首页 > 最新文献

British Journal of Sociology最新文献

英文 中文
Getting ahead in the social sciences: How parenthood and publishing contribute to gender gaps in academic career advancement 在社会科学领域出人头地:生儿育女和出版如何导致学术职业发展中的性别差距。
IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY Pub Date : 2024-03-28 DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.13088
Mathias Wullum Nielsen, Jens Vognstoft Pedersen, Julien Larregue

How do parenthood and publishing contribute to gender gaps in academic career advancement? While extensive research examines the causes of gender disparities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers, we know much less about the factors that constrain women's advancement in the social sciences. Combining detailed career- and administrative register data on 976 Danish social scientists in Business and Management, Economics, Political Science, Psychology, and Sociology (5703 person-years) that obtained a PhD degree between 2000 and 2015, we estimate gender differences in attainment of senior research positions and parse out how publication outputs, parenthood and parental leave contribute to these differences. Our approach is advantageous over previous longitudinal studies in that we track the careers and publication outputs of graduates from the outset of their PhD education and match this data with time-sensitive information on each individual's publication activities and family situation. In discrete time-event history models, we observe a ∼24 per cent female disadvantage in advancement likelihoods within the first 7 years after PhD graduation, with gender differences increasing over the observation period. A decomposition indicates that variations in publishing, parenthood and parental leave account for ∼ 40 per cent of the gender gap in career advancement, suggesting that other factors, including recruitment disparities, asymmetries in social capital and experiences of unequal treatment at work, may also constrain women's careers.

为人父母和出版工作是如何造成学术职业发展中的性别差距的?尽管有大量研究探讨了科学、技术、工程和数学(STEM)职业中性别差异的原因,但我们对制约女性在社会科学领域晋升的因素却知之甚少。结合 2000 年至 2015 年期间获得博士学位的 976 名丹麦商业与管理、经济学、政治学、心理学和社会学领域的社会科学家(5703 人-年)的详细职业和行政登记数据,我们估算了获得高级研究职位方面的性别差异,并分析了发表成果、父母身份和育儿假是如何造成这些差异的。与以往的纵向研究相比,我们的研究方法的优势在于,我们从博士教育一开始就跟踪毕业生的职业生涯和论文发表情况,并将这些数据与每个人的论文发表活动和家庭状况等具有时间敏感性的信息相匹配。在离散时间事件历史模型中,我们观察到在博士毕业后的头 7 年中,女性在晋升可能性方面的劣势为 24%,性别差异随着观察期的延长而扩大。分解结果表明,出版、养育子女和育儿假方面的差异占职业发展性别差异的 40%,这表明其他因素,包括招聘差异、社会资本不对称和工作中的不平等待遇经历,也可能制约女性的职业发展。
{"title":"Getting ahead in the social sciences: How parenthood and publishing contribute to gender gaps in academic career advancement","authors":"Mathias Wullum Nielsen,&nbsp;Jens Vognstoft Pedersen,&nbsp;Julien Larregue","doi":"10.1111/1468-4446.13088","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1468-4446.13088","url":null,"abstract":"<p>How do parenthood and publishing contribute to gender gaps in academic career advancement? While extensive research examines the causes of gender disparities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers, we know much less about the factors that constrain women's advancement in the social sciences. Combining detailed career- and administrative register data on 976 Danish social scientists in Business and Management, Economics, Political Science, Psychology, and Sociology (5703 person-years) that obtained a PhD degree between 2000 and 2015, we estimate gender differences in attainment of senior research positions and parse out how publication outputs, parenthood and parental leave contribute to these differences. Our approach is advantageous over previous longitudinal studies in that we track the careers and publication outputs of graduates from the outset of their PhD education and match this data with time-sensitive information on each individual's publication activities and family situation. In discrete time-event history models, we observe a ∼24 per cent female disadvantage in advancement likelihoods within the first 7 years after PhD graduation, with gender differences increasing over the observation period. A decomposition indicates that variations in publishing, parenthood and parental leave account for ∼ 40 per cent of the gender gap in career advancement, suggesting that other factors, including recruitment disparities, asymmetries in social capital and experiences of unequal treatment at work, may also constrain women's careers.</p>","PeriodicalId":51368,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Sociology","volume":"75 3","pages":"322-346"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1468-4446.13088","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140319865","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Economic returns to reproducing parents' field of study 再现父母所学专业的经济回报。
IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY Pub Date : 2024-03-26 DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.13090
Jesper Fels Birkelund

Research on the influence of family background on college graduates' earnings has not considered the importance of the match between parents' and children's field of study. Using a novel design based on within-family comparisons, I examine long-term earnings returns to reproducing parents' field of study in Denmark. I find that individuals whose field of study matches that of a parent have earnings that are 2 percent higher than those of their siblings with college degrees in different fields, on average. Earnings returns to field inheritance are highest in the fields of law (9 percent), medicine (6 percent), and engineering (4 percent) and are driven mainly by income from self-employment. I find no direct evidence of nepotism as the earnings advantage does not arise from inheritance of parents' firms or employment in parents' occupational network. My findings indicate that, although a college degree generally equalizes family background differences in economic outcomes, there are additional payoffs to field inheritance, particularly in traditional fields characterized by a high degree of social closure and self-employment.

