Spring is here, and for many that means it’s time for a spring break! However, taking time off work can be a big deal, and taking a break can affect earnings and productivity. Research shows that vacation and leave time are largely shaped by a countries social and political context, but taking time off work can have serious consequences no matter where you live, especially for women.

To start, vacations take place in the context of larger structures of gender inequality and work/family policies. Mothers’ time in and out of work is shaped by institutional and cultural contexts, including paid-leave policies, state support for childcare, and cultural expectations around maternal employment. When women are supported by well-paid leave, affordable childcare, and a cultural expectation that mothers work, women with children ultimately work more weekly hours than those living in countries without these factors. Even so, time off is not without penalty. Country-specific policies also help predict the penalty women face for taking a break from employment to care for children. For instance, in a comparison between Germany, Sweden, and the U.S. — countries with distinct leave policies — researchers found that long leaves meant career penalties for all women. Unsurprisingly, in the U.S., a country known for lagging behind in parental leave, even short periods of time spent away from work can hurt womens’ careers.

• Irene Boekmann, Joya Misra, and Michelle Budig. 2015. “Cultural and Institutional Factors Shaping Mothers’ Employment and Working Hours in Postindustrial Countries.” Social Forces 93(4): 1301-1333.
• Silke Aisenbrey, Marie Evertsson, and Daniela Grunow. 2009. “Is There a Career Penalty for Mothers’ Time Out? A Comparison of Germany, Sweden and the United States.” Social Forces 88(2): 573-605.

When women take vacation days, they tend to take more than men, but this doesn’t mean that women are lounging on the beach or in the ski lodge while the men toil in the office.  Part of the reason for the gender difference is men use fewer vacation days because of anxieties about job security and supervisory responsibilities. Comparisons between nurses’ unions (mostly women) and firefighters’ unions (mostly men) shows that women prioritize negotiating scheduling, including vacation time, while men emphasize the importance of fairness in access to overtime among co-workers. Women who have unused vacation days tend to be more worried about the success of their families, but research shows that family concerns don’t necessarily lead women to take more vacation days.

• David J. Maume. 2006. “Gender Differences in Taking Vacation Time.” Work and Occupations, 33(2), 161-190.
• Jillian Crocker, & Dan Clawson. 2012. “Buying Time: Gendered Patterns in Union Contracts.” Social Problems, 59(4), 459-480.

In response to the Trump administration’s crackdown on undocumented immigrants, cities and universities all across the United States have declared themselves “sanctuaries” from the threat of deportation. One aspect of this has been a revival of the sanctuary church movement. Over 800 churches nationwide have declared themselves sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants who fear deportation since Trump took office. While it is technically illegal to harbor undocumented immigrants, immigration enforcement officials have typically avoided raiding “sensitive locations” like churches and hospitals to avoid disrupting institutions that provide social services. Social science shows that protecting sensitive locations like churches is key to providing essential social services to marginalized populations. 

This is not the first instance of religious institutions attempting to shield undocumented immigrants from deportation on moral grounds in the United States. In the 1980s, thousands of refugees fled political violence in Central America, many to the border states of Arizona and Texas. In response, hundreds of religious congregations declared themselves to be sanctuaries for Central American refugees. With the exception of a notable trial in Arizona in 1986 in which several activists were convicted for violating immigration law, most congregations suffered minimal, if any, legal reprisal for their efforts during this period.

• Christian Smith. 1996. Resisting Reagan: The U.S. Central American Peace Movement. University of Chicago Press.
• Gregory L. Wiltfang and Doug McAdam. 1991. “The Costs and Risks of Social Activism: A Study of Sanctuary Movement Activism.” Social Forces 69(4): 987-1010.

Churches are unique from other types of sensitive locations like schools and hospitals because of their long history of offering sanctuary to people in need, a history that goes back to the 1600s. It was not until the late 20th century that states began intervening and requiring churches to hand over people they were protecting. In the U.S. today, churches are a critical resource for low-income, minority, and immigrant communities, especially in small towns and rural areas. They often serve as primary distribution sites for a number of rural social services including food aid, shelter, clothing, basic healthcare, and English language and employment tutoring.

• Philip Marfleet. 2011. “Understanding ‘Sanctuary’: Faith and Traditions of Asylum.” Journal of Refugee Studies 24(3): 440-455.
• Mark Chaves and William Tsitsos. 2001. “Congregations and Social Services: What They Do, How They Do It, and With Whom.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 30(4).
• Stephanie C. Boddie. 2002. “Fruitful Partnerships in a Rural African American Community: Important Lessons for Faith-Based Initiatives.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 38(3).

