Anthropological versus sociological approaches to the study of soccer hooliganism: some critical notes

It is argued that the anthropological approach, as used by Armstrong and Harris, has not generated any breakthrough in the study of soccer hooliganism. In particular, it is suggested that their use of a commonsense rather than a sociological concept of violence vitiates their analysis in several ways, contributing above all to substantial inconsistencies between some of their own empirical data and their general conclusions concerning levels of soccer-related violence. It is also contended that their critique of the ‘figurational’ or ‘process-sociological’ approach followed by the Leicester researchers is based on a confused misrepresentation of that approach. Specifically it is argued (i) that Armstrong and Harris fail to recognize the wide range of methods, including extensive participant observation, used by the Leicester group, (ii) that their attempt to cast doubt on the Leicester group's contention that the core football hooligans come predominantly from the ‘rougher’ sections of the working class is based on nothing more than a priori speculation. In this connection, Armstrong and Harris themselves provide no reliable data on the social class of soccer hooligans in Sheffield, and they seem unaware of the fact that several different sources of data appear to confirm the finding of the Leicester group, (iii) they have misunderstood both the terminology and the reasoning of the Leicester group concerning the ‘rougher’ sections of the working class and their relationship to football hooliganism.     

The European Community and Disability Discrimination: Time to address the deficit of powers?

Disabled citizens are overlooked and ignored in the Treaty on European Union and as a result the European Community has limited competences to address disability related issues, and specifically disability discrimination. This article argues that this situation needs to be remedied at the present Inter Governmental Conference, which is being held to review the Treaty. There are sound justifications, based on political, economic and social grounds, for extending the competences of the Community in this way. Disability discrimination results in many disabled citizens being unable to fully exercise the rights conferred on them by Community law, such as the right to free movement and the right to vote: furthermore, European economies are suffering as disability discrimination artificially restricts the contribution which disabled citizens could make as both consumers and workers; and, lastly disability discrimination is leading to poverty and social exclusion throughout the European Union today.     

Towards an agenda for disability research in Europe: learning from disabled people’s organisations

This paper addresses the challenges of building capacity for collaborative participatory research with disabled people’s organisations in European countries. The paper presents initial findings from the project ‘European Research Agendas for Disability Equality’ (EuRADE), which seeks to build the capacity of civil society organisations to participate in future research collaborations in partnership with academic institutions. The findings draw on survey data identifying the research capacity, needs and priorities of 68 organisations in 25 countries and focuses, in particular, on responses from national or European level representative organisations of disabled people. The findings demonstrate a high degree of motivation and readiness for collaboration in academic research but raise concerns about the readiness of academic institutions to engage disabled people as equal partners within social model and rights‐based approaches. Respondent organisations identified a wide range of research needs that raise challenges for collaborative responses from the academic community. In this way, the findings provide a basis for developing user‐led agendas for European funded research within the emancipatory paradigm, and indentify important opportunities for new international research collaborations between activists and academics.     

The Madness of the Mob? Explaining the ‘Irrationality’ and Destructiveness of Crowd Violence

This article responds to a recent suggestion by Borch (2006) that sociologists might profitably reconsider the 'group mind' explanation, propagated by nineteenth-century French academics like Tarde and Le Bon, which emphasises the inherent suggestibility, amorality, and destructiveness of crowds as mechanisms of accounting for collective violence. In alluding to the recent French riots of October–November 2005 as an illustrative example, the article rejects the group mind approach (along with a host of other lay explanations appearing in the wake of the disorders) in favour of a multivariate analysis, loosely based on the Flashpoints Model of Public Disorder . The purpose of this analysis is to demonstrate how even the most intensely destructive, spontaneous and emotional acts of collective violence are typically underpinned by a guiding and restraining rationality.     

Using a correlated probit model approximation to estimate the variance for binary matched pairs

A correlated probit model approximation for conditional probabilities (Mendell and Elston 1974) is used to estimate the variance for binary matched pairs data by maximum likelihood. Using asymptotic data, the bias of the estimates is shown to be small for a wide range of intra-class correlations and incidences. This approximation is also compared with other recently published, or implemented, improved approximations. For the small sample examples presented, it shows a substantial advantage over other approximations. The method is extended to allow covariates for each observation, and fitting by iteratively reweighted least squares.