有关家庭背景对大学毕业生收入影响的研究,尚未考虑父母与子女学习领域匹配的重要性。我采用了一种基于家庭内部比较的新颖设计,研究了丹麦父母学习领域再现的长期收入回报。我发现,学习领域与父母相匹配的个人,其收入比拥有不同领域大学学位的兄弟姐妹平均高出 2%。在法律(9%)、医学(6%)和工程学(4%)领域,领域继承的收入回报率最高,而且主要由自营职业的收入驱动。我没有发现裙带关系的直接证据,因为收入优势并不来自于继承父母的公司或在父母的职业网络中就业。我的研究结果表明,尽管大学学位一般会拉平家庭背景在经济结果上的差异,但领域继承会带来额外的回报,尤其是在社会封闭性高和自雇的传统领域。
{"title":"Economic returns to reproducing parents' field of study","authors":"Jesper Fels Birkelund","doi":"10.1111/1468-4446.13090","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1468-4446.13090","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Research on the influence of family background on college graduates' earnings has not considered the importance of the match between parents' and children's field of study. Using a novel design based on within-family comparisons, I examine long-term earnings returns to reproducing parents' field of study in Denmark. I find that individuals whose field of study matches that of a parent have earnings that are 2 percent higher than those of their siblings with college degrees in different fields, on average. Earnings returns to field inheritance are highest in the fields of law (9 percent), medicine (6 percent), and engineering (4 percent) and are driven mainly by income from self-employment. I find no direct evidence of nepotism as the earnings advantage does not arise from inheritance of parents' firms or employment in parents' occupational network. My findings indicate that, although a college degree generally equalizes family background differences in economic outcomes, there are additional payoffs to field inheritance, particularly in traditional fields characterized by a high degree of social closure and self-employment.</p>","PeriodicalId":51368,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Sociology","volume":"75 3","pages":"303-321"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1468-4446.13090","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140289501","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Issue Information - List of Books Reviewed 发行信息 - 评论书籍清单
IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY Pub Date : 2024-03-07 DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.13087

No abstract is available for this article.

本文无摘要。
{"title":"Issue Information - List of Books Reviewed","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/1468-4446.13087","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.13087","url":null,"abstract":"<p>No abstract is available for this article.</p>","PeriodicalId":51368,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Sociology","volume":"75 2","pages":"141-142"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1468-4446.13087","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140063838","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Review of Left Feminisms: Conversations on the personal and political. By Jo Littler, London: Lawrence Wishart. 2023. pp. 271. £16. ISBN: 9781913546083 左翼女性主义》评论:关于个人和政治的对话》。乔-利特勒著,伦敦:Lawrence Wishart.2023. pp.16 英镑。ISBN:9781913546083
IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY Pub Date : 2024-02-22 DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.13086
Laura Clancy
{"title":"Review of Left Feminisms: Conversations on the personal and political. By Jo Littler, London: Lawrence Wishart. 2023. pp. 271. £16. ISBN: 9781913546083","authors":"Laura Clancy","doi":"10.1111/1468-4446.13086","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1468-4446.13086","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51368,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Sociology","volume":"75 3","pages":"372-373"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139954316","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Family Life in the Time of COVID: International Perspectives. By Twamley, K., Iqbal, H., Faircloth, C., 2023. London: UCL Press. 328 pages, ISBN: 9781800081741 COVID 时代的家庭生活:国际视角》。作者:TwamleyK.、IqbalH.、FairclothC.,2023 年。伦敦:伦敦:UCL 出版社。328页,ISBN:9781800081741
IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY Pub Date : 2024-02-15 DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.13085
Rosalind Edwards
