Search

I argue that the COVID-19 pandemic presents an opportunity for sociologists and other social scientists to focus their scholarship on this apparently new event, while applying theoretical and methodological traditions that were established during pre-pandemic times. I substantiate this argument by critically reviewing published sociological research on COVID-19, especially as it developed early on during the pandemic, in the light of the historical development and original ambitions of sociology and other social sciences. Evaluating these contributions, I make a case for the value of a collaborative notion of interdisciplinarity to analyze the multi-dimensional dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic from the viewpoint of various disciplines. On the basis of sociological work on celebrity culture during the pandemic, I argue that this task can be accomplished without resorting to all too readily made judgments concerning the unprecedented nature of the pandemic. Studying the multiple dimensions of the pandemic, each of the social sciences can usefully contribute to interdisciplinary research by relying on the proven perspectives of their respective disciplinary orientations and specialty areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sports cards may seem to be of little interest to social scientists, but sports cards and card collecting can be a rich and unique source of data for examining the social world. They reveal information not only about those who collect them, but about the society and social conditions under which they are produced. This paper examines a very unique numbering system developed by the Topps Chewing Gum Company (Topps) to differentiate status among the players appearing on the cards in its annual football sets. The system Topps developed assigned a number to each card that designated a player’s placement in a set, while simultaneously creating a hierarchical ordering among the players, purportedly based on their performance. Was the ranking of players in the numbering system truly based on performance or on other criteria, such as race? The findings of this study suggest that player position, and to a lesser degree his on-the-field performance, not race, was the main determinant of where he was located in the card set. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigated the factors that contribute to African American males successfully completing a baccalaureate degree. Employing a qualitative research design, the author conducted focus group interviews with African American male graduate students ( n = 11). Participants identified four factors as being significant contributors to their successful completion of a baccalaureate degree: (1) having an epiphany about the importance of higher education; (2) having access to the resources needed to attend and persist in an institution of higher education; (3) having a mentor, and (4) being resilient when faced with obstacles. Implications for institutions of higher education are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We can only welcome the discourse that has been initiated in our professional community with the concept of public sociology in the focus. Undoubtedly, Michael Burawoy has indisputable merits in fuelling this international dialogue. I find, however, that his position and conceptual framework is debatable at several points, therefore my review is on the side of those who criticize his ideas. My paper is divided into three parts: in keeping with the idea that the drop mirrors the ocean, I will start with the detailed critique of a single paragraph—the one which makes comments on his table entitled Types of sociological knowledge. It will be argued that by switching his viewpoints and using vaguely defined notions without empirical evidences he often tackles his subject inconsistently. Secondly, I intend to offer an alternative, three-dimensional conceptual model in which the social scientist’s prestige, influence and position on the action chain is taken into account as the main analytical aspects of the relationship between her/him and the public. Finally, based on this model, I propose to identify some strategies in order to find a better balance between the public and professional activity of social scientists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides responses by Charles Tilly, author of "Why?: What Happens When People Give Reasons...and Why" to book critiques in this issue. Tilly discusses his motivations for undertaking this book project, which was designed to introduce sociological analysis to a general readership outside of historians and sociologists. According to the author, "Why" was written to elucidate commonly used social explanations and the reasons that people give for events.

