Suchergebnisse

Through detailed case studies, the contributors look at conflicts in social science arguing that they must be resolved at the level of the individual discipline rather than at the level of philosopy. They explore different ways in which social scientists deal with the tension of being simultaneously party to a conflict and a contributor its settlement

AbstractThe last four decades have been characterized by growing concerns on two key matters: the "environmental question," arising out of the manifest and accelerating injury to the planet caused by human activity, and the "social question," concerning the growth of social polarization and the surge in inequality. This paper addresses the possible ecological impact of social polarization by employing an analytical framework where social classes are differentiated not only by their means but also by their tastes and preferences. We see that the ecological impact of social polarization (or, equivalently, of the decline of the middle class) remains unclear even when, as here, the middle class exhibits more proecological tastes than the other classes, so that we might have imagined that its decline would inevitably impair the planet. We then establish the exact critical threshold for the proportion of the middle class above which their accessing the upper class would harm the planet and discuss its sensitivity to key parameters such as, for instance, the level of inequality. Finally, we tackle the topic of public action to limit the risk that social polarization should lead to greater ecological injury.

This review article analyzes three major recent books (written by Robert Wuthnow, Arlie R. Hochschild, and James and Deborah Fallows, respectively) concerning ongoing political, economic and social change in United States&rsquo ; rural communities to probe differing frames and claims among them. We contend these works together point to vital social and political forces that must receive increased attention if the communities they treat are to address the challenges confronting them successfully. Thereafter, we briefly and illustratively underscore the significance of these authors&rsquo ; arguments using our own ongoing work in two small communities confronting catastrophic economic decline and social fissuring in Central Appalachia. Overall, we argue that an analytical approach that combines elements of Wuthnow&rsquo ; s sensitivity to demographic and scalar polarization and divides, coupled with Hochschild&rsquo ; s emphasis on opportunities to instill and call on empathetic imagination in development efforts, could assist these rural communities&rsquo ; residents to understand more fully the dynamics at play within them and to craft strategies aimed at addressing those challenges. In particular, we contend that the Fallowses&rsquo ; call for pragmatic interventions and partnership building must be accompanied by long-term efforts to overcome the fear engendered by the view that rural community life constitutes a consumerist zero-sum game, and the accompanying widespread belief in those jurisdictions that scapegoating and explicit or implicit racialized hierarchies represent reasonable responses to such anxieties.

Across the medical and social sciences, new discussions about replication have led to transformations in research practice. Sociologists, however, have been largely absent from these discussions. The goals of this review are to introduce sociologists to these developments, synthesize insights from science studies about replication in general, and detail the specific issues regarding replication that occur in sociology. The first half of the article argues that a sociologically sophisticated understanding of replication must address both the ways that replication rules and conventions evolved within an epistemic culture and how those cultures are shaped by specific research challenges. The second half outlines the four main dimensions of replicability in quantitative sociology—verifiability, robustness, repeatability, and generalizability—and discusses the specific ambiguities of interpretation that can arise in each. We conclude by advocating some commonsense changes to promote replication while acknowledging the epistemic diversity of our field.