Search

This article reviews three recent books - one Australian, one European and one American - in order to reflect on the current state of play in economic sociology. Economic sociology is a fast-growing field of research in the US, and to a lesser extent in Europe, but it has barely registered in Australia. This is partly a reflection of the fact that economic sociology draws some of its inspiration from `new economy' industries that are weak in Australia. It also reflects the influence of the Marxist tradition in Australia, focusing mainly on the state as a countervailing force to markets. The upshot is that the market is both a constant point of reference in sociological research, but also a `black box' beyond social inquiry. The new economic sociology, in contrast, focuses upon the constitutive role of social institutions in relation to markets. It suggests promising new lines of inquiry in the Australian context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To mark the 40th anniversary of the Australian Sociological Association (TASA), a survey on the Most Influential Books in Australian Sociology (MIBAS) was conducted. In this article we discuss the MIBAS process, its findings, and provide some reflections on the top 10 most influential books. We also situate the MIBAS survey among other attempts to compile lists of the most influential books in the discipline of sociology, and discuss the benefits and limits of such endeavours. We argue that the MIBAS exercise was useful not only as a commemorative device, but as an opportunity to reflect on the breadth and influence of Australian sociological scholarship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The vote by TASA members on the `Most Influential Book in Australian Sociology' (MIBAS) provides an opportunity to compare quantitative indicators based on citations with the peer review represented by the MIBAS votes. While it is generally agreed that citations are only a partial indicator of such a complex phenomenon as quality, citations are regarded as a reflection of a publication's, author's or research group's `impact' or influence. This assumption is explored by applying several interpretations and operationalizations of the concept of `influence', by discussing their validity, and by comparing the respective citation rankings to the MIBAS poll; The major lessons of the comparison are that citation-based indicators should not be applied in diachronic comparisons, for evaluating publications on nationally specific topics, or in fields in which books are an important part of the research output. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In social science the 'national' has been studied extensively, but comparatively little attention has been given to the 'un-national'. The article takes up this challenge in an Australian context. Drawing on the work of Raymond Williams, investigation is centred around the keyword 'UnAustralian'. Participants in focus groups were asked to nominate and account for what they thought of as 'UnAustralian' people, places, values, activities, groups and organizations. Analysis of the data revealed that two factors underpinned an attribution: incivility and foreign influence. Contemporary uses revolve around outcomes from globalization and can be contrasted with the centrality of class politics to deployments of the concept in the first part of the 20th century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]