Archive: May 2012

Vincent J. Roscigno, “Power, Revisited,” Social Forces, 2011

The title says it all. In this 2011 piece, Vincent J. Roscigno considers dominant and emerging strands of research into power and its myriad dynamics, creating a synthetic theoretical way to conceive of the one thing all these candidates, bureaucrats, and grassroots groups are fighting for—and how it might be useful, should they achieve it.

While Nathan Palmer’s Sociological Sounds strives to provide a great start for those hoping to bring music into their classrooms, this article explores why that’s such a good idea in the first place using a thorough literature review to consider questions from the basic (“What is Music, Sociologically Speaking?”) to the functional (“How do Individuals and Groups Use Music?”).

A recent Cyborgology post got us thinking about NASCAR, one of the biggest sports in America. Commenter and RAND scholar David Ronfeldt points us to his own 2000 piece in the online peer-reviewed journal First Monday (“Social Science at 190MPH“) for a look at complexity theory, social network analysis, and game theory on the track, while Chris Uggen suggests this ASQ article about competitive crowding and risk taking at work in the straightaway.

In conjunction with the larger, more theoretical recommendation of Laub and Sampson’s 2001 article from our previous reading list suggestion, those interested in employment and criminal records might be particularly interested in Devah Pager’s 2003 piece in which the researcher found a prison record reduced the likelihood of a “callback” from an employer by 50% for whites and over 60% for African American job-seekers. The problem clearly goes well beyond Target and began well before last week.

Last week, the U.S.’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a revised guidance encouraging the hiring of individuals with criminal records, going so far as to urge employers to consider research on crime desistance since, as The Crime Report puts it, many often “rely on ill-informed and misguided notions about risk and recidivism.” The EEOC guidelines specifically cite this classic Laub and Sampson article.