Suchergebnisse

"Media power is a crucial, although often taken for granted, concept. We assume, for example, that the media are 'powerful'; if they were not, why would there be so many controversies over the regulation, control and impact of communicative institutions and processes? Further, we assume that this 'power' is somehow problematic; audiences are often treated as highly susceptible to media influence and too much 'power' in the hands of one organization or individual is seen as risky and potentially dangerous. These concerns have been at the heart of recent controversies involving the relationships between media moguls and political elites, the consequences of phone hacking in the UK, and the emerging influence of social media as vital gatekeepers. Yet it is still not clear what we mean by media power or how effective it is. This book evaluates contrasting definitions of media power and looks at the key sites in which power is negotiated, concentrated and resisted - politically, technologically and economically. Combining an evaluation of both previous literature and new research, the book seeks to establish an understanding of media power which does justice to the complexities and contradictions of the contemporary social world. It will be important reading for undergraduates, postgraduates, researchers and activists alike."--

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the manner in which advocates of crowdsourcing reconfigure the classical sociological treatment of the crowd.Design/methodology/approachThe approach taken conceives of the semantics of crowd theorizing in three phases, each of which makes sense of the power dynamics between the elite and the crowd. In phases one and two, the crowd is conceptualized as a problem generator; in phase three, the crowd is depicted as a problem solver and innovator.FindingsThis paper provides a critical look at phase three crowd theorizing. It explores how, by ignoring the disruptive power dynamic, crowdsourcing generates a credible image of the crowd as an innovator and problem solver. The work concludes with a discussion of the implications of phase three crowd theorizing for researchers in sociology.Practical implicationsAdvocates of the wisdom of crowds, if interested in the sociological implications of their position, must attend to both the disruptive and costly implications of third phase crowd theorizing.Originality/valueThis paper maps the crowdsourcing process and places it in context. It argues that the distance between the classical social scientific treatment of the crowd is not nearly as great as crowdsourcing advocates would have one believe. Nevertheless, phase three crowd theorizing opens up sociologically relevant questions regarding the future portrayal of collective intelligence as a form of virtual property.

The nations of the world are aging. In comparison to decades of the past, older cohorts represent a growing share of the world's population. This trend is the result primarily of declining fertility rates and, secondarily, of increasing longevity. Even those countries that have only recently experienced significant fertility declines are beginning to deal with the effects of an older population, effects that will become more pronounced early in the 21st century. Indeed, although a larger share of the developed world's population is beyond the age of 55 (22% as opposed to 10% in developing nations), more than half of the world's older population lives in developing countries (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992).

On 14 September 2011 the Australian Government established an independent inquiry into the Australian media. The inquiry was led by former Justice of the Federal Court of Australia, Mr Ray Finkelstein QC and reported to government on 28 February 2012.

On the 50th anniversary of the ISSA and IRSS, a leading figure in the sociology of sport in Denmark, Gertrud Pfister, considers an important line of research on women and football (soccer). The analysis uses a diverse set of theoretical lenses to examine women's participation and reception in football. Constructivist understandings of gender are combined with notions of 'leaky hegemony', socialization, habitus, taste and social fields. The trajectory of inquiry on women and football necessarily builds from recognition of 'leaks' in hegemonic masculinity and the entrenched naturalization of football as a male social field. Women's football gained hold in scholarly inquiry with comparative studies of participation, experiences, and policies in diverse national settings. Challenges in the area of women's participation and legitimacy in football are rooted in persistent stereotyping and a related paucity of resources. Key questions remain in explaining women's growing involvement in football and in understanding key areas, such as media coverage, where equity would contribute to legitimizing women's achievements and advancing public acceptance. In looking to the future, a key role for the sociology of sport will be in stimulating understandings of women and football that can lead to policy change and more equitable allocation of resources to support and encourage participation.

AbstractThe sociology of campaign finance overwhelmingly focuses on donation patterns and ties between donors, lobbyists, and candidates. However, less attention has been paid to ideological influences on campaign finance reform and other forms of expenditures. As a result, the sociological understanding of the role of money in democracy has great potential for development. This paper suggests that the new institutionalist perspective, particularly when treating ideas as a causal force, allows for a stronger understanding of campaign finance reform's impact on the public sphere. It does so by linking campaign finance law, political organizing, and campaign spending, specifically for the purpose of political advertising, together. TheCitizens United v. FECSupreme Court ruling provides an empirical example of these institutionalizing effects, tracking its impact across all three components of the public sphere. Approaches to new institutionalist analysis of campaign finance are also discussed.

The article critically assesses the contribution of Italian sociology to the study of social movements in the last twenty years. These years nearly cover the "institutional life-cycle" of the discipline. In order to help the reader place the study of social movements within the mainstream of Italian sociology, some information is provided about its historical development and academic status, even in relation to political and cultural trends in overall society. Tracing the history of social movements studies back to it origins, the author shows how it has diverged from the American tradition, in particular as far as its relation to the study of other forms of collective behavior is concerned. In an extensive review of both theoretical and empirical contributions, the author points out what she sees as the main merits and faults of Italian scholars. The former include attention to theorization in the field of both conventional and collective behavior and preference for multi-factored models of explanation. Among the latter, are unsatisfactory attempts to build general testable theories, and lack of empirical research. Contributions are analysed with regard to different aspects of social movements: formation, mobilization and recruitment, ideology and organization, politics and outcomes. Pointing out achievements and failures of Italian analysts, the author arrives at some general rather optimistic conclusions about future developments, in both theory and research.

This paper explores the somewhat mixed reception of Elias's work as, in part, understandable in terms of Elias's transgression of a dominant code of 'sociological etiquette' that I have here called the 'habits of good sociology'. I explore a number of key 'habits', which include: empirical legitimacy, political alignment, and relativistic egalitarianism which have arguably come to dominate the discipline in recent years. I argue that Elias's ambition to develop a central theory falls foul of a prevailing sentiment in which no single perspective should be elevated over and above any other, and where epistemic relativism has become something of a creed in the teaching of sociology. In relation to this, I will explore the model of sociological practice developed in Elias's work and suggest that it is this model of the sociological endeavour – one in which considerable sociological ambition is combined with empirical humility (i.e. that handkerchiefs might be as important as, say, economic relationships) – that remains an important component of his intellectual legacy. Ultimately, my contention is that while it is probably unrealistic in the current intellectual climate to expect Elias's work to comprise a 'central theory', his approach nonetheless offers a model of sociological practice that might permit 'advances' in sociological knowledge to take place. ; Peer-reviewed ; Post-print