Search

The dominant position on research methodology and methods among British sociologist has for many years been that of 'methodological pluralism'. However, concerns have lately been expressed about the lack of research involving quantitative methods, not least by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). A study of the four mainstream British journals over two years, tighter with associated sources, demonstrates national patterns of research methods used in published work, the topics tackled and variations between authors in the methods chosen. The findings suggest empirical support for the concerns recently expressed by the ESRC, and an argument, not for less qualitative research, but for more quantitative research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I hope to offer a global picture of what is happening in the world of qualitative data archiving. Qualidata is in a strong position to be able to offer this insight as it was the world's first initiative to pioneer preservation of qualitative social science data on a national scale. This was facilitated by the Economic and Social Science Research Council (ESRC), Britain's largest sponsor of social science research, implementing a mandatory policy for research grant holders to offer datasets of all kinds created in the course of their research. The policy has been met with both great support and animosity from the research community. In this paper I examine some of the reasons why the concept of sharing qualitative data generates such mixed feelings. Qualidata's work has provided sparks of inspiration to a number of research groups across the world beginning to consider the systematic preservation of qualitative data. Over the past four years we have been approached by embryonic "qualidata" projects for advice on issues surrounding archiving and providing access to qualitative data. Many have used Qualidata procedures as a starting point for developing their own archiving procedures (which were devised initially from a cross-fertilisation of UK Data Archive and traditional archiving procedures). Typically these groups tend to be sociologists, and surprisingly have had little or no contact with the social science Data Archives in their own countries. Furthermore, we are still not aware of any other national funders of social research across the world who have realised the added value that archiving of qualitative data can bring. I hope to provide a quick world tour of progress in the field and then suggest some of the key objectives that I think need to be met in order to achieve a respectable tradition and infrastructure for preserving and re-using qualitative data. I will touch on optimal and cost effective models for qualitative data archiving, discuss issues surrounding the documentation of data, and finally, address the need for meaningful collaboration at the international level, such as by creating a Network for Qualitative Data Archiving (INQUADA). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper offers reflections on the author's working experience as an industrial sociologist from the 1960s. It seeks to contextualise this in more general considerations of the part played by industrial sociology in the development of sociology in the UK. This is evidenced in thematic concerns, the importance of historical perspectives as well as the use of case studies and the development of ethnographic work. It discusses the role which industrial sociology has played in bringing issues of power, authority, control and class into sharp focus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alan Fox is one of the most prolific and original British sociologists of industry and employment. Fox's largely derivative writings on macro-sociology have received considerable attention in the literature. In comparison his original micro-sociological theory of the role played by trust in organizational integration has been neglected. This paper presents a critical evaluation of Fox's microsociological theory of 'trust dynamics' in organizations. The paper identifies conceptual, theoretical and methodological weaknesses in Fox's complex argument and concludes that Fox's theory is invalid. The paper also suggests that trust in organizational life is probably more significant as an aspect of 'social integration' than, as Fox contends, as an aspect of' 'system integration'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The authors explore the under-researched area of post-decision evaluation in PPPs (public–private partnerships), focusing upon how and whether Post-decision Project Evaluation (PdPE) is considered and provided for in United Kingdom (UK) public infrastructure projects. Design/methodology/approach: The authors' research design sought insights from overviewing UK PPP planning and more focused exploration of PPP operational practice. The authors combine the extensive analysis of planning documents for operational UK PPP projects with interviews of different stakeholders in PPP projects in one city. Mobilising an open critical perspective, documents were analysed using ethnographic content analysis (ECA) and interviews were analysed using thematic analysis consistent therewith. The authors theorise the absence and ambiguities of PdPE drawing on the sociology of ignorance. Findings: The authors find a long-standing absence and lack of PdPE in PPP projects throughout planning and operational practice, reflecting a dynamic, multi-faceted ignorance. Concerning planning practice, the authors' documentary analysis evidences a trend in PdPE from its absence in the early years (which may indicate some natural or genuine ignorance) to different levels or forms of weak inclusion later. Regarding this inclusion, the authors find strategic ignorance played a substantive role, involving "deliberate engineering" by both public sector and private partners. Interview findings indicate lack of clarity over PdPE and its under-development in PPP practice, deficiencies again suggestive of natural and strategic ignorance. Originality/value: The authors draw from the sociology of ignorance vis-à-vis accounting's absence and ambiguity in the context of PPP, contributing to an under-researched area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports on a project following up previous work about patterns of and attitudes to assessment among sociologists. Two forms of data collection were undertaken: an online questionnaire to sociology departments and a series of focus groups with undergraduate students. The results showed that assessment has become a more salient issue than ten years ago, but that most of the innovations in practice had taken place in post-1992 institutions. The focus group findings confirm those from national satisfaction surveys; namely that student dissatisfaction with assessment is profound and that it persists throughout their undergraduate experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article responds to Sara Delamont's paper in the February 2000 edition of Sociology which provides an account of the relationship between the sub-discipline, sociology of education, and parent discipline, sociology. Delamont argues that the hooligan is an anomalous beast for sociologists of education, who paradoxically revere him: while the sociology of education is an anomalous beast for the parent discipline, whose practitioners reject and fear it. Essentially, according to the author, the latter part of Delamont's argument amounts to the claim that the wider discipline of sociology has neglected sociology of education. The author notes that in this article, his response is concerned with Delamont's unsatisfactory characterization of British sociology of education. According to Delamont, sociology in Great Britain has two grand narratives, both male--one derived from the political arithmetic tradition is quantitative, empirical and focused on social mobility, and the other discursive and focused on anti-heroes: the portrayal of the rebellion or resistance of the hooligan. Delamont has attempted to characterize British ethnographic studies, which include some reference to anti-school/delinquent boys, and which have been conducted by male sociologists, as falling into the same category.