{"title":"Family Life in the Time of COVID: International Perspectives. By Twamley, K., Iqbal, H., Faircloth, C., 2023. London: UCL Press. 328 pages, ISBN: 9781800081741","authors":"Rosalind Edwards","doi":"10.1111/1468-4446.13085","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1468-4446.13085","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51368,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Sociology","volume":"75 3","pages":"369-371"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139775360","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
In defence of sociological description: A ‘world-making’ perspective 为社会学描述辩护:创造世界 "的视角。
IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY Pub Date : 2024-02-06 DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.13083
Mike Savage
<p>I am pleased to contribute to the long-standing debate about the relationship between descriptive and causal strategies in sociology. This familiar question goes to the heart of understanding the purpose of social science itself and forces us to think through, at a fundamental level, what we are trying to achieve. My aim here is not criticise causal analysis as such, which undoubtedly has a vital role to play, but to defend descriptive sociology for two linked reasons. Firstly, strategically, in the early 21<sup>st</sup> century, descriptive social science has great public as well as academic resonance. If we exclude descriptive social science from our baggage, we lose vital, critical, contributions to contemporary debate. Secondly, this capacity of descriptive social science comes from its capacity to be ‘world-making’—to open up vistas of wonder, concern, empathy and horror which are vital for renewing the sociological imagination—and for engaging wider publics. Descriptive assemblages open up new worlds to academic and non-academic audiences, shatter older assumptions shattered and disclose new possibilities. Causal analysis, by contrast, is forced to manipulate different pre-defined conditions in order to infer relative causal relations and lacks this world making capacity.</p><p>My unease with the mobilisation of ‘causality’ as superior to ‘description’, is in some ways a gut feeling, tied to Pierre Bourdieu's (<span>2000</span>) critique of the ‘scholastic point of view’. One of my worries when social scientists invoke the primacy of ‘causality’ is that research becomes locked—mostly inadvertently—into an academic politics of closure, in which group of experts winnow better (causal) from worse (descriptive) ways of addressing any given topic. The term ‘descriptive’ is routinely deployed as secondary to the prized ‘causal’, and being able to adjudicate these boundaries ultimately becomes bound up with claims to scholarly excellence—whether this is staged through statistical sophistication, theoretical acumen, political proclivities, or some other way. In this game of academic closure, those who can claim to conduct ‘causal’ analysis become better able to command the high ground of the ‘scholastic point of view’ itself. But following not only Bourdieu but a host of writers who insist on the need to position ourselves from the subaltern point of view, we cannot take this claim at face value—it needs to be exposed as a strategy of empowerment.</p><p>This line of argument means that I do not need to address directly the philosophy of social science, where the analysis of causation has a huge and venerable literature which I can't do justice to here. In fact, for what it is worth, I have always been inspired by critical realism, which to my mind offers a convincing defence of the value of establishing causal relations in a deep and rigorous way. Therefore, I have no interest in challenging causal analysis as such. Rather, my reflections are ro
