Search

This paper examines the Chicago sociologist William F. Ogburn's (1886–1959) views about technological unemployment, which were intimately connected to his analysis of the social impacts of technological developments and resulting social problems due to cultural lag. We trace the development of his views as seen through his well‐known 1922 book, Social Change with Respect to Culture and Original Nature, his important contributions to the President's Research Committee on Social Trends (1933), and his lesser‐known pamphlets designed for a broader audience—Living with Machines (1933), You and Machines (1934), and Machines and Tomorrow's World (1938). He used these pamphlets to educate the public about the dangers of new machines and technological unemployment. In doing so, he drew upon sociological analysis in his professional scholarly writings and his long‐standing personal interests in social betterment and social reform. Our analysis also calls into question the adequacy of existing scholarship on Ogburn that has emphasized his commitment to a statistical, dispassionate, and "objectivist" approach to social science research. We call for a revised, richer, and more complex view of Ogburn's work and legacy as one of the nation's leading social scientists during the first half of the 20th century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most social scientists agree that case studies are useful for "theory building," but ethnographic methods papers often look to survey research for case selection strategies. This is due to a common but untenable distinction between theoretical and empirical generalization, which obscures how theoretically inclined ethnographers make implicit external validity claims. I analyze several exemplary ethnographies to show that (a) the distinction between theoretically and empirically oriented ethnography revolves around competing conventions for making claims that others accept as provisionally externally valid, (b) comparative-historical sociology provides a framework for evaluating how theoretically oriented ethnographies make such claims, and (c) each approach to making validity claims is optimized by different kinds of cases. Empirically oriented ethnographies make inductive claims via "pointy" cases wherein a phenomenon is pronounced or bifurcated. Theoretically oriented ethnographers are like post–Millian historical sociologist who triangulate past studies with resolutive or negative cases to make constitutive arguments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I review and discuss the articles in this issue by Walker, by Wanner, and by Heidtman et al. There are three main themes that appear in all three papers: these flow from the shared commitment among these authors to understanding and promoting "scientific theory construction" within sociology, and to dispelling some common misconceptions about scientific sociological theory. The common themes that run through the three papers can be put in the form of questions: 1) What is a theory? 2) How should we evaluate theory? 3) How does theory grow? In addition to discussing these three main themes. I discuss four sub-themes that emerged: 1) Sociology as a Scientific Endeavor; 2) Critiques of General Theory as Being Positivistic; 3) Unitary versus Multiple Forms of Theory Building; 4) Professional/Disciplinary Barriers to Theory Construction and Theory Building in Sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research, with a capital 'R', is a subject of considerable concern within South African ruling circles. There's not enough of it, and it's not the right kind, or so the argument runs. Recognising the importance of the material conditions of the researchers and the need for a bottom-up approach to developing research priorities, this paper focuses on the state of sociology research in South Africa today. It demonstrates that, over the past twelve years, a marked increase in the output of masters and doctoral graduates has been accompanied by a decline in the level of completed research by qualified sociologists. In terms of publications, there has been a significant increase in the proportion produced by women, but a negligible change in the number by black scholars. The paper rejects pessimistic assessments of the state of South African sociology. It concludes by arguing that the discipline should place itself at the centre of an integrated and engaged social science by drawing diverse strands together at a local level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article the author discusses the role of the sociologist after half-a-century of studying science. He explores the problem with misconceptions about human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment in South Africa. He provides an overview of the paper "Third Wave of Science Studies," which he and fellow sociologist Rob Evans wrote. He also discusses the new programme called Studies of Expertise and Experience.