Burawoy (2005) argues that sociology needs to re-establish a public sociology oriented toward society problems and the practice of its unique knowledge if it is to again be taken seriously by the public, policymakers, and others. Yet, it is unclear how best to achieve these goals. We argue that the relatively young field of social gerontology provides a useful model of successful public sociology in action. As a multidisciplinary field engaged in basic and applied research and practice, social gerontology major aim is to improve the lives of older people and to ameliorate problems associated with age and aging. Thus social gerontology has routinely reached beyond the academy to engage with its publics. We review the field historical and theoretical development and present four examples of public sociology in action. Several factors have contributed to social gerontology success in achieving the goals of public sociology: (1) Working in multidisciplinary teams which promote collaboration and respect for diverse perspectives. (2) Its ability to advocate professionally for its publics without favoring one group at the expense of another. (3) The unique affinity of its theories and practices with its disciplinary values. (4) The constructive effects of its ongoing questioning of values and ethics. Working in a multidisciplinary field with multiple publics, social gerontologists have been able to blend professional, critical, policy, and public sociologies to a considerable degree while contributing toward improvements in well-being [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reflects on career prospects for graduate students in sociology. The author suggests that the probation period of assistant professor is the time that many young sociologists find a comfort zone and stay in it or abandon the profession. The measure of what is important in social science is a mix of professional accomplishment and broader public recognition and acknowledgement. Some sociologists prefer professional achievement with little recognition while the ambition of others demands greater recognition than a profession alone can provide. Association with professional peers can provide the self-assurance of achievement and the endeavor to write for and seek the attention of a broader public requires knowing how to deal with the professional resentments of "selling out."

The Difference between Belief and Knowledge. The assumption that knowledge can be defined in terms of belief is considered to be mistaken. Since Gettier problems are shown to be misconstrued, the question cannot arise whether his conditions for knowledge are sufficient for claiming ``knowledge is justified true belief''. Ayers' conditions for knowledge in addition with a specific stipulation proof to be instructive for elaborating the differences between knowledge and belief. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is a contribution to the sociology and social epistemology of knowledge production in Russian social sciences today. In the initial section, the epistemic status and social function of Soviet social scientific discourse are characterized in terms of textual forms and their modes of (re-)production. The remaining sections detail the course of the restructuration of social scientific discourse since the fall of the Soviet Union and draw on extant empirical sources, in particular studies of bibliographical rubrics, thematic repertoires, and current textual forms throughout the public sphere and the academic establishment in Russia. An underlying concern is the shifting status of the intellectual in the wider socio-cultural context as reflected in language usage and its textual embodiments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although a variety of resources exist to aid social scientists, in general, in their academic job pursuits, almost no resources detail this process specifically for sociologists. This research aims to provide a review of the literature on the academic job market and to provide a sociological analysis of the job searching process in sociology. We report and analyze the experiences of five sociologists as they moved from graduate school, post-doctoral fellowships, an applied research position, and a non-tenure track teaching position to assistant professor positions. We detail the importance of impression management and self-presentation throughout this process(by job candidates, departments, and administrators), the resources provided by the American Sociological Association that exist to aid job candidates, and we suggest implications of the current organization of the sociology job market. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article recalls the illuminating insights Professor Hughes shared and the gratitude with which I have applied them in my teaching and research. My curiosity about, and respect for the Chicago School, and Everett Hughes, one of its most noted students, shaped much of my sociological career. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents an autobiographical account of the author's academic career, with special emphasis on the balance between his professional activities as a sociologist and his interdisciplinary activities. My doctoral degree is in sociology, and I spent 36 years of my career in a sociology department. I have conducted sociological research, written textbooks in sociology, edited the American Sociological Review, and participated and held many offices in the American Sociological Association. At the same time I believe I am regarded as among the most interdisciplinary of sociologists. My research has clearly included many other disciplines--especially economics, history, psychology, and education--along with sociology. Furthermore, I have been institutionally involved in numerous transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary activities with publishers, private foundations, the Social Science Research Council, and the National Academy of Sciences. Interdisciplinary intellectual activity does little to solidify the disciplines with one another, though it can work modestly in that direction by generating mutual interdependence and appreciation. But, the kind of interdisciplinary institutional activities in which I have participated extensively is helpful and essential for the institutional protection and promotion of the enterprise as a whole.

The article discusses the sociologist Max Weber's writings from 1890, when he started his career as a social scientist until he died. In doing so, some of his work have been singled out, while others have been neglected, even though his work contained some relevant material. Weber wrote several books on stock exchange and role of the market in economics. His giant work "Economy and Society," is constructed in a symmetrical fashion around four main themes, each of which Weber relates to the market. Four main themes of his work are the economic sphere, relationship of economy to politics, relationship of the economy to the legal system and relationship of the economy to religion. Although several sociologists have attempted to analyze the market but Weber's work differs from all of these efforts. First, Weber has an interesting and original notion of the market. Second, Weber is quite a bit ahead of contemporary sociology in making interesting comparisons, not only between different types of market but also between specific market institutions such as their regulatory framework.

