Economics as a Multi-Paradigmatic Science: the ‘Best Kept Secret’ of Irrational Choice

The article reexamines the prevailing perception of traditional economics as the science of rational choice among contemporary economists and sociologists, especially rational choice theorists. It proposes that conventional economics is not exclusively the theory of rational choice but also one of irrational choices in the economy. The article aims to contribute toward a fuller understanding and appreciation of classical and neoclassical economics, especially among sociologists, as composite rational choice-irrational choice theory and in that sense a multi- rather than single-paradigm science, thus no different from sociology and other social (and physical) sciences. This may be relevant or interesting to sociologists given that their rational choice colleagues, like economists, extol the “virtues" of conventional and modern economics as a single-paradigm, theoretically unified science around “rational choice” and criticize the “vices” of sociology as plagued by competing paradigms and theoretical disunity. The article supports many economic sociologists’ view or intuition of conventional economics as complex rational-irrational choice theory and multi-paradigm science, and disconfirms rational choice theorists’ interpretation and generalization of it as “rational choice theory” only and single-paradigm unified science.     

How Role Replaced Personality as a Major Category of Sociology

Try to imagine sociology being without the role concept. The thought experiment will strike us as impossible. And yet, through the early decades of the 20th century, remarkably few sociologists thought of social agents as incumbents of social roles and as performing roles in their day to day lives. This article addresses a set of related questions. How did sociologists manage without the concept social role? How did they describe the social agent and his agency? When and in what circumstances was the term social role initially formulated and when did it enter the vocabulary of social science? Ralph Linton’s The Study of Man (1936) is identified as the key text in this history of the concept social role, foreshadowed in writings of Robert Park, E. A. Burgess, and Kimball Young. Linton introduced his role idea in the midst of disciplinary change with boundaries between sociology and psychology (particularly social, and personal, psychology) being redrawn.     

“With Whom no White Scholar can Compare”: Academic Interpretations of the Relationship between W.E.B. Du Bois and Max Weber

Max Weber (1864–1920) is considered one of the canonical founders of sociology, while W. E. B. Du Bois (1868–1963), author of The Philadelphia Negro (1899), The Souls of Black Folk (1903), and Black Reconstruction (1935), has only recently been included in the sociological canon. We provide a historical review of what we know of their relationship in order to first ask, what did Du Bois say about Weber, and second, what did Weber say about Du Bois? We then analyze the extant scholarly discourse of published English-language academic journal articles that substantively mention both Weber and Du Bois in order to address a third question: what did other scholars say about their relationship? We provide an analysis of the variation of scholars’ perceptions on the relationship between Du Bois and Weber to illumine the dominant assumptions about founding figures and the origin story of American sociology writ large. We argue that three mechanisms of white group interests configured the marginalization of Du Bois from both mainstream and sub-disciplinary sociological theory: (1) reduction or “knowing that we do no know and not caring to know” (when knowledge is perceived as irrelevant to white group interests), (2) deportation or “not wanting to know” (when knowledge is systematically exiled), and (3) appropriation or “not knowing that we do not know”) (when dominant knowledge usurps or assimilates challenges to that knowledge).     

Reintegrating Theories,Methods, and Historical Analysis in Teaching Sociology

We discuss ways of bringing theory and methods into conversation with each other within courses and across the sociology curriculum. Theory is often taught completely separately from research methods, which in turn are simplistically divided into quantitative and qualitative. To counter this fragmented approach to the discipline we discuss two major paradigms, a social-forces paradigm often linked to quantitative research and an interpretive paradigm often linked to qualitative inquiry. But at a deeper level both paradigms require an understanding of historical context. The relationship between these two paradigms and more familiar categories of theory such as "functionalism" and "conflict theories" is not straightforward. We conclude the discussion by describing classroom-tested strategies that help students explore the complexity of the linkages between theories and empirical inquiry.     

Advancing Social Capital Measurement: Using General Social Survey Cycles to Develop an Efficient Survey Instrument

The General Social Survey (GSS) has provided significant insight about the state of societies around the world through the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). Although broadly applicable, in this study the context for developing a new social capital survey instrument covers the Canadian GSS since 1985. Questions in the GSS are often used by researchers who are interested in specific questions or themes for use in some form of re-sampling. Given significant social and relational themes, GSS cycles from 1985 to 2013 were reviewed using a social capital framework to produce a new Social Capital GSS survey instrument. A process of vetting and sorting questions led to development of a 41 question instrument that includes 16 demographic and context variables and 25 social network and trust variables. After testing and refinement, the instrument was used with a randomly sampled group across selected East Hamilton Census Tracts that are differentiated by median income and a standard deviation above and below respectively (n?=?97).     

The Human Habitat: a Systemization and Critique of Park’s Theory from a Radical Interactionist Perspective

When Park died, he left his theory of the human habitat not only incomplete, but in considerable disarray. Although few present-day scholars have demonstrated much interest in building on this critical body of Park’s work, which he based on dominance, it probably represents his most important contribution to American sociology. I argue that the key to systemizing his highly discursive account of the human habitat is to view it from an emergent social evolutionary perspective, which makes it possible to differentiate his notion of “community” from “society,” as well as explain how the two concepts can logically be viewed as both separate and unified entities. A community is not only a necessary stage in the social evolutionary process of producing a society, but it also provides the habitat needed for a society’s later emergence. Among other things, Park’s theory of the human habitat is also criticized for its failure to (1) distinguish dominance from domination, (2) identify the reciprocal relationship existing between power and domination, (3) accurately characterize the nature of the economic order operating in communities, and (4) demarcate a pre-lingual, lingual and literate communal stages that precedes in the social evolutionary process the possible development of a society. In passing, I also point out critical, but often overlooked aspects of Park’s theory of the human habitat that contradict popular characterizations of his work as being purblind to the operation of dominance and power, social Darwinist, conservative, sexist, and racist. Finally, I deduce the implications of his theory for the future emergence of a “world society.”     

Verzerrte Beteiligung

To cope with the erosion of civic engagement, the expansion of public participation is postulated an efficacious remedy. Many authors notice the drawback of low turnout with unequal and biased participation compared to institutional elections. As the very first, this article not only emphasizes biased participation, but empirically analyses the biased output of participation methods.The example is the referendum on Stuttgart 21 (S21) in the year 2011. The counterfactual result for nonvoters is predicted by linking macro and micro-data. Estimations on municipality-level show participation-bias above elections, but below petitions and demonstrations. The counterfactual result predicts an enhanced rejection of S21.     

Motherhood Penalties and Living Arrangements in China

Past research on the “motherhood wage penalty” has been based on data from nuclear families, leaving open the possibility that the motherhood wage penalty may be lower or even absent in multigenerational families. In this article, the wage gap between mothers and nonmothers is examined in nuclear and multigenerational families in the context of contemporary China, which has a long tradition of patriarchal families. Using 1993 to 2006 China Health and Nutrition Survey data, the magnitude and variation of motherhood penalty is explored with fixed effects models among 1,058 women. The results show that each additional child lowers hourly wages by about 12%. In addition, the motherhood penalty is largest for women living with their husbands' parents, smaller for women not living with parents, and nil for women living with their own parents.