My spring break involved an intense research trip to Rwanda with Hollie Nyseth Brehm, but we reserved the last day for something fun:  a methodology workshop for researchers at The National Commission For The Fight Against Genocide. We gave a whirlwind presentation from 9-12, then held office hours to address specific projects. I worried we wouldn’t get much traffic, but the researchers had so many sharp and important questions that they kept us hopping all afternoon.

With so much recent hand-wringing over the relevance and impact of social research, it was inspiring to connect with researchers squarely addressing problems of unquestioned importance —  understanding a genocide that took a million lives, investigating and ameliorating its effects on survivors,  and working to prevent its recurrence within and outside Rwanda. So I began by asking, “Whose research is more important than yours?” and then stressed the central role of design and methodology in getting it right.

The researchers were super-smart and accomplished but came to us with varying levels of methods training. We therefore emphasized building a strong foundation: posing tight research questions, theory and conceptualization, levels of analysis, data and valid measures, sampling difficult-to-study populations, criteria of causality, research ethics and positionality, publishing and dissemination, and specific issues in interviewing, comparative and historical analysis, and univariate, bivariate, and multivariate statistical analysis. That’s a lot for a semester, let alone a half-day workshop. Throughout, we discussed the importance of humility in doing good research — listening, learning, and keeping an open mind. As is often the case in teaching, we were humbled by the collective expertise and dedication among the researchers. On the subject of “sensitive interview questions,” for example, I turned the microphone over to a participant who had just finished a set of interviews that were an order of magnitude more sensitive than any I’d conducted in my research career.

We can’t say whether or how our little methods session might affect the Center’s research, but Hollie and I certainly gained much from the experience. Yes, we “know stuff” as social scientists, but we have also developed a wonderfully useful set of tools for acquiring this knowledge. And once researchers understand the basic idea of something like multistage cluster sampling, they can often make thoughtful design choices that yield better research with fewer resources. It may seem too obvious to mention, but many of our methods discussions within the field seem devoted to “tweaking and critiquing” more esoteric designs and models. So it is both refreshing and empowering to share some of the methodological foundations of our field with such sharp and motivated researchers.

Okay, let’s be real. It’s not Friday. But wouldn’t that be fun? We could annoy ourselves with that Rebecca Black song, merrily chirp “T.G.I.F.!” at passers-by, and dream of our weekend plans… none of which I was doing this past Friday, when I was so mired in work I couldn’t look ahead, let alone behind to sum up the week on TSP. Now’s the time for a little reflection!

Features:

“Same-Sex, Different Attitudes,” by Kathleen Hull. A lot’s changed in just a few years—why are American attitudes on same-sex marriage moving so quickly? more...

Spring break brings time for reflection. Last week during my days at home in Minnesota (where it still does not feel like spring), I spent a little time reflecting on what we’ve learned about sociology in doing The Society Pages. And in that process, I came across this line, which can be found in the “About Us” that runs in the banner on our home page: “we’re talking about society with society.”

I haven’t always been enamored with this phrase. In the past, it has read to me as a bit trite, and probably kind of functionalist. Truth be told, I’ve tried to edit it out of existence several times. But somehow—largely, I think, due to the insistence of our masterful associate editor and coordinating producer Letta Page*—it has hung around, and recently, it has begun to grow on me. Part of its emerging appeal is that I have had folks use it to introduce me and TSP at several public events recently. Clearly it works, it has appeal. It means something. Why is that? What is that?

Besides the catchy turn of phrase, I think the reason it resonates is because it stands in contrast to the usual “detached ivory tower intellectual.” It signals a vision of sociology and scholarly activity that is embedded and engaged in the worlds and with the people that it studies—or, even better, engaged and involved in the communities of which it is part and parcel.

One of the readings that has been a staple of the senior capstone sociology course I teach regularly has been a piece from Minnesota public affairs scholar Harry Boyte. The basic gist is that social scientists should not think of themselves as legislators (who come from on-high, bearing truth to the people), but  as interpreters, whose job it is to produce information and ideas that can enrich public discussion and policy. Even better, they should be part of those processes of deliberation and public policy formation. In other words,  social studies scholars should understand ourselves as part of the public, working with everyone else to refine our understandings of the worlds we all share and live in together.

This more involved, reflective orientation isn’t just about producing a more accessible and useful sociology for society (which we talk about a lot here at TSP), but actually—in its engagement with real people in the social world—a better sociological understanding of society itself. In short, it’s about creating a better sociology.

*I knew he’d come around. –Ed.

Spring Break. March Madness. Yet another snow storm. A new volume in production and two getting ready to go to the press. There are lots of great reasons that TSP’s HQ has been quiet this week, but of course, our ambitious grad students, dedicated SSN fellows, and dogged bloggers have been spreading the soc, rain, shine, or sleet (all of which have fallen on us, by the way… we get all the weather). more...

Sometimes, time gets away from you! As does debt, as shown in this week’s contribution from Dr. Jason Houle, showing the increase and changes in debt over three generations. Other things that can get away from you: March Madness (I mean, it’s called Madness), the reproduction of sexism and racism, and parental worry.

Features:

“Out of the Nest and Into the Red,” by Jason N. Houle. Three generations of debt reveal changing ideals and life courses. Oh, and debt. more...