While sociological theorists frequently express concern about theoretical fragmentation and the politicization of sociology, little research has been done to demonstrate the actual state of the field. In an earlier study of sociologists in general, Sanderson and Ellis (1992) found a high degree of theoretical fragmentation and a close correspondence between sociologists' political views and their theory preferences. The current study extends this line of analysis to sociological theorists. Data gathered from over half of the members of the American Sociological Association (ASA) Theory Section show sociological theorists to be enormously divided with respect to their preferred theoretical perspectives, their conceptions of the most important social theorists, and their stance on modern theoretical debates and controversies (such as the virtues of postmodernism). As was the case with sociologists in general, political ideology was the strongest correlate of theory choice, and gender was less closely related to theory choice than would be expected. From these data, a picture is painted of the current state of social theory as we approach the next millennium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the last few years the interest for what in Europe is called Zivilcourage seems to have increased among the public at large. Social scientists, however, have shown little interest in this topic, something that is a pity since "civil courage" represents a fascinating phenomenon in its own right. The article shows what a sociological analysis of civil courage might look like. Such an analysis represents a challenge for several reasons. For one thing, there exists an important individual dimension to civil courage, which is hard to get at from a sociological perspective. At the moment of acting, for example, the individual typically stands alone. On the other hand, it is also clear that sociology is well equipped to bring out the social or group dimension of civil courage, especially the way that family, friends, and sympathizers stand behind and support the person who in some situation displays civil courage. There is finally also the fact that acts of civil courage often evoke a very strong sense of admiration. In an objective sociological analysis this admiration should be explained - but not be allowed to infuse the way that civil courage is analyzed.

This article looks at how social scientists construct meaning in the course of their research practice, by studying how variables from the General Social Survey (GSS) have been used to indicate different features of social reality. The GSS not only provides a rich source of sociological data, but also maintains record on all studies that use GSS data. It is possible with this information, not only to find all these works, but also to retrieve automatically the list of GSS variables they used. In all, 155 substantive pieces have been written using the religious intensity (RELITEN) variable of the GSS. While RELITEN is not one of the central variables of the survey, articles in which it figures nonetheless involve nearly one-third of the survey variables. The disconnection between patterns of variable usage and matters of conceptual interest provides a clear evidence of contextual ambiguity. In some of the studies, RELITEN enters with the control variables. In others, by contrast, age, sex, education, and other demographic variables stand alone, and RELITEN is a variable of independent interest. More broadly, religion is conceived in this set of studies as linked to a wide variety of areas.

Sociologists have been slow to address directly the questions raised by the issue of sustainability, despite the prominence of the idea in other disciplines and policy fields. This article argues that sociologists are "missing the boat" by ignoring the questions that sustainability raises. In addition, it is suggested that sociology is uniquely equipped with the theoretical and methodological background to contribute scientifically accurate understandings of this phenomenon to a world much in need of such guidance. The article concludes that addressing questions of sustainability may nudge sociology into new and fruitful directions of inquiry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article summarizes ideologies of Professor Edward Shils's concept of sociology. Edward Shils was awarded the International Balzan Prize in 1983 . The award citation singled Professor Shils out for his important innovative and unique contribution to contemporary sociology, bringing together the more empirical tradition of American sociology with the more theoretical one of European sociology, analyzing and defending the intellectual and moral responsibility of the social sciences, emphasizing the components of civilization, of the cultural tradition and of the orientation to the sacred in the development of the social order. He succeeded in bringing together the more empirical tradition of the Chicago school and the theoretical thinking of European social scientists such as Simmel, Weber and Mannheim and probably more than any other single person, he has stressed the importance of combining them in a single framework, thus making an important contribution towards a truly universal, general sociology.

