Should Sociologists Stand Up for Science? Absolutely!

Standing up for science is part of sociology\u27s mission as a social science. Standing up is also consistent with our field\u27s ethical obligation to identify and avoid research compromised by conflict of interests

Professional Deceit: Normal Lying in an Occupational Setting

Normal lies are those that social actors legitimate as appropriate means to desirable outcomes. Such lies have been acknowledged in the literature as tools for maintaining social order. Yet, little has been done to document the social structural sources of normal lying. This paper offers a first step in filling this research gap, examining aspects of occupational structure and their connection to the practice of normal lying. Specifically, we discuss four dimensions of occupational structure — occupational rewards and entry requirements, occupational loyalties, social control styles within an occupation, and an occupation\u27s level of professionalization — and we explore the ways in which these dimensions influence normal lying activity. Real estate, a field in which the practice of normal lying is quite common, serves as our case study of the occupational sphere. We conclude our analysis by discussing the implications of our findings for other occupations and for society at large

Death comes alive; technology and the re‐conception of death

Browse through your local bookstore, or glance at a nearby movie marquee. Skim the pages of your nightly newspaper or the listings in your television guide. American culture\u27s current focus poses a surprise. The popular eye is centered on a topic more taboo than the steamiest sexual encounter, more solemn than the deepest economic depression, and more universal than the common cold. The current decade reveals a remarkable up- surge in our collective attention toward death. Indeed in the 1990s, Americans have become nearly obsessed with a world that lurks beyond life as we know it

Apologies of the Rich and Famous: Cultural, Cognitive, and Social Explanations of Why We Care and Why We Forgive

In recent years, U.S. and other Western media have inundated the public with celebrity apologies. The public (measured via representative opinion polls) then expresses clear ideas about who deserves forgiveness. Is forgiveness highly individualized or tied to broader social, cultural, and cognitive factors? To answer this question, we analyzed 183 celebrity apologies offered between October 1, 2000, and October 1, 2012. Results are twofold and based in both cultural and social psychological perspectives. First, we found that public forgiveness is systematically tied to discursive characteristics of apologies—particularly sequential structures. Certain sequences appear to cognitively prime the public, creating associative links to established cultural scripts of atonement and rendering some apologies more successful than others. Second, public forgiveness is contingent on broader patterns of social interaction. Like many persuasive messages, successful apologies exist as ordered cultural moments steeped in characteristics of the social relations that bind offenders, victims, and a broader audience of onlookers

Coming Together: New Taxonomies for the Analysis of Social Relations

In previous work, we have noted a certain rigidity in sociology\u27s approach to the topic of social relations (Cerulo 1997; Cerulo and Ruane 1997; Cerulo, Ruane, and Chayko 1992). With few exceptions, literature on the subject dichotomizes social relations with reference to the scope of the interaction (small group versus large group) and the mode by which social actors connect (direct connections versus mediated connections). Further, many researchers implicitly rank the social value of each relational form. Sociologists typically identify a society\u27s primary and most valuable relations as the result of direct, physically copresent exchange, exchange involving relatively few interactants. In contrast, secondary relations often are characterized as faceless, impersonal, ingenuous, and fleeting–the result of large‐group exchange established via mediated or mechanized connections. Cerulo (1997) suggested the need to reformulate any definition of social relations built upon the small group/large group or the direct/mediated dichotomies. She presented several critical elements upon which new definitions could be built. In this piece, we configure those elements, building six new analytic taxonomies–tools we hope will provoke a richer discussion of connecting, interacting, and resulting forms of social relations

Introducing Social Research Methods : Essentials for Getting the Edge

https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/all_books/1118/thumbnail.jp

dasar-dasar metode penelitian : panduan riset ilmu sosial

xvii, 352 hlm.: 25 c

dasar-dasar metode penelitian : panduan riset ilmu sosial

xvii, 352 hlm.: 25 c

Dasar-Dasar Metode Penelitian Panduan Riset Ilmu Sosial; Essential of Research Methods

xviii, 352 hlm,; 21 c