Search

This paper evaluates the impacts of income inequality on life expectancy in African countries. The empirical analysis has been performed on a panel dataset of 52 African nations covering the period of 1995 to 2018. For estimating the inequality-health relationship, I have used Two-Stage Least Squares (2SLS) technique and a Panel Error Correction Model (PECM). The longrun cointegrating relationship was estimated using a Panel Dynamic Ordinary Least Square (PDOLS) estimator. The outcomes suggest that income inequality has negatively affected life expectancy at birth in the African continent overall. Though income inequality seems to have improved health in the short-run, in the long-run, income inequality had deleterious effects. A series of steps has been followed to check the soundness of the result of the main empirical examination and it is confirmed that the results are robust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to communicate some of the value commitments that characterize my approach to formal model building in theoretical sociology. It does this through a narrative method, an autobiographical account of shifts in intellectual interests through various phases of my career: from history to philosophy, from philosophy to sociology, from sociology to mathematics and back, followed by several long-term formal theoretical research programs. One of these, pertaining to the formal representation of institutionalized social action systems, is described in terms of its linkage to interpretive sociology, while also noting its limitations from a theoretical science point of view. By interweaving intellectual biography and intellectual history, the paper also provides some contextual background for appreciating the work of the other contributors to this symposium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing on interviews with peer-review panelists from five multidisciplinary fellowship competitions, this paper analyzes one of the main criteria used to evaluate scholarship in the humanities and the social sciences: originality. Whereas the literature in the sociology of science focuses on the natural sciences and defines originality as the production of new findings and new theories, we show that in the context of fellowship competitions, peer reviewers in the social sciences and humanities define originality much more broadly: as using a new approach, theory, method, or data; studying a new topic; doing research in an understudied area; or producing new findings. Whereas the literature has not considered disciplinary variation in the definition of originality, we identified significant differences. Humanists and historians clearly privilege originality in approach, and humanists also emphasize originality in the data used. Social scientists most often mention originality in method, but they also appreciate a more diverse range of types of originality. Whereas the literature tends to equate originality with substantive innovation and to consider the personal attributes of the researcher as irrelevant to the evaluation process, we show that panelists often view the originality of a proposal as an indication of the researcher's moral character especially of his/her authenticity and integrity. These contributions constitute a new approach to the study of peer review and originality that focuses on the meaning of criteria of evaluation and their distribution across clusters of disciplines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is the value-added character of sociology? In an era of change and unease in higher education, can a case be made for sociology in terms of intellectual and scholarly substance rather than in terms of bureaucratic and political considerations? As a scholarly and instructional activity, what is the value of sociology beyond what other disciplines have to offer? I address these questions affirmatively in this paper by identifying and elaborating four distinctive foci of the sociological eye that together frame the window onto the world that sociology provides. These distinctive features are a focus on the relational connections among the constituent elements of the objects of sociological analysis; a focus on the socially contextual embeddedness of those objects of analysis; a focus on vexing social conditions and processes construed as social problems; and an ironic perspective, that is, a penchant for discerning and illuminating the incongruous, unexpected, discrepant aspects of social life. I argue that these foci are more pronounced in sociology than in other social sciences and that together they congeal into a window onto the social world that is unique among the social sciences and humanities, thus accounting for the value-added character of sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper attempts to link theoretical ideas concerning the relation of agency and structure with empirical research on the transition from school to work. In particular, some of the propositions of structuration theory are assessed in terms of their applicability to empirical research which investigates the impact of individual and structural variables on movement into the labour market, and the way the variables combine to determine entry into labour market segments. The data suggests that structural and individual factors are influential at all levels of the occupational hierarchy, but that the strength of influence varies at different points in the hierarchy. This supports the axiom of structuration theory which asserts that structure and activity are deeply implicated in each other in the process of social reproduction. However, the data further suggests the `duality of structure' principle has to be considerably modified in order to apprehend phenomena such as labour market processes. In this respect we believe that structure and action variables have to be viewed as loci of powers rooted in partly independent ontological domains but which interpenetrate each other in specific empirical areas at particular points in time and space. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Are the words in out natural language which we use to speak about natural and social phenomena actually laden with preexisting (and hence corrigible) theoretical commitments, full-blown "ontologies," or even metaphysics? Or can we appeal to rules for their use in adjudicating the sense (or otherwise; of any scientific or philosophical innovation? These questions arise most commonly in the context of claims about scientific "transformations." especially "scientific revolutions." Cognitive science, for example, announces such a "revolution" in its conceptualizations of the true nature of the "mind," "thought," "intelligence," "understanding," and so on in this paper I shall orgue that Wittgenstein's reflections on "grammar' enable us to dissolve many of the perplexities that confront us when we invoke Kuhman "incommensurability" in distinguishing between genume scientific revolutions and pseudo-revolutions Indeed, the Kuhnian thesis itself is seen to depend on a range of contestable claims about "words" and "meanings." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]