Suchergebnisse

We argue that empirical sociology would benefit from a greater engagement with critical race theory (CRT). In this introduction, we outline four steps to the empirical application of CRT in sociology: (1) understanding that social science is not value neutral, (2) using CRT to inform research design and methodology, (3) investigating racism at multiple levels of analysis, and (4) empirical data and analysis should uncover the relational aspect to racism. The studies in this special issue demonstrate how CRT and social science cross empirical boundaries in fruitful collaboration to document the reproduction of racism in the 21st century.

This ar ticle argues that in an age of knowing capitalism, sociologists have not adequately thought about the challenges posed to their expertise by the proliferation of `social' transactional data which are now routinely collected, processed and analysed by a wide variety of private and public institutions. Drawing on British examples, we argue that whereas over the past 40 years sociologists championed innovative methodological resources, notably the sample survey and the in-depth interviews, which reasonably allowed them to claim distinctive expertise to access the `social' in powerful ways, such claims are now much less secure. We argue that both the sample survey and the in-depth interview are increasingly dated research methods, which are unlikely to provide a robust base for the jurisdiction of empirical sociologists in coming decades. We conclude by speculating how sociology might respond to this coming crisis through taking up new interests in the `politics of method'.

The social mechanism program has been successful in sociology and neighboring social science disciplines, such as criminology and political science. However, in our view the literature on social mechanisms is still too preoccupied with intratheoretical and metatheoretical discussions, and we find very few empirical applications. This is surprising since one of the basic aims of the social mechanisms approach from the start has been to achieve better integration between theory and empirical analyses. Yet of all the previous edited volumes and special issues dedicated to social mechanisms (or to analytical sociology, for that matter), we find only a small number of chapters that are empirically oriented in the sense that they address and try to answer a substantive empirical research question. This is unfortunate: By leaving out the dirty work of empirical analysis, social mechanisms theorists risk surrendering the potential influence of the approach. As a result, new (statistical) methods rather than new approaches to theorizing drive the practice of social science research. Most social scientists are driven by substantial empirical interests, that is, they share a set of questions they want to find answers to, rather than being motivated by abstract methodological and/or theoretical interests. Proponents of the social mechanism approach need to show by example that this approach is a valuable framework for researching broad, mainstream social science issues. This is what we do in this special issue.

We respond to the two comments on our article `The Coming Crisis of Empirical Sociology' from Rosemary Crompton (2008) and Richard Webber (2009) which have been published in Sociology , as well as issues arising from the wider debate generated by our article. We urge sociologists to recognize the gravity of the challenges posed by the proliferation of social data and to become more vociferous in contributing to political debates over method and data.

Paul Lazarsfeld contributed to unemployment research, public opinion & market research, mass media & communications research, political sociology, the sociology of sociology, the history of empirical social research, & applied sociology. His methodological innovations -- reason analysis, program analyzer, panel analysis, survey analysis, elaboration formula, latent structure analysis, mathematical sociology (especially the algebra of dichotomous systems), contextual analysis -- are of special importance. This study responds to the critiques of Lazarsfeld's "administrative research" by Theodor W. Adorno, of "abstract empiricism" by Charles W. Mills, & of the "Columbia Sociology Machine" by Terry N. Clark. The paper discusses the merits of the team-oriented style of work presented in Lazarsfeld's "workshop," his teaching by engaging in professional activities in social research & methodology, & his consecutive foundation of four research institutes, Vienna's Wirtschaftspsychologische Forschungsstelle, the Newark University Research Center, the Princeton Office of Radio Research, & the Bureau of Applied Social Research at Columbia U in New York. By his manifold activities, Paul Lazarsfeld decisively promoted the institutionalization of empirical social research. All these merits make him the founder of modern empirical sociology. 34 References. Adapted from the source document.