‘Theory’ is one of the most important words in the lexicon of contemporary sociology. Yet, their ubiquity notwithstanding, it is quite unclear what sociologists mean by the words ‘theory,’‘theoretical,’ and ‘theorize.’ I argue that confusions about the meaning of ‘theory’ have brought about undesirable consequences, including conceptual muddles and even downright miscommunication. In this paper I tackle two questions: (a) what does ‘theory’ mean in the sociological language?; and (b) what ought ‘theory’ to mean in the sociological language? I proceed in five stages. First, I explain why one should ask a semantic question about ‘theory.’ Second, I lexicographically identify seven different senses of the word, which I distinguish by means of subscripts. Third, I show some difficulties that the current lack of semantic clarity has led sociology to. Fourth, I articulate the question, ‘what ought “theory” to mean?,’ which I dub the ‘semantic predicament’ (SP), and I consider what one can learn about it from the theory literature. Fifth, I recommend a ‘semantic therapy’ for sociology, and advance two arguments about SP: (a) the principle of practical reason—SP is to a large extent a political issue, which should be addressed with the help of political mechanisms; and (b) the principle of ontological and epistemological pluralism—the solution to SP should not be too ontologically and epistemologically demanding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper questions how an earlier generation of British social analysts (sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists and others) identified cultural characteristics of post-war minorities, valuing some and derogating others, and using such valuations to assess or measure these groups’ differential rates of success or failure in integrating into British society. Through a critical review of some influential texts in British social studies over the last four or so decades, this paper suggests that analysts today as in the past run the risk of their work being seen, perhaps mistakenly, as attempts to apportion praise and blame with regard to new communities’ contributions to a tolerant and inclusive social order in post-imperial Britain. It is implied that representations of cultural and social capital — where ethnic identities, families and kinship networks are concerned — demand a far more sensitive, intellectually rigorous and honest, and empirically and theoretically informed treatment than some influential members of a past generation bequeathed. Cet article questionne l'approche de la précédente génération des chercheurs en sciences sociales britanniques (sociologues, ethnologues, politologues et autres) concernant les caractéristiques culturelles des minorités présentes après la deuxième guerre mondiale dans la société britannique, certains étant valorisés plus que d'autres. Ces chercheurs avaient par la suite utilisé ces évaluations pour estimer ou mesurer l'intégration plus ou moins réussie de ces groupes à la société britannique. Par l'examen critique de leurs textes forts influents dans les quarante années qui viennent de s’écouler cet article suggère qu'aujourd'hui, tout comme pour le passé, les spécialistes (actuels, comme leurs prédécesseurs) courent le risque de voir leurs travaux assimilés à une tentative de distribution de blâmes et louanges à ces communautés nouvelles, au vu de leurs contributions à un ordre social tolérant et intégrateur dans la Grande Bretagne post-impériale. Vis-à-vis de l'héritage reçu, la représentation du capital social et culturel — en ce qui concernes les identités ethniques, les familles et les réseaux de parenté — ne demanderaient-elle pas maintenant un traitement plus sensible, plus rigoureux et honnête au plan intellectuel ainsi qu'un traitement empirique mieux informé théoriquement? minorités, communautés, capital social, valeurs, subjectivité, le chercheur et son objet, cultures, intégration et exclusion [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that the dominance of linear models has led many sociologists to construe the social world in terms of a "general linear reality." This reality assumes (1) that the social world consists of fixed entities with variable attributes, (2) that cause cannot flow from "small" to "large" attributes/events, (3) that causal attributes have only one causal pattern at once, (4) that the sequence of events does not influence their outcome, (5) that the. "careers" of entities are largely independent, and (6) that causal attributes are generally independent of each other. The paper discusses examples of these assumptions in empirical work, considers standard and new methods addressing them, and briefly explores alternative models for reality that employ demographic, sequential, and network perspectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the relevance of poetry for sociology. The author was inspired to write this paper by the appearance of in a recent issue of the periodical Teaching Sociology, of an article on using poetry in the classroom. Most of the authors fellow sociologists regard his interest in poetry as an illness from which they hope he would soon recover. So it was a source of comfort to the author to find that there is at least one other sociologist with a similar interest. This is not a research paper, many problems and issues are discussed in an impressionistic and evocative rather than in a scholarly way. The purpose of the author is not to convince any reader of the truth of his impressionistic arguments and assertions; what he does hope to convey is the great benefits to be gained from integrating poetry into the teaching of sociology. For this paper the author has added another section which discusses the uses of poetry in teaching sociology in more general terms. The potential value of poetry in teaching sociology has not been recognized by either sociologists or poets.