吉尼系数是经济学的主流工具,它将不平等简化为介于 0 和 1 之间的单一数字,与之形成鲜明对比的是,百分位数收入细分可以用灵巧的火花线进行图形排列。世界不平等实验室的网站可以让非专业人士轻松获取全球大部分地区不平等趋势的描述性信息,这些信息使用各种指标,以极具吸引力的可视化方式呈现,可以开放下载。我在下文中举了一个例子(见图 1),该图显示,南非近年来收入不平等现象发生了巨大变化,而法国则保持相对稳定。当然不可能是因为它与有效的因果分析挂钩。在这方面,皮凯蒂的各种建议褒贬不一。他在《资本与 21 世纪》中提出,资本净回报率超过增长率的 r &gt; g 是 "资本主义的核心矛盾",因为这意味着经济增长将加剧而非调节经济不平等,最终导致不可持续的不平等。这是一个可爱的、简洁的解释模型。皮凯蒂(2020)在其近期出版的《资本与意识形态》一书中,从r &gt; g的明显决定论中回过头来,强调政治会带来变化,而且一些偶发因素会或好或坏地改变不平等状况。这就为政治制度主义解释打开了大门,在这种解释中,不平等趋势并不是潜在的 "资本主义矛盾 "的产物,而是取决于不同类型政治动员的有效性(见 Savage &amp; Waitkus, 2021 中的讨论)。但在最近出版的《平等简史》一书中,皮凯蒂(2021 年)再次转向,认为长期的历史趋势是走向更大的平等--从表面上看,这与《21 世纪资本论》完全不同。他的理论现在似乎是社会学反身性理论的一个版本。要取得 "真正的进步.....,我们就必须接受商议、不同观点的交锋、妥协和实验"(第 11-12 页)。虽然他没有提到杜克海姆、韦伯、吉登斯或贝克,但他对 "学习和集体参与"(第 13 页)的强调与现代性社会学理论有一些显著的相似之处。总之,皮凯蒂的因果分析完全是一团糟。在不到十年的时间里,他的论点从经济决定论到政治制度论,再到现在半生不熟的进化反身性社会学理论,前后不一。因此,这套描述性著作之所以如此强大,并不在于它成功地传达了清晰的因果分析,而在于它具有 "创造世界 "的能力--提供新的视野和视角,从而带来启示。通过将仅占人口 1%,有时仅占人口 0.1%、0.01%,甚至 0.001%的特权精英等极少数社会群体纳入视野,这项学术研究揭示了一个与众不同的世界,一个为极少数人的无度财富揭开面纱的世界。以往占主导地位的社会科学框架(如基尼系数所体现的分配中心趋势)被打破了以往的霸权地位,揭示了另一个世界。在缺乏令人信服的因果分析的情况下,我们是否应该把这类非凡的数据组合扔进垃圾桶?这样做是否会抹杀我们在 21 世纪看到的社会科学最有力的政治动员之一?我怀疑许多社会科学家--无论他们多么坚持因果分析的原则--会走到这一步。让我举第二个例子,威尔金森和皮克特的《精神水平》。这本书出版于 2009 年,因其声称不平等社会也存在更多系统性社会问题而闻名。这一论点通过直观排列的相关性得到了佐证,因此很容易看出,那些收入最不平等的国家--如美国--在许多生活机会和福祉指标上的得分也更差。相比之下,收入不平等程度较低的国家--如日本以及斯堪的纳维亚国家--得分要高得多。 正是《精神层面》的这一描述性方面引起了人们的兴趣,因为它提出了一系列变量之间的联系,而这些变量以前并没有被广泛地放在一起考虑过。然而,按照 "相关性并不意味着因果关系 "的俗套说法,《精神层面》显然无法建立起具体的因果联系机制。作者们显然有因果关系的主张,并倾向于将与羞耻感和耻辱感有关的心理机制视为推动这些关联的重要因素(见 Pickett &amp; Wilkinson, 2015)。然而,尽管他们最近的有趣研究成果《内在水平》(The Inner Level)沿着这些主题提供了一些有趣的见解,却很难确立其因果关系基础。毫无疑问,它在引发公众讨论、重新激发关于健康和不平等的辩论方面起到了巨大的推动作用。它甚至促成了一个强大的运动组织--"平等信托 "的成立,该组织在强调健康不平等的系统性方面做了大量工作(见 Savage &amp; Vaughan, 2024 中的更广泛讨论)。精神层面》的 "创造世界 "特质再次脱颖而出。它巧妙地利用了视觉组合,为主流的现代化范式提供了反常现象,这些范式认为经济增长会带来更好的健康和福祉。在排列另一种数据组合时,一个新的视野被打开了,新的联想、可能性和想法可以被揭示出来。这些例子展示了描述性社会科学 "创造世界 "的能力,但它们并不是经验主义的,即任何 "事实胜于雄辩 "的天真信念。相反,这两个项目都深刻意识到数据构建的政治性,意识到有必要制定其他衡量标准,并将其研究成果作为批判性干预措施,指出与正统社会科学框架预期的差异。它们绝不是数据挖掘活动。描述性社会学需要谨慎和严谨。正是这种谨慎的组合给传统观点带来了反常现象。在上述两个案例中,数据的排列与优先考虑经济增长的现代化理论不一致。简而言之,好的描述性工作需要有理论依据和目的性。我们可以将这种描述性项目视为类似于库恩关于范式如何黯然失色的论点--不是通过对立观点之间的争论,而是通过阐述描述性发现如何无法在传统模型中得到正确理解。这种打破范式的过程让新世界变得清晰可见。在这里,与美学的类比再次起到了帮助作用。艺术干预很少依赖于对现象的简单化 "现实主义 "渲染,也不寻求说教式地坚持特定的因果联系,好像观众需要掌握某些潜在的信息,或者他们遗漏了什么。它们提供了一种新的观看、阅读、聆听和感受方式,使人感到不安、唤起、吸引、挑衅和参与。与复杂的因果模型,包括那些已成为时尚的因果推理模型和随机对照试验形成鲜明对比。这些方法依赖于能够分离出一系列因素,从而明确其因果效应。在医学试验中,需要确定具体的 "治疗方法",例如比较试验药物和安慰剂的效果,然后使用标准化程序在可比样本中明确测量不同的效果。这一切都很好。但是,这些分析只能在 "已有 "因素的基础上进行,而这些因素的测量规程已经确立:我们无法对一种尚不存在的药物进行随机对照试验。总之,我为社会学中的描述性复制品的愿景辩护,认为它是一门变革性的、强大的学科。唤起新美学、新想象力和新可能性的描述性策略可以让社会学 "创造世界"。通过提出新的联想、模式和展示,可以打破旧的范式和假设。这并不是要贬低因果分析,因果分析也有其重要作用。但这是在更广泛的社会学调色板上重新强调审美和惊奇感的论点。现在,我们比以往任何时候都更迫切需要这样做。
{"title":"In defence of sociological description: A ‘world-making’ perspective","authors":"Mike Savage","doi":"10.1111/1468-4446.13083","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1468-4446.13083","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;I am pleased to contribute to the long-standing debate about the relationship between descriptive and causal strategies in sociology. This familiar question goes to the heart of understanding the purpose of social science itself and forces us to think through, at a fundamental level, what we are trying to achieve. My aim here is not criticise causal analysis as such, which undoubtedly has a vital role to play, but to defend descriptive sociology for two linked reasons. Firstly, strategically, in the early 21&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; century, descriptive social science has great public as well as academic resonance. If we exclude descriptive social science from our baggage, we lose vital, critical, contributions to contemporary debate. Secondly, this capacity of descriptive social science comes from its capacity to be ‘world-making’—to open up vistas of wonder, concern, empathy and horror which are vital for renewing the sociological imagination—and for engaging wider publics. Descriptive assemblages open up new worlds to academic and non-academic audiences, shatter older assumptions shattered and disclose new possibilities. Causal analysis, by contrast, is forced to manipulate different pre-defined conditions in order to infer relative causal relations and lacks this world making capacity.