Saudi women have just achieved the right to vote. Sociologist Mona Salahuddin Al-Munajjed showcases the power and roles of such Saudi women through her books and her work with on social issues with the United Nations.

Al-Manajjed told Arab News,

There is a huge misconception and misunderstanding in the rest of the world about the status of women in Saudi Arabia, which I realized while pursuing my higher studies in the United States and traveling abroad subsequently.

In the book, Saudi Women: A Celebration of Success, Al-Manajjed interviews those who “have made a difference in society with their education, professionalism, socioeconomic impact and contributions to the Kingdom, becoming a role model and an inspiration for the younger generations.”

Throughout, she introduces readers to educators, businesswomen, bankers, doctors, scientists, philanthropists, writers, actors, and decision makers, giving a glimpse into their lives and achievements. Consider another major advancement for Saudi women’s rights: new entrée into the Shoura Council. That change was driven by driven women.

Immigration is a hot topic, especially with elections coming up. Donald Trump has called immigrants “rapists” and “criminals”, perpetuating anti-immigration rhetoric. Common immigration myths include that immigrants are taking Americans’ jobs, burden the economy, and refuse to speak English. The Washington Post covers a report written by a group of Harvard professors, led by sociologist Mary Waters.

1. “Immigrants are picking up English just as quickly as their predecessors”

In fact, today’s immigrants are learning English faster than their predecessors. This is partially due to how global English is, which means that immigrants are more likely to have been exposed to it or to have taken English classes already. Additionally, American schools are becoming better at teaching English to immigrant students.

2. “Immigrants tend to have more education than before”

Historically, immigrants were low skilled workers from southern and eastern Europe in the early 1900s. Recently, however, immigrants are more likely to have four years of education on average. Approximately, 28% of recent immigrants hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, which is a 19% increase since 1980.

3. “Immigrants are much less likely to commit crimes—but they soon learn”

In fact, immigrant neighborhoods are considered to be some of the safest neighborhoods as immigrants are least likely to commit crimes. Native-born men aged 18-39 are 5 times more likely to end up in jail than immigrants. While immigrants are initially fearful of picking up criminal influences, by the second and third generation, they are more likely to engage in criminal behavior.

4. “Immigrants are more likely to have jobs than the native-born”

Immigrants are determined to find employment, and they are more likely to be employed than their native-born counterparts. Between 2003-2013, 86% immigrants were employed compared to 82-83% native-born Americans. This also holds true for men who have not earned a high-school diploma, where 84% immigrants are employed compared to 58% native-born Americans.

While the report combats common myths about immigration, it does not give a concrete answer as to whether today’s immigrants have the same opportunities as earlier generations of new Americans, despite being educated, staying away from crime, holding jobs, and paying taxes.

In light of recent terrorist attacks by Da’esh (ISIS, ISIL) on Paris, Beirut, Yola, and many more cities, the world is paying attention to the terrorist organization’s activities outside of Iraq and Syria. Conversations have focused topics from who these terrorists are, whose deaths we mourn, and what these attacks are meant to accomplish.

Alessandro Orsini, a political sociologist at the University of Rome Tor Vergata, told Sputnik Italia News that Da’esh is choosing to launch foreign attacks because they want to split societies and public opinion, causing civic and political arguments around military interventions. The group is very intentional about which countries it chooses to terrorize. Orsini references the attack on Madrid by Al Qaeda in 2004, which resulted in Spain withdrawing from Iraq (and a reprieve from Al Qaeda in Spain).

Additionally, Orsini points out a change in Da’esh’s approach to recruitment. Where initially they were focused on “importing” terrorists to fulfill their goal of creating a Caliphate, now the group is also “exporting” terrorists to attack foreign cities. Orsini concludes with some hope: he believes the changes in recruitment and stretch to attack European cities is proof of Da’esh’s weakness as a terrorist organization.

Black Friday is around the corner… as will be the long lines of people waiting for hot retail deals. This queuing up isn’t uncommon; we see people line up for grand openings, new gadgets, concert tickets, and even for free burritos and ice cream. Americans stand in line (often voluntarily) for approximately 37 billion hours a year. Why?