The lives and ideas of early female sociologists are rarely documented in textbooks, classrooms, or historical accounts of the profession. This patriarchal legacy is rejected by an increasing number of contemporary sociologists. These more egalitarian professionals soon discover, however, that they have few resources in their sociological stock of knowledge to guide them in this new enterprise. This paper is a guide for teachers in a variety of courses who want to start filling these deep gaps in knowledge. Specific guidance is provided on reference works, autobiographies, and biographies that provide information on 10 early female founders of American sociology. Given these references and our capacity to innovate and recreate our social world, we have a sufficient stock of knowledge to change our sociological practice in the classroom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Filosofija, Sociologija is the property of Lithuanian Academy of Sciences Publishers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper explores the practical implications of Wallerstein's call for the substitution of an existing culture of sociology by a culture of social science for the future of the sociological project in South Africa. South African sociology is examined in terms of Therborn's three spaces of identity in which sociology is located: a space of discipline, a space of everyday practice and a space of imagination and investigation. The paper argues that sociology in South Africa is responding creatively to the challenges of our society. In order to maintain this response we need to strengthen our discipline through institutional and intellectual engagement. In conclusion it is argued that sociology is distinctive through its sociological imagination, its emphasis on unmasking deceptions and illusions and its commitment to improving the world we live in. Analytical knowledge, technical know-how and the well-being of human beings are the heart and soul of sociology. Our contribution is best made not as social scientists but first and foremost as sociologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While one can be labeled a sociologist in name by fulfilling formal institutional requirements, that is only part of the necessary work involved in graduate training. What is also required is mastering the informal professional culture associated with academic sociology. In this paper, we offer practical advice about informal norms in graduate school--norms we know now that we wish we'd known then. Our reflections upon our own experiences in graduate school are guided by our common research and teaching interests in informal organizational culture. What is the potential salience of informal norms, such as particularistic relations with faculty and graduate students, ceremonial versus actual practices regarding research and teaching, and emotional labor around one's work, for better understanding the professional socialization of graduate study in sociology? Our emphasis here is to offer advice on how to navigate the graduate school realities these norms present. We also believe that sociologists should turn a more focused eye on the profession, one in which the presence of such norms is readily acknowledged and more formally considered for the benefit of teaching graduate students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an overview of the topics discussed in the September 1, 1999 issue of The American Sociologists concerning diversity and collaboration. Three papers in this issue address the question of diversity within sociology, with attention to both intellectual and social differences. Roger Clark frames his inquiry in dialectical terms that permit consideration of diversity as both problem and solution. Other authors employ descriptive methods to present profiles or snapshots of the current situation. Thus, Jane Lord and Stephen Sanderson examine the theoretical commitments and political orientations of one subgroup in the profession, namely, members of the theory section of the American Sociological Association. Joseph McFalls, Michael Engle and Bernard Gallagher tabulate the social characteristics of sociologists in the contemporary academy. Two other papers in this issue focus on changing patterns of work in sociology and on the experience of an extended career in the field. Nicholas Babchuk, Bruce Keith and George Peters analyze the trend toward increasing collaboration among sociologists and compare it to the situation in several other academic specializations. The voices in this issue offer valuable insights into the profession's past, present and emerging future as we become simultaneously more diverse and yet more collaborative.

