This short article represents a contribution to the debate on the motion "Social science is explanation, or it is nothing." While in the format of parliamentary debating the contribution would fall on the side of the opposition, I will not be arguing against explanation as such. The work of explaining is in no way oppositional to or mutually exclusive with critique. Instead, my contribution will revolve around two arguments: one is that both critique and explanation exhibit characteristics we commonly attribute to science; the other is that reserving the label of science for explanation draws a boundary around social sciences in ways that exclude many of the interesting things it does. Some of the examples include the sociological analysis of governmental approaches to the COVID-19 pandemic, or critical analysis of concepts such as "cancel culture" or "terrorism." The conclusion is that explanation and critique are mutually supporting elements of science, and that combined they give us insights we cannot glean from either alone.
{"title":"What is social science if not critical?","authors":"Jana Bacevic","doi":"10.1111/1468-4446.13142","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.13142","url":null,"abstract":"This short article represents a contribution to the debate on the motion \"Social science is explanation, or it is nothing.\" While in the format of parliamentary debating the contribution would fall on the side of the opposition, I will not be arguing against explanation as such. The work of explaining is in no way oppositional to or mutually exclusive with critique. Instead, my contribution will revolve around two arguments: one is that both critique and explanation exhibit characteristics we commonly attribute to science; the other is that reserving the label of science for explanation draws a boundary around social sciences in ways that exclude many of the interesting things it does. Some of the examples include the sociological analysis of governmental approaches to the COVID-19 pandemic, or critical analysis of concepts such as \"cancel culture\" or \"terrorism.\" The conclusion is that explanation and critique are mutually supporting elements of science, and that combined they give us insights we cannot glean from either alone.","PeriodicalId":501835,"journal":{"name":"The British Journal of Sociology","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142253543","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study explores how gender and age interact in shaping beliefs about fair pay through a factorial survey experiment conducted with German employees. Respondents evaluated hypothetical worker descriptions varying in age, gender, and earnings. While no gender gap in fair earnings was found for the youngest hypothetical workers, a significant gap favoring men emerged with increasing age. This suggests that male workers receive a higher age premium on fair earnings than female workers. The findings highlight the need to understand how gender interacts with other characteristics to legitimize workplace inequalities.
{"title":"The gender gap in fair earnings increases with age due to higher age premium for men.","authors":"Jule Adriaans,Carsten Sauer,Katharina Wrohlich","doi":"10.1111/1468-4446.13149","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.13149","url":null,"abstract":"This study explores how gender and age interact in shaping beliefs about fair pay through a factorial survey experiment conducted with German employees. Respondents evaluated hypothetical worker descriptions varying in age, gender, and earnings. While no gender gap in fair earnings was found for the youngest hypothetical workers, a significant gap favoring men emerged with increasing age. This suggests that male workers receive a higher age premium on fair earnings than female workers. The findings highlight the need to understand how gender interacts with other characteristics to legitimize workplace inequalities.","PeriodicalId":501835,"journal":{"name":"The British Journal of Sociology","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142268930","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Blackstone vs BlackRock","authors":"Olivier Godechot","doi":"10.1111/1468-4446.13148","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.13148","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":501835,"journal":{"name":"The British Journal of Sociology","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142253544","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The term “charisma” is recognized as sociology's most successful export to common speech. While sociologists habitually dismiss popular uses of the word, we address its vernacularity head on as a worthy object of study and as a potential resource for conceptual development. Using machine learning, we locate “charisma” within the wider discursive field out of which it arises (and continues to arise) across four corpora; namely: Weber’s major writings; social scientific research (123,531 JSTOR articles); and social media (“X”) posts containing of “charisma” (n=77,161) and its 2023 variant, “rizz” (n=85,869). By capturing meaning structures that discursively suspend “charisma” across multiple dimensions, we discern three spectra that help to distinguish charisma’s sociological and non‐sociological uses. Spectrum one differentiates perspectives which see charisma as having either a structural or individual‐level range of efficacy. Spectrum two differentiates indifferent/analytical perspectives on charisma from perspectives which see it as desirable but also morally conservative. Spectrum three differentiates between relational and individualized ontologies for charisma. We find that, rather than hewing closely to the Weberian formulation, social scientific uses exist in an intermediate position vis‐à‐vis these three spectra. Thus, scholars participate in what they otherwise criticize as charisma’s vulgarization. The article concludes with recommendations for how to constructively interact with ‘popular charisma.’
{"title":"The concept that went viral: Using machine learning to discover charisma in the wild","authors":"Paul Joosse, Yulin Lu","doi":"10.1111/1468-4446.13146","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.13146","url":null,"abstract":"The term “charisma” is recognized as sociology's most successful export to common speech. While sociologists habitually dismiss popular uses of the word, we address its vernacularity head on as a worthy object of study and as a potential resource for conceptual development. Using machine learning, we locate “charisma” within the wider discursive field out of which it arises (and continues to arise) across four corpora; namely: Weber’s major writings; social scientific research (123,531 JSTOR articles); and social media (“X”) posts containing of “charisma” (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic>=77,161) and its 2023 variant, “rizz” (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic>=85,869). By capturing meaning structures that discursively suspend “charisma” across multiple dimensions, we discern three spectra that help to distinguish charisma’s sociological and non‐sociological uses. Spectrum one differentiates perspectives which see charisma as having either a structural or individual‐level range of efficacy. Spectrum two differentiates indifferent/analytical perspectives on charisma from perspectives which see it as desirable but also morally conservative. Spectrum three differentiates between relational and individualized ontologies for charisma. We find that, rather than hewing closely to the Weberian formulation, social scientific uses exist in an intermediate position vis‐à‐vis these three spectra. Thus, scholars participate in what they otherwise criticize as charisma’s vulgarization. The article concludes with recommendations for how to constructively interact with ‘popular charisma.’","PeriodicalId":501835,"journal":{"name":"The British Journal of Sociology","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142253545","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：