It’s that time of year. So when our university media relations folks called, I agreed to do a little segment for the local Fox News Station (channel 9, in the Twin Cities market) on the madness of the NCAA’s annual college basketball tournament. Turned out, the TV team wanted to talk about its impacts on office productivity–not exactly something I’m an expert on. Luckily, I got a few leads from former Contexts graduate board student editor Wes Longhofer (who is now in the business school at Emory University) on research suggesting that while productivity does decline a bit, it is more than offset by increases in workplace morale. (See here, for one such study.) I’m not exactly sure about the methodology and all, but it was a starting point.

Anyway, I told the producer I could talk about the relationship between productivity and morale a bit, and then try to explain–from a sociological point of view, of course–both why morale may be more important than we often realize *and* why sport provides such a great context for building office culture and community. I also said I wanted to say a bit about the dangers and limitations of all this, especially who might be left out of this (think, gender and those who don’t like sports) and how and when things can get out of whack (think sports obsessiveness and excessive gambling). I even provided links to a couple of pieces on community and gender I’ve written that I thought would be useful for prepping and framing these points.

Nicholas Kristof’s recent critique of sociology, political science, and the humanities for effectively isolating themselves from larger and more public discussions of social issues has resulted in a myriad of academic responses, including one from TSP’s own Chris Uggen who offered the New York Times writer a free subscription to this website. (For a “roundup” of responses, see Jessie Daniels at JustPublics@365). As part of this ongoing conversation, Larry Jacobs, of the Humphrey Public Affairs school at the University of Minnesota and the Scholars Strategy Network (SSN), organized a panel last week called “Scholarly Balance: Engagement, Activity, and Rigor.” The panel–which included scholars from political science, public affairs, and cultural studies and comparative literature and played to a full house–produced a provocative and wide-ranging set of responses so our our crack production team has now turned it into a podcast called “Knowledge Production and Public Engagement (a Panel Discussion).” We encourage you to take a listen.

I’d also like to add one other piece to the discussion (perhaps because it aligns with some of the points I tried to make in the podast exchange): Ezra Klein’s “The Real Reason Nobody Reads Academics.” Beginning from the proposition that “the relationship between academics and journalists should be a happy symbiosis,” Klein’s main point is about academic publishing. “The real problem is that the primary system for disseminating academic research–through professional journals and working papers–doesn’t work for anyone but academics and it may not even work for them.” “Journalists,” he writes, “know that academia holds a university of valuable information; they just can’t find a reliable way to tap it.”

Klein has a number of constructive observations to offer and claims that the chasm between academics and journalists may be closing with online forums like the Monkey Cage out of political science or Mark Thoma’s Economist’s View. (I guess he hasn’t gotten his free subscription to The Society Pages yet). But I was particularly intrigued by his final suggestion that it would be better if academics didn’t have to blog or know a blogger to get their work in front of interested audiences because, ostensibly, because this is work that journalists could and should be better at doing. I don’t know if he is right about that or not; but if he is, it would save us here at TSP a lot of time.

ezra klein

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-02-28/the-real-reason-nobody-reads-academics?utm_content=bufferee11c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
—————–

This week we talked about American debt and folded a whole new and incredibly interesting sector of debtors into the conversation: those who’ve gone through the criminal justice system. That’s careful wording, by the way, because you don’t even have to be convicted—just charged—to start racking up legal fees with compounding interest and compounding effects on your future. We also got a look at how race affects school suspensions and the oft-overlooked problem of homelessness among college students. No, it’s not all good news, but with the right information and appropriate action, we can keep moving toward the good news, right? That’s worth something! For palate cleansers, we offer the annual Mardis Gras archive, the DRM-coffee-bot, and why we shouldn’t let law enforcement end up based on the quality of business owners’ gaydar. mesothelioma more...

This week TSP featured great content on immigration, drugs, and healthcare reform from heavy hitters, as well as the incredibly popular Sociological Images monthly recap and a caveat from our editor, keen even with one eye on the Klout scores.

Features:

“Crimmigration”: A Roundtable with Tanya Golash-Boza, Ryan King, and Yolanda Vàsquez, by Suzy McElrath, Rahsaan Mahadeo, and Stephen Suh. What happens when criminal and immigration enforcement come together?

“Are Mexicans the Most Successful Immigrant Group in the U.S.?” by Jennifer Lee. If the American Dream is about upward mobility—doing better than your parents’ generation—we’re looking to the wrong racial and ethnic groups for success stories. more...

Social media feeds are like carnival money booths: we snatch away greedily as the links swirl past, but we’re rarely enriched by the experience. In the rush to process so much so quickly, we’ve become lousy filters for one another – recommending “great articles” that ain’t so great by social science standards.

Many rapidly-circulating stories offer grand assertions but paltry evidence about the social world. It seems silly to direct much intellectual horsepower at every li’l item whooshing past (why, that Upworthy post needs an interrupted time-series design!). So people just hit the “thumbs up” button if they like the sentiment and send it down the line. Passing along such blurbs can seem like a modern equivalent to the kindly/nosy relative who sent us Dear Abby clippings in the newsprint era. Yet there’s a danger to indiscriminate recommendations that can subvert our authority as experts. In my case, I’ve developed a set of policy preferences on crime and economic issues, which I adjust in response to new evidence. If I start endorsing weak studies just because they affirm my preferences or prejudices, then I’d rightly be considered a hack. more...