Research studying the long-term effects of ICE raids on hospitals and clinics shows that immigrants stop seeking medical services when they no longer feel safe from law enforcement. If sanctuary churches are no longer recognized as safe from ICE raids, there is some concern that the same problem will make it difficult for churches to reach immigrants in rural places.

• Mark Berk and Claudia Schur. 2001. “The Effect of Fear on Access to Care Among Undocumented Latino Immigrants.” Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health 3(3).
• Karen Hacker et al. 2011. “The Impact of Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Immigrant Health: Perceptions of Immigrants in Everett, Massachusetts, USA.” Social Science Medicine 73(4).

It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will stay out of churches, but social science shows that raiding these spaces could affect all immigrants, especially those in rural areas. And it may very well ignite an intense reaction from the churches and communities trying to keep people safe. 

For many Americans, anti-Semitism seems like a thing of the past, a topic for high school history classes and discussions of the Holocaust. But anti-Semitism has returned abruptly to the front page in recent weeks, with over 160 threats against Jewish community centers and synagogues since January. At times, such threats are paired with symbolic shows of force, as was seen when over 100 headstones in a Missouri Jewish cemetery were damaged or destroyed. For many this has been unexpected, but this is not necessarily true for social scientists who have been studying anti-Semitism over the last decade.

Recent survey-based studies have sought to assess anti-Semitic sentiments over time. Some scholars argue that anti-Semitism shifted into the more accepted form of anti-Israeli sentiments, with others arguing that the two issues are not necessarily related. However, most scholars seem to agree that public acceptance of anti-Semitism moved from the mainstream to smaller, more extreme groups throughout this period.

• Heiko Beyer and Ulf Liebe. 2015. “Three Experimental Approaches to Measure the Social Context Dependence of Prejudice Communication and Discriminatory Behavior” Social Science Research 49: 343-355.
• Brian Klug. 2010. “The Collective Jew: Israel and the New Antisemitism.” Patterns of Prejudice 37(2): 117-139.
• Ryan D. King and Melissa Weiner. 2007. “Group Position, Collective Threat, and American Anti-Semitism.” Social Problems 54(1): 57-77.

Social scientists have also looked at anti-Semitism using methods that look past publicly shared opinions, and these studies find slightly different results. Studies show that when questions focus on positive or “neutral” stereotypes, individuals are more likely to express them, possibly revealing that other, more negative  prejudices exist that they are less willing to share. This phenomenon helps explain why anti-Semitism seems to be increasing so quickly; as rhetoric against Jews and other minority populations becomes less stigmatized, people who quietly hold these views may feel more comfortable sharing their opinions. The  increase in hate crimes and threats within the United States and around the world may not reflect a cultural change in sentiment, but rather an increased willingness to share and act upon these previously held beliefs.

• Heiko Beyer and Ivar Krumpal. 2010. “‘But There Are No Longer Any Anti-Semites’: An Experimental Study on the Communication Latency of Anti-Semitic Attitudes.” KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 62(4): 681-705
• Charles Asher Small. 2013. Global Anti-Semitism: A Crisis of Modernity. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
• Thomas C. Wilson, 1996. “Compliments Will Get You Nowhere: Benign Stereotypes, Prejudice and Anti-Semitism.” The Sociological Quarterly 37(3): 465-479.

With the recent discovery of numerous Earth-like planets orbiting the same star, Elon Musk’s promise to send citizens to the moon, and increased politicization surrounding the science of climate change, many Americans are looking to the stars for potential solutions and possible new homes. And the nascent NewSpace movement — made up of entrepreneurs and advocates looking to commercialize outer space — promises to push space exploration forward at a rapid pace. While it certainly requires rocket science to get to space, social science is beginning to weigh in on what it might mean for social life.

The privatization and commodification of public spaces is now moving beyond Earth as governments struggle over control of the atmosphere and outer space. And as new entrepreneurial space companies seek to privatize the sky and profit from new resources and new planets, some worry that existing structures of class and racial inequality will be repeated or even intensified with space colonization. Others, like anthropologist David Valentine, see potential for progressive re-imaginings.

