Search

As a further tribute to feminist scholar Jessie Bernard, in this paper, we review the entire collection of the National Council on Family Relations' Jessie Bernard Outstanding papers awarded to feminist junior scholars spanning from 1990 to 2018. In so doing, we showcase Jessie Bernard's devotion to mentoring young scholars as we highlight evolving feminist family scholarship of student/new professionals. In this paper, we sought to:(a) honor Jessie Bernard's intellectual legacy, (b) celebrate contributions of young feminist family scholar's work, and (c) explore how the award collection maps on to wider feminist theoretical debates and empirical shifts within feminist family science over the past three decades. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Theories play an important role in guiding intimate partner homicide (IPH) prevention research and practice. This study is the first systematic review of theories employed to explain why someone might kill their intimate partner. This review used rigorous methods to locate and synthesize literature that described explanatory theories of IPH perpetration. Using set search terms, we systematically searched 15 databases and repositories for theory-focused documents (i.e., theory papers or analyses) published in English from 2003 to 2018. Eighteen documents met these inclusion criteria and identified 22 individual theories that seek to explain why people might kill their intimate partners. These theories fell within four broader theoretical perspectives: feminist, evolutionary, sociological/criminological, and combined. Key tenets and focal populations of these 22 theories were identified and organized into a compendium of explanatory theories of IPH perpetration. Potential strengths and limitations of each of the four perspectives were described. Review findings underscored the likely importance of addressing gender as well as risk and protective factors at all levels of the social ecological model in efforts to understand IPH perpetration. The review findings highlighted the need for both integrated theories and a broader conceptual organizing framework to guide work aimed at IPH perpetration prevention to leverage the strengths of disparate theoretical perspectives. With the goal of informing future research, a preliminary iteration of such a framework is presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper traces relations between the study of work and the evolution of British sociology as an academic discipline. This reveals broad trajectories of marginalization, as the study of work becomes less central to Sociology as a discipline; increasing fragmentation of divergent approaches to the study of work; and -- as a consequence of both -- a narrowing of the sociological vision for the study of work. Our paper calls for constructive dialogue across different approaches to the study of work and a re-invigoration of sociological debate about work and -- on this basis -- for in-depth interdisciplinary engagement enabling us to build new approaches that will allow us to study work in all its diversity and complexity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Relatively little attention has been paid within mainstream sociology to the examination of marital power, although there is considerable disenchantment with measures of it based on replies to questions about who makes a range of decisions. Marxists anal feminists have stressed the importance of economic dependence as an element in understanding power relationship within marriage, although there has been little empirical work to support/undermine their views. This paper draws on material from 60 in-depth interviews with predominantly white married women aged 20-42 years old whose oldest child was at most 15 years and who were randomly selected from general practice medical registers in North London. The paper looks at three aspects of their marital power position: first, their experience of powerfulness/powerlessness; second, their level and pattern of emotional dependence on their husband (in the context of Waller's and Hill's (1951) 'principle of least interest'); and, third, their absolute and relative levels of structural power resources (such as education, occupation, etc.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Summary: This paper reviews the existing literature that seeks to conceptualize the operation of power, from modernist ideas of power as a `thing' that may be possessed, to a range of critical alternatives, including structuralist, Foucauldian and feminist psychological perspectives. This review provides the foundations on which to construct a framework by which social workers may be able to map out and work with issues of power and powerlessness more effectively in their everyday practice. • Findings: Current frameworks, such as anti-oppressive practice, may be insufficient in being able to identify the range and complexity of power relations that may be enacted within a social situation. In order to provide a more comprehensive understanding, the article presents a discussion of the application of a framework for analysing the operation of different forms of power — one that acknowledges the potential of power to be both damaging and productive. • Applications: Through a discussion of how the concepts within this framework may be applied to a practice scenario, and to issues around the use of power and authority by social workers, there is an exploration of how the framework may provide a useful tool for underpinning emancipatory social work practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social capital has become a key concept in Government policy-making and academic circles. Particular forms of social capital theorising have become dominant and influential, invoking certain conceptions of the nature of family life. Inherently, ideas about ‘the family’ not only draw on gender divisions in fundamental ways, but also on particular forms of intergenerational relationships and power relations. This paper explores the place, and understandings, of family in social capital theorising from a feminist perspective, including the way that debates in the social capital field interlock with those in the family field. These encompass: posing both ‘the family’ and social capital as fundamental and strong bases for social cohesion, but also as easily eroded and in need of protection and encouragement; the relationship between ‘the private’ and ‘the social’; notions of bonding and bridging, and horizontal and vertical, forms of social capital as these relate to ideas about contemporary diversity in family forms and the nature of intimate relationships; and analytic approaches to understanding both the natures of social capital and family life in terms of an economic or moral rationality. It argues for greater reflexivity in the use of social capital as a concept, revealing rather than replicating troubling presences and absences around gender and generation as fundamental axes of family life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article asserts that mainstream sociology, or more specifically the nonproblematic sociology found in introductory sociology textbooks treats gender, race and class in profoundly unequal ways. Inequalities of Race, Class and Gender are quantified in Introductory Sociology Textbooks. By the mid-1990s, sociology textbook authors were no longer de-emphasizing gender in comparison to race and class. Discussion of the role of socialization in relation to group differentiation is more common for gender and is discussed in more detail than for either class. While there is on average almost one page more of aggregate cross-societal text on class than on gender, the proportion of texts including a significant amount is identical for class and gender. Thus, the overriding impression about mainstream sociology conveyed by the F&H paper fails to capture the growing impact of feminist questions on research agendas in the field of social stratification in general as well as on introductory textbook authors.

