Search

In 2009 Woodman has recently challenged youth sociologists concerned with inequality to evolve from what he describes as a middling orthodoxy that misrepresents the work of Ulrich Beck in an effort to emphasise the continuing relevance of class. In 2010 Roberts forcefully responds to Woodman, arguing that Beck's own words and empirical evidence contradict his argument. Woodman responds to Roberts, reasserting his position and asks for the debate to move beyond mere 'quote wars'. This paper engages with this debate, taking Woodman's challenge seriously while maintaining that Beck's jettison of class is problematic, and that the concept of class itself is still vital. The paper concludes with suggestions as to what youth sociologists concerned with socio-economic inequality might want to focus upon in the future. [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 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.

Literature in the area of innovation systems (IS) has been growing in importance and the IS approach has become well established. It is widely used in North America, Western Europe and Scandinavia, both in academic contexts and also as a framework or tool for policymaking. This paper examines work by sociologists, historians and others who have attempted to provide new insights into the nature of technology, in order to determine how the new sociology of technology literature--particularly social construction of technology methodologies--can contribute to, and unpack the study of innovation system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

The rationality that guides the sociological community has generated principles to evaluate members' work. Under the sway of these principles, Georg Simmel surfaces either as a peripheral member of the community or as an outright failure. His critics have argued that his work is "fragmented," that he begins without having formulated "guiding statements," that he is "unsystematic" and "undisciplined." Yet we can discover in Simmel's writings a distinct rationality that upsets this criticism by its transcendence of it. Had these particular critics read his work more carefully they might have discovered that Simmel had anticipated their criticism and had carefully reevaluated its source of authority. In this paper 1 address the problems of discipline and systematic unity in sociological writing in order to unmask the rationality held within the sociological community and to formulate Simmel's unique contribution as a member of that community. [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 article discusses the negotiated order approach to organizational analysis in qualitative sociology. The approach represented in the concept of "negotiated order" tends to lead to a focus on the species rather than on the environment. Both, however, need to be embraced, by sociologists as much as by actors. Sociologists turnout to be rather good teachers, or at least rather good at producing appropriate documentary evidence to back up their claims to being good teachers. The author suspects that all studies of the social construction of data have given sociologists an edge in the generation of paper to fit performance indicators. Overall, sociology seems to be around the middle of the research rankings, which is about what would be expected from a discipline that is heavily represented in 1992 universities with a limited research tradition. For a discipline so identified with collectivism, sociologists are remarkable individualists who remain reluctant to learn from their own discipline's work. They know the importance of teamwork in successful organizations and they reject the lessons for their own.

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 section presents a speech by Herbert J. Gans, president of the American Sociological Association (ASA), delivered at the annual meeting of the ASA in 1988. Sociology has established a presence in many kinds of policy analysis and is moving into large numbers of other practice areas, even if sociologists' ideas continue to be largely absent from U.S. political thinking. Too many people still dislike sociology or are not interested in it. Many sociologists find nothing wrong with this state of affairs. The author believes that these feelings are mistaken. Maintaining some relationship with the American public is part of sociologists as members of society and as recipients of its funds, public or private. This essay has three major parts. The first describes some of the research needed to analyze sociology's roles in the U.S. The second part discusses some ways in which sociologists can improve relations with the public. In the last part of the paper, the focus is sociology itself, offering some ideas on what sociologists can do better for themselves even as they do better by the public.

Sociology faces a peculiar paradox: Every general sociological proposition is both true and false. On the one hand, one can easily find exceptions to most of the propositions which are advanced as genera! sociological principles. Yet, there are many instances in which genera! sociological principles are supported by empirical findings. As a consequence, it is not clear when some sociological principle is to be counted as false. This paper argues that a proper assessment of the state of sociological knowledge and the possibility of cumulative growth in sociology depends on resolving the true-false paradox. We argue that the paradox can be resolved if sociologists make the scope of their theories explicit. We offer a formulation of scope restrictions, demonstrate how the formulation resolves the true-false paradox, and illustrate the differences between the method proposed here and other strategies for making sociological theories conditional. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the contribution of the sociologist to the planning of agricultural and rural development in Israel. The author first outlines the three levels of agricultural planning - national, regional and farm, and then provides some background to rural settlement activities in Israel. The confrontation of new immigrants from traditional societies with the technologically advanced agriculture of Israel resulted in severe social crises in the new villages, affecting also their economic achievements; and the subsequent assignment of rural sociologists to the villages to study the life-pattern of these traditional groups and provide them with counseling and instruction, whilst at the same time undertaking general research. The recommendations of the sociologists helped the development authorities to evolve suitable measures for integrating these immigrants into society as socially independent and economically successful members. [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.