This article contrasts the use of ethnographic research procedures in the study of schools in Great Britain and the U.S. It also reflects on differences between the anthropology and the sociology of education. In the course of this exploration the authors also hope to draw together much of the literature from the respective countries and disciplinary fields. There is an obvious and striking difference between British and U.S. school ethnography. Whereas the U.S. research on schools and classrooms has been conducted primarily by applied anthropologists, that in Great Britain has been done overwhelmingly by researchers who see themselves as sociologists. It is noticeable that several researchers working as sociologists were trained as anthropologists or began work in anthropology departments. Where British research has looked to North America it has been to U.S. sociology in genera--especially symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology. The article also attempts to establish that the Atlantic really does divide school ethnographers into differing traditions. It establishes the truth of the authors' claim that school and classroom ethnography in the U.S. and Canada is predominantly anthropological in orientation, while that in Great Britain is more sociological.

In recent years ergonomist and industrial sociologists have found considerable common ground in the study of the impact of technological change on work. The former have been concerned mainly with the ways in which new technologies affect the activities and skill requirements of the individual worker and with studies of newly emerging man-machine systems. The latter have turned their attention more to the impact of technological change at the level of the total organizational system and on the occupational structure of industrial society. Conceptions of skill and ideas about levels of skill are highly relevant to both lines of enquiry, but in bringing the two approaches together a problem arises, in that 'skill' as defined for the purposes of ergonomics research is something different from 'skill' as an element in the social structure of a manufacturing plant or the occupational structure of an industrial society. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the existence of two sets of ideas about skills, to show how they relate to each other in occupational life, and to examine the implications for technical progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents a commentary on a paper by Robert A. Stebbins in a previous issue of The American Sociologist which provided an account of professional and amateur sociology in the U.S. The British organization, Mass Observation existed in a relatively nonintrusive society with (as compared to the U.S.) greater concern for one's own and other people's privacy. Canada and Great Britain may in this respect have more built-in defenses against the risks of some kinds of amateur sociology that the U.S. would have. However, according to the commenter, Stebbins already anticipates this objection by requiring amateurs to be supervised and to start with a certain amount of instruction and proper cautionary comments. By engaging primarily in the use of unobtrusive measures and observations, the amateur will avoid the risks of harm to which Stebbins is already sensitive. The commenter relates that one of the public areas in which he has encouraged such unobtrusive observations is in churches, where the observer in outward appearance is similar to the congregation and hence not seen as an intruder. According to him, he has had a fair amount of experience with undergraduate amateurs of the sort described.

Few sociologists dissent from the notion that the mid- to late 1970s witnessed a shift in capitalism’s modus operandi. Its association with a rapid increase of social and material inequality is beyond dispute. This article opens with a brief summation of contemporary British trends in economic inequalities, and finds an echo of these trends in health inequalities. It is suggested that the sociology of health inequalities in Britain lacks an analysis of agency, and that such an analysis is crucial. A case is made that the recent critical realist contribution of Margaret Archer on ‘internal conversations’ lends itself to an understanding of agency that is salient here. The article develops her typology of internal conversations to present characterizations of the ‘focused autonomous reflexives’ whose mind-sets are causally efficacious for producing and reproducing inequalities, and the ‘dedicated meta-reflexives’ whose casts of mind might yet predispose them to mobilize resistance to inequalities. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article examines the 'canonical' status achieved in recent British sociology by four writers: Zygmunt Bauman, Ulrich Beck, Pierre Bourdieu and Anthony Giddens. Along with other key thinkers of the later 20th century such as Foucault and Habermas, these four sociologists, from different geographical and theoretical bases, transformed the shape of British sociology and its relation to social theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The anti-‘death tax’ movement is the starting point for contemporary discussions of inheritance taxation. The political rhetoric surrounding calls for its repeal typically is met with analyses of the extent to which inheritance tax avoidance benefits the wealthy, and arguments that inheritance taxation is fair and ‘targeted’. This article suggests that engagement by tax lawyers with sociological theories of economic inheritance has the potential to revive this discourse. A renewed approach to inheritance taxation is of immediate concern to supporters of inheritance taxation in the United Kingdom, who face considerable obstacles posed by the increasing use of United States anti-inheritance tax movement political rhetoric by politicians. Durkheim's consideration of the conjugal family and, more recently, Beckert's sociology of inheritance are submitted as analyses that, amongst others, have particular potential. Such engagement also has the potential to revive the interest of sociologists in inheritance taxation, memorably described by MacNamee and Miller as a ‘sociological lacuna.’ [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the sociology of education. According to the author, most of the present generation of sociologists of education in Britain commenced their study of the discipline at a time when it was informed by a major consideration of the inequalities of social class. Sociologists and theologists share the gospel that the poor will always be with them, together with a reality of changing situations and definitions and with varying levels of interest and involvement. Some would argue that the cutting edge of the discipline has consequently been dulled, and that the more macro political dimensions of the analysis of education and society have been put aside in favour of smaller practical research questions. At the same time, interest in inequality in education can be seen to have both broadened and deepened. The analysis of social class relations in education has been challenged and extended by research on gender and race relations and policy makers have developed an interest in formulating equal opportunity or equality policies in education in these areas. Sociological analyses of education have in the last decade encompassed many more aspects of schooling. Within an era of economic recession and dominance of monetarist values, ideologies so much part of the educational consensus, such as the concept of equal opportunity, have been reframed and pushed to one side.