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;My unease with the mobilisation of ‘causality’ as superior to ‘description’, is in some ways a gut feeling, tied to Pierre Bourdieu's (&lt;span&gt;2000&lt;/span&gt;) critique of the ‘scholastic point of view’. One of my worries when social scientists invoke the primacy of ‘causality’ is that research becomes locked—mostly inadvertently—into an academic politics of closure, in which group of experts winnow better (causal) from worse (descriptive) ways of addressing any given topic. The term ‘descriptive’ is routinely deployed as secondary to the prized ‘causal’, and being able to adjudicate these boundaries ultimately becomes bound up with claims to scholarly excellence—whether this is staged through statistical sophistication, theoretical acumen, political proclivities, or some other way. In this game of academic closure, those who can claim to conduct ‘causal’ analysis become better able to command the high ground of the ‘scholastic point of view’ itself. But following not only Bourdieu but a host of writers who insist on the need to position ourselves from the subaltern point of view, we cannot take this claim at face value—it needs to be exposed as a strategy of empowerment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This line of argument means that I do not need to address directly the philosophy of social science, where the analysis of causation has a huge and venerable literature which I can't do justice to here. In fact, for what it is worth, I have always been inspired by critical realism, which to my mind offers a convincing defence of the value of establishing causal relations in a deep and rigorous way. Therefore, I have no interest in challenging causal analysis as such. Rather, my reflections are ro","PeriodicalId":51368,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Sociology","volume":"75 3","pages":"360-365"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1468-4446.13083","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139698889","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Articulation, or the persistent problem with explanation 衔接,或解释方面的顽疾。
IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY Pub Date : 2024-02-02 DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.13084
Noortje Marres
<p>Sociologists have long argued that explanation, as a form of knowledge, has serious limitations when it comes to understanding society. The case against explanation is one of the field's founding ideas, it is literally a foundational idea. It was by rejecting causalist forms of explanation that had been developed in the natural sciences that 19th century scholars and activists that we today call sociologists succeeded in articulating a distinctive realm of reality with relative autonomy from the state, the economy and the family: society (Wagner, <span>2000</span>). Key to their achievement was the argument that the phenomenon of society is fundamentally different from nature. Scientists at the time expected nature to obey eternally valid laws, but society has a number of features that challenge this assumption. Social actors formulate norms and rules to justify their actions and to make sense of social reality. This means that norms and rules themselves may play an active role in the transformation of social reality. Society, in other words, is marked by reflexivity. Of course, a lot has happened since the 19th century and this very notably includes unrelenting efforts by social scientists to create forms of explanation that are capable of taking reflexivity into account. Yet problems with explanation have continued to make themselves felt in the social sciences and humanities. The problem, in a nutshell, is that explanation sets up the relation between social science and its object, society, in terms of <i>representation</i>, but the relation between knowledge about society and social reality is fundamentally an <i>interactive</i> one: the creation of knowledge about society far more often than not involves intervention in society.