Search

This article focuses on the dynamics of supervisory role. It is by no means a novel sociological insight to point out that all social groups have topics of (non) discussion that are more or less taboo. Within tertiary educational institutions, one area which comes into this category, at least in respect of public debate, is that of the treatment of graduate students. Though anecdotal evidence in respect of sociology graduate students is extensive, and although this evidence appears to he in no way unusual. relatively little is written on the topic. Everybody knows that there are complaints, ranging from students who find their progress obstructed, through those whose work is neglected. to those whose work is "stolen" for publication under the name of the supervisor. Relatively few people, however, seem prepared to discuss the topic publicly. Those who do discuss the matter seem preoccupied with the question of whether or not students are "unfair" treated by their supervisors. There is a difference between a relationship which is inherently unfair irrespective of how its component members view it and one which may in some circumstances be fair, but which can degenerate to a point where members feel that they have been in some way cheated.

The article examines the role of racial and class factors in fairness of sentencing of offenders in a multi-racial society. For this purpose questionnaires were given to a sample of probation officers. They were asked to rate a range of sentences in terms of their severity. There was a high correlation between their recommendations and the subsequent sentence. In the study, it was noticed that Europeans from higher social classes exhibit a different pattern of association between seriousness of offence and severity of sentence than other groups. The study showed that courts do seem to show some bias in their treatment of offenders by race and by social class, of which, social class is the more important. Some differences by race can be shown by considering cases in which the magistrate did not follow the probation officer's recommendation given in the report.

The article presents a research report on using an unobtrusive measure in a teaching project. It was intended that this project would be: a genuine research project of limited scope; simple and clear cut, in which a large number of students could take equal part; involve some limited opportunities for both observation in natural settings and also quantitative analysis of data. The project evolved was based on the lost letter technique. Normally one loses letters that have been addressed to different organizations and draws inferences from varying return rates about the organizations. So, using the same address on all envelopes and the researchers tried to draw inferences from differing return rates about the technique. Analysis of the result made it clear that error may be introduced into the research process not merely by either carelessness or deliberate falsification, but also by being so involved that the effort to do the job properly confuses the process nominally under observation.