An earlier paper traced the effects of political pressures upon the structural arrangements of public bureaucracies. Contrary to expectations such pressures were found not to associate with various measures of bureaucratization. The present paper pursues the same set of hypotheses but makes a number of conceptual and methodological changes. The results of the analysis demonstrate that parts of the public bureaucracies are affected by political pressures but in specific rather than general ways. The thrust of the original hypothesis is thus supported but not the details. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent growth of applied research creates a new context for studying the correlates of publication productivity among academic social scientists. This paper reports a study of the individual and structural characteristics related to publication productivity among academics in one applied field: social work. In a national sample of social work educators, the primary predictors of publication are tenured status (vs. untenured), attainment of a doctoral degree (vs. masters), and primary interest in research (vs. teaching). The article emphasizes the similarities between social work academics and other academic social scientists, and highlights the links between research interest and training, applied research, and publication productivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The university-employed sociologist faces a dilemma in which his self-perception as a social scientist leaves him poorly prepared for his role as educator or teacher. Thus, sociology usually is abstracted from the "real social world" and taught deductively beginning with concepts and principles. The backlash to this approach has been to teach sociology inductively in which relevance replaces theory. In an attempt to straddle both of these approaches, this paper presents an alternative format in classroom debates to increase both relevance and theoretical involvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I describe my experience as a qualitative sociologist on the research staff of a government policymaking agency. Using specific examples from my experience, strategies for survival as a qualitative sociologist in a quantitatively-oriented setting are presented. It is proposed that: 1) qualitative methods need to be promoted as a credible and valuable approach to research and the individual researcher must "sell" him or herself as competent in the use of such methods; 2) social support networks with similarly inclined co-workers and sociologists outside of the workplace need to be developed and maintained and used to enhance the status of qualitative methods and qualitative sociologists; and 3) as is true for all researchers working in a policy making or applied setting, it is necessary to recognize the reticular nature of social research and to demonstrate how qualitative methods generate information that is useful to policy or other applied purposes. By application of this approach in my own workplace, qualitative research methods have become an acceptable and even desirable part of many research projects of the agency and I have been able to continue to practice and to maintain my identity as a qualitative sociologist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents the author's reflections on his role as a university-based sociologist who emphasize sociological practice. I pursued one such role over a thirty-year period at a major U.S. university. This role was based on both a personal and professional commitment and an institution's commitment to science with practice, societal-relevant research communicated to targeted client systems. Major areas of sociological emphasis during these thirty years were social change, communication and organizational effectiveness. The locales of research and action have ranged from local communities, districts within states, state, region, national and into twelve foreign countries. There was great range of forms and intensity of communication and interchange with clients. It involved developing learner-centered training materials for workshops varying from one-half day to two weeks duration. It may be of interest to note that despite the practice orientation of which I am very proud, it was possible to participate in many activities usually thought of as the province of the academic, for example, co-author-editor of six books, chapters in 11 additional books, 20 refereed journal articles, over 50 papers at professional meetings and 60 monographs.

This article uses the recent work of sociologist Margaret M. Poloma to argue that developments in the sociology of Pentecostalism have the potential to revitalize a classical Pentecostal movement that can be otherwise understood as languishing. In particular, the social scientific study of benevolent service in various segments of the Pentecostal movement provides the springboard for the argument. After locating the interdisciplinary work of Poloma and her colleagues on godly love within the broader context of social science research in the last half century, this paper will explore its implications for the future and renewal of especially the classical Pentecostal movement, for Pentecostal theology and self-understanding, and for scholarship on Pentecostalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Socijalna Ekologija is the property of Croatian Sociological Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Influenced by the new literary movement and postmodernism, in the 1990s sociologists began to reflexively examine their writings as texts, looking critically at the way they shape reality and articulate their descriptions and conceptualizations. Advancing this thread, in our presidential address we offer an overarching analysis of ethnographic writing, identifying four current genres and deconstructing their rhetoric: classical, mainstream, postmodern, and public ethnography. We focus on the differences in their epistemological, organizational, locational, and stylistic self-presentations with an eye toward better understanding how these speak to their intended audiences, both within and outside of the discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The professional development of sociologists involves specialized training through which we acquire and apply numerous skills. However, it is unlikely that our professional socialization includes training in how to inform the public about sociological knowledge and research through media involvement. As a sociologist who did not receive such training and was not prepared for the enormous unanticipated media and public interest given to my research topic, I provide a personal account of my unexpected metamorphosis into a media self and my experiences working with the media. I describe the nature of my professional and media obscurity, provide an overview of my initiation into media culture, and explore a self-transformation process that became necessary to manage the responsibilities associated with the media-assigned role of expert. I identify and examine the lessons I learned through extensive media involvement and the emergent realities of this involvement. Based on my experiences and resulting awareness of media culture, I offer to the discipline some suggestions and guidelines for media involvement and advocate for media training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revue Tiers Monde is the property of Librairie Armand Colin and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article reports on the relationship of sociology and society. The author noted that the GEODE position had initialized him to comprehend that he never construed sociology as about society. He also manifested that society is an institution which although worthy of being considered is inadequate as a guide to the practice of sociology. In studying sociology, he posed the use of construct, network populations. He also mentioned that in most actual research projects, sociologists need not to trouble themselves with notions of society.