The article discusses sociological orientation of Robert E. Park. Robert Park was a great teacher who inspired students to go into the field to observe conduct and elicit information about the experiences of ordinary human beings. He was an observer of the diverse rounds of life in large cities, and he inspired his students to become the same. He himself had been a journalist and editor, and that journalistic experience left a mark on his view of what the world was like and how to study it. His active career as a journalist and sociologist spanned about a half century. He was an academic sociologist for nearly half of that time. As a journalist of his time, Park was interested in the daily life of human beings, their routines and their misadventures, their joys and their sorrows. He took seriously what journalist called human interest. He was particularly interested in the fate of those routines and the form of their disruptions in their experiences of life in a large city. It could be said that all of the rest of his life as a sociologist was an effort to refine and differentiate the varieties and combinations which lie between the crowd and the public.

The article presents a tribute to Professor Edward Shils. His life was dedicated to the study of culture and civilization. Edward Shils had developed the thoroughest-the most serious, careful and searching-such theory. The work that Shils was doing was a work of revelation, he was trying-all his life, certainly in the last forty years of his life-to reveal the nature or essence of Culture. He was explicit, even naive about his election. Edward Shils conceived of intellectuals as the carriers of autonomous traditions of the transcendental center. The intellectuals of the most elevated sort seek a primacy of connection with the transcendental center of existence. Professor Shils was an intellectual of the most elevated sort. His quest was ultimately futile. The rational and empirical understanding of the fundamental nature of culture, its essential understanding, is impossible because we cannot externalize it, cannot step outside it conceptually and envision the moment of emergence, when the elements which are not in themselves cultural combine and become culture.

The movement toward interdisciplinary studies of human-environment inter- actions holds considerable appeal for environmental sociologists. But a survey of the paradigms and institutions that govern interdisciplinary research on energy-a key variable in socioecological theory and an important cause of environmental decline-suggests that the prospects for a significant sociological role in these sorts of studies could turn out to be fairly limited. Over the past twenty years, a variety of devices have been successfully used in inter- disciplinary energy analysis to diminish the importance of the social, and to marginalize the contributions of the social sciences. This is unfortunate because insights from sociological studies of the energy system are of considerable value in both disciplinary theory-building and interdisciplinary environmental policy-making. These external limits on sociological analysis are only part of the story. Sociology's own theoretical unease with technology and the physical/natural world, and its insular tendencies in regard to other disciplines, have significantly contributed to a decline of sociological work on energy-environment topics over the past decade. Given growing interest by natural scientists in the human dimensions of global environmental change, the time now seems right for a renewal of energy research by sociologists-although the initiative must come from within the discipline. A number of suggestions are offered for anchoring the sociology of human-environment interactions more firmly in the discipline, as well as for expanding sociology's role in interdisciplinary environment research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents a topic that sociologists rarely research but which holds great promise for the future — training. Sociologists spend a good deal of time investigating education but generally neglect the field of training. Little effort is spent on investigating training, why it's done, how it's done, what effect it has, who gets it, when it's appropriate, or where it takes place. Sociologists tend to leave these issues to psychologists of various specialties or to professional trainers and training developers. The article identifies some major training-related issues, sociological specialty areas that apply to training-related research, areas of research that are of likely interest to sociologists and what sociologists might do to get involved in training research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Articles in both the popular press and sociology journals have argued that between the mid-1970s and mid-1980s sociologists became more pessimistic about the intellectual vitality of their field. Data from the 1969, 1975, and 1984 Carnegie surveys of faculty at U.S. universities suggest that sociologists assessments of their field changed little over this period. In several respects the "sociology in the doldrums" thesis of the 1980s resembles the 1970s "blue collar blues" thesis; in both cases sociologists gave structural explanations for apparently nonexistent trends. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The prevailing sociological perspective on mental hospitals is congruent with the caricature presented in the movie, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." Mental illness is viewed as residual deviance, and mental hospitals as total institutions in which patients who are not really sick are oppressed by authoritarian mental health professionals. Propositions are advanced to explain why such a negative stereotype has been widely accepted. What originally were advanced as ideal types have been treated as empirical types by some researchers who have found what they expected to see Crude labelling theory has displaced a glib disease perspective. The reformist bias of sociologists, an anti-establishment, pro-underdog sentimentality, and naive reliance on pseudopatient studies have led some sociologists to forget that mental patients actually may suffer pain. Hence they may find the negative aspects of hospitalization not only more tolerable than participant observers would believe but actually helpful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study analyzes the effect of theory group association on the evaluative content of book reviews in sociology. Analysis of 219 book reviews written on 79 major works over a 30 year period reveals no significant differences in the evaluative content of reviews written by reviewers associated with the same theory, when compared to those associated with a different theory group than that of a book's author. Some evidence is presented which indicates that member, of one's own theory group are the most critical of an author's work. The implications of these findings and general mode of inquiry are discussed within a sociology of science framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thoughts represented by publications of Black social scientists provide a point of departure for the analysts of Black social theory in general and Black sociology in particular. The general aim of this study is to formulate a working definition of Black sociology; distinctions are drawn between the several different uses of the term Black Sociology in the social science literature. Then, beginning with a description of an ideal type of Black sociology, distinctions are made between four different types of race-related sociologies. In closing, attention is focused on some cultural and political implications of Black sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Foote's contention that sociologists could easily be trained to contribute to social and economic forecasting is supported by the authors' experiences. The problems they encountered are used as the basis of specific curriculum revision suggestions. Training problems are discussed in the context of Coleman's dichotomy of economists' being interested in strong predictions and sociologists' being overly concerned with understanding causal processes. It suggested that sociologists can make important contributions to social and economic forecasting if they are prepared with a familiarity with the basic conventions that business forecasters and econometricians use to select an adequate forecast. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