David Gibson, a sociologist at Notre Dame, draws our attention to the human desire to be part of a niche community,

these are people whose identities and stories about themselves are very much tied to being foodies, on being on the cutting edge of fashion and style, or being Apple device lovers. They get recognition, status, and buzz among their friends by showing up at these places and being the first person with a new iPhone.

Additionally, Gibson told CityLab that humans are more concerned with the length of the line than with how fast it is moving. To pass the time, he suggested that people should try to make friends with others; “If you’re actually queuing up for something which is coveted and exciting, then you’re kind of a member of a community to start with.” It would be easy to strike up a conversation because you already know what you have in common.

When it comes to cutting the line and saving spots, Gibson adds,

The important thing is that [others] see that you are tied to someone, and they’re willing to think that person was standing there on behalf of you. If there’s a limited number of devices or seats, and the people behind you think that an addition of a person is going to make a difference [in the wait time], that’s the only time that it will matter.

Amid presidential candidate debates and national conversations surrounding gun violence and police brutality, issues and positions are often framed as conservative versus liberal (and those are equated with Republican and Democrat, respectively). While we recognize that both parties have moral values that guide their beliefs and support of certain political agendas, a debate must necessarily leave some room for a change of heart. But how can you change an opponent’s mind?

Sociologist Robb Willer, one of the authors of a paper published in Personality and Social Psychology, is quoted in Quartz: “Morality can be a source of political division, a barrier to building bi-partisan support. But it can also be a bridge if you can connect your position to your audience’s deeply held moral convictions.” Make sure your foe knows the morals behind your position, and they’ll be more likely to give it a careful listen. After all, the rationale for changing their mind—making the moral choice—is already clear.

Recently in New York, two siblings were severely beaten—one to death—by their parents and other members of the congregation of the Word of Life for wanting to leave the “faith.” This cult is based in a former school building in which members of the church live and congregate in isolation from the greater community.

Sociologist Bernadette Barton told Broadly Vice:

When a group is isolated, they’re not beholden to a larger organization. If they’re part of a hierarchy, they’ll answer to other folks, so there are more likely to be other eyes on abuse and interventions into it. The more isolated a group is, the more likely violence can emerge.

Barton describes a “sin/fall” paradigm, where members of the cult are faced with psychological, emotional, and physical threats if they deviate from church ideology. She elaborates:

It excludes people, creates a climate of fear, scares participants, makes people monitor their own and other’s behaviors and thoughts, enables physical and sexual abuse, while absolving all individuals of wrong-doing since all of this is done (presumably) by divine order.

Publish. Publish. Publish.

Academics are expected to regularly publish in highly regarded journals as a measure of productivity, and therefore success. Whether as a graduate student hoping to land the perfect job or an early-career professor tackling the demanding process to earn tenure, academics experience a lot of stress.

According to a recent study published in the American Sociological Review, research that delves deeper into already known concepts (what the authors call traditional research) is more likely to get published than research that contributes new connections and ideas to the field (innovative work). But researchers writing innovative studies are more likely to be awarded for their work, as their research has a higher impact. So, if academics are more likely to publish traditional work at a higher rate than risk no publications coming out of innovative research, we can see where the tension arises.

Jacob Foster, one of the authors of the study, told the UCLA Newsroom,

Published papers that make a novel connection are rare but more highly rewarded. So what accounts for scientists’ disposition to pursue tradition over innovation? Our evidence points to a simple explanation: Innovative research is a gamble whose payoff, on average, does not justify the risk. It’s not a reliable way to accumulate scientific reward.

Following yet another mass shooting, social scientists and the American community at large are engaging in some familiar conversations. While some folks are looking at mental illness as a trigger to violence and others are asking for gun laws that would put restrictions on gun ownership, sociologist Tristan Bridges wants to draw some focus on the role of masculinity in violence.

Bridges told The Christian Science Monitor that he believes the mass shooters are “over-conforming to masculinity, because they perceive themselves, in some way or another, as emasculated… It’s a terrible statement about American masculinity, to say that when you’re emasculated, one way to respond is to open fire.”