The article highlights the history of the section on Communication and Information Technologies of the American Sociological Association (CITASA), focusing on the early years. In that early period in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the emphasis was on helping sociologists adjust to the new potential of microcomputers for research and teaching. A tension emerged because new users of computing held different priorities than did those who were developers, specialists, or cyberspace researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents the author's comment on researcher David Sciulli's paper about the continental sociology of professions. Sciulli has criticized the social history of the professions, claiming that it is not able to provide a definition of a professional that distinguishes it from that of an expert. He instead suggests a return to a sociology, able to produce a concept of profession applicable in any historical configuration. Providing a definition of profession that remains valid outside the temporal dimension requires a person to look into its essence. Sciulli argues that it was the painters and sculptors of the French monarchs, assembled in an academy founded by Henri IV, who drew up the first curriculum of learned instruction in Western history, which were based on examinations and merit-based standards for entry and advancement in any occupational field. Traveling back in time in search of the genesis of particular forms may provide crucial analogical results that induce research to move in unexpected directions.

Copyright of Sociologias is the property of Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article examines the stages graduate students in sociology pass through on their way to a Ph.D. and the status of academic professional. The authors relate their experiences in graduate school as well as 25 years of teaching in college. They accumulated data from a dozen current and former students to augment their own thoughts and experiences. The article studies the bonding effect of the cohort structure in graduate school and students' movement away from their cohort as they select areas of specialization and bond more closely with their key faculty members and older students in that network. Students' teaching and conference experiences influence them in adopting the identity of professional sociologists.

This article features sociologist C. Wright Mills and his works. There seems to be something of a revival of interest at the turn of the century in the work of Mills, who died nearly forty years ago at the early age of forty-five. His two daughters have now published with a major university press a large collection of their father's correspondence and unpublished autobiographical writings, including their own remembrances of him, see "C. Wright Mills: Letters and Autobiographical Writings," edited by Kathryn Mills with Pamela Mills, with an introduction by Dan Wakefield. The book was launched last fall at the auditorium of the New York Public Library in New York City with a panel of readings and speeches followed by a reception.

In this paper we present the results of a survey administered to a sample of American sociologists which attempted to determine the degree of attention paid to TAS, as compared with the other "core" journals, and to learn about the attitudes of our respondents concerning articles appearing in TAS that deal with the day-to-day affairs of sociology in five key areas. Thus, within the context of a general debate over the merits of navel-gazing for sociology (for example, Gouldner, 1973; Lipset and Ladd, 1973), we assess empirically how American sociologists feel about some aspects of this issue. In this study we have attempted to discover how American sociologists feel on the question of navel-gazing in sociology. The majority stated quite clearly their support for a continuing discussion of issues which relate to the day-to-day workings of sociologists and sociology. Several specific points deserve more than passing mention. First, American sociologists seem to agree that articles on the teaching of sociology and the publication process deserve attention in the pages of TAS. Articles on the distribution of specialties in sociology, prestige ratings of departments, and career mobility of sociologists seem to have less appeal, but we speculate that this is possibly more a reflection of dissatisfaction with the number of these articles than with the type. Second, although this was not emphasized in our questionnaire, some suggestions were made concerning other areas of interest which it was felt deserved attention in TAS. It would seem that a study attempting to define the broad range of issues which interest American sociologists, particularly those that it is felt have not been adequately dealt with in TAS (or in other professional journals), would be useful at this time. Finally, it can be recalled that the impetus for our study derived from a letter from a British sociologist criticizing what he considered to be a preponderance of "bizarre navel-gazing" in TAS.... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Earlier attempts to define visual sociology have acknowledged that there is no real need to define visual sociology other than for bureaucratic legitimization: heads of departments want to see on paper what their staff members are teaching and what their students are studying; chairmen of research committees want to feel comfortable that research money is well spent. In a world of words, visual sociologists can do their work only to the extent that visual sociology is recognized by men of letters. This description is at least imaginative, but it limits the label of visual sociologists to those interested in photography. Michael Hill takes a broader view. He accentuates the relationship between sociologists and the visual arts, by defining the field as: "Exploration of the reflexive relationships between social structures, on the one hand, and the choice, apprehension, perception, cognition, and creation of visual imagery, on the other." There is no doubt that many other definitions and descriptions can be formulated and will be formulated in the future. It should be clear, however,that definitions, besides being instrumental in the communication between scholars, may also have a stultifying effect.