</p><p>The creation of social scientific knowledge can rarely, if ever, by considered a purely representational affair. This obtains for practically all forms of knowledge about society - and as we shall see, about nature as well - but it causes specific problems for the explanation of social phenomena. Let me give an example from contemporary social science, broadly defined. Some years ago computational social scientists published research that showed that the high levels of political polarization that can be observed among communities on Facebook cannot be explained by the role of social media algorithms in the promotion of content. As they put it: “individual choices, more than algorithms, limit exposure to attitude-challenging content” (Bakshy et al., <span>2015</span>, p. 1131). Such a claim asks us to accept a number of assumptions, most notably, that it is possible to disentangle the influence of individual user choices on news consumption on Facebook from the influence of platform settings such as the structure of news feeds.<sup>1</sup> This assumption may or may not ultimately be methodologically convincing. But in grounding its main finding in this distinction, this study distracts attention from a more
长期以来,社会学家一直认为,解释作为一种知识形式,在理解社会方面具有严重的局限性。反对解释是这一领域的创始思想之一,简直就是一个奠基思想。19 世纪的学者和活动家,也就是我们今天所说的社会学家,正是通过摒弃自然科学中的因果论解释形式,成功地阐明了一个相对独立于国家、经济和家庭的独特现实领域:社会(Wagner,2000 年)。他们取得这一成就的关键在于,他们认为社会现象与自然有着本质区别。当时的科学家们期望自然界遵守永恒有效的法则,但社会的一些特征对这一假设提出了挑战。社会行动者制定规范和规则来证明其行动的合理性,并使社会现实合乎情理。这意味着,规范和规则本身可能在社会现实的转变中发挥积极作用。换言之,社会具有反身性。当然,自 19 世纪以来已经发生了很多事情,其中非常显著的一点是,社会科学家一直在努力创造能够考虑到反身性的解释形式。然而,在社会科学和人文科学领域,解释的问题依然存在。简而言之,问题在于解释学从表象的角度设定了社会科学与其对象--社会--之间的关系,但有关社会的知识与社会现实之间的关系从根本上说是一种互动关系:有关社会的知识的创造往往涉及对社会的干预。这实际上适用于所有形式的社会知识--正如我们将要看到的,也适用于自然知识--但它给社会现象的解释带来了特殊的问题。让我举一个广义的当代社会科学的例子。几年前,计算社会科学家发表的研究表明,Facebook 社区中存在的高度政治极化现象无法用社交媒体算法在内容推广中的作用来解释。正如他们所说"个人选择,而非算法,限制了对挑战态度的内容的接触"(Bakshy et al.)这种说法要求我们接受一些假设,其中最值得注意的是,有可能将用户个人选择对 Facebook 上新闻消费的影响与平台设置(如新闻提要结构)的影响区分开来。1 这一假设可能最终在方法论上令人信服,也可能最终并不令人信服。但是,这项研究将其主要发现建立在这一区别的基础上,却分散了人们对一个更基本现象的注意力:在线平台环境中的 "选择 "是以一种非常独特的方式由社会技术构成的,其中包括对平台根据社交网络分析等动态提供的链接的点击。与在纸质报纸上选择阅读哪篇文章相比,这种 "选择 "呈现出一种截然不同的行动形式。然而,关键在于,肯定这种本体论的复杂性无疑会被视为降低所提供解释的 "力度"。正如刚刚去世的建构主义社会学家亚伦-西库雷尔(Aaron Cicourel,1964 年)在几十年前指出的那样,提请人们注意社会研究的基本工具--在这里是指 "点击量 "和 "好友 "等 Facebook 数据类别--在社会现实建构中的参与,是对一般社会科学,特别是解释性社会科学的表征性理解的挑战。解释学要求社会范畴与社会现实之间的关系是稳定的、单向的(单向性):它要求社会科学范畴首先要回溯到社会现实。因此,解释学始终存在的一个问题是,其有效性似乎取决于反身性动态的括弧化、外在化或淡化。如果 "社会科学要么是解释,要么什么都不是 "这一观点的支持者得逞,社会科学确实只提供解释,而不提供其他任何东西,那么这最终肯定会限制我们对社会范畴与社会现实相互作用的多种方式进行质询的能力。然而,大多数对社会学感兴趣和/或受过社会学训练的人都清楚地意识到反身性现象,意识到社会范畴塑造社会现实的力量。 那么,为什么今天有如此多的社会学家倾向于解释,而不是其他更开放的知识形式,如人种学描述和理论驱动的解释,这些方法都是专门为了能够对社会范畴和社会现实之间的互动关系进行质询而设计的(Krause,2016)?在此,我想说的是,这种互动性现象还有另一层含义,这一层含义与规范、范畴和方法如何塑造现实关系不大,而与社会科学如何实现诺伯特-埃利亚斯(Norbert Elias,2011 年)所说的与社会现实的适当性关系更大。对我来说,致力于 "解释 "潜藏着一种危险,这种危险与 "解释 "使漠视反身性合法化或鼓励漠视反身性的问题相关,但又不同。
{"title":"Articulation, or the persistent problem with explanation","authors":"Noortje Marres","doi":"10.1111/1468-4446.13084","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1468-4446.13084","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Sociologists have long argued that explanation, as a form of knowledge, has serious limitations when it comes to understanding society. The case against explanation is one of the field's founding ideas, it is literally a foundational idea. It was by rejecting causalist forms of explanation that had been developed in the natural sciences that 19th century scholars and activists that we today call sociologists succeeded in articulating a distinctive realm of reality with relative autonomy from the state, the economy and the family: society (Wagner, &lt;span&gt;2000&lt;/span&gt;). Key to their achievement was the argument that the phenomenon of society is fundamentally different from nature. Scientists at the time expected nature to obey eternally valid laws, but society has a number of features that challenge this assumption. Social actors formulate norms and rules to justify their actions and to make sense of social reality. This means that norms and rules themselves may play an active role in the transformation of social reality. Society, in other words, is marked by reflexivity. Of course, a lot has happened since the 19th century and this very notably includes unrelenting efforts by social scientists to create forms of explanation that are capable of taking reflexivity into account. Yet problems with explanation have continued to make themselves felt in the social sciences and humanities. The problem, in a nutshell, is that explanation sets up the relation between social science and its object, society, in terms of &lt;i&gt;representation&lt;/i&gt;, but the relation between knowledge about society and social reality is fundamentally an &lt;i&gt;interactive&lt;/i&gt; one: the creation of knowledge about society far more often than not involves intervention in society.