This paper seeks to explore sociology as an imaginative pursuit. After a brief reconsideration of Mills's notion of 'the sociological imagination' I examine three areas illustrating the various imaginations within the discipline: the work of Robert K. Merton; ethnomethodology; and the diversities of feminist scholarship. Two particular case studies are explored: the sociology of the body and the use of autobiographical studies in sociology. I conclude with some suggestions for the encouragement of imaginative thought within the discipline. [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]

In this paper, my aim is to call attention to Erving Goffman's contributions to feminist theory. I begin by reviewing his sociological agenda and assessments of that agenda by his critics. Next, I consider various substantive contributions of his work to our understanding of women's experiences in public places, spoken interaction between women and men, and sex and gender. I conclude with a discussion of the significance of Goffman's work for analyzing the politics of and in the personal sphere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I address the current debates around ethnography and propose a critical-feminist ethnography which depends on the alternative narrative strategies suggested by experimental ethnography and the conceptual achievements offered by feminist standpoint epistemology and minor discourse theory. I argue, as have others, that the traditional scientistic-narrative techniques associated with ethnography actively constrain theoretical knowledges, mystify power relations embedded in the text, while construction Authorities with totalizing and omniscient vision. Experimental ethnography offers important textual interventions and revisions which challenges the orderliness and constructed Authorities imposed by realist narratives useful for those feminist projects which attempt to deal with the multiplicity of differences/domination. Postmodern feminist standpoint epistemology and minor discourse theory are concerned with recovering and representing historically repressed local knowledges and visions in ways that do not simply translate them into or through dominant critical/feminist theories. Such projects require ongoing critical dialogue among local voices, theory, and the ethnographer in which what counts as knowledge remains contestable and is contested. I argue that textual constructions of such projects must remain heteroglossic (representing multiple visions to readers) in order to potentially revise critical/feminist theory and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The articles provides information about the special January 1989 issue of the journal "Sociology of Education" which reflects diversity both in research about women and in women's educational experiences. The authors use different methodologies with quantitative data, in-depth interviews and participant observation, and a combination of qualitative and quantitative evidence. The first two articles use states and countries as the unit of observation, while the last three use the individual. The articles examine primary, secondary, postsecondary, and adult education. The articles vary in other ways as well. The call for papers asked for submissions with a feminist perspective, an approach that is often hard to find in standard sociological research. Although more research than in the past is incorporating information on women and addressing topics that are vital to women's lives, few sociologists have developed truly new perspectives on how life is "gendered." Among the manuscripts the journal received for this issue, few could be labeled "feminist," although they all focused on the educational experiences of women and girls in different settings. The articles included vary in the extent to which the authors try to rethink models and theories explaining women's experience.