From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Jan 1 05:45:29 1995 Sun, 1 Jan 1995 05:39:38 -0800 for Date: Sun, 01 Jan 95 15:29:45 IST From: gustavo mesch To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU sub "rsso232@uvm.haifa.ac.il" socgrad From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Jan 1 07:55:22 1995 Sun, 1 Jan 1995 07:51:48 -0800 for Date: Sun, 01 Jan 95 10:49:54 EST From: DAVIDSON@UConnVM.UConn.Edu To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU There are some people out here, but many University's computer centers and what not shut down between Xmas and New Years. Consequently, not many people are around. Unless, of course, you are working on a dissertation. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Jan 1 08:21:46 1995 Sun, 1 Jan 1995 08:16:39 -0800 for Date: Sun, 01 Jan 95 09:30:50 EST From: "T R. Young" <34LPF6T@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> Organization: Central Michigan University Subject: Postmodern Understandings of Mind, Self & Society To: GRADUATE STUDENTS IN SOCIOLOGY This is mini-lecture #15 in a series for grad students in sociology on the socgrad network. The series is sponsored by the Red Feather Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology and are offered by T.R. Young. This mini-lecture begins a new series on postmodern ideas about mind, self and society and derives from the lectures designed for the Grad Students at Texas Woman's University, Spring, 1994. One way to begin the study of social psychology is to think about how ideas about mind, self and society differ as between pre-modern, modern, and postmodern scholars/scholarship. I will try to do that for you in this first lecture in an outline format...I will focus on the concept of self with comments about mind and society inter- spersed. Premodern Understandings of Self: A. Premodern Understandings vary widely over time and tribe; most generally, self was seen as an integral part of a communal order [our word, individual, began in that sense; undividable]. Then, too there was the idea that the particular person was connected in some mystical way to the whole of nature or perhaps, some particular part of nature; say an animal species. Many language systems do not have a word with which a person can refer reflexively to self...we have the concept of the "I" with which to do so; the Inuit, for example, have to say that "...a person thinks" or "...a person wants...". For Socrates and the tradition from which he spoke, both mind and self existed prior to birth in quite adult form; birth trauma was so great that there was a forgetting but a good teacher could bring out the universal understandings of that mind/self/person...the word, education began as a way to refer to the socratic method of 'drawing out' those permanent and universal truths which transcend any particular temporal embodiment of them in personhood. Many pre-modern traditions presume the continuity of mind/self through generations of birth, death and rebirth. The Christian tradition also except that there is but one cycle of birth, death and a spiritual life that continues on after death; some believe in the physical embodiment of self as well. Both Hindu and Buddhist traditions taught/teach that the cycle of life life and death are affected by good works such that, given a selfless and spiritual life, one could merge with the universal and thus end the cycles of birth and death [and all the suffering which attends life. Many, if not most people on the face of the earth today accept some version of the premodern understanding of mind and self. For some, the advent of modern science offered quite a different understanding of mind, self and society. B. Modern Understandings. In 1610, Bacon published 'De Novum Organum' and kicked off the 'modern era.' From the work of Kepler, Copernicus and Galileo, Bacon argued that truth came from a close observation of the behavior of things in this world [in contra-diction to the pre- modern assumption that one turned to the gods or to their priests for understanding of a thing]. In 1687, Newton published 'Principia Mathematica' [mathimatical principles of natural science] and the modern era had both method and mission; to seek out the natural laws of nature and society via the method of successive appropriations; using the research desigh that Bacon has lain out. By the time psychology and sociology developed as 'modern' scientific disciplines, the idea that both mind and self were constructed within the basic social institutions was, among, social scientists, widely accepted. There was/is an important school which says that mind and self are constituted by physio-chemical processes; a school which reduces human behavior to genes and body chemistry...and a school which reduces human behavior to pre-programmed psychological processes in which human beings process input and respond much as a complex machine would respond...behaviorism is the name of the later and John Watson is its chief architect in modern times. These arguments about mind and self set society apart from the dialectics of behavior; society is a product, a consequence of phsysiology and psychology rather than a creative agent in the development of mind and self. Current expressions of the reductionist trend in social psych are seen in the book 'The Bell Curve' by the late Richard Herrnstein and a political scientist, Charles Murray, who works for the American Enter- prize Institute. Ideas that genetics pre-shape mind and self also inform a great deal of current debate on welfare reform as well as educational policy. To complicate social psychology even more, there is a dramatic split between those who believe that society is a key player in the social psychology of mind and self. It was the special genius of Durkheim to look at society and see, instead of God as the architect of self and mind, something he called the Super-organic. Society-assembled had a dynamic life and causal efficacy of its own; physiology and biology were themselves reduced. Mind and self were produced by society; society produced/reproduced itself 'sui generis'...it was self organizing, self correcting and self changing. Rather than biology or psychology, society is the chief architect of self/selves. George Herbert Mead may be used as a symbol for the idea that mind, self and society are twinborn [trineborn?]...that all three arise in the same moment via symbolic interaction. The astute student will recognize that this view is not all that different from some pre-modern views about the indivisibility of self and society. I want to conclude this first mini-lecture by suggesting how it is that Meadians might well claim mind, self and society to be twinborn. I will offer a mini-lecture on postmodern understandings of mind, self and society; your reading assignment for that lecture, if you care to take it is in the current issue of the Soc Quarterly 35:4, Nov., 1994; an article entitled Grounding the Postmodern Self by Gubrium and Holstein. 1. Mind as twinborn; One can appreciate the meadian point about mind being a collective product [instead of an aspect of the brain of the single, separate person] in the workings of symbols and symbolic interaction...in this view, symbols arouse the same thoughts, feelings and actions in the speaker as in the one to whom one speaks...we put ideas into each other's minds via interaction; we elicit emotions in each other by the words we use and the intonations we may when speaking. Behavior is twinborn in a variety of ways...not only the words themselves shape and pre-shape the behavior of others but then too, there are sanctions we can use to make sure that behavior is a collective product [rather than a product of the single, reacting person as Watson would have it]. It is not enough that voiced symbols shape the behavior of all those who hear them [including the speaker], but there are four or five other symbol sets used to complement and re-inforce verbalized speech...body talk alone can shape/pre-shape the behavior of others...the lifting of an eye brow, the curling of a lip, the wrinkling of the forehead all signal and elicit ways of thinking, feeling and behaving in self and others. Then too, body decoration and/or costume preshape behavior...we see people with tatoos, colored dots, blackened eyes and we 'read' out possibilities and imposs- ibilities for our thoughts and actions and emotions. The same is true for costume; we see an attractive young woman or man dressed in clerical garb and we eliminate some ways of thinking, talking, feeling and acting. In addition, we become adept at reading whole runs of behavior as a symbol set...psychiatrists become especially good at 'reading' behavioral patterns which occur over weeks, months and years. Society enters into the collective production of mind by virtue of the fact that the meanings of the symbols and the variety of symbol sets evolve differently in different societies; thus does cultural play a large role in social psychology for those who work in the symbolic interactional camp. D. Self as a social form...the idea that self is a collective product can be found in the notion of socialization. If the core of the self system is composed of social identities, then the question becomes from whence come the social identities...the sociological social psychological position is that people are socialized and allocated social identities from the time they are born until the time they go through a rite of passage and have a legitimate right to 'be' a son, a daughter, a wife, a priest, a doctor, a Catholic, a soldier or a police officer. Such social identities are not pre-programmed by genes nor by pre-wired psychological dynamics. One learns to be a woman and is allocated that identity differently in different societies; one learns to be Irish or Japanese or slaves or warriors...biology and physiology are open systems which offer/support a great variety of social identities. Society enters into the game by setting out the variety of status-roles available and setting the general rules about the age, gender, and class of those who may fill a given status role. The twinborn nature of self is also seen in the status-role; the idea of mother without the child, a guard without a prisoner, a doctor without a patient or a professor without a student is a nonsense notion. It is hard to be a wife in any sociological sense if the husband is dead or gone for long years...it is difficult to be father is one seldom sees one 'children.' All social selves require others to be complete. The primacy of society in all this is often unproblematic. Dennis Wrong and others repair this tendency to 'reify' society by noting that people have a wide latitude in creating any given role...that of a father, a teacher, a nurse or a police officer for example. Sanctions do kick in to limit the creativity and autonomy of the individual to create roles; power and wealth expand that creativity/autonomy...Clarence Thomas had the social power to expand the definition of his status-role when he allegedly, requested sexual favors from women who, in that social system, had less social power. F. Finally, for Marx, for feminists, for Afro-American activists and for a variety of people in the third world, the stratifications of class, status and gender too much pre-shape the self process. Macro-societal contraints/repressions on mind and self are alien to the human project and need by changed. Marx held that mind, self and society were twin born all right, but those who controlled the means of producing ideas produced the ideas of the working class...ideological hegemony rather than nature create servile workers, women, and slaves. Feminists look at patriarchal social formations and see these macro-structures pre- shaping the minds and selves available to women...shaping them in ways hostile to women. Afro-Americans, Chicanos and others from the 3rd world also see macro-structural processes at work to limit human development; mind and self are smaller, weaker and more passive than need be and thus there is need for radical transformation of the sociology of it all in order to liberate the psychology of it all. We are getting dangerously close to a postmodern understanding of mind, self and society so I will stop here. Have a good New Year and learn a lot of good, new stuff. T. R. Young From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Jan 1 13:10:39 1995 Sun, 1 Jan 1995 13:06:38 -0800 for From: D.W.Weatherston@newcastle.ac.uk Date: Sun, 1 Jan 1995 21:07:05 +0000 To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Subject: terrorism book reference Some time ago I was involved in a discussion on the net on terrorism specifically "terrorology" that so called academic discipline pioneered by neo conservatives who through their dominant position in government agency/policy forming bodies and control of the media dictate the imagery of the activist that who is portrayed as fanatical, deranged etc. In my attempt to rebut the hysterical discipline, I was (still am) looking at 60's activism, social movements. Many colleagues either pooh poohed or considered my research as concentrating on trivia. May I refer those people who expressed these understandable reactions to International Social Movement Research Vol 4.(1992) Social Movements and Violence: Participation in Underground Organizations; series ed. Bert Klandermans, volume ed. Donatella Della Porta. JAI Press. This book contains a wonderful set of thought provoking and illuminating essays. regards, David Weatherston. D.W.Weatherston@ncl.ac.uk From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jan 2 17:31:44 1995 Mon, 2 Jan 1995 17:29:21 -0800 for by KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU (PMDF V4.3-11 #9008) id <01HLDRUZN4XC8WY2WD@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU>; Mon, 02 Jan 1995 19:29:18 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 1995 19:29:18 -0600 (CST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU From: 1k1mgm@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU (Christopher Gunn) Subject: Re: Is there anybody out there? To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU I've wondered that, too. Everyone in end-of-semester+holidays shutdown state? Christopher Gunn Molecular Graphics and Modeling Laboratory 1k1mgm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu University of Kansas Phone: 913-864-4428 or -4495 Malott Hall Lawrence, KS 66045 From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jan 3 15:29:14 1995 Tue, 3 Jan 1995 15:27:49 -0800 for Date: Tue, 03 Jan 95 18:25:32 EST From: Zhiwei Zhang Subject: zwzhang@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu socgrad To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU "zwzhang@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu" socgrad From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jan 5 14:06:33 1995 Thu, 5 Jan 1995 14:02:29 -0800 for Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 17:02:27 -0500 (EST) From: James Cassell Subject: Computers & Qualitative Analysis Conference Announcement (fwd) To: Sociology Graduate Student Discussion Saw this on the methods list and thought someone might be interested. Jim ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Cassell jwcassell@UNC.EDU Institute for Research in Social Science Phone: 919-962-0782 University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Fax: 919-962-4777 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3355 USA ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 15:26:23 -0500 From: Sue Cox Subject: Computers & Qualitative Analysis Conference Announcement ********************************************************************* CHOOSING AND LEARNING SOFTWARE FOR QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS A working conference with Eben A. Weitzman (New York University) and Matthew B. Miles (Center for Policy Research). February 17-18, 1995 University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia *********************************************************************** During the past few years, software that aids qualitative researchers with their analytic tasks has mushroomed. Programs can help with field note-taking and editing, coding, data storage, search and retrieval, data-linking, memoing, content analysis, data display, conclusion-drawing, theory-building, graphic mapping, and report-writing. But how to choose among competing products? Many researchers are bewildered and uncertain about how software can help them, and which programs are best suited to their purposes. This working conference will help researchers understand the options. The conference aims to help participants doing or planning qualitative research studies to: * diagnose their own needs for software to support their work * narrow possible choices, and make intelligent decisions about which program(s) to use * get initially familiar with chosen program(s) * use their own data with program(s) to get a sense of how the program(s) will work out in real-life use The topics covered will include: * Overview of qualitative data analysis, and how software can support it * Types and functions of qualitative analysis software * Diagnosis of own computer skills, project needs, and analysis plans * Strategies for scanning, narrowing the choice pool, and choosing * Approaches to learning a new program's features quickly * Starting to use the program with meaningful data For any given topic, there will be a brief presentation. Participants will then apply the ideas directly to their own work. The approach is thus active, use-oriented, and individualized. Following application sessions, there will be general discussion and further clarification. There will be plenty of hands-on time in the computer lab, and work with program manuals. We expect to have software and manuals for 24 different programs on hand. Participants work with a partner throughout. Peer-supported learning is an important feature of the conference. The conference is built around Weitzman's and Miles' forthcoming book, "Computer programs for qualitative data analysis". The book takes a practical, critical, user-oriented look at the wide range of qualitative data analysis software available to help qualitative researchers with the choices they are facing. It reviews 24 programs, divided into five major categories: text retrievers, textbase managers, code and retrieve programs, code-based theory-builders, and conceptual network builders. It is written for qualitative researchers, and does not presume extensive computer competence. A copy is included as part of registration. This is a companion volume to M.B. Miles and A.M. Huberman, "Qualitative Data Analysis" (2nd ed.; Sage, 1994), which participants are encouraged to review before the conference. Who should attend? The conference is intended for graduate students, though faculty are welcome. Participation is limited to 60 participants who are directly engaged in a study involving qualitative data. They may be planning, advising on, or conducting research. The conference is not appropriate for someone with no prior or current experience in qualitative research. Participants are asked to bring a small set of data (ASCII and/or Plain Text, up to 3 cases, total 10K maximum) from the study. Standard data sets will be available for those still in planning stages. Participants' should have some computer competence: at least at Level 1; Level 2 will make learning much more efficient. Level 1: You are using a word processor, learning to use your computer's operating system (e.g. MS-DOS, Windows or Mac) and are comfortable with the idea of creating text, moving around in it, and revising it. Level 2: You have become acquainted with several different programs, use your + operating system easily, and feel comfortable with the idea of exploring and + learning new programs. Level 3: You have an active interest in the ins and outs of how programs work, feel at ease with customisation and writing macros. Level 4: You are a "hacker", who lives and breathes computing. Why Attend? What will you get from the conference, beyond just reading the book yourself? You'll get: * direct online access to any of 24 programs, so you can see how they work rather than just reading about them, and access to program manuals. * advice and help from Weitzman and Miles, focusing on your own needs assessment, program choice issues, and your operating problems with particular programs as you begin to learn and use them with your own data. * a chance to exchange information, advice and help with other researchers as they choose and use software. Time and Place The conference will be held at the University of British Columbia, in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology and in the Buchanan Building. The schedule will run from 8:30 a.m. (coffee and muffins) to 6:00pm on February 17, and from 8:30am (coffee and muffins) to 5:30pm on February 18, with an hour for lunch each day. Registration The non-refundable registration fee is: students $175; faculty and non-profit organisations $225; corporate and government organisations $300. Registration priority is given to graduate students; however, space is available for faculty and other participants. Included in the fee is a copy of "Computer programs for qualitative data analysis: a software sourcebook" (1995). To register, please print out the attached registration form and send to the accompanying address with a cheque or money order only, payable to the "Computers and Qualitative Analysis Conference". When your registration is complete we will send you pre-conference materials. Your copy of Weitzman's and Miles' book will be available at the conference. Eben A. Weitzman is Visiting Assistant Professor, Industrial/Organizational Psychology, New York University, and Research Associate, Center for Policy Research, and the International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution, Columbia University. With a backgound in political science and social psychology, he has interests in computer usage, conflict resolution, cross-cultural conflict, alienation and commitment, and organisational development. In addition to other publications, he is the co-author with Matthew B. Miles of "Computer programs for qualitative data analysis: a software sourcebook" [Sage, February 1995]. Matthew B. Miles is Senior Research Associate, Center for Policy Research, Sparkill, New York. He is a social psychologist who has focused on planned change in education since the 1950s. His current research interests are advances in qualitative data analysis, school focused on planned change in education since the 1950s. His current research interests are advances in qualitative data analysis, school restructuring, and educational reform in developing countries. In addition to other publications, he is the co-author with Eben A. Weitzman of "Computer programs for qualitative analysis: a software sourcebook" [Sage, February 1995]. This working conference is sponsored by the following sponsors at the University of British Columbia: Anthropology and Sociology Graduate Students' Association Department of Anthropology and Sociology Center for Research in Women's Studies and Gender Relations Faculty of Arts Faculty of Graduate Studies President's Allocation Fund Walter H. Gage Memorial Fund For further information contact: "Computers & Qualitative Analysis Conference" Department of Anthropology and Sociology University of British Columbia 6303 NW Marine Drive Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z1 Canada fax: (604) 822-6161 tel: Raewyn Bassett (604) 822-1150 e-mail: suecox@unixg.ubc.ca REGISTRATION FORM Space is limited. Register early by completing this form and return with your cheque or money order to the address listed below. Name:______________________________________________________ Telephone (home/work):_____________________________________ Address (for registration materials):______________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ fax:______________________________________________________ e-mail:___________________________________________________ Institutional Affiliation:________________________________ What word processor(s) are you comfortable using? MS-DOS__ Windows__ Mac__ What operating system(s) do you normally use in your research? (Check all applicable) MS-DOS__ Windows__ Mac__ What is your level of computer competence? (Circle one only; see above for details) Level 1 2 3 4 If you have any special needs regarding computer and/or conference facilities, please attach details Enclosed is my cheque/money order for (circle one): $175 $225 $300 Students: Please attach a copy of your current student registration or ID card to this form. Signature:_____________________________ Please enclose a cheque or money order payable to "Computers & Qualitative Analysis Conference" and mail with this form to "Computers & Qualitative Analysis Conference" Department of Anthropology and Sociology, UBC 6303 NW Marine Drive Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z1 From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jan 5 22:57:47 1995 Thu, 5 Jan 1995 22:53:59 -0800 for Date: Fri, 06 Jan 95 09:50:56 SST From: IMU3%SAKACS00.BITNET@VTBIT.CC.VT.EDU To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU subscribe ahmed alsenani From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Jan 6 13:52:08 1995 Fri, 6 Jan 1995 13:48:07 -0800 for From: CBROWN@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU Date: Fri, 6 Jan 95 15:46:29 CST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Ph.D Comprehensive Exams Hellow Everyone: I am currently in the Ph.D program at Southern Illinois University and am curious about how our comprehensive examination structure compares with other Ph.D programs. We are required to take four written exams, two major and two minor. The major exams last six hours each and the minors last four. We have to take one of our major exams in theory/methods, but can then pick our other three areas according to our own individual interests (there is no pre-set list from which we have to choose). Before the exams are taken, a reading list is compiled fore each of the four areas and then submitted to a committee of two professors. Each student must assemble four committees (each one consists of two professors) since there are four exams. Theoretically one professor may sit on more than one committee. The committee is then responsible for (1) Ok'ing the list, (2) assigning the questions for the exam based from the list, and (3) grading the exam (either pass/no pass). I would be very interested in the requirements for your Ph.D comps. Please feel free to send them to my private e-mail address at cbrown@siucvmb.siu.edu Thanks. Chuck Brown Dept. of Sociology From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Jan 7 04:37:31 1995 Sat, 7 Jan 1995 04:36:20 -0800 for From: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Michael Lichter) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 04:36:15 +0000 To: CBROWN@siucvmb.siu.edu, socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: Ph.D Comprehensive Exams On Jan 6, 3:46pm, CBROWN@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU wrote: > We are required to take four written exams, two major and two minor. > The major exams last six hours each and the minors last four. We have > to take one of our major exams in theory/methods, but can then pick our > other three areas according to our own individual interests (there is no > pre-set list from which we have to choose). > > Before the exams are taken, a reading list is compiled fore each of the > four areas and then submitted to a committee of two professors. Each > student must assemble four committees (each one consists of two > professors) since there are four exams. Theoretically one professor may > sit on more than one committee. The committee is then responsible for > (1) Ok'ing the list, (2) assigning the questions for the exam based > from the list, and (3) grading the exam (either pass/no pass). What you describe is a lot of work, for both students and faculty. Any idea what time-to-degree looks like in your department? (On that topic, has anybody seen recent figures for time-to-degree in Sociology programs, nationally? Last tabulation I saw gave the national average as just over 8 years.) We have to complete two written "field" exams. Our program is broken into five areas (Macro, Social Psych, Communities and Institutions, Quantitative, and EPOS), each of which have slightly different requirements for the exams. In general, however, the first exam is chosen from a list of "standard" exams which have well-defined reading lists, and the committee reading the exam is determined by the area program rather than by the student. The second exam is usually "custom", taken from a reading list submitted by the student. Students taking standard exams do submit possible questions, which are sometimes adopted. In custom exams, the student and the committee he or she has chosen collaborate on the questions. Usually, there are three questions with a page limit of ten pages written on each, max. Students generally get a weekend to write an exam, although doing it in one day or in three weeks are sometimes options. I suppose there should be a FAQ on this -- what kinds of requirements do different departments have for each stage of the graduate program? Michael -- Michael Lichter -----------------------------+ Department of Sociology | University of California, Los Angeles ---------------------------------------+ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Jan 7 18:04:45 1995 Sat, 7 Jan 1995 18:03:37 -0800 for Date: Sat, 07 Jan 95 20:56:38 EST From: Marni Hancock Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: PRELIMS To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Emory has a setup similar to that described by Michael. The question I have is what happens when someone who has done adequately to well in all course work fails an exam? At Emory there is some confusion as to whether the student should be evaluated for expulsion from the program or allowed to try again. I guess I really don't understand how performing well on such an exam is related to predictions of the student's future ability to function well as a sociologist. How does that kind of testing assure competence not evaluated in course work or production of an acceptable dissertation? How does it contribute to the educational process? Is it just another case of tradition over reason? I'd be interested in seeing the comments of others on the list. Happy New Year and best wishes to all on their academic pursuits. Marni Hancock SOCAW059@EMUVM1.CC.EMORY.EDU From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Jan 7 19:01:27 1995 Sat, 7 Jan 1995 19:00:26 -0800 for Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 19:00:19 -0800 From: Laura Miller To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: advancing to candidacy At UC San Diego we don't have comprehensive exams, but instead have to write three "orals papers." These are supposed to demonstrate our competence in three areas. We pick the areas and work out specific topics and reading lists with whatever committee member(s) are supervising the paper. Each paper has to be approved by our committee (3 inside-department members, 2 outside), which is almost always the committee we'll have for the dissertation. In practice, it's usually the committee chair who carries the most weight. We then take an oral exam based on the papers and the areas they cover. There's an unwritten, but fairly strong tradition that the committee won't let the student take his/her orals unless they're satisfied enough with the papers. Which means that the orals may be grueling, but it's fairly unlikely a student will fail at that point. Laura Miller lmiller@ucsd.edu From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Jan 7 21:44:07 1995 Sat, 7 Jan 1995 21:43:15 -0800 for From: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Michael Lichter) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 21:43:09 +0000 To: Laura Miller , socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: advancing to candidacy On Jan 7, 7:00pm, Laura Miller wrote: > At UC San Diego we don't have comprehensive exams, but instead have to > write three "orals papers." These are supposed to demonstrate our competence > in three areas. We pick the areas and work out specific topics and reading > lists with whatever committee member(s) are supervising the paper. Each > paper has to be approved by our committee (3 inside-department members, 2 > outside), which is almost always the committee we'll have for the dissertation > In practice, it's usually the committee chair who carries the most weight. > We then take an oral exam based on the papers and the areas they cover. > There's an unwritten, but fairly strong tradition that the committee won't > let the student take his/her orals unless they're satisfied enough with > the papers. Which means that the orals may be grueling, but it's fairly > unlikely a student will fail at that point. Wow, sounds like a lot of work. Just to clarify what we have at UCLA, besides the two exams I mentioned before, you also need to complete an oral examination to advance to candidacy. Each of the exams is discrete and can have a different faculty committee. Only the oral exam, which is a defense of the dissertation proposal, includes outside members (3 inside, and 1 outside). Michael -- Michael Lichter ------------------------+ Department of Sociology | University of California, Los Angeles ----------------------------------+ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Jan 8 07:53:01 1995 Sun, 8 Jan 1995 07:51:18 -0800 for Date: Sun, 08 Jan 95 09:05:21 EST From: "T R. Young" <34LPF6T@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> Organization: Central Michigan University Subject: The Polysemic Self: Where did the 'I' go?? To: GRADUATE STUDENTS IN SOCIOLOGY Mini-Lecture 16: The Polysemic Self. This is second in a series of mini-lectures on postmodern understandings of self and society. It parallels a graduate course in Symbolic Inter- actional Theory I will give at Texas Woman's Univ in Denton beginning in two weeks. I will provide a syllabus along with lecture outlines and reading lists for those who might want them after I get settled in and under way at TWU. As one reads/thinks about the points made here, do keep in mind two things: first, I do not myself agree with all of what is said, and second, in particular I think the truth value of the postmodern view of self is itself, historical. That is, I think that, for most people in India, China, South America, Africa and most in North America, self is much more substantive than the postmodern critique would have it. Yet there is much merit in the postmodern view that self is, variously, image, simulacrum, polysemic, hyperreal and/or a language game. What- ever the truth value of Lyotard, Baudrillard, Derrida, or my own warnings about the separation of self from its social anchorage in mass society; enough truth value to warrant careful and systematic discussion. The Postmodern Self: i.e., a view of the concept of self in postmodern sensibility. [After Gubrium and Holstein, Soc Quarterly, 35:4, Nov. 94] A. The Modern View: G&H:1994:686 note that cite Stone and Farberman as well as Larry Reynolds who sum up the modern view of self as '...a solid, reflexive, labelled, performed, or situated entity.' That self can be known, measured, punished, cured, shamed, praised or degraded. Manford Kuhn, U-Iowa, used the twenty-statements test [T.S.T.] to make visible that stable, concrete, knowable self. Your informal field assignment is to ask any three friends to answer the same question 10 or 20 times: the question is, 'Who am I.' Kuhn assumed that people would first list the deep, permanent core of self; that such social identities as 'Baptist,' 'Woman,' 'Teacher,' 'Priest,' 'American,' or 'Christian' would come first and that people used those identities to organize their own behavior; that they used them to mediate demands placed upon them [as an acting 'I' to use Mead's term]. Lou Zurcher was puzzled when, in the 1970's, he got answers from his students which listed such things as 'friendly,' 'honest,' 'skier,' 'Aquarius,' 'strong,' 'happy,' 'curious,' or 'too short.' Zurcher wrote a book, The Mutable Self to sum up and to advocate a flexible, accomodating self system that was compatible with the new conditions of social life after WWII; lots of social and geographical mobility, lots of job changing, relgion changing, spouse changing, with emphasis on the youth culture, physical fitness and the growing international- ization of the media. The old structure of self does not thrive in such a society; Zurcher tried to offer a new vision of self which would suffice for his students and a new generation. I wrote a paper entitled, 'The Mutable Self: Against Zurcher' after which Lou and I engaged in friendly correspondence and agreed to try to get those in social psychology to take seriously the serious eroding of the social sources of self...that effort failed; the textbooks still discuss Mead, Cooley, Blumer and others as if the assumptions of symbolic inter- action were as valid in 1990 as in 1930. [somewhere in earlier mini-lectures, there is a critique of the assumptions of symbolic interaction; they don't hold in massified, stratified, racist, or patriarchal societies for a good many people. B. The Polysemic Self: G&H:685 assert that, for postmodernist, the self is polysemic...that is, attached to, and articulated with, multiple systems of signs. For 'self' to be a sign rather than a permanent struc- ture in the self system located in the personality of an individual and permanently etched in the neural connections of the brain are two very different things. Some explanation/thought is necessary here. Think of any three answers to the T.S.T. of Kuhn: I am a woman, I am a father, I am a student. How can one be, empirically, a woman in a mass class; in Walmart, in a prison or in a televison station where one might work. For people with the physiological accouterments of 'female,' the word, 'woman' is reduced to just that, only a word. If one says, in such a setting, 'I am a woman,' one is indicating a possibility rather than an actuality. If one says, 'I am a father' and if being a father is a social identity [rather than a biological act some 10, 20, 0r 30 years ago], then to 'be' a father in anything other than semantic terms, one must actually use the identity, 'father' to mediate his behavior when in actual interaction with someone defined as a 'son' or 'daughter;' more than that, the person who uses the word 'father' to reference himself must mediate relevant portions of his behavior even when the child is not physically present. For postmodernists, such the truth value of such claims are 1) unknow- able, 2) unjustifiable and 3) often a mystification. C. The Dramaturgical Self. Those of you who have read Goffman, esp. his 'Presentation of Self in Everyday Life,' will have a sense of what a polysemic self looks like. Somewhere early on in that book is a report about a guy who goes to a beach and 'gives off signs' about how unknown others are to 'read' his performance; he carries a book which tells others that is is a bit scholarly but if they can read the title, they know he is not too daring; he glances at the sky...people can read him as a skilled weatherman; he walks into the ocean, sea and land are one to him. Now ask yourself, is all presentations of self like that; fleeting uses of body talk, voiced sounds, costumes, and lines of behavior which have little or no connection to any presumed 'deep core of self.' Are we all like Dustin Hoffman who takes up parts/roles/assignments for what reward they bring and then junk them after the performance is over??? Do we feign friendliness...or are we, substantively, friend to a given set of significant others?? D. Self as Metanarrative. Part of postmodern sensibility is a deep suspicion of all metanarratives: Marxism, Christianity, Freudian theory, Parsonian Theory or Symbolic Interactional theory itself are simply 'texts' which provide interesting accounts of economics, social life, psychological functioning or the nature of mind, self and society. Nature and society are much too complex and much too variable for such metanarratives to be of much use to the knowledge process. The use of metanarratives as truth claims is, in postmodern view, more of a use of power [Foucault] or a poetics [Laurie Walum Richardson, UOhio] or both [me]. If the self were a metanarrative, it would exist across most or all social occasions; one would 'be' a Christian such that one would not do anything contrary to the teachings of Christ. Yet in human affairs, those teachings are so varied and so historical that when we use the word, 'Christian,' we are treating the word as a 'discursive horizon,' G&H:687, with which to signify how we wish to be taken at the time [or in the use of social power, how we wish someone to behave in a social encounter]. The actual performance of that which is signified can be greatly fragmented and contradictory since both the signifier and the one to whom the word is signified interpret any given act or line of activity in ways which validate [or de-legitimate] such signification. E. The Hyperreal Self. If one were to use Baudrillard as a point of departure, one would think about the self as if it were not much more than a fleeting image projected on a screen or spun through satellites to your television set; much as this lecture is dis-embodied for both professor and student, the 'self' is a veritable cornicopia of images through which both person and other can 'surf' limited only by channel capacity and creative imagination [G&H:688]. In hyperreality, gender, status, age, and ethnicity are problematic; that is, one can ignore them or one can constitute them discursively. There is no reality check that extends beyond the moment. In simpler times, one could be Greek, Italian, or Japanese only by living out such ethnic identities over years within situated social life-worlds. There is no such social life-world in hyperreality...or rather, there are words which elicit images of gender, of age, of class, race and ethnicity but they are only words...all is text and we should not decieve ourselves otherwise...so say the more pessimistic and nihil- istic of the postmodernists. E. The Decentered Self. For some postmodernists, there is a vast freedom and range of possibility in decentering old sources and sanctions for self. Women's liberation requires that patriarchal definitions and sanctions on feminine identity be decentered. Women are much more than then is included in the patriarchal sign/image for woman. S/he could be much more; much different. In postmodernity, femininity is not frozen into one, two or three modalities, wife, mother, nurse, or widow as it is in patriarchy. H. Lorraine Radtke and H. Stam have a nice set of readings to the point; Power/Gender [1993: Sage] which deconstructs and reconstructs the gender problematic. Lots of good articles in it. Next Time: I should be settled into TWU and be back on internet within a couple of weeks. At that time, I'll talk about the colonization of desire [Marcuse] and the suppression of sensuality in social psychology [Merleau-Ponty. For those who want to read fairly accessible treatments of the postmodern, again, Pauline Rosenau's book, Post-Modernism for the Social Sciences, is good [1991: Princeton]. She lays out both the nihilistic and positive moments of postmodern critique. See especially her glossary, How to Speak Postmodern. Those who want to know where I am coming from and where I am going might read: New Sources of Self [1972: Pergamon] or The Drama of Social Life, [1992: Transaction Books]...they should be in your library. Until next time...read a lot and think a lot. T.R. From list-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Jan 9 09:23:33 1995 Mon, 9 Jan 1995 07:44:29 -0800 for From: Victoria Brewer Subject: Subscribing To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: Mon, 9 Jan 95 9:32:59 CST Please consider me a subscriber -- I'd appreciate a list of subscribers, etc. Vickie Brewer, Ph.D. Candidate Department of Sociology 220 Newcomb Hall Tulane University 70118-5698 Phone: 504-865-5820 FAX: 504-865-5544 e-mail: vbrewer@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jan 9 16:03:52 1995 Mon, 9 Jan 1995 15:38:24 -0800 for From: sh2q@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 18:38:13 -0500 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: gender & culture workshop needs help! I've got a problem, and I was hoping that someone out there could solve it for me. As part of the Culture Section meetings at the ASA, Elizabeth Long and I will be running a research workshop on "gender and culture." We wanted to advertise in more than the Culture Section Newsletter, but all the info from the ASA main office is hopelessly out of date. The question is: does anyone have contact info for the section newsletter editors for Race and Ethnicity Latina/Latino Sociology Sex and Gender? If you get one of these newsletters, and happen to save 'em, they should include the email or other address for the person who puts the thing together. Please help! Meanwhile, I'd like to invite all those interested to attend. We're just trying to bring together graduate students and faculty who are interested in the area of gender and culture-- to get to know each other, talk about some of the central issues in the field, and establish an on-going network. More info on the workshop will be published in the Culture Section Newsletter, and the meeting time and place will be in the ASA annual meeting schedule. If you know any of the addresses for the sections listed above, or if you want to join or hear more about the gender and culture workshop, please email me PRIVATELY (I'm not a regular socgrad person as you can perhaps guess, but Laura Miller is my best friend, if that counts): sh2q@virginia.edu thanks much, sharon hays assistant professor university of virginia From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Jan 13 05:42:52 1995 Fri, 13 Jan 1995 05:40:05 -0800 for Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 08:39:50 -0500 (EST) From: SUE ROVI Subject: can I get on mailing list To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Hi, can I get on the mailing list. I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Sue Rovi From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Jan 14 06:56:41 1995 Sat, 14 Jan 1995 06:55:25 -0800 for Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 09:55:23 -0500 (EST) From: James Cassell Subject: Job Opportunities (fwd) To: Sociology Graduate Student Discussion FYI ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Cassell jwcassell@UNC.EDU Institute for Research in Social Science Phone: 919-962-0782 University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Fax: 919-962-4777 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3355 USA ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 15:05:27 EST From: rutstein To: demographic-list@coombs.anu.edu.au, epidemio-l@CC.UMontreal.CA Subject: Job Opportunities Job Opportunities 1) Macro International, Inc. is preparing bids on several projects and is interested in hearing from highly qualified French speaking candidates in the following areas of expertise: HIV/AIDS Maternal and Child Health Family Planning Drug Abuse Prevention Finance \ Management > related to the above areas Logistics / While the exact parameters of the job are not yet known, it is anticipated that there will be opportunities for long-term overseas assignments in Haiti and for consultancies. Macro is particularly interested in hearing from experts with prior Haiti or overseas experience. 