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The creation of social scientific knowledge can rarely, if ever, by considered a purely representational affair. This obtains for practically all forms of knowledge about society - and as we shall see, about nature as well - but it causes specific problems for the explanation of social phenomena. Let me give an example from contemporary social science, broadly defined. Some years ago computational social scientists published research that showed that the high levels of political polarization that can be observed among communities on Facebook cannot be explained by the role of social media algorithms in the promotion of content. As they put it: “individual choices, more than algorithms, limit exposure to attitude-challenging content” (Bakshy et al., &lt;span&gt;2015&lt;/span&gt;, p. 1131). Such a claim asks us to accept a number of assumptions, most notably, that it is possible to disentangle the influence of individual user choices on news consumption on Facebook from the influence of platform settings such as the structure of news feeds.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; This assumption may or may not ultimately be methodologically convincing. But in grounding its main finding in this distinction, this study distracts attention from a more ","PeriodicalId":51368,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Sociology","volume":"75 3","pages":"354-359"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1468-4446.13084","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139673585","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Agents of reform: Child labor and the origins of the welfare state. By Elisabeth Anderson, Princeton (NJ), Oxford: Princeton University Press. 2021. pp. 384. $32.00/£28.00. ISBN: 978-0-691-22089-5 改革的代理人:童工与福利国家的起源》。伊丽莎白-安德森(ElisabethAnderson)著,普林斯顿(新泽西州)、牛津:普林斯顿大学出版社。2021. pp.384.$32.00/£28.00.国际标准书号:978-0-691-22089-5
IF 2.7 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY Pub Date : 2024-01-31 DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.13082
Matty R. Lichtenstein
{"title":"Agents of reform: Child labor and the origins of the welfare state. By Elisabeth Anderson, Princeton (NJ), Oxford: Princeton University Press. 2021. pp. 384. $32.00/£28.00. ISBN: 978-0-691-22089-5","authors":"Matty R. Lichtenstein","doi":"10.1111/1468-4446.13082","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1468-4446.13082","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51368,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Sociology","volume":"75 4","pages":"668-670"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140472967","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Symbolic boundary work: Jewish and Arab femicide in Israeli Hebrew newspapers 象征性的边界工作:以色列希伯来语报纸中的犹太人和阿拉伯人杀戮女性事件。
IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY Pub Date : 2024-01-30 DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.13080
Eran Shor, Ina Filkobski

We analyze 391 news reports in Israeli newspapers between 2013 and 2015, covering murders of women and their family members by other family members and intimate partners. We compare articles where the perpetrators and victims are Jewish to those where the perpetrators and victims are Palestinian citizens of Israel (henceforth PCI). We found that articles tend to provide much more details about Jewish culprits than about PCI ones. As for ascribed motives, most murder cases by Jews were framed as an outcome of individual personality or the pathology of the culprit. Conversely, when Palestinian citizens were the killers, culture and tradition were invoked as the main motives. We suggest that the routine work of narration that the Israeli media preform when covering femicide is a case of political use of cultural stereotypes to gain moral ground in the intractable conflict between Jews and Palestinians.

