Suchergebnisse

Abstract: The social sciences are in the midst of a revolution in access to data, as governments and private companies have accumulated vast digital records of rapidly multiplying aspects of our lives and made those records available to researchers. The accessibility and comprehensiveness of the data are unprecedented. How will the data revolution affect the study of social inequality? I argue that the speed, breadth, and low cost with which large-scale data can be acquired promise a dramatic transformation in the questions we can answer, but this promise can be undercut by size-induced blindness, the tendency to ignore important limitations amidst a source with billions of data points. The likely consequences for what we know about the social world remain unclear.

Large-scale data from private companies offer new opportunities to examine topics of scientific and social significance, such as racial inequality, partisan polarization, and activity-based segregation. However, because such data are often generated through automated processes, their accuracy and reliability for social science research remain unclear. The present study examines how quality issues in large-scale data from private companies can afflict the reporting of even ostensibly uncomplicated values. We assess the reliability with which an often-used device tracking data source, SafeGraph, sorted data it acquired on financial institutions into categories, such as banks and payday lenders, based on a standard classification system. We find major classification problems that vary by type of institution, and remarkably high rates of unidentified closures and duplicate records. We suggest that classification problems can affect research based on large-scale private data in four ways: detection, efficiency, validity, and bias. We discuss the implications of our findings, and list a set of problems researchers should consider when using large-scale data from companies.

Recent years have seen a resurgence of interest in the relation between networks and spatial context. This review examines critically a selection of the literature on how physical space affects the formation of social ties. Different aspects of this question have been a feature in network analysis, neighborhood research, geography, organizational science, architecture and design, and urban planning. Focusing primarily on work at the meso- and microlevels of analysis, we pay special attention to studies examining spatial processes in neighborhood and organizational contexts. We argue that spatial context plays a role in the formation of social ties through at least three mechanisms, spatial propinquity, spatial composition, and spatial configuration; that fully capturing the role of spatial context will require multiple disciplinary perspectives and both qualitative and quantitative research; and that both methodological and conceptual questions central to the role of space in networks remain to be answered. We conclude by identifying major challenges in this work and proposing areas for future research.

While supportive social ties help to buffer against the consequences of poverty, few researchers have examined how people form such ties. New ties are often formed in routine organizations such as businesses, churches, and childcare centers, which, beyond being places to work, shop, or receive services, are institutionally governed spaces of social interaction. Based on the notion of organizational brokerage, we introduce a perspective that specifies when routine organizations contribute to tie formation and use it to reexamine data from existing qualitative studies of such organizations among the poor. We argue that successful brokerage will depend on the degree to which an organization's institutional norms render interaction among participants frequent, long-lasting, focused on others, and centered on joint tasks; and that the ensuing networks may differ from other supportive ties in the sense of belonging they may cultivate, the form of generalized exchange they may engender, and the organizational connections they may create.

The recent economic recession and a sluggish recovery have made conditions especially precarious for the most disadvantaged members of the urban poor population—those with criminal records, health conditions, undocumented status, or unstable housing. We argue that the fewer the resources to which people have access, the more their circumstances will depend on the organizations in which they participate, the systems in which these organizations operate, and the institutions governing the behavior of both. We call for a renewed focus on systems, institutions, and organizations among researchers who study urban disadvantage, and review a series of studies that show the promise of these perspectives.

In the 1980s and 1990s, researchers came to understand poor urban neighborhoods as blighted, depopulated areas, based on important ethnographic observations in a handful of cities. This image helped inform influential theories of social isolation and de–institutionalization. However, few scholars have examined whether those observations were representative of poor neighborhoods nationwide—and whether they are representative today. Based on a descriptive analysis of the largest 100 U.S. metropolitan areas using normalized census tract boundaries, we document an important transformation in the conditions of poor neighborhoods. We find that the depopulation in poor neighborhoods often reported in cities such as Chicago and Baltimore was, in fact, typical across cities in 1990. Today, it is not. Moreover, heterogeneity across cities has increased: The experience of neighborhood poverty is likely to depend more today than in 1990 on the city in question. In fact, the most typically studied cities, such as Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee, are increasingly atypical in this respect. Addressing today's core questions about neighborhood effects, how and why they matter, requires paying far greater attention to heterogeneity, conducting more ethnographic observation in ostensibly unconventional cities, and addressing the historically extreme conditions in a newly unique subset of cities.

We use unique data from the Boston Non–Profit Organizations Study, an innovative survey containing rich information on organizational participation across seven social domains in two Boston neighborhoods, to examine the relationship between ethnic diversity and participation in local organizations. In particular, we identify neighborhood–based social ties as a key mechanism mediating the initial negative association between diversity and participation. In contrast to previous work, we measure participation using both the domain–based and group–based approach, with the former approach uncovering a wider range of organizational connections that are often missed in the latter approach. We also investigate the relationship between interpersonal ties and organizational ties, documenting how primary involvement with an organization facilitates the development of further interpersonal ties and secondary forms of organizational involvement. We then discuss implications of our findings for urban poverty research.

Throughout their careers, social scientists must come up with compelling research topics, decide when and where to publish, and revise their manuscripts for publication. Despite the importance of these skills, they are seldom if ever addressed in the course of graduate training. Heavy emphasis is placed on conducting research, and other core activities such as teaching also receive attention, yet fundamental academic practices are left almost entirely in the shadows.Practicing Sociology brings together a range of leading sociologists to reflect on their work and demystify this tacit knowledge. In conversational and engaging essays, they provide practical guidance and hard-won wisdom for readers at any stage of their scholarly careers. The book's three sections explore the art of finding new research questions, best practices in publishing, and how to make the most out of the peer review process. Contributors' distinctive voices come through as they recount their frustrations and failures as well as the joys of the sociological craft. They provide a range of perspectives, underscoring that there is no one "right" way to practice sociology but a constellation of different approaches that together give the field its vitality.Practicing Sociology features a team of skilled scholars including Peter Bearman, Paul J. DiMaggio, Wendy Espeland, Marion Fourcade, Shamus Rahman Khan, Eric Klinenberg, Michèle Lamont, Jennifer Lee, Mignon Moore, Mario Small, Duncan Watts, and many more