2) For another project, Macro is interested in hearing from experts in Adolescent Behavior and Sexuality, including research, training and IEC. For this project, French language capability is not required but desirable. Please send a CV to: vaessen@macroint.com or by fax to Vaessen at (301) 572-0993. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Jan 15 13:13:43 1995 Sun, 15 Jan 1995 13:11:01 -0800 for Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 13:10:55 -0800 From: Laura Miller To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: football enthusiasm The most amazing phenomenon is going on outside my window. There I was calmly doing about my work, when suddenly there were people screaming and cars honking. Oh I get it, I finally said, the Chargers have won. All the noise is still going on; I went around the block and there are people standing on the street corners cheering, and easily half the cars driving by are honking. I have never seen anything like this in my 6 1/2 years in San Diego, not with the Gulf War, not with any election, never. OK, I guess I understand the idea of feleling likea sports team glory is a reflection of your community, or be because it is ostensibly apolitical, it can bring together people who disagree on more weighty matters. But I was wondering if there is anything else aside from sports events that can generate such enthusiasm. I mean, isn't this the problem for social movements? Why is this the only time Americans will display such public exuberance and (dare I say it) solidarity? Laura Miller frightened of the drunks who will be on the road tonight in San San Diego From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Jan 15 13:33:15 1995 Sun, 15 Jan 1995 13:31:43 -0800 for Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 16:31:39 -0500 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Dan Ryan) Subject: Re: football enthusiasm Laura Miller who won't be on the road tonight writes: >The most amazing phenomenon...public exuberance and solidarity? I remember having a somewhat similar reaction when I saw folks standing out in front of every office building and house looking at the cool patterns on the ground during a solar eclipse last summer. Common feature, I guess, is the fact that something is very obviously available for everyone to experience together? Cheers, Dan, who is sitting in his office listening to a radio show combining folk music and civil rights speeches from the sixties in honor of MLK's BD and thinking that that sort of ties right in with the Laura's comments about social movements.... P.S. Congrats to San Diegoans -- but who'd they beat? From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Jan 15 21:08:11 1995 Sun, 15 Jan 1995 21:06:38 -0800 for Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 21:05:16 -0800 From: wcb1@ix.netcom.com (William Brigham) Subject: re: football enthusiasm To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU I recall when the Chargers played a conference championship game in Cincinnati in the early 80s and the streets here were literally empty. The police reported that crime was down dramatically all day. But they lost the game so there were no celebrations in the streets. The solidarity in support of a sports team is rather tenuous, of course. I attended a lot of Charger games in the late 70s and early 80s and witnessed many a violent assault, car ramming (including mine) and other outbursts by drunken fans after LOSSES. But after victories, black and white, young and old, "rich" and "poor" were, indeed, unified. It was particularly interesting to see the blurring of class lines in the stands during games; season ticket holders sit next to "strangers" for 3-4 hours 8-9 times a year and truly shared that time in some sort of egalitarian twilight zone.But on Monday morning, the bosses were bosses again, etc., etc. One of the more intriquing things about professional sports is that fans see the teams as "their's"; "our" team won. the owner of the team, of course, shares nothing with the fans and, until the labor strife which resulted in a new union agreement, relatively little with the players. Now the players make an average salary of $650,000; minimum salary is $162,000. I suppose that aside from hero worship, one explanation is that old American dream crap allows fans to not begrudge these ludicrous salaries: Everyone (females need not apply) has the opportunity to make it. Anyone can be President, etc., etc. Wow, what ramblings. bill brigham From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jan 16 04:38:01 1995 Mon, 16 Jan 1995 04:36:52 -0800 for From: JWL3697@UTARLG.UTA.EDU id <01HLWK9GV2Q8000CAO@UTARLG.UTA.EDU>; Mon, 16 Jan 1995 06:36:50 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 06:19:30 -0600 (CST) Subject: sports in this country To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Responding to Laura's comment - Yesterday was the pseudo-NFL for Texans here. We wnet out for shopping, and lo and behold. It's like Christmas day. for three hours, everywhere was so dead. It tells a lot about our society. sports is important. In the beginning, it was important because it brings big money and great entertain- ment. It is still so today, but its importance overrides everything else - at least to a lot of people. When the president has to work around sport schedule to plan his speech, when public school teachers have to lower their homework load because of students' atheletic involvement, it makes one wonder is sport controlling our social institution? when is this going to end? The problem is it is not only football, there are baseball, basketball...and they are bringing soccer...Can someone wake up and straight out our priority? .....Julia Lam UT Arlington :) From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jan 16 05:13:15 1995 Mon, 16 Jan 1995 05:10:49 -0800 for To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: CASSELL@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (James W. Cassell) Subject: Teach Sociology in EE and CIS Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 08:11:28 FYI, for those who didn't see the early announcement -- Jim --- Forwarded message follows --- From: cep@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Civic Education Project) Subject: Teach Sociology in EE and CIS Date: 14 Jan 1995 22:09:44 GMT CEP is wrapping up another year of recruitment and I thought it would be appropriate to send out a 'final warning' about the program. If you are interested in teaching in the social sciences in Eastern Europe or the former Soviet Union, please read the short description below. The deadline is fast approaching so you should contact me as soon as possible. A longer description of CEP can be obtained automatically by sending email to info@cep.polisci.yale.edu. To find out how you can obtain an application (including several online options) send email to application@cep.polisci.yale.edu. In both cases you will receive an automated reply. To speak to a human ;-], contact me directly at cep@minerva.cis.yale.edu Chris Owen Program Officer Civic Education Project ------------------------------------------------------------- Civic Education Project is an international not-for-profit organization devoted to the strengthening of democracy in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union through the revitalization of the social sciences in universities and institutes of higher education. Through its visiting professor program, CEP sends Western-trained scholars to teach and advise at universities in Albania, Bosnia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine. Teaching assignments are initially for one year, during which lecturers teach university-level courses in economics, history, law, political science, public administration, and sociology, and also work on outreach and research. Lectures are conducted in English, and transportation, housing, insurance, teaching materials and a living stipend are provided to program participants. Faculty and advanced graduate students are encouraged to apply. Write for a brochure/application packet. Applications are currently being accepted for the 1995-96 program year. An Equal Opportunity Employer. For more information on the Civic Education Project and its activities, please contact: Civic Education Project P.O. Box 205445 Yale Station New Haven, CT 06520 Tel: (203) 781-0263 Fax: (203) 781-0265 E-mail: cep@minerva.cis.yale.edu Automated info: info@cep.polisci.yale.edu --- Civic Education Project cep@minerva.cis.yale.edu P.O. Box 5445 Yale Station http://www.cis.yale.edu/~cep/cep.html New Haven, CT 06520 ftp://capstan.cis.yale.edu/pub/civic-education/ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jan 16 06:52:03 1995 Mon, 16 Jan 1995 06:49:16 -0800 for Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 08:44:39 -0600 (CST) From: Michael Gibbons Subject: Re: football enthusiasm To: Laura Miller this same feeling of wierdness came over me too as i watched omaha nebraska spill into the streets new year's day. it was amazing to see people who usually go about their days ignoring one another congregating on street corners and driving around honking. it gave me a little bit of redeeming appreciation for football since i couldn't think of anything that would tie normally self-focused urban people here in reserved ol' nebraska together quite like that. i still am a little saddened though that we can't have any such enthusiasm for something important (and yes i konw some of my friends do think football is important). michael On Sun, 15 Jan 1995, Laura Miller wrote: > The most amazing phenomenon is going on outside my window. There I was calmly > doing about my work, when suddenly there were people screaming and cars > honking. Oh I get it, I finally said, the Chargers have won. All the noise > is still going on; I went around the block and there are people standing on > the street corners cheering, and easily half the cars driving by are honking. > I have never seen anything like this in my 6 1/2 years in San Diego, not with > the Gulf War, not with any election, never. OK, I guess I understand the idea > of feleling likea sports team glory is a reflection of your community, or be > because it is ostensibly apolitical, it can bring together people who disagree > on more weighty matters. But I was wondering if there is anything else aside > from sports events that can generate such enthusiasm. I mean, isn't this the > problem for social movements? Why is this the only time Americans will display > such public exuberance and (dare I say it) solidarity? > > Laura Miller > frightened of the drunks who will be on the road tonight in San > San Diego From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jan 16 08:28:00 1995 Mon, 16 Jan 1995 08:18:16 -0800 for Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 09:18:15 -0700 (MST) From: rebel palm aitchison To: Laura Miller Subject: Re: football enthusiasm Yeah, I think there are things that arouse such enthusiasm and solidarity but not with such frequency (in cities that have winning teams, it might happen every week during football season; if the Chargers hadn't won yesterday, you wouldn't have noticed it, so how often does it happen in your town? Not often enough for the fans.) and not with such abandon (sports attracts certain people as fans probably, so they react according to the personality that attracted them to the sport in the first place). There are many cities that have pro football teams that aren't getting at all excited today or for the next couple of weeks going into the super bowl. Actually, there's probably only two that are getting excited--San Diego and San Francisco; fans in other cities are shifting over to basketball or waiting 'til next year. However, to get back to my first statement--there are many towns that pull together every 4th of July--with block parties and town celebrations. I lived in a smallish town in Colorado where the city put on its own fireworks show, there was a two day bazaar on the main street, and many, many block parties (with lots of people drinking out of kegs of beer and setting off their own fireworks). But those are usually in smaller towns and it doesn't make the news except in the local paper. People from the mid-west are really big on these events. Actually, consider New Year's celebrations--speaking of drunks on the street, and the enthusiasm and "solidarity" of celebrations in places like New York, or even in smaller places that can't get their own news coverage. I think there are lots of instances of solidarity but they don't make for "sexy" news stories nor would the I'n-not-a-real-intellectual-unless-I'm-down-on-people academics notice these instances. I have hardly even noticed a grad student or faculty member or read a journal article that would study a phenomenon that would come up with something good to say about people. In history, there are instances that pull people together nationwide, like the ending of WWII where the whole country celebrated. The ending of the Vietnam War also saw a lot of displays but only by people who had wanted the war to end (an example of a competition also, Hawks vs Doves, and the Doves considered they had won, so they celebrated, only probably more "mellowly", on pot or acid). You mentioned the Gulf War--probably didn't elicit much reaction, I think, because somewhere in our national collective subconscious we knew it was a fabricated war, and not a war to save democracy like we thought WWII was, so the reaction was tamer. Many people though we had no business being there in the first place. I think people get attached to sports because it's a safe place to put your loyalties--the team belongs to your community, it's easy to identify, and it's fun, not just to win but just to go to the games. I'm not a football fan particularly but I've been to a couple of pro games, and I have to say, they're fun. There's a collective thing that happens, a sense of belonging, you all no why you're there even if you've never seen each other before, and you know what it is you have in common with the stranger sitting next to you so you're buddies, immediately. It's great! Most of the time I don't know what's going on on the field but it's still fun. Same thing with my son's high school football team. My son doesn't particularly care about football, but he likes going because his friends go and it's something to do to show loyalty. Personally, I have a theory that people need something to be loyal to, or another way of saying it is--I think people don't want to be alienated but there are very many things they can connect to without being ridiculed as being patriotic or a convert or one-sided. Academia especially seems to take a delight in ridiculing "believing in something". For instance, it's too confusing to be loyal to political beliefs these days, and too disappointing, and there's been too much betrayal, and it's not PC to be patriotic in academia so it's all those "other people" that are patriotic. I think that's why there's a movement in this country among "regular people" toward religion (something you can be loyal to and feel righteous about it; speaking of solidarity and enthusiasm--how about those Crusades and other religious wars?) On Sun, 15 Jan 1995, Laura Miller wrote: > The most amazing phenomenon is going on outside my window. There I was calmly > doing about my work, when suddenly there were people screaming and cars > honking. Oh I get it, I finally said, the Chargers have won. All the noise > is still going on; I went around the block and there are people standing on > the street corners cheering, and easily half the cars driving by are honking. > I have never seen anything like this in my 6 1/2 years in San Diego, not with > the Gulf War, not with any election, never. OK, I guess I understand the idea > of feleling likea sports team glory is a reflection of your community, or be > because it is ostensibly apolitical, it can bring together people who disagree > on more weighty matters. But I was wondering if there is anything else aside > from sports events that can generate such enthusiasm. I mean, isn't this the > problem for social movements? Why is this the only time Americans will display > such public exuberance and (dare I say it) solidarity? > > Laura Miller > frightened of the drunks who will be on the road tonight in San > San Diego > From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jan 16 08:33:55 1995 Mon, 16 Jan 1995 08:31:35 -0800 for Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 09:31:34 -0700 (MST) From: rebel palm aitchison To: JWL3697@utarlg.uta.edu Subject: Re: sports in this country You're entitled to your priorities Julia, and other people are entitled to theirs. Seems to me, a better sociological exercise would be to wonder WHAT the sports phenomenon is and WHY it is rather than passing judgment on it. On Mon, 16 Jan 1995 JWL3697@UTARLG.UTA.EDU wrote: > Responding to Laura's comment - > Yesterday was the pseudo-NFL for Texans here. We wnet out for shopping, and > lo and behold. It's like Christmas day. for three hours, everywhere was so > dead. It tells a lot about our society. sports is important. In the > beginning, it was important because it brings big money and great entertain- > ment. It is still so today, but its importance overrides everything else - > at least to a lot of people. When the president has to work around sport > schedule to plan his speech, when public school teachers have to lower their > homework load because of students' atheletic involvement, it makes one wonder > is sport controlling our social institution? when is this going to end? The > problem is it is not only football, there are baseball, basketball...and they > are bringing soccer...Can someone wake up and straight out our priority? > > .....Julia Lam > UT Arlington :) > From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jan 16 08:39:53 1995 Mon, 16 Jan 1995 08:38:10 -0800 for Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 09:38:09 -0700 (MST) From: rebel palm aitchison To: socgrad who is the list owner or list manager of this list? From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jan 16 09:08:11 1995 Mon, 16 Jan 1995 09:04:59 -0800 for Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 10:59:54 -0600 (CST) From: Mary Burbach Subject: more sports talk To: socgrad I think all this collective good will and jubilation surrounding winning sports teams speaks to what American society believes is most important - winning. It matters not that the game was played fairly or that character was shown in losing, but that one wins. Don't get me wrong, I like to win as much as the next gal and guy, but I think it is most interesting that we place such an emphasis upon it. The symbolism in American sports is so incredible! Now, I love sports and would go to almost any game with anyone, but the fact remains that when we lose, we all cry in our beer, bash other people's cars and beat up strangers. When we win however, more often than not, we all just honk our horns, jump around with ectasy and rejoice in being on top. What's more American than that?? My .02 anyway. Hope everyone's spring semester/quarter goes well! Mary From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jan 16 17:08:04 1995 Mon, 16 Jan 1995 16:59:43 -0800 for Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 16:59:42 -0800 From: Laura Miller To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: football: reporters want to know Hey gang, I was just talking to a San Diego Union Tribune reporter who is doing a story on the outpouring of exuberance here over the Chargers' win. (The commotion lasted well into the night yesterday with people going crazy all over the city, and tens of thousands going to the stadium to welcome the team home.) I had told her about the exchange on this issue over Socgrad, and she expressed interest in hearing what people have to say. So I said I would ask those of you who have posted messages on this to let me know if you would be willing to let me show her your response. And to encourage others to also respond to the simple question of why is this happening (and any other thoughts you have on the matter), again letting me know if I could show her your response. Don't worry, I will NOT show her anyone's message unless they have expressly given me permission to do so. But hey -- here's your chance to reach out to the Public. Thanks. Laura Miller lmiller@ucsd.edu From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jan 17 08:58:12 1995 Tue, 17 Jan 1995 08:53:12 -0800 for Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 11:49:55 EST From: nandini assar <7SAIOM@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU> Subject: discussion To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU please add me to your mailing list. My address is 7saiom.vtvm1.edu From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jan 18 17:55:52 1995 Wed, 18 Jan 1995 17:32:51 -0800 for Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 19:31:31 -0600 (CST) From: Michael Gibbons Subject: boring To: socgrad this isn't the same list i was on last spring is it. let's all say something, anything. this is boring. maybe i should tell all my fellow socgradders about the computer class which i am enduring right now. no, it is too boring for me, i won't trouble the rest of you. mike From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jan 18 18:41:24 1995 Wed, 18 Jan 1995 18:24:19 -0800 for From: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Michael Lichter) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 18:24:11 +0000 To: socgrad Subject: Re: boring On Jan 18, 7:31pm, Michael Gibbons wrote: > this isn't the same list i was on last spring is it. let's all say > something, anything. > > this is boring. Um, well, we could talk about Star Trek, always a good source of sociological insights. How did people feel about the use of "dependency" in the Voyager premiere? It seemed to be simultaneously an endorsement of continuing attacks on social welfare programs, and a justification for termniating all first world aid to the third world. I found it very politcally retro, harking back to the old anti-communism of the original series (cooperative societies are unrealistic utopias, hidden or not-so-hidden tyrranies). I initially saw it as contradictory to the last episode of Deep Space 9, which was sympathetic to the poor. But the jobs-and-dignity message of DS9 is actually pretty compatible, if you assume that everyone is capable of working, and ought to. Is that something? Michael -- Michael Lichter ------------------------+ Department of Sociology | University of California, Los Angeles ----------------------------------+ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jan 18 19:59:04 1995 Wed, 18 Jan 1995 19:52:09 -0800 for Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 22:39:53 EST From: Emilio Subject: Voyager To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU I also thought it was interesting that one of the first scenes with Capt. Janeway involved her talking to her significant other. My impression was that they could not have a female capt. having as intimate a relationship with her ship in the way that Kirk and Picard had. Maybe they were afraid that it would imply that she was a lesbian? Kirk and Picard were married to their ship (although that never stopped kirk from one night stands, but that is another post), there was less distinction between their private and professional lives.J group think? Am I reading too much into it? EMILIO L. LOMBARDI THE UNIVERSITY OF AKRON EMILIOLOMBARDI@UAKRON.EDU Department of Sociology OLIN HALL #263 (216) 972-5358 OFFICE AKRON, OHIO 44325 From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jan 18 21:19:29 1995 Wed, 18 Jan 1995 21:13:38 -0800 for From: MERIN@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V4.3-10 #7331) id <01HM0EDO0ACO9EIDM3@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU>; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 00:13:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 00:13:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: re re boring To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU So I was forced to watch Star Trek too, and is it just me, or is the whole meritocracy a bit nauseating? But we'd better not let this list degenerate into a Trekkie thing (though I won't be guilty) lest people think soc is not fascinating enough. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jan 19 00:41:15 1995 Thu, 19 Jan 1995 00:33:26 -0800 for From: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Michael Lichter) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 00:31:08 +0000 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: Voyager On Jan 19, 00:13, Sarah wrote: > So I was forced to watch Star Trek too, and is it just me, or is the whole > meritocracy a bit nauseating? But we'd better not let this list degenerate > into a Trekkie thing (though I won't be guilty) lest people think soc is > not fascinating enough. By "meritocracy" do you mean "military hierarchy"? Are you suggesting that this shows a lack of imagination, or what? Re. your point about sociology, one of the things that makes sociology fascinating is that we can talk about social phenomena like Star Trek. It is interesting to see how present-day social arrangements are represented by Hollywood types (the Culture Industry) in this show purporting to tell us stories about the future. There is a great deal to be learned by studying the cult of Star Trek, examining the roots of its popularity. And so on. "Degenerate"? Now, please, let's not go making that sort of value judgement :). On Jan 18, 10:39pm, Emilio wrote: > I also thought it was interesting that one of the first scenes with Capt. > Janeway involved her talking to her significant other. My impression was that > they could not have a female capt. having as intimate a relationship with her > ship in the way that Kirk and Picard had. Maybe they were afraid that it woul > imply that she was a lesbian? Kirk and Picard were married to their ship > (although that never stopped kirk from one night stands, but that is another > post), there was less distinction between their private and professional lives > group think? Am I reading too much into it? I don't think homophobia had anything to do with it. It's actually part of the "she's a captain, but she's still a woman" thing that Mulgrew has been pushing hard in her interviews. We know she's still a woman because she's got a man. If she just had the ship, like Picard does, she would be cold and frigid, not necessarily a lesbian (this is my interpretation of the thinking). Part of the problem for the writers is that no one can answer the question: what is the content of gender -- of masculinity and femininity -- in a world where contemporary gender roles have radically transformed? Some radical feminists would say that since the basic division of reproductive labor hasn't changed -- it's still women, and only women, who bear children -- any shift in gender roles could only be superficial. As for others, we can envision equalitarian *choices*, but that still doesn't give us the *content* of masculinity and feminity. Oops. By "content", I mean the social/behavioral characteristics that are associated with sexuality. Does anyone think that differentiated gender identities, if not differentiated gender roles, are inevitable and/or desirable? Regarding sexual frivolity, Riker was Picard's one-night-stand man, and Tom Paris is Janeway's, so the chain of philandering is preserved. In defense of the contemporary series, the women have had at least as many extra-curricular activities as the men, including Kira's lesbian close encounter with herself :). On the other hand, the contemporary shows are nearly asexual compared to the original. One more thing. Doesn't Star Fleet draw people from all over earth? Shouldn't the crew then be something like 25% Chinese, 20% Indian, etc.? And where *are* the homosexuals already? We're getting tired of waiting. OK, is there enough sociology in there to get by the socio-meter? Michael -- Michael Lichter ------------------------+ Department of Sociology | University of California, Los Angeles ----------------------------------+ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jan 19 05:35:07 1995 Thu, 19 Jan 1995 05:29:56 -0800 for Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 08:28 EST From: "Jetaway Dave" Subject: Re: Voyager To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU As a resident of the 19% of the country which does not receive the new Star Trek, I have nothing to say. Jetaway Dave From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jan 19 06:03:22 1995 Thu, 19 Jan 1995 05:58:14 -0800 for From: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Michael Lichter) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 05:58:07 +0000 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: Voyager On Jan 19, 8:28am, "Jetaway Dave" wrote: > As a resident of the 19% of the country which does not receive the new Star > Trek, I have nothing to say. Then perhaps you would like to comment on the revolution in telecommunications technology, and how private ownership of the media and recent government deregulation work together to deprive the poor of valuable programming and information -- like Star Trek. Anybody yet got one of those keen new sattelite dishes that you have to buy for $700 and still pay a monthly fee for? Michael -- Michael Lichter ------------------------+ Department of Sociology | University of California, Los Angeles ----------------------------------+ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jan 19 09:05:59 1995 Thu, 19 Jan 1995 08:54:52 -0800 for by KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU (PMDF V4.3-11 #9008) id <01HM10V19EPC8ZJMCQ@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU>; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 10:54:29 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 10:54:29 -0600 (CST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU From: 1k1mgm@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU (Christopher Gunn) Subject: Re: boring To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU >Um, well, we could talk about Star Trek, always a good source of >sociological insights. > >How did people feel about the use of "dependency" in the Voyager >premiere? It seemed to be simultaneously an endorsement of continuing >attacks on social welfare programs, and a justification for terminating >all first world aid to the third world. [....] Yes, it had a Newt In Space character, but (as you noted) with a Roddenberry-liberal veneer. What my wife noticed was that the blonde female alien Kes (sp?) climbed up two vertical miles of industrial metal-mesh stairs and ran some unspecified distance through desert sands IN TWO-INCH HIGH-HEELS.... This explains why the species has a life expectancy of nine years, we think. Kit Gunn, Univ. of Kansas From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jan 19 10:44:24 1995 Thu, 19 Jan 1995 10:40:38 -0800 for Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 13:40:36 -0500 (EST) From: David Gibson To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Trek meritocracy I haven't seen the new Trek series, having concluded that television poses a risk to my academic health. But I have always been struck by the iron-clad meritocracy of Star Fleet. As for whether or not it's "nauseating"... isn't this the perfect organization? -- with each layer filtering out individuals according to the same principle(s) as the previous layer -- loyalty to the principles of Star Fleet, intelligence, competence, creativity, presence of mind during crisis, etc. Isn't this superior to a disjointed filtering system which selects individuals for advancement from one level according to one criterion, and from another level according to a different criterion, etc.? -- This system, which probably better captures the workings of modern-day bureaucracies, would produce a suboptimal outcome, since the individuals who rise to the top wouldn't be "better" according to any particular criterion than those who were selected out early on, and maybe a good deal worse. But if, of course, you're on the outside of such an organization, and its real or potential victim, you'd justifiably prefer a less reational arrangement. David Gibson Columbia University From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jan 19 13:26:19 1995 Thu, 19 Jan 1995 13:05:54 -0800 for From: KINRABE@UWYO.EDU id <01HM17F09Q1S0017AY@ROPER.UWYO.EDU>; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 14:02:22 -0700 (MST) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 14:02:34 -0700 (MST) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU >From Kinrabe@uwyo.edu sub "address" socgrad From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jan 19 14:08:03 1995 Thu, 19 Jan 1995 13:51:44 -0800 for Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 15:49:53 -0600 (CST) From: Michael Gibbons Subject: Re: Voyager To: Michael Lichter as a matter of fact, the only reason i have cable is that there was a two month free promotion. when the two months are up, so is cable. but what importance does all this info transfer actually carry for us? is it worth $30. a month to recieve electrons lining up nicely through your tv set? pondering, michael From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jan 19 16:23:00 1995 Thu, 19 Jan 1995 16:01:26 -0800 for Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 19:00 EST From: "Jetaway Dave" Subject: Re: Voyager To: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu >On Jan 19, 8:28am, "Jetaway Dave" wrote: >> As a resident of the 19% of the country which does not receive the new Star >> Trek, I have nothing to say. >Then perhaps you would like to comment on the revolution in >telecommunications technology, and how private ownership of the media >and recent government deregulation work together to deprive the poor of >valuable programming and information -- like Star Trek. Nothing particuarly new actually. Telecommunications have been in a continous process of revolution since the invention of the telegraph, and has been consistently (in the US) under control of private ownership. So far it would appear that each revolution (telephone to radio to broadcast TV to narrowcasting cable) has actually succeded in bringing more, if not of any particular quality, programming and information to the 'poor.' What I am more concerned about is the intensification of fragmentation and segementation that new telecommunication technology will make possible. >Anybody yet got one of those keen new sattelite dishes that you have to >buy for $700 and still pay a monthly fee for? Not me, but I suspect that they are selling well around here. All of the local broadcast stations have run psuedo-news commercials 'warning' potential DSB owners that they cannot pick up the local stations and will need an outdoor antennae with an A/B switch installed. I can certainly understand some of the attraction. First, its not the *&&& local cable company. (Never mind that TCI is a part owner of one of the services) Second, DSB offers virtually total choice over what football or basketball (college or pro) that you can view. Let's say your are already paying 25 - 30 bucks for a cable hookup. What's a couple of bucks more per month to watch your favorite teams, or some decent match-up, instead of some local team which you may or may not follow, or has gone in the tank? Jetaway Dave From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jan 19 21:06:36 1995 Thu, 19 Jan 1995 21:02:52 -0800 for From: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 21:02:49 -0800 To: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu, socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: Voyager Meritocracy. Um, yes, the very rigid heirarchy seems unfortunate to me as well. But I give allowances for some of the dumb stuff due to the fact that the studio owners assume the viewing public to be simpletons. So, we have noisy explosions in the vacuume of space, some pretty conventional gender rolls (with some fun if not outstanding exceptions, e.g. Riker getting involved with a gender-changing at-the-time woman), and an over dependence upon conflict based upon real estate. Also, how could the Klingons (let alone the Ferengies) manage to create such a highly technological civilization when spending so much time with personal conflicts of honor? But, I love the Treks! I think that it is a valid venue for discussion among sociologists too, as it does attempt to position issues of conflict in a manner which, upon occasion, challenges conventional patriarchy, phallocentricism, etc. It's also fun. I really watch TV for entertainment. A little news, maybe a NOVA, but I don't feel mind-sucked by the thing. Channel cruzing I do see some very crazy (read postmodern I guess) stuff: Geraldo, Oprah, and others plus Models Inc., Baywatch, and then the game shows! Amazing! I digress from Trek to TV because there seems two threads here and that's fine. I'd better stop here as anything more than a screenful is too much. Best Eric From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Jan 22 04:43:13 1995 Sun, 22 Jan 1995 04:38:53 -0800 for From: "Vincent J. Roscigno" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 07:38:33 EST Subject: X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vincent J. Roscigno" sub Vincent@server.sasw.ncsu.edu From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Jan 22 08:30:07 1995 Sun, 22 Jan 1995 08:25:08 -0800 for From: j_young@VENUS.TWU.EDU Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 10:23:44 CST To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU FRIENDS: I'm reconnected to Socgrad network and will renew the mini-lecture series on Postmodern Social Psychology within the week. My email address until May will be: j_YOUNG@TWU.EDU Good to be reconnected to the real world. T.R. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Jan 22 21:12:30 1995 Sun, 22 Jan 1995 21:08:39 -0800 for From: Jean Czerlinski Subject: mailers To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Sun, 22 Jan 95 23:05:40 CST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Does anyone know about mail systems? The message from that guy Vincent who broadcast his subscribe message to all of us came tagged "urgent" on my mail system, elm. I noticed that he used pegasus. And messages from a friend who uses pegasus also appear as "urgent" on my mail system (elm). Is this a problem with pegasus' configuration or elm's? How do you make "urgent" tags go away? While I'm on-line: What are the mini lectures on postmodern social psychology? And also while I'm on-line: Some of us 'round here have been discussing how much math/stats, and of what sort, sociologists need to know. Of course it depends on the sort of sociology you're doing, but it seems there would be some minimum that would be useful for anyone who calls themself a "sociologist". Let me give an example. The recent study, "Sex in America" found that men have a mean of 7 heterosexual partners and women have a mean of 3 heterosexual partners. Most sociologists I spoke with thought this simply meant that "men sleep around more"-- at least as a first reaction. But in fact, if the study had a proper sample and everyone told the truth and so on, this result would be impossible. For equal numbers of men and women, the *means* have to be the same; only the medians could differ. Should this be something that is "obvious" at first sight to sociologists? i.e. Should sociologists have enough mathematical & statistical training to see this immediately? And should sociologists (or sociologists in training) write less disjointed e-mails than, say, this one? :) One more thing: Does anyone have a good way of keeping a database of articles? I used to use hypercard, and kept fields like author, title, keywords, abstract, and location; but my old version of hypercard doesn't run on system 7. Jean (jczer@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu) From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Jan 22 21:59:46 1995 Sun, 22 Jan 1995 21:56:01 -0800 for Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 21:54:48 -0800 From: Laura Miller To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: bibliographic software For an article database, I'd suggest Endnote. It has lots of useful fields, and you can customize some of your own. And it's especially good for formatting in any number of bibliographic styles. It has an interface with Word Perfect (and I think Word), so you can ask it to format the references in your document. I'm pretty satisfied with it. Laura From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jan 23 07:01:50 1995 Mon, 23 Jan 1995 06:59:32 -0800 for From: "Julian B. Dierkes" Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 09:56:25 EST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: bibliographic software if you're using tex on a UNIX system, there are some very nifty bibliographic utilities included! you create *.bib files and then include user-defined refernces in texts. julian ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | julian b. dierkes | | O jdierkes@eworld.com | | / \ jdierkes@princeton.edu | | / /\ url:http://www.princeton.edu:80/~jdierkes/ | | . \/ \ \ dept. of sociology | | princeton university | | | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jan 23 14:31:04 1995 Mon, 23 Jan 1995 14:19:02 -0800 for Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 16:12:12 -0600 (CST) From: Michael Gibbons Subject: math To: socgrad the question of how much math sociologists need to know is an interesting one. it involve questioning how much they need to know to be statistically fluent, which is very important as it unlocks powerful tools of observation and interpretation. but it also raises the question of how much we want to mimick the "hard sciences" in an effort to legitimate our academic field to others who are more linear-minded. sociology is often (in my experience) disregarded because it does not involve the same kind of mathematical or factual precision as physics or biology ... of course we know that those disciplines aren't nearly so straightforward as they may have us believe, but the perception is important. what is our effort to achieve a mathematical proficiency then? is it an effort to prove that our science is as important, factual, precise, and rational as other "sciences," or is it an effort to improve the quality of our own science? this of course isn't to say that mathematics and statistics are superfluous knowledge, just that what drives our quest for such knowledge? michael From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jan 23 16:29:04 1995 Mon, 23 Jan 1995 16:20:27 -0800 for Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 16:20:24 -0800 (PST) From: DENISE M DALAIMO To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Midwest Meetings Hi Gang If there are any females out there who want to share a room (and therefore save some money) in Chicago at the Midwest Sociological Society meetings April 5-9, please contact me. Thanks! Denise Dalaimo From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jan 23 16:55:30 1995 Mon, 23 Jan 1995 16:48:49 -0800 for Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 18:48:45 -0600 (CST) From: nick mcree Subject: Re: math To: socgrad Michael Gibbons asks if one of the major reasons sociologists pursue fluency in statistics is to "convince" others that sociology is logical, rational, and relevant. Actually, I thought statistical analyses were employed because it is _an_ alternative to classic controlled experiments. Some people might have a problem with a research design which forced, say, 30,000 people out of work so that we could study the impact of unemployment on the distribution of housework. So we take a "random" sample and look for correlations. I think Michael is absolutely right to point out that our discipline suffers from a prestige deficit within the academic community. (Indeed, even among average Joes and Janes-- I was in a bar in Fairbanks, AK over the x-mas break, and when I told some people what I was studying, I received a round of guffaws as a response). I don't think it is the result of our failure to develop mathematical precision. Many of the statistical methods we employ are first-rate. I think the problem is that we have abandoned the pursuit of a nomothetical proposition to explain behavior. In my opinion, too many of us revel in the "diversity of human experience" without *first* attempting to ascertain what is common about us, and evaluating these commonalities as a source for much of what people do and how they think about themselves. Nick McRee The University of Texas at Austin From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jan 23 17:13:31 1995 Mon, 23 Jan 1995 17:09:33 -0800 for Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 20:09:35 EST From: Alan To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 20:04:05 EST From: Alan Subject: Re: math To: nick mcree Yes, but we use statistics in a "quasi-experimental" manner in order to argue that "if we had more precision, we would get much the same results." Also, I don't see how a greater dedication to nomothetic statements and generalized theorizing helps our public prestige any. Sure, focusing on the diversity of human experiences may hurt us in terms of legitimizing less popular segments of the population, but claiming we have some set of generalized propositions that less fortunate non-Sociologists don't see also hurts us as well. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jan 23 20:21:00 1995 Mon, 23 Jan 1995 20:18:28 -0800 for Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 22:18:22 -0600 (CST) From: nick mcree Subject: Re: math--and nomothetic propositions To: socgrad At last! Socgrad gets warmed up for the spring semester. On Mon, 23 Jan 1995, Alan wrote: > Yes, but we use statistics in a "quasi-experimental" manner in order to > argue that "if we had more precision, we would get much the same results." Nick says: Yes, this is true. But it seems no different than what meterologists do. Rarely can they guarantee their predictions. They speak in terms of probabilities, something I think we should consider in our theory construction as well. > Also, I don't see how a greater dedication to nomothetic statements and > generalized theorizing helps our public prestige any. Sure, focusing on > the diversity of human experiences may hurt us in terms of legitimizing > less popular segments of the population, but claiming we have some > set of generalized propositions that less fortunate non-Sociologists don't > see also hurts us as well. > Nick replies: Two things here. First, I don't think I was clear about what I meant when I said sociology focuses on diversity. I meant that those who practice in our discipline seem to operate under a guiding principle like, "Humans create (or _can_ create) the world anew." I thing this is wrongheaded. Before we can meaningfully consider differences in people, we must consider what is the same. All populations have to cope with certain environmental and biological constants, for example (paraphrasing Lenski). I think that this is the logical place to develop a nomothetic proposition. Second, I believe that sociologists (generally speaking) soothe their insecurities about not being taken seriously by claiming to be a voice of the oppressed (again, this comment is not directed to anyone in particular). The problem, as I see it, is not that many of us choose to focus our attention on "disadvantaged" members of society. Lots of neurobiologists do research on homosexuality and mental retardation, for example, and they are generally held in high esteem. The difference between them and us, as I see it, is that they operate under a nomothetic proposition (i.e., let's explain as much as we can by focusing on shared determinants of behavior... brain structure, endocrinology, fetal development, etc.) We are not taken seriously because most of our theory is crap...imho. I realize that I am one of but a few voices in sociology for this view, but I'm afraid that what is happening is that sociology keeps "deconstructing" science as but one pathway of knowledge, but in the meantime the natural scientists get the grants and prestige. And the reason, when you get right down to it, is that their perspective, for all of its faults, is simply better at explaining behavior than our hodge-podge of theory. with respect, Nick UT-Austin From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jan 23 22:32:22 1995 Mon, 23 Jan 1995 22:28:34 -0800 for Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 00:22:52 -0600 (CST) From: Michael Gibbons To: socgrad hello, isn't creating nomothetic statements what condorcet was trying to do? (forgive me if i am off, that class was a few years ago now) and then i must ask how would those help us? the only nomothetic sort of work that i have seen in sociology, unless i am mistaken which is entirely possible, is that in a triad with one strong unit, the two weaker units will pair against the first. now this is cool, but i have to wonder how will it help us as an academic discipline, and is this even what sociology should be trying to do. i find these troubling questions in that i wonder how much good the discipline would be if we were to revert back to such basic assertions. one of the criticisms i have heard about sociology is that we spend butloads of time trying to say what everyone already knows. this would most certainly apply to the example above. i apologize if i am off base because this is off the top of my head and i don't feel like looking up the stuff i just spewed-i'ld rather go to bed :) good evening all michael From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jan 24 04:15:13 1995 Tue, 24 Jan 1995 04:12:33 -0800 for From: JWL3697@UTARLG.UTA.EDU id <01HM7OKHAKHS003MTZ@UTARLG.UTA.EDU>; Tue, 24 Jan 1995 06:12:28 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 05:37:44 -0600 (CST) Subject: MATH & SOCI To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Michael is right when he said that the problem with SOCI is we try to tell everybody what he/she already knows. But there are other problems too: 1. SOCI BA degree does not teach us a skill to find a job, it only give us a general knowledge in a general area. You have a BA in SOCI, so what can you do? 2. SOCI does not emphasize the importance of math, at least it is so in under grad. general public do not know that we derive our knowledge from math models. they just thought that we talk from common sense. Now that we are in grad school, we know the imp of math and stat. A good math knowledge such as calculas would definitely enhance our understanding of the math concept behind the statistical analysis. Look at those famous sociologists, like Coleman, Hauser, Blalock (just to name a few), you know that they have good math and stat skill. If lay people know how we derive our conclusion and expand our knowledge, they probably would look at us differently. 3. SOCI zero in too much on social problems and becomes dirt diggers. Remember the first step in RCH? DEFINE A PROBLEM. Can we find something good to study and find out why? then apply to others? for example. why african-American men do more housework than caucasian-american men? and use the explanation as a strategical solution to solve household inequality in white households? Or study why Asian-American students are achieving academically, then suggest their strategies to other ethnic groups? The problem is when we find out why, we pretty much stop there and say, "of, it is ethnic or cultural differences." But, how can we learn if we do not learn from others. what I do no understand is why sociologists in the past do not emphasize the imp of math in SOCI to the public? all they see is we study people, but they not know that we back up our theory with math models. In a way, this is tragic to SOCI. Julia Lam Department of Sociology - Grad Student University of Texas at Arlington P.O. Box 19599 Arlington, TX 76016 From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jan 24 04:52:27 1995 Tue, 24 Jan 1995 04:49:03 -0800 for From: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Michael Lichter) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 04:48:57 +0000 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: MATH & SOCI On Jan 24, 5:37am, JWL3697@UTARLG.UTA.EDU wrote: > what I do no understand is why sociologists in the past do not emphasize the > imp of math in SOCI to the public? all they see is we study people, but they > not know that we back up our theory with math models. In a way, this is tragic > to SOCI. Am I missing something? What's the big deal about math? You think that since most people don't understand anything more sophisticated than multiplication and division that by waving the coefficients for structural equation models in front of their faces we can fool them into thinking we're doing something real? It's true that economists get lots of recognition when they present gobs of stinky garbage to the public and point to complex (or not so complex) statistical models to justify themselves, but the fact is that neoclassical economics enjoys tremendous legitimacy independent of any particular result it comes up with. It doesn't even need the math -- that's just window dressing. Ideas are what we deal in. Most ideas in sociology come from *qualitative research*. Ethnography, comparative and historical methods, etc. Wait until you come up with something interesting before you try to legitimate it with regressions and factor analyses up the wazoo. Producing reams of printout is not what's going to ensure the survival of the discipline -- we kill too many trees as it is. Come up with good, interesting, relevant problems and present cogent, useful explanations. That's what we need. Michael -- Michael Lichter ------------------------+ Department of Sociology | University of California, Los Angeles ----------------------------------+ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jan 24 05:31:21 1995 Tue, 24 Jan 1995 05:30:13 -0800 for Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 07:29:53 -0600 (CST) From: Andrew Regan Subject: Re: MATH & SOCI To: Michael Lichter AMEN!! MICHAEL!! You tell 'em! On Tue, 24 Jan 1995, Michael Lichter wrote: > On Jan 24, 5:37am, JWL3697@UTARLG.UTA.EDU wrote: > > what I do no understand is why sociologists in the past do not emphasize the > > imp of math in SOCI to the public? all they see is we study people, but they > > not know that we back up our theory with math models. In a way, this is tragic > > to SOCI. > > Am I missing something? What's the big deal about math? You think > that since most people don't understand anything more sophisticated > than multiplication and division that by waving the coefficients for > structural equation models in front of their faces we can fool them > into thinking we're doing something real? > > It's true that economists get lots of recognition when they present > gobs of stinky garbage to the public and point to complex (or not so > complex) statistical models to justify themselves, but the fact is that > neoclassical economics enjoys tremendous legitimacy independent of any > particular result it comes up with. It doesn't even need the math -- > that's just window dressing. > > Ideas are what we deal in. Most ideas in sociology come from > *qualitative research*. Ethnography, comparative and historical > methods, etc. Wait until you come up with something interesting before > you try to legitimate it with regressions and factor analyses up the > wazoo. Producing reams of printout is not what's going to ensure the > survival of the discipline -- we kill too many trees as it is. Come up > with good, interesting, relevant problems and present cogent, useful > explanations. That's what we need. > > Michael > > -- > Michael Lichter ------------------------+ > Department of Sociology | > University of California, Los Angeles ----------------------------------+ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jan 24 06:47:16 1995 Tue, 24 Jan 1995 06:46:07 -0800 for Date: Tue, 24 Jan 95 09:45 EST From: "Pamela Paxton" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: sociology, math or otherwise WARNING: this is a fairly long message... I get very nervous when I see people attempting to split up the discipline and determine which types of research are 'better.' We all have vested interests in doing sociological research 'our' way and want respect and recognition for those methods. I think this is especially true since sociology is not extremely well respected - so any respect we CAN get feels good. So far, a good deal of recognition and respect has gone to complicated statistical models. Unfortunately, this has divided the disipline and caused us to ignore one another. Quantoids continue to do what gains recognition and everyone else gets defensive. I think the point is that we need very much to listen to each other if we want to SAVE this discipline. (I don't want to be a doomsayer but I worry that I might get tenure someday and then have my department cut out from underneath me) No one method is going to explain everything - and no one person can do all methods. Thus, we need to listen to each other and try to understand what each subdiscipline can learn from ALL theoretical and methodological perspectives. In terms of respect and the public, It does appear that up until now, statistical models have had the biggest impact on public policy. (Take status attainment models, the Coleman educational report and policy initiatives to increase busing to schools. That may be one of the few places where sociologists have actually HAD an impact on national policy) What we understand from those models could be deeply enriched by considering different levels and methods of analysis. AND, if we were able to impart some of that complexity to the public, it would help THEM begin to see the complexity of social life. To take an example, World System theory began with a decent theoretical model based on the comparative historical perspective. It then moved to macro-statistical studies that gained us a good deal of information about how foreign aid and development efforts actually affect the development and level of inequality of "LDC's" Now that these studies have helped us understand some commonalities in the world system, there have been calls to return to more specialized historical and comparative studies to understand how the specific history of a country will effect its interaction with the world system. This interplay of methods and theory has been very fruitful for this field - the people working in it actually listen to each other, regardless of the method. Comparative studies influence statistical analyses and in turn, the global statistical studies point out areas that need more indepth research. This subdiscipline is not perfect but it is closer to what I think we all should be doing. Actually, thinking about our research and the public - there are two ways we can get our ideas out. We can try to gain sociology respect in the marketplace of ideas. That entails mathmatical models and jargon - since, lets face it, those are things that help to 'set us apart from' the average person. On the other hand, we can simply try to get our ideas out there, in the interest of informing the public and hoping increased knowledge will engender change. The type of research that can do this is more qualitative - it reads better. I've been reading a bit on women in the labor force and housework. There are tons of quantitative studies on this issue that provide good hard info and evidence. BUT the book that I read for pleasure last night was Arlie Hochschild's _The Second Shift_. This is a qualitative look at whats going on in american dual-income families. It's fascinating! Now, if I'm jane doe, which type of study am I more likely to read? Which type of study is going to (possibly) enact change in MY life? It is not only statistical policy-oriented studies that can affect social change... And a last point - (thank heavens!) - if we want ANYONE, sociologist or layperson, to listen to us, we need to write better! I'm not going to read ANYTHING that I have to 'slog' through twenty times to figure out what the author is saying! This problem definately cross-cuts subfields and methods. Well, I'd like to say that was my two cents but I think it ended up being about a dollar... Sorry for the length but I do believe that coming to grips with these divisions is essential to our future as an academic discipline. Pam Paxton The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jan 24 09:13:30 1995 Tue, 24 Jan 1995 09:02:03 -0800 for From: Mr R J Lampard Subject: UKView To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 17:01:05 +0000 (GMT) Here in Britain the "average" empirical sociologist does qualitative research not quantitative research, and it is quantitative sociology which is in a certain amount of difficulty since sociology is not perceived as a quantitative discipline and the students recruited to study sociology to an extent reflect this - many either can't or (more commonly) don't want to get on top of statistical methodology. Postgraduates often realise the benefits of quantitative techniques but don't have the time or incentive to grasp them. The status attached to different approaches varies according to where you are. In a few places (e.g. Oxford) statistical modelling is venerated, in others it is treated with respect as something unfamiliar but useful, and in some set -ups it is highly marginal, and perhaps seen as of very limited validity or relevance. Qualitative research is often the "norm"... Richard Lampard, Dept. of Sociology, Univ. of Warwick, COVENTRY, U.K. CV4 7AL. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jan 24 09:51:57 1995 Tue, 24 Jan 1995 09:45:09 -0800 for From: Michael Herron Subject: stats question To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 09:45:06 -0800 (PST) > Let me give an example. The recent study, "Sex in America" found that > men have a mean of 7 heterosexual partners and women have a mean of > 3 heterosexual partners. Most sociologists I spoke with thought this > simply meant that "men sleep around more"-- at least as a first reaction. > But in fact, if the study had a proper sample and everyone told the > truth and so on, this result would be impossible. For equal numbers > of men and women, the *means* have to be the same; only the medians > could differ. Should this be something that is "obvious" at first sight > to sociologists? i.e. Should sociologists have enough mathematical & > statistical training to see this immediately? A few thoughts... It is important to distinguish between the population and sample. Suppose that M = total number of men and W = total number of women. Then, let Pm = average number of partners in the male population and Pw = average number of partners in the female population. Then, M * Pm = W * Pw. So, M < W implies Pm > Pw and, obviously, M = W implies Pm = Pw. But, if the population sizes are different, even if the sample sizes are the same, we will not necessarily see the same number of partners in the sample average. That is, if the population numbers are different, the sample averages will converge to different numbers. (For any finite sample, of course, the averages could be equal. However, they would converge, as the sample size increased, to different numbers.) If Pm = Pw, the sample averages will converge to Pm = Pw, as we would hope. Furthermore, sample averages are statistics and typically have a non-zero variance. So, comparing the point estimates (7 and 3) can be misleading. You need to know the variance of the sample averages. If you rely on some form of the central limit theorem to calculate a limiting distribution, then you will also need to estimate the variance of the distribution of sex partners among men and among women. Suppose, for instance, that the variance in number of sex partners is higher for men than it is for women. Then, for equal sample sizes, the estimate of average number of sex partners for men will be measured less precisely than the corresponding average for number of women. The point is, it is not possible to argue that the estimates of 7 and 3 are inherently flawed. More information is necessary: one would need to know the variance of each estimate and would need to make some assumption about population size. If, for example, men tended to travel out of the country more frequently than women, a survey of American men and American women might conclude that American men and and American women have a different average number of sex partners; this would not necessarily be a ridiculous conclusion. Whether 7 is "much" larger than 3 depends on the maintained assumptions of the researcher. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jan 24 10:44:49 1995 Tue, 24 Jan 1995 10:24:16 -0800 for From: AULT@vx.cis.umn.edu Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 12:25:03 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Info Seeking Missile To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU SocGrad-ers Hither and Yon, If any of you have information on a "new age" group called "The Forum", please tell me what you know by way of a personal message. Thanks, Brian Ault U of Minnesota Sociology ault@vx.cis.umn.edu From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jan 24 10:52:49 1995 Tue, 24 Jan 1995 10:36:45 -0800 for Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 13:36:36 -0500 (EST) From: Rudy ZALESAK Subject: unsubscribe To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Unsubscribe From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jan 24 14:18:19 1995 Tue, 24 Jan 1995 14:03:20 -0800 for From: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Michael Lichter) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 14:03:10 +0000 To: Michael Herron , socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: stats question On Jan 24, 9:45am, Michael Herron wrote: > > Let me give an example. The recent study, "Sex in America" found that > > men have a mean of 7 heterosexual partners and women have a mean of > > 3 heterosexual partners. Most sociologists I spoke with thought this > > It is important to distinguish between the population and sample. > [...] > > Furthermore, sample averages are statistics and typically have a > non-zero variance. So, comparing the point estimates (7 and 3) can be > [...] I've wondered about this too. Michael is right to point out a variety of difficulties in interpreting differences in sample means relative to the population, etc. I am highly highly highly doubtful that what is going on here has anything to do with sampling variability or anything else he mentioned. This male/female difference is too large, and what's more, it's pretty stable. I computed the average number of sexual partners among heterosexuals using the General Social Survey for 1990 and got almost the same numbers (6 and 3, I think). Unless I'm mistaken, what you're left with is either than women are less likely to report sexual contacts, men are likely to exaggerate, men and women have different criteria for deciding whether or not they've had a sexual contact, or some combination of the above. Michael -- Michael Lichter ------------------------+ Department of Sociology | University of California, Los Angeles ----------------------------------+ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jan 24 16:22:52 1995 Tue, 24 Jan 1995 16:10:05 -0800 for Date: Tue, 24 Jan 95 19:06:34 EST From: Alan Davidson To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Why do we have to win friends and influence people by going in an increasingly scientific direction, especially in a society where expert authority is becoming more and more questionable and problematic? While we shouldn't be a discipline that just studies social problems (quantitatively or qualitatively , I might add) to win grant money and leave time, we do have something theoretically we might offer to people in terms of transforming private troubles into public issues. Your average person isn't impressed by statistical models anymore than the O.J. jury is going to bow down at the altar of DNA evidence. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jan 24 18:54:06 1995 Tue, 24 Jan 1995 18:52:54 -0800 for Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 18:52:52 -0800 From: Laura Miller To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: how to unsubscribe Too much email in your life? If you want to unsubscribe from Socgrad, send a message to: listserv@ucsd.edu and in the body of your message, type: unsub socgrad Remember to send the message to listserv, NOT to Socgrad itself. Any problems or questions can be directed to lmiller@ucsd.edu From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jan 25 03:59:23 1995 Wed, 25 Jan 1995 03:58:08 -0800 for From: JWL3697@UTARLG.UTA.EDU id <01HM92HIG96800485U@UTARLG.UTA.EDU>; Wed, 25 Jan 1995 05:58:05 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 05:41:01 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: MATH & SOCI To: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu This is very interesting. When I posted my opinion on MATH & SOCI, I simply wanted an answer. Never meant to depict or demean any specific type of methodology, much less intend to upset some cyber-pals. I, personally have high respect for both (ie qualitative/quantittive). In fact, I almost end up using Ground Theory for my thesis. The recent response also brought out another questions I have for years - why sociologists criticize each other so much and so harsh, at times, it seems that they are trying to slit each other's throat? Sure, reasearchers learn from each other's mistake, but is there a gentler way of handling things? Now that I posted my second question, probably I will get sliced again... Julia Lam Department of Sociology - Grad Student University of Texas at Arlington P.O. Box 19599 Arlington, TX 76016 From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jan 25 09:09:58 1995 Wed, 25 Jan 1995 08:58:50 -0800 for Date: Wed, 25 Jan 95 11:56:51 EST From: Alan Davidson Subject: slitting throats To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU In my experience, I may be wrong, but the reasons why Sociologists slit each other's threats (even within methodological camps -- feminists vs. grounded theorists, the interactionist vs. ethnomethodologist fights of the 1970's and early 1980's) is the insecurity that what we are doing might not be science, and the prestige implications which flow from this. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jan 25 09:16:37 1995 Wed, 25 Jan 1995 09:07:08 -0800 for Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 11:07:03 -0600 (CST) From: nick mcree Subject: Why being "scientific" makes sense To: socgrad I wanted to comment on Alan's post because he gives a short description of the skepticism many have towards sociology as a scientific enterp[rise. On Tue, 24 Jan 1995, Alan Davidson wrote: > Why do we have to win friends and influence people by going in an increasingly > scientific direction, especially in a society where expert authority is > becoming more and more questionable and problematic? While we shouldn't be > a discipline that just studies social problems (quantitatively or qualitatively > , I might add) to win grant money and leave time, Nick suggests: There is a certain irony in the position which suggests that expert authority is problematic, on the one hand, yet opines that the mission of sociology is to be an illuminator of social problems, on the other. As though people aren't adept enough on their own to identify problems, and need a sociologist to do it for them. This position, it seems to me, suggests that sociology (and its adherents) has some special power (or dare I say, *expertise*? ;) ) in identifying social problems. Hmm. I believe that if we decide we are going to study "something," shouldn't we opt for a rigorous, systemmatic, cumulative approach? Despite the limitations of the scientific method, it is better to test theories with a fallible method than to accept them with no empirical tests at all. > we do have something > theoretically we might offer to people in terms of transforming private > troubles into public issues. Your average person isn't impressed by > statistical models anymore than the O.J. jury is going to bow down at the > altar of DNA evidence. > Unfortunately, it seems to me that the "average person" is unimpressed with sociology. If I am not mistaken, Yale almost had its program closed, as did SMU, San Diego, St. Louis and others suffer similar scares. The syracuse program is gone, and I believe that Clemson is to suffer a similar fate in the near future. Other programs have tried to dodge the bullet by joining with Anthropology and Social Work departments. This is _not_ symptommatic of a healthy and robust discipline, and Pam Paxton is right to be afraid for the future. I am. I think sociologists need to seriously consider if our demise is not the cause of our failure to capitalize on the methodological successes of our cousins in the natural sciences, rather than supposing that it is the result of a hostile public that is failing to hear our Cassandra-like cries about how messed-up and complex society is. Nick McRee UT-Austin From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jan 25 09:52:24 1995 Wed, 25 Jan 1995 09:35:35 -0800 for From: Jetaway Dave Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 12:25:45 -0500 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Probability, Intuition, and Statistics. Dear fellow soc-graders: A little bit earlier in this thread, I remember some statements to the effect that the 'public,' (i.e., non-sociologists) doesn't really understand statistics, doesn't want to know, won't listen, etc. I beg to differ. In particular, the public is willing and able to take steps towards understanding the use of statisical and methodlogical techniques, _if_ they feel that it has some relevance to their world. This following is from another mailing list that I subscribe to, which brings together a wide variety of people interested in horse racing. Booted with permission: =-> ) Regarding all this blather CONCERNing probabilities and horse races: =-> ) =-> ) Probability pertains to events that can be repeated (dice throws, =-> ) card choices, etc). Whatever else they may be, horse races are not =-> ) repeatable. =-> =-> Precisely. Of course there are conditions and situations ("angles") that =-> repeat. The problem is, how do you know that the wagers of other gamblers, =-> who make the pari mutuel odds, are not predicated on angles that are =-> "dissonant" with yours, in the lingo of evidence theorists? I find the =-> subject fascinating. =-> =-> ) Of course, the language of probability can be convenient =-> ) when discussing horse racing, just so one doesn't take it too seriously. =-> =-> Convenient, yes. Dangerous? Probably that too. ASK NOT WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS, ASK..... If you are to admit that probabilities apply to dice and cards, you MUST admit that probabilities also apply to horse racing. A HORSE RACE IS REPEATABLE, in the same sense as dice. Just get the same horses back together and run them again. Just because it is never, or rarely done, doesn't mean that it can't be done. "But," you say," you can't get the horses back together to run the same race. Even if they are at the same distance and the same track, the race is not the same. The track may have a different bias, the horses ate differently before the race....a host of things make it a different race." _____ _____ | | |o | | o | | o | | | | o| ------ ------ I can make the same argument with dice. You are never, ever going to throw the dice from exactly the same height, with exactly the same speed. The temperature will be slightly different, so the thermal motion of the molecules in the die are different. The surface now has dents in it from previous throws, and on and on and on. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HORSE RACING AND DICE THROWING IS THE OBVIOUSNESS OF THE ASSIGNED PROBABILITIES. You pick up a die for the first time and notice it is a cube. You toss it up and down a bit and you can feel that its center of mass lies at the center of the cube. You roll it 6 or 12 times and you could with some certainty say: "The probability of any number coming up is equal to the probability of any other number coming up. There are 6 sides, so p(1) = p(2) = p(3) = p(4) = p(5) = p(6) = 1/6. We can do this because humans have developed a physical intuition for things like dice. This intuition evolved because it no less than allows us to survive in a world where dice are falling all around us. The human mind is very powerful indeed if we can so accurately predict the odds of a side of a die coming up, using only 6 or 12 rolls and our understanding of dice. But suppose I took those same 12 die rolls, called them events, removed them from their physical context, and published them in: ******************************* * *************************** * * * THE DAILY GAMBLING FORM * * * *************************** * * * * Date Event # Outcome * * 1/1 1 6 * * 1/1 2 1 * * 1/1 3 4 * * 1/1 4 4 * * 1/1 5 3 * * 1/1 6 2 * * 1/1 7 6 * * 1/1 8 1 * * 1/1 9 6 * * 1/1 10 2 * * 1/1 11 6 * * 1/1 12 6 * ******************************* Now we have problems. If we don't understand the physical context, it would be extremely hard to assign the probabilities to the outcomes with any reasonable accuracy. This is more like what horse racing is like. But because we don't have the physical intuition, doesn't mean that it is not a random process, or repeatable. These events have what Mike Cole referred to as having a low ColeRat. This is dangerous because without a physical understanding of the underlying events, and a limited amount of data, we get out our calculator and start doing things like: "Hey, a 6 came up more often than any other number. p(6) = 5/12 = .417 Wow, I have a system that predicts winners over 40% of the time. Hey, look at this, if I eliminate even numbered events, the 6 comes up a larger percentage of the time, 4 times out of 6, for a p(6) = .67. And hey...." You can "and hey" yourself to bankruptcy. If you have never seen "and heying" before, pick up most any handicapping book that proposes a system. Of course those of us who published the Daily Gambling Form know that this is pure folly, without having to find out at the betting windows. It is just a die roll with each number having a p()= 1/6. Even a 5 which never even showed up on 1/1 will eventually appear one sixth of the time. How many times have we all bet on limited data? In a handicapping article in the Racing Form the other day the author discussed what he termed as "micro training patterns". A trainer had TWICE in a row shipped horses from one track to another, with both of them winning. The author suggests that we should bet on this pattern from knowledge of only TWO previous races. He shows one example of where it worked. He made no claim to physical understanding. He didn't know the trainer. He got paid for writing that article. He will need the money to lose on that system. $ $ $$$$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$$$ $ $ Physical understanding of an event is very powerful, and Mike is right in stressing it's importance. Horse players in this forum are often chastised for not giving statistics for backing up their evidence. This is wrong. These horse players have often been playing for years or decades, and they have built up an intuition for the game, much as we did the first couple of times we roll a die. It allows them to make reasonable assumptions about the probability of an event occurring with a limited amount of past data, as we all can do with dice or a deck of cards. Please, if you have been playing the races for years and have some undocumented insights which you can't 'prove', don't be scared of publishing them in the Derby. I want to hear them. The problem is that physical understanding is generally not enough. If it was, probably every trainer would be an excellent handicapper because of their physical knowledge of horses and how they run. For a game as complicated as horse racing, we need probability and statistics. They are dangerous only if we do not understand them, especially their limitations. If you are really into handicapping, and have never taken a statistics course, my suggestion is dish out the few bucks and spend the couple of nights a week at your local community college. Statistics can seem very boring and abstract, but if you take every problem the professor does on the board and apply each one to horse racing you will find them very interesting indeed. I can not think of a statistical technique that can not be applied to horse racing. Tell the prof that horse racing is why you are there, and ask him to explain 'the two-sample t test' in terms of handicapping. That's what you are paying him for after all. You will soon be understanding how to combine the probability of a horse running from post position 1 with its trainer stats, and all sorts of other neat things you never knew how to do before. It will be the best handicapping course you have ever taken in your life. ### ####### ########## ## # ## ############ #### # ---------|-------|------|---------- sd x sd STATISTICS WERE DESIGNED EXACTLY FOR PROBLEMS LIKE HORSE RACING. Statisticians encountered the same problems we encounter at the track every day. The difference is they were smarter than you and I and they developed techniques to rationally deal with these problems years ago. I have been on the Derby for a couple months now. I have seen lots of interesting statistics. I don't know if I have seen any good statistics. I don't think I have read a standard deviation in the bunch, never mind a confidence interval or a level of significance. I challenge the guru's of statistics. Let's see if we can raise the level of research on the Derby, without being so technical that we lose our readers. If it can be understood, it can be explained properly. I dream of the day when I open the derby and instead of seeing data such as: Jockey win % Descartes, R 30% Instead I read: Our best guess (statistic) for the actual percentage of all races that Descartes will win in the future is 30%. There is only a 5% chance that this actual percentage of races won in the future will be greater than 35%, or less than 25%. Statistics like this are less dangerous, more understandable, and more usable. Good statistics, like good handicappers, know their own limits. Brent ----- End Included Message ----- From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jan 25 10:41:42 1995 Wed, 25 Jan 1995 10:17:00 -0800 for From: SHAFER@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V4.3-10 #7331) id <01HM9ILLXQCW9EJNBI@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU>; Wed, 25 Jan 1995 13:15:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 13:15:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: to be "scientific" or not to be To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU i find this conversation over the proper practise of sociology disconcerting. rather than spending time on what METHOD is the best method for attaining status in the academy and in the political process (somewhat self-serving) i think we as sociologist should be developing theories that make sense when compared to the realities that individuals live in. if we do our job well, and find a way to articulate our theories to both our fellow academics and to our students then the rest will take care of itself. choice of methods should come after we have developed a theoretical view note that different theories of society lead to use of different methods. if one sees society as entering into a post-modern era then one would choose different methods than for example parsons or merton who had different theories of society. The point is to develope a theoretical view first then use methods that are best able to articulate that theory. I also think that it is equally important to understand that all individuals develope theories of the way the world works, that we as sociologists are not doing anything different, and that sociologists will be judged not on our methods but on our ability to articulate these theories with words to communicate with others what we understand, something that laymen for the most part should not be as good at as we are. dave shafer brandeis univ. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jan 25 11:20:30 1995 Wed, 25 Jan 1995 11:01:28 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov Date: Wed, 25 Jan 95 12:44:00 EST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU, Alan Davidson Subject: Re: slitting throats In my experience, I don't think Sociologists engage in any more or less throat slitting and goring than members of any other academic discipline. The reasons for such attachs would be worthy of sociological study. My implicit theory is that in academia the product you are pedalling is your intellect and your ideas, which for reasons of the self-concept among others, must be defended at all costs. Also, the rewards in academe go to those whose ideas and theories are "right" and enduring. Barbara ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: slitting throats Author: Alan Davidson at NOTE Date: 1/25/95 11:56 AM In my experience, I may be wrong, but the reasons why Sociologists slit each other's threats (even within methodological camps -- feminists vs. grounded theorists, the interactionist vs. ethnomethodologist fights of the 1970's and early 1980's) is the insecurity that what we are doing might not be science, and the prestige implications which flow from this. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jan 25 12:32:16 1995 Wed, 25 Jan 1995 12:07:53 -0800 for From: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 12:07:43 -0800 To: DAVIDSON@UConnVM.UConn.Edu, socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: slitting throats >From DAVIDSON@UConnVM.UConn.Edu Wed Jan 25 08:56:51 1995 >Date: Wed, 25 Jan 95 11:56:51 EST >From: Alan Davidson >Subject: slitting throats >To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU > >In my experience, I may be wrong, but the reasons why Sociologists slit each >other's threats (even within methodological camps -- feminists vs. grounded >theorists, the interactionist vs. ethnomethodologist fights of the 1970's and >early 1980's) is the insecurity that what we are doing might not be science, >and the prestige implications which flow from this. > I think it is just plain old insecurity. Not the same as polemics at all. es. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jan 25 12:32:16 1995 Wed, 25 Jan 1995 12:03:33 -0800 for From: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 12:03:29 -0800 To: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu, pherron@GSB-Pound.Stanford.EDU, socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: stats question If only mean averages are considered, then many of the women may have zero partners, while some or many have several partners, thus keeping their averages low. If the opposite is applied to men, or even if the mean is representative, then you will have a great difference. Someone mentioned standard deviation already I think. That should indicate the effect of skewed distribution. best, Eric ======================================================================== Eric Strayer |"All that is solid melts into air" | estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu | *** Marx | | "Please accpet my resignation, | * student * beggar * | I don't want to belong to a club that | * dilettante* | would accept me as a member" Marx | ======================================================================== From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jan 25 13:16:09 1995 Wed, 25 Jan 1995 12:51:59 -0800 for From: SHAFER@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V4.3-10 #7331) id <01HM9NLII4KK9EJAIT@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU>; Wed, 25 Jan 1995 15:17:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 15:17:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: academic reward To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU not trying to be argumentative but barbara mentions that "rewards in academe go to those ideas and theories are RIGHT and enduring." how does one know that their theory is "right?" because others agree with you? because you got tenure? because you have tenure at an "elite university"? or is there the possibility of multiple "rights"? just wondering, dave shafer beandeis univ. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jan 25 15:16:29 1995 Wed, 25 Jan 1995 14:50:58 -0800 for Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 17:31:55 -0500 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Dan Ryan) Subject: Re: academic reward >not trying to be argumentative but barbara mentions that "rewards in >academe go to those ideas and theories are RIGHT and enduring." >how does one know that their theory is "right?" How does one know whose ideas are right? That's easy. Just listen to the ones that the rewards go to. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jan 25 17:38:28 1995 Wed, 25 Jan 1995 17:15:45 -0800 for From: Jean Czerlinski Subject: sex partners To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Wed, 25 Jan 95 19:14:32 CST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Socgradders, Well, there've been lots of interesting points made in this methodology quagmire, and I'll respond to two of them here. Then I'll return to the empirical world: why are the means different? I'll summarize an article by Tom Smith that provides at least some answers, though it doesn't explain all of the disparity. a) Does sociology only repeat common sense? Common sense has the advantage of making a lot of vague statements that, because of the vagueness and because the domain of applicability isn't specified, is almost possible to disprove. That's why it's "common"-- there's nothing for people to disagree about. Let me give an example of how sociology might seem to always simply confirm common sense. If a sociological study found that people who marry have a high correlation of factors such as religion and political persuasion, then common sense would say, Of course, for "birds of a feather flock together." If, instead, the study had found that there was a negative high correlation between religion and politics of people who married, then common sense would say, Of course, for "opposites attract." There are many other such pairs of common sense statements, e.g. "A penny saved is a penny earned" vs. "Carpe Diem!", or "Absence makes the heart grow fonder" vs. "Out of sight, out of mind." I can think of several reasons why sociology has this "common sense" problem more than other fields but won't discuss that just now. b) Yes, I agree that our theory should guide our methodology. But what method will we use to decide between theories? Are we going to have a meta-theory about theories that tells us what method to use to decide between them? Isn't that what the scientific method is? (See also Stinchcombe's *Constructing Social Theories*. Also Leigh Van Valen argues that the "deductive" method is important in science, e.g. Darwin's theory of natural selection.) But we were discussing math/stats, not just the scientific method. So the question is, given the current state of our theories about society, which are the most important methods to train our sociologists in? There are only a finite number of classes we can require budding sociologists to take-- which ones? As a very short beginning of an answer, I would suggest: basic stats, basic survey methods, some understanding of modelling and nonlinear phenomena (e.g. chaos and emergence, which are some of my specialties, so I have a biased opinion), some understanding of the assumptions of current work and alternative methods that violate those assumptions (e.g. Andy Abbott's work), some understanding of the limits of statistics and the uses of our everyday knowledge (e.g. Jim Davis' claim that causal order can only be solved by real world knowledge and some statistics), plus some practice in *how* one examines methods and theories critically yet constructively. Not every one of these would be a class on its own, of course. And I'm sure I forgot a few important things. c) Finally, Tom Smith's paper. First, Smith notes that in the all of the surveys he examined, eight surveys from four countries, the men had a significantly higher mean number of heterosexual partners than the women. He examines the following explanations for this widespread phenomenon: 1) Non-coverage The population might not be closed. a) Partners may have died. b) Partners may not be living in a household (the unit of the surveys). c) Partners may be in another country. d) Partners may be out of the age range in some of the surveys. 2) Non-response There might be a correlation between sexual behavior and non-response. 3) Misreports unintentional a) Respondents may remember incorrectly. b) Men and women might define who is a sexuall partner differently. intentional c) Overreporting by men and underreporting by women. Smith tested these hypotheses by comparing the eight surveys, which were all slightly different, and by using other sorts of surveys. None of the evidence gave a clear answer. But he concludes, "While no definitive evidence exists, we feel that some underrepresentation of prostitutes [who aren't in households, though some surveys asked men how many of their partners had been prostitutes and this didn't make up for all the difference] coupled with some combination of female underreporting and male overreporting seem most plausible explanations. Furthermore, as a speculative hypothesis, we believe that underrepresenting by women may be more of a problem than overrepresenting by men... because the social pressure for women to preserve their modesty is greater." Smith had also found the greatest discrepancy in the means during pre-marital and non-marital years of the respondents. I haven't listed all the reasons why the other explanations were rejected. Read the paper if you want to know. Glad to finally be done with a long message, Jean (jczer@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu) From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jan 25 17:40:28 1995 Wed, 25 Jan 1995 17:18:32 -0800 for From: Jean Czerlinski Subject: grads only? To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Wed, 25 Jan 95 19:17:20 CST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] By the way, one person had replied to my methods question to me personally rather than posting it to socgrad "because I'm no longer a grad student". Does anyone on this list really care if non-grad-students post? I'm sure it's happened before. Don't y'all think this person should feel free to post to socgrad? Jean From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jan 25 18:08:08 1995 Wed, 25 Jan 1995 17:59:06 -0800 for Date: Wed, 25 Jan 95 20:57:32 EST From: Alan Davidson Subject: grads only? To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU It's a long issue on most networks. Try being a male for instance on a female spirituality network. We decided very early on that unless we were going to require www images of our University ID cards, we could not limit access to just grads, and if people felt uncomfortable with faculty on the list, so what? From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jan 25 19:22:28 1995 Wed, 25 Jan 1995 19:13:16 -0800 for From: Jean Czerlinski Subject: erratum To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Wed, 25 Jan 95 21:12:02 CST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sorry, but the sentence (below) in my message > (e.g. Jim Davis' claim that causal order can only be solved by > real world knowledge and some statistics) should have read "can only be solved by real world knowledge and *not* by statistics". Makes a bit of a difference in the meaning! :) Jean From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jan 26 10:17:35 1995 Thu, 26 Jan 1995 09:58:47 -0800 for From: Melissa R Herman Subject: grad student loan cuts (fwd) To: sherman@newpisgah.keene.edu (Susan Herman), pherron@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Herron) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 09:45:14 -0800 (PST) PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO AS MANY STUDENTS, FACULTY, AND ADMINISTRATORS AS POSSIBLE: CONGRESS THREATENS TO CUT GRADUATE/ PROFESSIONAL STUDENT AID BY 9.6 BILLION OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS! PROPOSED CUTS WOULD INCREASE GRADUATE/PROFESSIONAL STUDENT INDEBTEDNESS BY UP TO 50 PERCENT, RESULTING IN THE LARGEST COST INCREASE IN GRADUATE/PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN U.S. HISTORY! TO: Graduate/Law/Health Professions Students FROM: Tony Rosati, Information Exchange Coordinator National Association of Graduate-Professional Students ROSATI@GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU DATE: 23 January 1995 As part of its federal budget reduction discussion, Congress is considering eliminating the in-school interest exemption for undergraduate and graduate/professional student loans. Currently, the federal government pays the interest accrued while students are enrolled, and for the first six months after they graduate. Proposals under consideration by Congress would add this additional interest to students' loan principal, which could increase graduate/professional student indebtedness by up to 50 percent. THIS WOULD RESULT IN THE LARGEST INCREASE IN THE COST OF GRADUATE AND PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN THE NATION'S HISTORY. Eliminating the interest exemption has a greater negative effect on students the longer they stay in school, and as such most severely affects graduate and professional-degree-seeking students. For example, Student A attends school for four years to earn a bachelor's degree and attends graduate school for an additional two years to earn a M.A. degree. Upon graduation, this student would owe $34,125. If the interest exemption is eliminated, the student would owe an additional $9,167, or a total of $43,292. This represents a 27 percent increase in educational indebtedness, increasing monthly payments from $409 to $520. The extra cost over the life of the loan would come to about $14,000. Student B receives a four-year undergraduate degree and then spends six years earning a PhD in engineering. This student would owe $68,125 in the cost of loans and an additional $33,028 if the interest is charged. This 48 percent increase in educational debt would leave the student owing $101,153 at the start of repayment. This student's monthly repayment would increase from $818 to $1,214 as a result of eliminating the interest exemption. The extra cost over the life of the loan would be about $48,000. WHAT CAN YOU DO? CALL YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS IMMEDIATELY!!! The Alliance to Save Student Aid, a group of 29 national organizations representing undergraduate, graduate, and professional education, have set up the "SAVE STUDENT AID HOTLINE." By dialing 1-800-574-4AID, you will be connected with the Washington, DC office of your Member of Congress. The first 250 calls are free. After that, a $3.65 charge will be billed to your major credit card for each call. WE ALSO URGE YOU TO WRITE YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS. A SAMPLE LETTER, WHICH SHOULD BE ADAPTED TO YOUR OWN PERSONAL AND CAMPUS SITUATION, FOLLOWS: The Honorable (name of Representative) U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative X: I am a (graduate/law/medical) student at (your institution) and a registered voter in (your state). I am active with (your graduate student government organization) and the National Association of Graduate-Professional Students (NAGPS). I am concerned that despite the obvious benefits of postbaccalaureate education, Congress is proposing cuts which would result in the largest increase in the cost of graduate/professional education in history. Specifically, Congress is considering eliminating the in-school interest exemption feature of the federal student loan program. Eliminating the interest exemption has a greater negative impact on students the longer they stay in school, and as such most severely affects graduate and professional-degree-seeking students. For example, a student with four years of undergraduate borrowing and two additional years of borrowing in a MA program would owe an additional $9,167 to the $34,125 which would be owed under current law (a 27 percent increase). A borrower with a four year undergraduate degree who goes on to spend six years earning a Ph.D. in Engineering would owe an additional $33,028, which would be added to the $68,125 in loan costs under current law (a 48 percent increase). Due to the soaring costs of tuition and to reductions in federal, state and institutional support of post-baccalaureate education, student loans are becoming more and more important as a means of financing advanced degrees. Recent statistics indicate that borrowing among graduate and professional-degree students has increased by 49 percent since 1992. Although I wholeheartedly support responsible federal deficit reduction efforts, cutting aid to graduate and professional students will cost U.S. taxpayers. Eliminating the in-school interest exemption would act as a significant disincentive to individuals who are considering obtaining advanced degrees. Statistics prove that graduate/professional student aid more than pays for itself by stimulating economic growth, expanding the tax base and increasing productivity. In order to maintain its global competitiveness and ensure its long-term economic growth, America needs to forward, rather than undermine, its investment in education beyond the baccalaureate. Sincerely, (your name) PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT NAGPS AT (708) 256-1562 WITH QUESTIONS OR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. #==================================================================# | Tony Rosati | NAGPS Information Exchange Coordinator | | Dept. Chemistry | NAGPS Board of Directors, 1992-1995 | | Georgetown University | Owner & Admin, T-ASSIST Discussion List | | Washington, DC 20057 | | #==================================================================# | NAGPS WWW Page > http://access.digex.net/~rosati/nagps-hp.html | #==================================================================# From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jan 26 10:17:47 1995 Thu, 26 Jan 1995 10:01:32 -0800 for Date: Thu, 26 Jan 95 13:00:54 EST From: Alan Davidson Subject: Communitarian Network Internships (fwd) (fwd) To: Ted Might be an interesting opportunity ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 23:27:17 -0800 From: Shawn Landres <6500land@UCSBUXA.UCSB.EDU> Subject: Communitarian Network Internships (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 13:52:58 -0500 (EST) From: Amitai Etzioni To: Communitarians Subject: Communitarian Network Internships To whom it may concern: The Communitarian Network is now accepting applications for internships. The Communitarian Network is a coalition of individuals and organizations who have come together to shore up the moral, social, and political environment of the United States. It is a nonsectarian, nonpartisan, nationwide association--a communitarian public-policy membership organization and grass-roots movement. This growing movement headed by Dr. Amitai Etzioni--listed as one of Utne Reader's visionaries for 1994--is currently engaged in a number of policy projects including a joint position paper on aging with the American Association of Retired Persons, its Second Annual White House Conference on Character Education, efforts to rebuild communities and families, and fostering diversity within a shared set of core values. With communitarian ideas in increasing demand, The Communitarian Network seeks an intern to fulfill research, editing, correspondence, and administrative duties. Please notify your community of this opportunity. Please write or call us if you would like to receive a hard copy of the application form and a pamphlet, briefly describing The Communitarian Network. Please keep the application as a master that other interested parties can copy. If you have any questions, please contact David E. Carney at 202.994.7263 ----------------- INTERNSHIP INFORMATION SHEET Organization: The Communitarian Network Contact Person: David E. Carney Location: 714 J The Gelman Library The George Washington University 2130 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20052 Phone number: 202.994.7263 Dates: Summer: June 5, 1995 to August 12 (10 Weeks) Fall: September 11, 1995 to December 9 (13 Weeks) Spring: TBA in September 1995 Hours: Summer sessions interns will be expected to work 40 hours per week. During Fall and Spring semesters interns will be expected to work 20-30 hours per week. Duties: Research, editing, administrative, correspondence Stipend: Because The Communitarian Network is a not-for-profit organization reliant on donations and grants, stipends will not be possible. The intern is expected to cover all of his/her own costs. Credit: If interns can receive some form of academic credit for their work, The Communitarian Network is more than willing to assist in this regard. Office attire: Informal. Deadlines: Applications for the Summer session must be postmarked no later than March 25, 1995; for the Fall Semester, no later than June 30, 1995; for the Spring Semester, no later than October 20, 1995. Notification: Interns will receive letters of notification by April 14, 1995, July 21, 1995, and November 10, 1995. Further Information: For further information about the internship or The Communitarian Network, please call David E. Carney at the above listed number. --------------- INTERNSHIP APPLICATION Please Type or Print Legibly. Internship session (Circle): Summer Fall Spring Class (Circle): First year, Sophomore, Junior, Senior, Graduated Name:______________________________________________________ Temporary Address:_________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ Phone Number:(_______)___________________ Permanent Address:_________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ Phone Number:(_______)___________________ College/University:________________________________________ Major(s):____________________ Minor(s)____________________ ____________________ ____________________ Overall GPA (on a 4.0 scale):______________________________ Activities (include dates of involvement and position(s) held): ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Awards and Honors: ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Work Experience (Attach resume if you have one already prepared.): ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Other Skills/Abilities: ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Essay Question: The essay questions below are designed to provide you with a significant amount of flexibility. Please answer one of the essay questions on a separate sheet(s) of paper. Essays should be no more than 1,250 words or five, double-spaced pages. 1.) Should values be taught in public schools? Why? How? What values? 2.) The U.S. Constitution limits the claims that society can make upon its citizens. Analyze. 3.) If you could change one thing about U.S. society or the U.S. government, what would it be? Why would you change it? How would you change it? Recommendations: Please send two letters of recommendation from persons who are a position to judge your abilities, your character, and your chances of performing the tasks which may be asked of you. Possible recommenders could include professors and employers. Letters must be received in sealed envelopes that have been signed and dated across the seal. They may be sent with this application or separate. If you choose the latter option, please realize that we will not consider any application which is not complete by the specified deadlines. It is your responsibility to make sure that recommenders meet the deadlines. Acknowledgement: The information on this application is true and complete. All work on this application and attachments was completed solely by me. Signature______________________________________Date____/____/____ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jan 26 18:48:50 1995 Thu, 26 Jan 1995 18:45:13 -0800 for Date: Thu, 26 Jan 95 21:44:18 EST From: Alan Subject: aid changes To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Somehow in the course of sending the potential aid change post to anybody I could, I lost my own copy. Could it be reposted or sent to me. Thank you. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Jan 27 06:22:45 1995 Fri, 27 Jan 1995 06:20:27 -0800 for Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 09:20:21 -0500 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Dan Ryan) Subject: Summmer Fellowships -- NonProfits... YALE UNIVERSITY - PROGRAM ON NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS SUMMER 1995 JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER 3RD GRADUATE SUMMER FELLOWSHIPS Yale's Program on Non-Profit Organizations has established six summer fellowships to support doctoral or professional degree candidates engaging in advanced research on philanthropy, voluntarism, and nonprofit organizations. These fellowships are open to students from history, the social sciences, and related fields, such as American, international, religious studies, and women's studies, as well as to professional students from the fields of management, divinity, law, environmental studies, and public health. Research projects may focus either on substantive issues, such as philanthropy, voluntarism, management, and particular nonprofit industries, or on contextual matters, such as law, public policy, and relations between business, government, and nonprofit domains. For 1995, we especially welcome projects focusing on the organizational dimensions of churches and other religious institutions and on nonprofits trusteeship. THE WORK OF THE FELLOWS Fellows will spend the summer (June 12-August 4) in residence at Yale University in New Haven. They will meet in a weekly seminar in order to develop common perspectives on nonprofit activity, become familiar with the concerns of nonprofits research, report on the progress of their own projects, and converse with senior scholars in the field. By the end of the summer, Fellows will be expected to produce a paper based on their research suitable for publication in the Program's Working Paper series. Each Fellow will receive a stipend of $3,300 for the summer. One third of the stipend will be made available on arrival in New Haven, one third midway through the fellowship period, and the final third on completion of an acceptable paper. In addition to their stipends, Fellows will be provided with office space, duplicating, telephone, and other support services, and library privileges. APPLICATION PROCEDURES Individuals currently enrolled in doctoral or professional degree programs are eligible for these fellowships. Candidates whose interests are sufficiently developed to have produced a body of written work will be given preference in making these awards. Applicants whose work promises to effectively use Yale's extraordinary resources will be given particular consideration. There is no application form for the JDR3rd Fellowships. Applications should include: - - -a general description of your research interests; - - - a detailed description of the work you intend to pursue during the fellowship period; - - - samples of written work bearing on some aspect of your proposed research; - - - a curriculum vitae, including the names, addresses, and phone numbers of three referees. Applications must be received no later than March 10, 1995. Applicants will be notified of their status no later than April 14. Please direct all correspondence to: Peter Dobkin Hall Coordinator, JDR3rd Fellowship Program Program on Non-Profit Organizations Yale University P.O. Box 208253 New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8253 (PHALL@YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU) THE PROGRAM ON NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS Since 1977, Yale's Program on Non-Profit Organizations has operated as an international center for multidisciplinary studies of philanthropy, voluntarism, and nonprofit organizations. The work of scholars affiliated with the Program has appeared in books and scholarly journals, as well as in its own working paper series. The Program's graduate summer fellowships are named in honor of John D. Rockefeller 3rd (1906-1978), a pioneer in the effort to develop informed understanding of the role and dimensions of private initiatives in the public interest here and abroad. Mr. Rockefeller was instrumental in organizing the Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs (better known as the Filer Commission), the first comprehensive study of charitable tax-exempt organizations in the United States. He was also the first donor to Yale's non-profits