• Ian G. R. Shaw. 2017. “The Great War of Enclosure: Securing the Skies.” Antipode. Online.
• Jason Beery. 2016. “Unearthing Global Natures: Outer Space and Scalar Politics.” Political Geography 55: 92–101.
• Daniel Sage. 2008. “Framing Space: A Popular Geopolitics of American Manifest Destiny in Outer Space.” Geopolitics 13(1): 27–53.
• David Valentine. 2012. “Exit Strategy: Profit, Cosmology, and the Future of Humans in Space.” Anthropological Quarterly 85(4): 1045–1067.

Sociologists highlight how inequalities shape the way people are experiencing this increasing “humanization of the universe.” Wealthy elites relate to the universe as an object to dominate, funding new “space tourism” programs and hoping to extend the workings of capitalism to the Moon and beyond. Less wealthy and marginalized communities, however, experience the universe as a dominating and mystifying force, and many feel that space colonization will only make them more powerless.

• Peter Dickens and James S. Ormrod. 2007. “Outer Space and Internal Nature: Towards a Sociology of the Universe.” Sociology 41(4).

Since women and people of color are still less likely to pursue careers in science or technology, they are less likely to have a voice in these new projects. But this is not the only thing keeping them from the conversation. For example, women have historically had a difficult time qualifying for space travel. Fears about menstruation, pregnancy, and hormones in outer space have significantly hindered research into how women’s bodies are affected by space travel. The result is that women’s bodies are constructed as problematic and essentialized in opposition to male bodies, keeping many women from successfully joining space missions.

• Yu Xie, Michael Fang, and Kimberlee Shauman. 2015. “STEM Education.” Annual Review of Sociology 41: 331-357.
• Monica J. Casper and Lisa Jean Moore. 1995. “Inscribing Bodies, Inscribing the Future: Gender, Sex, and Reproduction in Outer Space.” Sociological Perspectives 38(2): 311-333.

The election of Donald Trump has brought new people into politics and re-ignited activists. As people on the left aim to resist what they view as Trump’s dangerous and harmful policies, and people on the right try to sustain political engagement after the election, both sides are debating about the effectiveness of various political strategies. For example, Indivisible, a guide compiled by Congressional staffers on tactics for opposing President Trump, spread quickly across the internet as people grappled with how to effectively influence policy-making.

Contacting legislators is one of the most common forms of political engagement in the United States. Hearing from constituents, particularly in face-to-face meetings and phone calls, can influence politicians’ action on an issue. The greatest impact, however, is when the contact is outside of routine communications and part of a collective campaign. Social scientists have found that politicians are more likely to react to new information that indicates a change in the political landscape and ties their stance  to their electability. An organized effort can demonstrate that a group has powerful resources, such as volunteers and donations, which in turn can affect politicians’ ability to get re-elected.

• Daniel E. Bergan and Richard T. Cole. 2015. “Call Your Legislator: A Field Experimental Study of the Impact of a Constituency Mobilization Campaign on Legislative Voting.” Political Behavior 37(1): 27–42.
• Sidney Verba. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Harvard University Press.
• Paul Burstein and April Linton. 2002. “The Impact of Political Parties, Interest Groups, and Social Movement Organizations on Public Policy: Some Recent Evidence and Theoretical Concerns.” Social Forces 81(2): 380–408.

Legislators are not always just responding to public opinion either. They are also influenced by lobbyists, political donations, personal political views, and party platforms. Nevertheless, popular opinion may play a larger role in shaping elected officials’ positions when it signals a dramatic shift and the public feels strongly on one side of an issue. Thus, political organizations and concerned citizens can influence policy by raising and changing public awareness, and then explaining these popular sentiments to politicians who learn about their constituents attitudes.

• Susanne Lohmann. 1993. “A Signaling Model of Informative and Manipulative Political Action.” The American Political Science Review 87(2): 319–333.
• Daniel M. Butler and David W. Nickerson. 2011. “Can Learning Constituency Opinion Affect How Legislators Vote? Results from a Field Experiment.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 6(1): 55–83.

The effectiveness of contacting politicians also depends partially on the party and race of the official and the constituent. People are more likely to contact a politician from their own political party, so contacting leaders outside of one’s own party disrupts political norms — which is sometimes effective and sometimes discounted. The response of elected officials to the public is also shaped by racism. For example, a real-world experiment found that white legislators discriminate against emails and calls from black constituents.