This paper is an attempt to compare the sociological understanding of two of Karnataka sociologists. A brief review of the contributions of M.N. Srinivas by the author appeared in Contributions to Indian Sociology (NS), Vol. 12, No. I (1978). The present analysis is a follow-up of his critique in the writings of K. Ishwaran. The review is confined to three of his books published over a period of twelve years (1966-1978) to the understanding of Indian and Karnataka villages in particular. While Srinivas has tried to look at the social institutions, values and the entire social processes from the top, Ishwaran in his sociological exercises attacked and tried to demolish both Srinivas and his contributions, particularly the concepts of sanskritization and dominant Caste, But in his engerness to show how wrong Srinivas is, hats produced literature which is devoid of depth, analysis and is not supported by facts. While decrying Brahminism he has put Veerasaivism on the top. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that the sociological study of crime and deviance is necessarily and consistently biased toward the study of those individuals and organizations that are relatively powerless, and suggests that social scientists can avoid this bias by taking charge of their own research, by defining their own research areas more-or-less independently of legislators and of the various publics that define deviance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents comments of various sociologist on issues related to sociology, presented in the American Sociological Association (ASA) roundtable conference. On the question of general agreement of sociologists on what and how to study, Stanford M. Lyman commented that much of conventional sociology has abandoned the discipline's original interest in providing an empirically-tested theory of social reality in the name of a reified conception of methodology. On another question related to conception of order, Herbert Blumer said that, from the standpoint of symbolic interactionism, human group life is a process in which objects are being created, affirmed, transformed and cast aside. Guy Oakes, commented on Weberian rule.

This issue of "Sociological Inquiry" presents a new and rather exciting feature which I believe will be of great interest to the readers of this journal. They are, for the first time, publishing the winning paper of the Alpha Kappa Delta (AKD) undergraduate paper competition. The editorial advisory board strongly recommended publishing the winning paper as "Sociological Inquiry" is, after all, the official journal of AKD, the international sociology honorary society. They also know that many of their subscribers are students. The editor hope that they enjoy this rather unique look at an aspect of human society that has been virtually untouched by sociologists. As they read this article, he hope also that they come away with a sense of satisfaction with knowing that the next generation of sociologists is being well trained in their discipline. Recognizing that much of this behavior has little to do with intended suicide, and cannot necessarily be linked to other pathologies, Sarah Hodgson interviews individuals who engage in this type of self mutilation through online chat rooms. Her analysis reveals several layers of learning that take place, as well as numerous mechanisms that are employed to maintain their credibility in a society that otherwise stigmatizes such behavior.

This article features an editorial about the need for further documentation when sociologists present their papers. The authors write that the use of expert interviews to support data should be kept to a minimum, and that the publishers have decided to make all empirical data available for comments, and therefore the data must either appear in the article or be made otherwise available.