R.W. Friedrich's application to sociology of T. S. Kuhn's sludges in the history of science is criticized on the grounds that it promotes unnecessary politicization and retards empirically sound theory-building. An alternative application is suggested defining paradigms on the substantial basis of which unit of analysis they choose to emphasize. Class and organization perspectives are contrasted and four issues of contention between them are reviewed. The distinction between class and organization paradigms is shown to cut across Friedrich's distinction between prophets and priests: a focus on divergent substantive paradigms is offered as a more fruitful means of understanding conflicts within social science and of encouraging the progress of the discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reads Chaim Perelman's theory of argumentation in order to formulate the task of social theorizing as responsible discourse. Taking rationality as sound argument which proceeds in terms of a link between speaker's intentions (the audience) and the public, the first part examines Perelman's notions about the relativity of facts to particular traditions of communication which link speakers, argumentation, and publics. Accepting that this view, shared by many sociologists, allows for no general criterion of rationality to be used as a principle for responsible speaking, the second part discusses how a choice for one or another tradition of reasoning in sociology might responsibly be made. This criterion for choosing is presented in terms of the relative generality and breadth of intended audiences and the relative openness to criticism of traditions of discourse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the rise to eminence and influence of scientists in recent years the distinction between scientific judgment and the judgment of scientists has been increasingly blurred. In particular, the meaning and definition of the social sciences and of their auxiliary or more applied disciplines has become confused. On the one hand, several value-centered undertakings such as policy analysis or planning have laid claim to status as sciences, while on the other hand, social scientists have increasingly attacked the legitimacy or reasonableness of the goal of value-free social science. Scientific publicists further confuse the discussion by arguing for the discovery of a value-free, scientific basis for society in which applied science equals policy. The result has been to damage the effectiveness of both scientific and nonscientific efforts, and to confuse the relationship of their activities in the minds of those who regularly feel compelled to cross a variety of scientific and nonscientific frontiers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The culture of the powerful has yet to receive the scrutiny required for social science to build up a full picture of social relations. This paper attempts to examine the problems that confront the researcher in the study of powerful groups and institutions in our society. It is based on the author's experience of working on the first piece of independent social science research commissioned by the British Ministry of Defence - an enquiry into the relations between the military and the media at times of armed conflict, with particular reference to the Falklands conflict of 1982. Powerful interests will not provide the opportunity for social scientists to study their workings at first hand. However with the increased involvement of these interests in the sponsorship of research the social scientist is in a position to relate his or her dealings with the powerful as part of the research process. The paper focusses on four aspects of the research process: the commissioning of the project, the negotiation of access to the key figures and documentary material, the research techniques used, and the response to the findings of the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the views of sociologists Erving Goffman, Alvin W. Gouldner, and Garfinkel on the politics of sociology. In his book, "The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology," Gouldner analyzes the contributions of Goffman and Garfinkel and exposes their technical and political meanings to professional scrutiny. Gouldner is very perceptive in his technical analysis of Garfinkel and Goffman and extremely helpful to explain their political meaning. The first technical point Gouldner makes about Goffman is that Goffman's approach to sociology is taken without a "metaphysics of hierarchy." The question of the political meaning of this new perspective is unanswered because of two ambiguities that are intrinsic to it. The second point raised by Gouldner regarding Goffman's technical meanings is that Goffman's focus on copresence dwells on the immediate and the episodic. The author says that rather than to castigate Goffman for his view of life as theater, Gouldner should praise him for the political act of legitimating the view that all social reality is staged.