• David E. Broockman and Timothy J. Ryan. 2016. “Preaching to the Choir: Americans Prefer Communicating to Copartisan Elected Officials.” American Journal of Political Science 60(4): 1093–1107.
• Daniel M. Butler and David E. Broockman. 2011. “Do Politicians Racially Discriminate Against Constituents? A Field Experiment on State Legislators.” American Journal of Political Science 55(3):463–77.

Although calling and writing legislators has a role in democracy, historical research shows that sustained mass social movements are what drive major changes in society and politics. Large popular movements that use tactics like protests, boycotts and strikes can disrupt the status quo and garner public attention. For example, during the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, sit-in protests increased the likelihood of desegregation in a city. The effectiveness of mass mobilization depends on the political and social context, but can transform political possibilities and lead to policy change.  

• Sidney G. Tarrow. 1994. Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action, and Politics. Cambridge University Press.
• Doug McAdam, Sidney G. Tarrow, and Charles Tilly, eds. 2001. Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge University Press.
• Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward. 1979. Poor People’s Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail. Vintage books.
• Michael Bigg and Kenneth T. Andrews. 2015. “Protest Campaigns and Movement Success: Desegregating the U.S. South in the Early 1960s.” American Sociological Review 80(2): 416.

The United States and the United Nations have had a closely intertwined relationship since the organization’s founding in 1945. The UN deals with a broad range of issues around the globe, and its widespread influence is often controversial. However, the influence of the United Nation continues to be instrumental in promoting crucial human rights causes, and the reach of its aid is arguably beyond compare. Despite its numerous shortcomings, the UN plays a crucial role in promoting human rights norms across the globe.

Throughout the 1990s in particular, the United Nations took on a central role in the global justice process. It organized and funded international courts following episodes of mass violence, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and it made indictments for egregious crimes possible for the first time (including the crime of genocide).  Sociologists find that the existence of these courts have a global impact in providing justice, and the trials seem to have a positive effect in reducing human rights violations in the long run.

• Kathryn Sikkink. 2011. The Justice Cascade: How Human Rights Prosecutions Change World Politics. New York: Norton.
• Joachim Savelsberg. 2015 Representing Mass Violence: Conflicting Responses to Human Rights Violations in Darfur. Oakland: University of California Press.

The judicial process alone cannot adequately address global human rights issues — humanitarianism and diplomacy also play key roles. The United Nation arguably plays the most dominant global role in these initiatives, with monumental campaigns addressing topics like hunger, refugee needs, and climate change. The UN has been criticized for showcasing Western ideals and not taking into account cultural contexts, such as early endeavors to reduce female genital cutting. However, the UN has made improvements and when programs are approached as an opportunity for partnership and not dominance, the outcomes can be quite positive. For example, the agency has taken great strides in promoting gender equality and access to education.

• Ann Quennerstedt and Mikael Quennerstedt. 2013. “Researching Children’s Rights in Education: Sociology of Childhood Encountering Educational Theory.” British Journal of Sociology of Education. 35(1): 115-132.
• Melanie M. Hughes, Mona Lena Krook, and Pamela Paxton. 2015. “Transnational Women’s Activism and the Global Diffusion of Gender Quotas.” International Studies Quarterly. 59(2): 357-372.
• Elizabeth Heger Boyle. 2002. Female Genital Cutting. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

President Trump and his administration have insisted that there was massive voter fraud in the 2016 election, although evidence has not supported this allegation. Instead, the evidence points  to significant issues surrounding voter suppression in the United States.

One contributing factor is felon disenfranchisement — when people with a felony conviction permanently lose the right to vote. Since the late 1860’s, U.S. states with the largest non-white prison populations have been more likely to implement voting restrictions for felons. Today, formerly incarcerated persons constitute the largest portion of the disenfranchised population, which also includes people with disabilities and those without valid forms of identification. Importantly, restrictive voting laws have actually altered political outcomes. For example, it is estimated that Al Gore would have won the 2000 presidential election if formerly incarcerated persons in Florida had been allowed to vote.

• Alexander Keyssar. 2009. The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. Basic Books.
• Angela Behrens, Christopher Uggen and Jeff Manza. 2003. “Ballot Manipulation and the ‘Menace of Negro Domination’: Racial Threat and Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States, 1850–2002.” American Journal of Sociology 109(3): 559-605.
• Christopher Uggen and Jeff Manza. 2002. Democratic Contraction? Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States. American Sociological Review 67(6): 777-803.