Abstract This article examines the relationship between sociologists and the Communist Party headquarters in 1960 Czechoslovakia. It is based on the archives of the coordinating body of Czechoslovak sociology, the Scientific Board of Philosophy and Sociology at the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. First, the article depicts the synergy between sociology and the powers: the research commissioned by the supreme Party bodies or the Party sponsorship of sociology's institutionalization. However, instances of lacking material support to the discipline are noted as well. Second, the conflicts between social scientists and the Party headquarters are discussed: namely, the layoff of the philosopher Ivan Sviták in 1964 and the following interventions into the Institute of Philosophy. Finally, the article maps the demands for autonomy as formulated by the scholars in 1968. In concluding, it points to the fact that despite requesting independence from the Communist headquarters, the Marxist elite in the social sciences never abandoned their own claim to hegemony. They resisted both the challenge of non-Marxist scholars in 1968, and the spontaneous claims and complaints that might come from the society at large. In that respect, the sociology of the 1960s seems a perfect child of the Czechoslovak reformist movement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Prolegómenos Derechos y Valores is the property of Prolegomenos Derechos y Valores and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The purpose of this article is to reconsider partnership and parenthood in post-transitional societies from the viewpoint of sociology. As is well known, after the end of the Baby Boom, albeit with variations in the tempo and the level, a considerable decline in fertility has occurred in industrialized countries. Furthermore, this decline has occurred in tandem with the transformation of partnership such as an increase in the number of cohabited couples. The causes and effects of this decline in fertility have hitherto been studied by social scientists such as economists and demographers. Although the family has been one of the main research interests for sociologists for a long while, the changes in partnership and fertility behavior in developed countries have not been sufficiently argued from the perspective of sociological theory on family. In this article, we will initially compare and contrast two changes in fertility patterns: the first of these is the fertility decline that occurred around the latter half of the nineteenth century; the second is the change that has been observed in industrialized countries since the second half of the 1960s. We will then discuss the difference between economic and ideational approaches in the explanation of partnership and fertility changes. Finally, we will examine the convergence and the divergence theories on family change. This article will conclude with an emphasis on the importance of the middle-range theories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A major drawback of the contemporary sociology is the conceptual incoherence. There is not even one single concept that it is used with the same meaning by all the sociologists. This critical situation depends on various subjective circumstances ( the vanities, the aspirations, the motivations, the personal capacities of the researchers of the social), but also on the process, aparently objective, of the sociological concepts formation and defining. The stages of this process are the interpersonal communication of the experience, the formation of the similarities, the social types construction and represent the subject of this study. The final conclusion is that sociology builds/ rebuilds its own conceptual instruments, but the categories it proposes are and will remain restrictive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author provides an economist's perspective on a set of articles examining the role of sociologists in studying recent trends in inequality in the United States. Three themes underlie his comments. First, effective investigations of empirical questions require a combination of statistics and theory. This means the same data can be organized differently according to different theories and doing so leads to greater insight. Second, having more than one discipline work on a problem is helpful not just in providing multiple potential explanations but also in getting researchers to question ortho- doxy within their own disciplines; for example, it is important that sociologists not buy into the economics orthodoxy on inequality. Third, many questions related to recent inequality trends are particularly suited to examinations with sociology's tool kit; evidence from this set of articles is that more sociologists are applying those tools to explaining rising inequality in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sociologists have contributed relatively little to our understanding of rising inequality of earnings and income in the United States. The author considers both why that has been the case and the degree to which it matters. Suggestions are offered about how a comparative perspective can help to shed some light on developments in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the reason for the exclusion of Ibn Khaldūn, a Muslim sociologist, from the study of the historical sociology. One explanation is the failure of sociological literature to take into consideration the works of non-Western sociologists in their assessments of works related to sociology. The author points out the significance of considering multicultural sources of sociological thought and theory. Some western scholars recognize Khaldūn as the founder of sociology. Others assume that this Muslim sociologist influenced Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim.

The article discusses the future of Anglo-Canadian sociology as a scientific discipline. Several prominent members of the field have speculated on the possible imminent demise of the discipline and point to loss of identity and autonomy as the primary cause. The author examines the issue thoroughly, concluding that the direction of Anglo-Canadian sociology lies in the professional attitudes and activities of its members. Suggestions for future avenues of sociological research and activity are provided.

This article examines the role of sociologists as public intellectuals. The author discusses the role of the media in disseminating sociological knowledge and the impediments to using it for serious sociological commentary. There are many persuasive reasons why sociology and sociologists should use the language and the medium of the average person and engage in framing the controversies and issues of our time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses one of the best known of sociologists Michael Burawoy's works on "public sociology," the version of his presidential address published in the American Sociological Review under the title "For Public Sociology." It presents a proposal for resolving the conflicts that have arisen among sociologists of different orientations. Burawoy sees possibilities for "reciprocal interdependence" among four sociologies, which he calls "professional sociology," "policy sociology," "public sociology," and "critical sociology."