program. The 1995 fellowships are made possible through the generosity of the Ford Foundation, the Lilly Endowment, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. ***NOTE: THESE FELLOWSHIPS ARE AVAILABLE *ONLY* TO STUDENTS *CURRENTLY ENROLLED* IN DOCTORAL OR PROFESSIONAL DEGREE PROGRAMS!!! From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Jan 27 10:21:06 1995 Fri, 27 Jan 1995 09:59:18 -0800 for Date: Fri, 27 Jan 95 11:55 EST From: "Pamela Paxton" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Odum Symposium Submissions hey socgradders, here's a call for papers from UNC. Two points of note: 1) Andrew Abbott and Tamara Hareven are the keynote speakers 2) North Carolina is gorgeous in the springtime. Pam Paxton --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1995 Howard W. Odum Graduate Symposium Time Matters: History in the Sociology of Work 18 March 1995 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Sociology of work and historical sociology are established sub-disciplines within the field of sociology and are particular strengths of the UNC-CH Sociology Department. Recent work by comparative-historical sociologists has sparked renewed interest in time, history, and dynamic social processes. Meanwhile, the past has also figured prominently in research on work and organizations, in part because workplaces leave clear and often complete traces--personnel records and bank documents recording organizational foundings, for example. At the inaugural Odum Graduate Symposium, participants will explore how the theoretical contributions made by historical sociologists about the nature of history and time can help to inform and enrich research on work and organizations. Since all social actors--be they individuals, professions, or organizations--are rooted in time, sociologists of work need to address how time matters; that is, how contingent historical processes affect the development of professions, organizations, careers, and occupational mobility. Questions to be addressed at the 1995 Odum Symposium include, but are not limited to, the following: ~ How do changes in social organization create new possibilities for the way work is structured? How in turn do changes in the structure of work modify other social contexts? ~ How does recognizing that "time matters" help us to distinguish between a sociology of the past and historical sociology? ~ To what extent do different methodological approaches used in the study of work succeed in capturing the dynamic effects of history and time? Can we generalize from case studies? The Odum Graduate Symposium will bring together prominent scholars and promising graduate students for a one-day session. Keynote speakers will be Andrew Abbott, Professor of Sociology, University of Chicago, and Tamara Hareven, Professor of Family Studies, University of Delaware. Abbott has written extensively on occupations and professions, as well as on theory and methods in historical research. Abbott's book, The System of Professions (University of Chicago Press, 1988) was awarded the ASA Distinguished Scholarly Publication Award in 1991. Hareven is the founder and editor of The Journal of Family History, and the author of Family Time, Industrial Time (Cambridge University Press, 1982). Her work bridges demography, family, and occupations, using the lens of life course analysis. Graduate students working in this area and interested in presenting at the Odum Graduate Symposium are strongly encouraged to submit an abstract to the conference organizers. Abstracts will be reviewed by a panel of graduate students, and authors whose papers are selected will receive funds to subsidize their travel expenses. Submission Procedures: Send a 500-750 word abstract before February 10 1995. Include paper title only in abstract; provide title, name, address, and phone number on a separate sheet. Direct all correspondence to Odum Graduate Symposium c/o Graduate Student Association Department of Sociology CB#3210 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3210 or gsaconf@uncmvs.oit.unc.edu From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Jan 28 19:14:25 1995 Sat, 28 Jan 1995 19:12:12 -0800 for From: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Michael Lichter) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 19:12:00 +0000 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: *You* are the Culture Elite There's a continuous stream of troubling news pouring out of Washington these days. For one, Dan Quayle's attack on the "Culture Elite" (or is it "cultural"?) has been broadened from an attack on the national history standards and other specific projects to attempts to defund NEH and NEA. The basis for these actions is at least as disturbing as the actions in themselves. Below are a couple of clips from an article on a Congressional hearing concerning NEA and NEH, featuring conservatives William Bennet, Lynne Cheney, and Edward Delattre. [The witnesses] stressed that as government downsizes and as new priorities are developed for a smaller budget that there is no longer money to support scholars and artists, who represent elites. Only the select few complete PhD programs and become recognized scholars. Only the select few are able to become professional artists. But do we represent elites? Unless you want to argue that we are the value-neutral objective guardians of knowledge and culture, of course we do. But are we carriers of corrupt and useless knowledge and decadent culture against the pure and moral knowledge and culture of the people? Political correctness, Bennett claimed, with its emphasis on such ideologies as feminism, had corrupted scholarship. Cheney also laid blame for the poor state of current scholarship on postmodernism which she said had tossed objectivity to the winds. Delattre stated that "in many instances federal funds by the endowments has militated against both intellectual quality and the public interest." The funny thing is that what the Right labels "politcal correctness" is basically about the democratization of the content (and to some degree the dissemination) of expert/academic knowledge. All three of these conservatives are defenders of an older orthodoxy that is hardly less elite at its base than what they are attacking. Their concern is with the content of the knowledge, that it meet their standards of -- I cannot think of a better term -- political correctness, not with who is producing it. Oops. I hadn't meant to produce a lecture or a diatribe; I was only intending to forward this article, along with some questions: where does this culture elite label come from? what can/should we do to battle it? will the more "authentic" knowledge win out? :) I hope people will discuss a little, because this is something we will all be battling in our futures, barring a miracle. Michael NCC Washington Update v.1 #4 January 24, 1995 - by Page Putnam Miller, Director of the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History * *NEH and NEA *Smithsonian *National Endowment for the Humanities - The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, chaired by Ralph Regula (R-OH), held a hearing on January 24 on the National Arts and Humanities Endowments. Reflecting the high visibility of the debate over the future of the endowments, almost all members of the subcommittee attended. In a packed hearing room, five witnesses addressed the basic question of whether there should be federal funding for the arts and humanities. Two former chairs of NEH, Lynne Cheney of the American Enterprise Institute and William Bennett of Empower America, and Edward Delattre of the School of Education of Boston University called for an end of federal funding for the endowments. A summary of Cheney's testimony appeared in an opinion piece in the January 24 Wall Street Journal. All three cited examples of what they considered inappropriate grants and stressed that as government downsizes and as new priorities are developed for a smaller budget that th ere is no longer money to support scholars and artists, who represent elites. In the question and answer period, Yates (D-IL) stressed the many positive things that the endowments had accomplished. Dicks (D-WA) questioned Cheney on the discrepancies bet ween her positive statements about NEH a few years ago and her current negative position. Skaggs (D-CO) asked Bennett to be more precise about his claims of "massive corruption" at NEH in the practice and products of the humanities. Political correctness, Bennett claimed, with its emphasis on such ideologies as feminism, had corrupted scholarship. Cheney also laid blame for the poor state of current scholarship on postmodernism which she said had tossed objectivity to the winds. Delattre stated that "in many instances federal funds by the endowments has militated against both intellectual quality and the public interest." There was some discussion of the National History Standards. Cheney responded to a question from Nethercutt (R-WA) by saying that at this time the state of study of history in higher education is such that she did not believe that any national group of historians would be able to promulgate standards that the committee could accept. Skaggs, however, noted that in her testimony on the history standards Cheney had picked examples out of context and had distorted the standards. The last two witnesses -- actor Charlton Heston and Frank Hodsell, former head of NEA under the Reagan Administration -- made strong statements in support of NEA and NEH. Both acknowledged that there had been mistakes but Hodsell estimated the mistakes at about 1% which he said was a much better performance rate than most corporations. Heston refuted the notion that the endowments are for the elite and talked about how NEA had nourished regional theater and brought the arts to ordinary people across the country. If NEH and NEA are abandoned, Heston stated the U.S. would be the only industrial democracy in the world that does not provide support for its culture. In closing Heston quoted eloquently from Shakespeare to make the point that the arts and humanities are fundamental to the fabric of American life. Hodsell asserted that arts and humanities are as important to the national life as science and that the National Science Foundation has made mistakes that cost millions of dollars, yet no one suggests that NSF be abolished. Only two members of the subcommittee have e-mail: Charles Taylor (R-NC) CHTAYLOR@HR.HOUSE.GOV and David Skaggs (D-CO) skaggs@hr.house.gov. The Senate hearing on NEA was postponed today because of the death of Senator Kennedy's mother. * Enola Gay Exhibit at the Smithsonian - Three congressmen -- Representatives Peter I. Blute (R-MA), Sam Johnson (R-TX), and Stephen E. Buyer (R-IN)-- have sharply criticized the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum's Enola Gay exhibit. They called for Martin Harwit, the director of the museum to be fired, the exhibit to be cancelled, and oversight hearings to be held. The Washington Post quoted Representative Blute as saying: "we think there are some very troubling questions in regard to the Smithsonian, not just with this Enola Gay exhibit but over the past 10 years or so, getting into areas of revisionist history and political correctness. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered." Representative William Clinger (R-PA), who chairs the House Government Operations Committee, indicated that oversight hearings on the exhibition will be held. It now appears the hearing will be held at the subcommittee level by the Government Management, Information and Technology Subcommittee chaired by Steven Horn (R-CA). No date for a hearing has been set. The issue of the Enola Gay exhibit is expected to be on the agenda of the Smithsonian Board of Regents meeting scheduled for January 30. Those wishing to register concern about this matter, should write to Secretary I. Michael Heyman, The Smithsonian Institution, 1000 Jefferson Drive, SW, Washington, DC 20560 -- Michael Lichter ------------------------+ Department of Sociology | University of California, Los Angeles ----------------------------------+ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Jan 29 09:54:12 1995 Sun, 29 Jan 1995 09:52:28 -0800 for From: Jean Czerlinski Subject: equal means To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Sun, 29 Jan 95 11:51:12 CST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Recent mail to me indicates that my claim that there is a mathematical reason for the mean number of men's heterosexual partners and mean number of women's heterosexual partners to be equal is in question. So now I attempt a brief explanation. The argument hinges on two things: a) Sexual partnership is a shared trait. For every man who becomes a sexual partner in a heterosexual union, there must be a woman who becomes a partner. (This excludes group sex, but according to Laumann et al., group sex is exceedingly rare anyway. Still, the problems we encounter later indicate maybe we should take group sex into account.) Qualities like height are not shared traits and thus wouldn't be expected to follow the "equal means" rule. b) There are approximately equal numbers of men and women in the population. Now here's how it works. Let's say there are N new heterosexual unions (i.e. between people who haven't been together before). This would result in N times that men are new sexual partners and N times that women are new sexual partners. Now shift from being a partner to having partners: the *total* number of (male, in this case) partners for women is N, and the total number of (female) partners fow women is also (in this case) N. This part of the analysis used (a). Now we need to get the averages, which we get by dividing by the numbers in the population. The *average* number of (female) partners for men is N/m where m= # men in the pop. Likewise, the average number of (male) partners for women is N/w where w= # women in the pop. Now if (using (b)) there are approximately equal numbers of men and women in the population, then N/m should be approximately equal to N/w, and a decent survey should get a similar result. How equal can we expect them to be? Well, if there are 5% more women than men, then we can expect the mean for men to be 5% more than the mean for women. In fact, in general if ther p% more women than men, the male mean will be (on the average) p% more than the female mean. (Try writing out the equations. You can bet *I* did before I posted.) Perhaps all this is not so obvious as I thought. The key, it seems to me, is making the accounting shift of (a). And most stats classes don't spend much time on teaching how to shift perspectives but how to plug and chug through formulas. I apologize to those of you sick of this topic by now. Jean (jczer@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu) From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Jan 29 10:11:46 1995 Sun, 29 Jan 1995 10:08:51 -0800 for From: Jean Czerlinski Subject: erratum To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Sun, 29 Jan 95 12:07:30 CST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sorry, just noticed: Of course I mean not only N total (male) partners for women but N total (female) partners for men. ^^^^^ The original message had women twice! Jean From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Jan 29 13:09:28 1995 Sun, 29 Jan 1995 13:07:01 -0800 for Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 13:06:59 -0800 (PST) From: "Kevin K. Wall" To: ucsd server unsub socgrad From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jan 30 06:59:20 1995 Mon, 30 Jan 1995 06:57:38 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov Date: Mon, 30 Jan 95 08:59:02 EST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU, SHAFER@binah.cc.brandeis.edu Subject: Re: academic reward I put "right" in quotes because of the questionable nature of "rightness." However, the rewards do go to those whose ideas and theories acquire the highest degree of acceptability and have greatest degree of impact. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: academic reward Author: SHAFER@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU at NOTE Date: 1/25/95 5:03 PM not trying to be argumentative but barbara mentions that "rewards in academe go to those ideas and theories are RIGHT and enduring." how does one know that their theory is "right?" because others agree with you? because you got tenure? because you have tenure at an "elite university"? or is there the possibility of multiple "rights"? just wondering, dave shafer beandeis univ. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jan 30 07:37:34 1995 Mon, 30 Jan 1995 07:36:01 -0800 for Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 10:35:59 -0500 (EST) From: James Cassell Subject: Fw: Faculty Positions (fwd) To: Sociology Graduate Student Discussion FYI ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Cassell jwcassell@UNC.EDU Institute for Research in Social Science Phone: 919-962-0782 University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Fax: 919-962-4777 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3355 USA ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 15:25:04 -0700 From: Chris Chase-Dunn Subject: Fw: Faculty Positions ------------------------------ From: "MIRIAM D. ROSENTHAL - PH.D." Subject: Faculty Positions Levon Chorbajian asked us to post the following for him: ***************************** TWO POSITIONS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY University of Massachusetts, Lowell: The Department of Sociology invites applications for two anticipated tenure-track positions effective September, 1995. 1. A junior or senior level anthropologist. Applicants should be able to teach both introductory and advanced level undergraduate courses, including qualitative methods. 2. A junior or senior level sociologist. Applicants should be able to teach in at least two of the following areas: demography, economic development, ethnic and race relations, environmental sociology, new communication technologies, and organizations and occupations. Outstanding applicants with other specialties will be considered. Both positions require a Ph.D. and evidence of active research and teaching excellence. The deadlines for applications is March 1, 1995. Candidates should forward a cover letter, vitae, and three letters of recommendation to Dr. Levon Chorbajian, Chair of the Search Committee, Department of Sociology, University of Massachusetts, Lowell, Lowell, MA 01854. The University of Massachusetts, Lowell is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. Prof. Chris Chase-Dunn Department of Sociology Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD. 21218 USA tel 410 516 7633 fax 410 516 7590 email chriscd@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jan 30 09:01:39 1995 Mon, 30 Jan 1995 08:50:08 -0800 for From: ROPER@zodiac.rutgers.edu Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 11:05:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: this word "empowerment" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU I am very interested in this word "empowerment", its history, how different groups use it, Empower America, etc. Anyone having any info or cites, please write me privately at roper@zodiac.rutgers.edu. Many thanks, Jill From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jan 30 14:55:11 1995 Mon, 30 Jan 1995 14:45:09 -0800 for Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 17:45:01 -0500 (EST) From: "Int'l Center/New Forests Project" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Need Info: University of Wisconsin's graduate program Dear socgrad folks: I am new to this group, so forgive me if this isn't an appropriate topic for the socgrad group.... Having just been accepted into the University of Wisconsin's sociology masters/PhD program, I am curious to hear current students' opinions about the program. I am most interested in either the STARE program OR the Sociology of Economic Change program. My specific interests lie with agricultural and rural development--primarily the knowledge of small-scale farmers. My regional interest, at the moment, is Africa (though this may change). My undergrad background is in Anthropology (speciality: agricultural development in the Caribbean). I would like to hear the pros/cons of the department's large size. What opportunities are available for overseas research? How long does it take to complete a masters and PhD? How many students are in the program and how much interaction is there among students and profs as a cohesive whole? What is Madison like? etc. etc. Thanks in advance for the help! Jessica (soon-to-be-grad-student) ic-nfp@clark.net [If you don't know about U. Wisconsin, perhaps you can tell me about the following other schools: Michigan State (Sociology), Cornell (Development Sociology), or U. Missouri (Rural Sociology). THANKS!] From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jan 31 09:57:30 1995 Tue, 31 Jan 1995 09:38:29 -0800 for Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 12:38:27 -0500 (EST) From: James Cassell Subject: Annual Meeting of the Southern Sociological Society (fwd) To: Sociology Graduate Student Discussion FYI--Jim ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Cassell jwcassell@UNC.EDU Institute for Research in Social Science Phone: 919-962-0782 University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Fax: 919-962-4777 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3355 USA ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 11:55:43 -0500 From: Marty Levin Subject: Annual Meeting of the Southern Sociological Society The annual meeting of the Southern Sociological Society will be held this year in Atlanta at the Radisson Hotel on Courtland Street April 6-9. The winter issue of the Southern Sociologist should be mailed in about 10 days with the preliminary program. In two to three weeks, you should receive a letter from me with specific information about hotel reservations and the official airline. However, here is some advanced information for planning purposes: The convention hotel rate is $75 per night single and $85 double. You must make your reservations by March 15 to get that rate and to be sure you are able to get a room at the convention hotel. I will be sending you a postage-paid mailer for your reservation. Delta is the official airline. If you are going to fly, please try to use Delta and to use the Society file number. By using this service, members get a discount and the Society earns free tickets which are used to bring in speakers, etc. to the annual meeting. This saves money and keeps dues lower. To use the service, call 1-800-241-6760 to make your reservation and refer to FILE NO. 1320. You will get 5% off most discount round-trip fares and 10% off regular fares. If you prefer to have a travel agent make the reservations, simply provide the agent with this same information. Thanks. See you in Atlanta! Marty Levin Secretary-Treasurer Southern Sociological Society P. O. Drawer 6245 Mississippi State, MS 39762