我们分析了 2013 年至 2015 年以色列报纸上的 391 篇新闻报道,内容涉及其他家庭成员和亲密伴侣对妇女及其家庭成员的谋杀。我们将肇事者和受害者均为犹太人的文章与肇事者和受害者均为以色列巴勒斯坦公民(以下简称 PCI)的文章进行了比较。我们发现,文章对犹太罪犯的详细描述往往比对巴勒斯坦裔罪犯的详细描述要多得多。至于动机,大多数犹太人谋杀案都被归结为个人性格或罪犯病态的结果。相反,当凶手是巴勒斯坦公民时,文化和传统则是主要动机。我们认为,以色列媒体在报道杀戮女性案件时所进行的例行叙述工作,是在政治上利用文化陈规定型观念,在犹太人和巴勒斯坦人之间棘手的冲突中赢得道德上的优势。
{"title":"Symbolic boundary work: Jewish and Arab femicide in Israeli Hebrew newspapers","authors":"Eran Shor,&nbsp;Ina Filkobski","doi":"10.1111/1468-4446.13080","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1468-4446.13080","url":null,"abstract":"<p>We analyze 391 news reports in Israeli newspapers between 2013 and 2015, covering murders of women and their family members by other family members and intimate partners. We compare articles where the perpetrators and victims are Jewish to those where the perpetrators and victims are Palestinian citizens of Israel (henceforth PCI). We found that articles tend to provide much more details about Jewish culprits than about PCI ones. As for ascribed motives, most murder cases by Jews were framed as an outcome of individual personality or the pathology of the culprit. Conversely, when Palestinian citizens were the killers, culture and tradition were invoked as the main motives. We suggest that the routine work of narration that the Israeli media preform when covering femicide is a case of political use of cultural stereotypes to gain moral ground in the intractable conflict between Jews and Palestinians.</p>","PeriodicalId":51368,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Sociology","volume":"75 3","pages":"290-302"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1468-4446.13080","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139576861","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Family background consistently affects economic success across the life cycle: A research note on how brother correlations overlap over the life course 家庭背景始终影响着整个生命周期的经济成就:关于兄弟相关性如何在生命历程中重叠的研究说明。
IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY Pub Date : 2024-01-28 DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.13081
Kristian Bernt Karlson

Scholars of social mobility increasingly study the role of family background in shaping attainment throughout the entire life course. However, research has yet to establish whether the family characteristics influencing early career attainment are the same as those influencing late career attainment. In this research note, I apply an extended sibling correlation approach to analyze brothers’ life cycle earnings and family income, using data from the U.S. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. My analysis reveals a near-perfect correlation in the family characteristics that affect attainment at early, mid, and late career stages. This finding has significant implications for how mobility scholars conceptualize the impact of family background across a career. It suggests that family background forms a single, consistent dimension in determining attainment throughout the life course. Further analysis also indicates that the imperfect relationship between current and lifetime income is exclusively driven by within-family processes.

研究社会流动性的学者越来越多地研究家庭背景在整个人生过程中对成就的影响。然而,研究尚未确定影响早期职业成就的家庭特征是否与影响晚期职业成就的家庭特征相同。在本研究报告中,我利用 1979 年美国全国青年纵向调查的数据,运用扩展的兄弟姐妹相关方法分析了兄弟的生命周期收入和家庭收入。我的分析揭示了影响早期、中期和晚期职业生涯成就的家庭特征之间近乎完美的相关性。这一发现对于流动性学者如何看待家庭背景对整个职业生涯的影响具有重要意义。它表明,家庭背景形成了一个单一的、一致的维度,决定着整个生命历程中的成就。进一步的分析还表明,当前收入与终生收入之间的不完美关系完全是由家庭内部过程驱动的。
{"title":"Family background consistently affects economic success across the life cycle: A research note on how brother correlations overlap over the life course","authors":"Kristian Bernt Karlson","doi":"10.1111/1468-4446.13081","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1468-4446.13081","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Scholars of social mobility increasingly study the role of family background in shaping attainment throughout the entire life course. However, research has yet to establish whether the family characteristics influencing early career attainment are the same as those influencing late career attainment. In this research note, I apply an extended sibling correlation approach to analyze brothers’ life cycle earnings and family income, using data from the U.S. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. My analysis reveals a near-perfect correlation in the family characteristics that affect attainment at early, mid, and late career stages. This finding has significant implications for how mobility scholars conceptualize the impact of family background across a career. It suggests that family background forms a single, consistent dimension in determining attainment throughout the life course. Further analysis also indicates that the imperfect relationship between current and lifetime income is exclusively driven by within-family processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":51368,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Sociology","volume":"75 3","pages":"347-353"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1468-4446.13081","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139572020","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
British Journal of Sociology
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1