This article presents data drawn from a study of university sociologists in order to answer three basic questions which concern the correlation between the quantity and the quality of publications of a sociologist, the effect of the status of the graduate department where the sociologist earned his doctorate on the recognition attributed to his research output, and the relationship between early achievement of quality publications and continued achievement of research in the career of a sociologist. Sociologists of science have been concerned with the relationship between a researcher's number of publications and the merit or excellence of a sociologist's writings. In a number of disciplines, a high to moderate correlation is found between quantity and quality of publications. The population for this study consisted of all persons listed in the American Sociological Association Directory who had received their Ph.D. degrees in sociology between 1954 and 1963 and who were members of United States departments of sociology that offered graduate training. To have included sociologists whose degree dates preceded 1954 might have meant the exclusion of the articles from the quantity index. The upper limit of 1963 was applied since it can be assumed that there is a time lag between the period when a social scientist receives his degree and publishes and between such a publishing period and the time when the work is recognized and/or appropriately cited, as in the measure for quality.

The article discusses various issues related to sociology, social work, and social problems. Both sociology and social work have contributions to make to the solution of social problems. It seems probable that as social science becomes less academic and more involved in the real world, and as social work becomes less psychiatrically oriented, there will be an increasing need for the two fields to cooperate in the solution of social problems. The revolutionary response to social problem has been defined as a restructuring of interdependent institutions. The successful American labor movement represents one example of this type of response. The increasing attention that decision makers are paying to social science indicates that social scientists will increasingly be called upon to utilize their skills in areas of social relevance. In meeting these social concerns in seeking ways to solve rather than rearrange social problems there may be a rapprochement between social work and sociology as both disciplines bring their best thinking to hear on these issues.

This survey makes quite explicit the willingness of the social sciences and demography to initiate or expand teaching, research, and training on population policy. The disciplines now differ greatly in these activities. Of the 117 suggestions for research on policy, 41 are related to policy content; 16 to policy initiative and implementation; 47 to policy evaluation; and 13 to policy philosophy. The social scientists identified thirteen barriers which obstruct them from undertaking the needed research. Nine of the same barriers were named by the demographers. Barriers associated with the academic profession itself include expertise or technical competence, data limitations, ideology, professional identification, intellectual priorities, and role strains. The remaining barriers are associated with the organization of the university or the larger society rather than the academic profession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents information regarding institutional research. There comes a moment in every empirical field of study when a research technique must be found to suit the problem at hand. Sociology has advanced to the point of having an adequate research technique at its disposal for most of the problems which might arise. As a rule such a technique has to be adapted the specific requirements of the object under examination, of course. But one may not always be able to find an adequate technique within the "box of tools." The article examines more closely such a lack of an instrument, and then discuss a number of techniques which are being developed and which may probably alleviate the situation. There are hundreds of organizations in the sphere of the government, business and social service organizations in which the executives make decisions that are more or less biased on essays of sociologists published in periodicals, books, etc., or the results of sociological research, or on the advice of sociologists.

