The Nature and Consequences of Organization-Employee and Union-Member Exchange: An Empirical Analysis

Drawing on a study of 423 union members in a UK Primary Care Trust, we use structural equation modeling to investigate the extent to which organizational and union commitment and citizenship behaviors are a function of economic and social exchange. Findings suggest that the organization-employee and union-member exchanges are distinct, with organizational commitment a function of organization-employee exchange and union commitment and citizenship behaviors (UCB) a function of union-member exchange. Findings also suggest that union commitment and UCB are motivated primarily by social exchange, with economic exchange playing a supporting role. In addition, for organizational commitment, social exchange also seemed to be relatively more important. There was no evidence that perceived industrial relations climate moderates these relationships. Implications for industrial relations and workplace social partnerships are considered.     

Sektion Wissenssoziologie

Ohne Zusammenfassung unter Mithilfe von Jule Lorenzen, Sabine Petschke, Lisa-Marian Schmidt und René Tuma     

Hope for a Cause as Cause for Hope: The Need for Hope in Environmental Sociology

Hope is a crucial component of agency involving the setting of goals, visualization of obstacles, and increasing willpower in the effort of achieving a desired goal. This hope is not simply optimism and is potentially a bridge between structure and agency. Yet, the powers of hope in sociology have been greatly unexplored including the ability of collective hope to create social change. This lack of hope is particularly poignant in environmental sociology as the sub-discipline looks for solutions to some of the greatest challenges humanity and the planet faces. This article discusses the undercurrent of pessimism in environmental sociology and calls for the integration of hope as it is necessary for generating potential social environmental change.     

Much Ado About Nothing?

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.     

Moments in the Methodology of Meso History

Meso history is that branch of the history of sociology that focuses on social relations, that is, patterns of connection among groups, group members, and group meanings, as explanatory factors in the shaping of sociology. The methodology of meso history consists of strategies for discovering, documenting and patterning connections. This paper explores those strategies in terms of three moments generic to the research process in social science– moments of movement from intellectual curiosity to conceptualization, from research question to data collection and from data to presentation of findings–focusing on the distinctive permutations on this research process that occur in the practice of meso history.     

GREAT MEN AND HARD TIMES: SOCIOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

Sociology at the University of Minnesota has had a long and distinguished history. From its founding in 1910 many prominent sociologists have taught and have graduated from the department. We present an overview of the growth of the department, and certain influential events which affected the direction of department governance and intellectual development. The department achieved its "Golden Age" under the leadership of F. Stuart Chapin, who chaired the department for nearly three decades (1922–1951). We speculate about the internal and external pressures that have affected the Minnesota department-and other sociology departments-over the past two decades, during its period of greatest expansion but of significant tensions as well.     

Gendered Power and Privilege: Taking Lenski One Step Further

In Power and Privilege , Gerhard Lenski's theory of the evolution of systems of inequality, he showed some recognition of gender inequality but, as universally accepted in sociology at the time, "social" stratification was conceptualized implicitly as inequality between male household heads. To move from this to explaining gender inequality requires consideration of constructs in addition to those developed by Lenski, but in terms of his typology of societies based on technology and size of economic surplus, the level of gender stratification tracks that of "social" stratification and the basic variables he delineates remain centrally important.