Suchergebnisse

AbstractMost studies on racial inequality begin with a series of statistics highlighting racial variations in an outcome of interest to illustrate how wide (or narrow) the gaps between racialized groups are. This approach is standard in racial inequality research because emphasizing racial differentials between racialized groups helps researchers frame inequality as a social problem. Scholars across academic disciplines and across sub‐areas within sociology report racial statistics to pay attention to what social scientists refer to as racial disparities. Presenting racial disparities is extremely important for documenting inequality; however, family scholars tend to provide descriptive statistical portraits along ethno‐racial lines (disparities) in the absence of racism, which, in turn, conceals the United States' racialized historical context. In other words, reporting racial inequality as disparities without addressing racism is a critical omission in family science research. Emphasizing racism is important because biological explanation still permeates the American imagination about racial inequality. The purpose of this paper is to provide conceptual and analytical considerations for future racial inequality and family research by recasting disparities as manifestations of racism instead of mere statistical differences. To illustrate the conceptual considerations, I first build on Williams' theoretical model focusing on structural racism and Black family life. I expand on how racism not only makes the idea of race possible but also manifests in observable, measurable outcomes. In the second section, I present an analytical consideration for understanding Black families' inequality by focusing on within‐group analyses. These conceptual and analytical considerations serve as ways to adequately represent Black families and children in the US.

AbstractStructural racism is central for understanding Black families, but structural racism has not been central to quantitative research on Black families. Instead, research on Black families has disproportionately used deficit frameworks and race‐neutral explanations that misrepresent the reality of Black families. For the current commentary, I begin with a straightforward question: why are scholars still grappling with the role of White supremacy in family science? To address this question, I contend that family science needs a more nuanced theoretical perspective on Black families that adequately addresses the association between racism and race. I offer a novel conceptual model for the study of Black family inequality. I take racism and the social construction of race seriously by focusing on the making, the maintenance, and the manifestation of racial stratification. My hope is that family scholars will employ theoretical frameworks that center racism and highlight the social construction of race.

There are two significant omissions in the literature on presidential unilateralism. First, few scholars have examined whether their theories apply to directives other than executive orders. Second, scholars have primarily focused on unilateral usage in the modern era at the expense of the traditional era. This article addresses these omissions by testing one theory, Howell's Unilateral Politics Model, on the usage of more than 1,300 significant executive orders and proclamations from 1861 to 1944. The results show that presidents in the traditional era issued more executive orders during a partisan administration change and that this effect continued into the modern era. Traditional presidents also issued more proclamations when Congress was stronger, which is counter to what Howell expected in his theory. Ultimately, these results show that the traditional–modern presidency dichotomy applies for proclamations but not for executive orders. The modern patterns of executive order usage are a continuation of the patterns that began in the traditional era. However, a noticeable shift in behavior occurred between eras with respect to presidential proclamations, probably as a result of this type of directive evolving from an administrative tool to a more unilateral order.

ObjectiveTo examine the relationship between parental depression and cooperative coparenting among couples over the first 5 years after a birth.BackgroundPrevious research has considered how depression affects coparenting but has not focused on the association as a longitudinal and dyadic process. Understanding coparenting is important as it is linked to parents' and children's well‐being.MethodData from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing (FFCW) study were analyzed using actor–partner interdependence models. The FFCW follows families and their children as part of a birth cohort of children who were born in large urban cities of the United States in the late 1990s.ResultsThe actor–partner interdependence models indicated that (a) parents' depression is associated with decreased coparenting perceptions for both mothers and fathers, and the effects endure over time; (b) fathers' depression was also associated with mothers' perceptions of cooperative coparenting over the later years; and (c) differences between mothers and fathers emerged only during the early years, with the effect of depression on coparenting being larger for fathers than mothers.ConclusionThe results not only highlight the importance of both parents' mental health on coparenting but also the added role that fathers' depression plays in shaping their own and their partners' perceptions of coparenting.ImplicationsPolicy makers and family practitioners who are invested in building healthy families may find it valuable to screen for and treat mental illness in the context of creating programs to increase cooperative coparenting.

While most recognise the centrality of the cross to Christianity, there is not the same consensus as regards its meaning. Then while it is clear that the suffering and death of Jesus was instrumental in salvation, why did he die in the horrible way that he did? Crucifixion was the preferred method of execution for political offence by the Romans, and by its horror was intended to deter. Paul understands that the crucified, by being hung, bears a curse, which is carried by Christ so that people can be blessed in the declaration of justification. The actual suffering and death was due to enforced immobility, a total loss of freedom, and is the ultimate in the process of self-emptying by the son of God in incarnation. As such it is an appropriate penalty for sin which is an abuse of the liberty given to humanity. These three reasons for the cross then relate to the main theories of the atonement which are aspects of a full understanding. Union with Christ in his suffering is then atoning.https://doi.org/10.19108/KOERS.82.1.2308

Despite academics and media critics warning that cutbacks from the journalism crisis may be harming democratic values, a majority of the public is unaware of the financial struggles plaguing the industry. In this article, I argue that more communication scholars should publish research that is accessible to the broader public to help raise public awareness of this pivotal issue. Political economy, I argue, is well suited to this task, given its emphasis on merging research with action. I detail three key ways scholars can help the public connect to the journalism crisis: (1) by "localizing" the data to allow people to see how the crisis is impacting their community, (2) by "humanizing" the research to make the findings more relatable, and (3) by testing and refuting common refrains related to the crisis.