The article deals with some of the social problems and with some possibilities to apply the experimental method in the social sciences more effectively than has been done in the past. As the concept of experiment has different meanings it seems useful first to specify what will be understood by an experiment in this paper. If a researcher actually manipulates all the variables the effect of which he tries to find out--the independent variables--or if the independent variables are not manipulated (in so-called natural experiments), and if the researcher eliminates the different effects of all other variables of his test populations. According to the definition of experiment in this paper it is not necessary that the relation between the dependent and independent variable is a "causal" one--whatever may be understood by this concept. Speaking of the "effect" of the "independent" variable means that if the value of one variable changes, the value of at least one other variable changes too.

The article focuses on selfish systems. It states that the problem of understanding the conditions under which cooperation or altruism can be sustained between interacting selfish entities is a fundamental issue in both biology and the social sciences. It offers information on the papers discussed at a workshop which brought together social scientists and computer scientists working on novel cooperation mechanisms from around the world.

The article compares philosopher Talcott Parsons's views with Habermas's theory. The entire basis of Habermas's communicative action banks on the distinctions Parsons made some sixty years previously, namely Habermas's notion of the universal validity claims underlying all speech. The three dimensions corresponding to the three validity claims are the subjective world, the objective world and the social world. This makes sense only in post conventional societies, because prior to that time, persons often drew upon only one world in making claims such as appealing to tradition, the divine right of kings, aesthetics, religion, or whatever. Habermas's penchant for grand, overarching theory was borrowed from Parsons and Parsons himself had been earlier influenced by that unique German brand of theorizing tracing back through Hegel and Marx, Simmel, Weber and Mannheim. In effect, the same logic underlying Habermas's analytic of the three worlds and the three validity claims can be found in the pages of Parsons's Amherst papers.

This article provides the opinion of an American Sociological Association (ASA) president on the evolution of the association over the next quarter-century as of 1981. Through most of its history, ASA has been concerned primarily with organizing and promoting the publication of research and stimulating scientific and professional communication through its annual meetings. While I applaud the continuing ASA program on teaching and hardly can imagine a professional and scientific society that is not devoted to research publication and annual meetings, I see the growth area for ASA, both for employment and for professional activities. Concern with professional opportunities in applied sociology and with better links between research and policy formation is hardly a new interest for the ASA. I believe that enough has changed in almost half a century to allow us grounds for cautious optimism regarding the possibility now of moving ahead toward more active and effective applied sociology. Changes I have in mind are these: Our discipline has provided us with a more solid knowledge base upon which to build than was available in the earlier period. We also face growing pressures from members and potential members to move in a more applied direction. During the next quarter century, I foresee a realignment among social science disciplines. In this case sociologists who remain within the traditional limits of the discipline will be left behind.

This article provides the views of an American Sociological Association (ASA) president about the association in relation to the discipline of sociology. I am convinced that the ASA is doing a good job overall, given the diversity of demands placed on it by its members and given a very modest budget and small professional staff. Making the distinction between the problems of the profession and those of the intellectual discipline, I am referring to the latter domain: such things as searching for ways to improve the quality of our scholarship, integrating or synthesizing work in diversive subfields of the discipline, locating important gaps in our knowledge, and actively encouraging discussions and research on these topics. It has been my own experience that virtually all of the ASA committees of which I have been a member are primarily reactive bodies. On many occasions I have been of the opinion that we need two separate organizations, one to concentrate on the profession and to provide a lobbying function, and the other to serve as a purist scholarly society. Another possibility is to expand the activities of the Sociological Research Association, which is at present only open to sociologists on an elected basis and which plays no important intellectual role, apart from organizing a single evening session once each year. I think we need a more basis and general social movement among those of us who are dissatisfied with the intellectual thrust, or lack of it, within our discipline.