesting analytic questions relating to how sociological concepts are operationalized in empirical research. For example, prior researchers have argued that processes of class dis-identification signify moral unease with the nature of classed inequalities, yet dis-identification may also in part reflect a poor fit between 'social class' as a category and the ways in which people accord meaning to, and evaluate, their related experiences of socio-economic inequality. Differently framed questions about social comparison, aligned more closely with people's own terms of reference, offer an interesting alternative avenue for exploring subjective experiences of inequality. This paper explores some of these questions through an analysis of new empirical data, generated in the context of recession. In the analysis reported here, class identification was common. Nevertheless, whether or not people self identified in class terms, class relevant issues were perceived and described in highly diverse ways, and lay views on class revealed it to be a very aggregated as well as multifaceted construct. It is argued that it enables a particular, not general, perspective on social comparison. The paper therefore goes on to examine how study participants compared themselves with familiar others, identified by themselves. The evidence illuminates social positioning in terms of constraint, agency and (for some) movement, and offers insight into very diverse experiences of inequality, through the comparisons that people made. Their comparisons are situated, and pragmatic, accounts of the material contexts in which people live their lives. Linked evaluations are circumscribed and strongly tied to these proximate material contexts.The paper draws out implications for theorizing lay perspectives on class, and subjective experiences of inequality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

The paper suggests that the state is subject to assessment according to principles of social justice because state institutions or practices exercise forms of power over which no particular person has control. This rationale for assessment of social justice equally applies to legally optional or informal social practices. But it does not apply to individual conduct. Indeed, it follows that principles of social justice cannot provide a basis for the assessment and guidance of individual choice. The paper develops this practice-based conception of the subject of justice by rejoining G. A. Cohen's influential critique of Rawls’ focus on the“basic structure” of society. [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.

The paper addresses several debates surrounding the reproduction of socio-economic inequality: (i) the persistent inequality thesis, which maintains that despite the increases in educational participation socio-economic inequalities in education have not declined; (ii) the related thesis of maximally maintained inequality, which proposes that socio-economic inequalities decline only when participation levels for the most privileged socio-economic group approach saturation levels; (iii) the meritocracy debate on the importance of ability vis-à-vis socio-economic background and changes in its influence over time; and (iv) the effect of policy changes on socio-economic inequalities in education. These issues are addressed using data from six Australian youth cohorts born between 1961 and the mid-1980s. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The specialized field of disaster studies seems to be moving farther away from mainstream sociology, to the detriment of both. For sociologists working in this field, application of Max Weber's political sociology is proposed as one way to reconnect their research with longstanding concerns of the discipline. Weber's political sociology contains a conflict model focusing on structured inequalities of class, status, and power. Its relevance to both contemporary sociology and sociological disaster studies is illustrated through a reexamination of one of the early classic studies of disaster. The paper concludes with an overview of Weber's thoughts about the role of values in research and a brief comparison of Weber's political sociology with alternative theories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper assesses the relative utilities of two models for examining the relationship between the sociohistorical context and thought—a traditional external approach as exemplified by Coser and a social constructionist approach offered by Scimecca—using Parsons' functionalist theory of social inequality as a test case. Both models are externalist in that they focus on existential influences on thought, and, for this reason, the models are compared as complementary explanations. The remits suggest that each model, due to its unique focus within the larger externalist domain, offers important insights for understanding the links between existential conditions and the process of theorizing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that the idea of equality of opportunity should be rescued from general opprobrium. It defines a theory of competitive equality of opportunity as open competition for scarce resources. It suggests that this is an idea which demands objective tests of competence incumbent similarly and equally upon all competitors for scarce resources. Resources should be allocated to those most competent to manage them on the grounds of efficiency. This system is just if that allocation is managed to the benefit of and in the best interests of all. It is also argued that under a social system which does not impose equality of resources between citizens it is still possible to sustain equality of opportunity between individuals if public educational resources are allocated according to testable individual abilities and needs. Acknowledging that under present conditions schools make very little difference to individual life-chances it is proposed that they might do more to equalise opportunities if they were organised under principles of strict selection and separation under educational charters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a previous paper published in "British Journal of Sociology," the author made the claim that despite decades of intensive investigation, not a single researcher had ever shown that class difference in education was indeed unfair and unjust. It was a charge that was underwritten by a simple, if technical, argument, which drew attention to what, in logic, would have to be shown if such a difference was to be regarded as an inequality, rather than as just another difference in a differentiated society. In this case, it was suggested that, other things being equal, the researcher would have to meet one of two conditions. He would have to show that the different classes were similarly disposed to education or, alternatively, if there were evidence, as in Great Britain, of considerable working-class indifference to education, he would need to demonstrate that such indifference was itself the result of structural or cultural inequality. Only then, it was argued, could the researcher be said to have reasonably shown that class difference in education was unfair; for only then could the researcher be reasonably sure that such a difference was not, after all, just another difference.

This paper explores several conceptual problems in social deniographic studies of the status of women, including failure to recognize the multidimensionalit of women's status and its variation across social "locations," the confounding of gender and class stratification systems, and the confounding of access to resources with their control. Also discussed are some generic problems in the measurement of female status, such as the sensitivity of particular indicators to social context, and the need to select consistent comparisons when judging the extent of gender inequality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper directs critical attention to Emile Durkheim's considerations about the crucial role of non-transferable, human talent resources within any coherent theory of social justice. It is argued that Durkheim's appreciation of this question anticipated all modern formulations of the issue, and has been insufficiently acknowledged in the contemporary literature. It is contended that Durkheim developed a theory of 'equal treatment' through a rigorous repudiation of Mill's theory of self-ownership, but tempered the sociological force of this idea by developing a parallel 'equal opportunity' theory, which established the basis of a coherent defence of the idea of equality of opportunity through the principle of proportionality. It is concluded that the ethical and sociological compromise for which Durkheim argued between these two egalitarian theories of social justice remains philosophically coherent and sociologically plausible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]