After the 2010 midterm elections, there was a wave of laws that seemed to bolster voting requirements, such as new ID laws and proof of residence. And while strengthening voter requirements may seem benign at first, these rules restrict access to people who are less likely to have identification and proof of residence — people of color, the elderly, and the poor. In essence, such laws make it harder for only some people to vote. Research suggests that Republican leadership and legislatures are more likely to push for these laws, an irony when we consider that the President Trump is alleging that there were too many votes.

• Keith G. Bentele and Erin O’Brien. 2013. “Jim Crow 2.0?: Why States Consider and Adopt Restrictive Voter Access Policies.” Perspectives on Politics. 11(4): 1088-1116.
• William D. Hicks, Seth C. McKee, Mitchell D. Sellers, and Daniel A. Smith. “A Principle or a Strategy? Voter Identification Laws and Partisan Competition in the American States.” Political Research Quarterly 68(1): 18-33.

President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela is doing what many learn at a young age not to do — being a copycat.  Since Hugo Chavez seceded power, Venezuela’s current president lacks Chavez’s beloved “Chavismo.”  Maduro’s own brand of charisma and populist reform has not connected with the people as he expected, which has led him to use more extreme political measures in the hopes of garnering respect. This has led to unrest in Venezuela, highlighting the instability of charismatic-based politics.

As Max Weber famously described in his theories of social and economic organization, charismatic leaders are often able to create a unique bond with their citizens. But if that charisma fades, it can create instability. This is also evident when there is a transfer of power from a beloved charismatic leader to a new leader. 

• Marshall Ganz. 2000. “Resources and Resourcefulness: Strategic Capacity in the Unionization of California Agriculture, 1959-1966.” American Journal of Sociology 105(4): 1003-1062.

Research finds that charismatic leaders are often good at mobilizing people to join social movements, but that the charismatic bond is often short-lived and unable to be transferred to other individuals. When charisma fails to motivate support, leaders often turn to more conventional measures to reach their political goals, which can lead to disenchantment and unrest among the citizenry.

• Dan Slater. 2009. “Revolutions, Crackdown, and Quiescence: Communal Elites and Democratic Mobilization in Southeast Asia.” American Journal of Sociology 115(1): 203-254.
• Kurt Schock. 2005. Unarmed Insurrections: People Power Movements in Nondemocracies.   Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Uber has been having a bad time. From reports that venture capital has been propping up a flawed business model, to evidence of racial bias in pickups, rate cuts during a New York taxi strike leading to the #DeleteUber movement, and recent accounts of sexual harassment alongside conflicts with drivers, the romance of Silicon Valley innovation and “disruption” in the company is on the decline. But while this may seem like a fall from grace, research shows these problems are tragically normal. They often plague a wide range of companies because of their organizational structures, and tech start-ups are no exception.

Classic research shows that when a founder also acts as the CEO, it can cause trouble for a company. While they may have a knack for developing innovative products or services, founders don’t always have the management skills to run a large, successful business as a complex organization.

• Josef Brüderl, Peter Preisendörfer, and Rolf Ziegler. 1992. “Survival Chances of Newly Founded Business Organizations.“ American Sociological Review 57(2): 227-242.

While teams of entrepreneurs can start a businesses together, they often choose who will ultimately run the company. This process is not neutral. Gender inequality in business leadership can emerge from these decisions because friends and family members in these teams often take gendered assumptions for granted.

• Tiantan Yang and Howard E. Aldrich. 2014. “Who’s the Boss? Explaining Gender Inequality in Entrepreneurial Teams.” American Sociological Review 79(2): 303-327.

Racial and gender discrimination in hiring and promotions plagues a wide range of organizations, especially because opportunities for promotion tend to favor homogeneous social networks. These problems also plague organizations and could indicate other organizational troubles, as firms that engage in hiring discrimination are more likely to go out of business.     

• Trond Petersen and Ishak Saporta. 2004. “The Opportunity Structure for Discrimination.” American Journal of Sociology 109(4): 852-901.
• James R. Elliott and Ryan A. Smith. 2004. “Race, Gender, and Workplace Power.” American Sociological Review 69(3): 365-386.
• Devah Pager. 2016. “Are Firms That Discriminate More Likely to Go Out of Business?” Sociological Science 3: 849-859.

Donald Trump recently falsely stated that the murder rate “is the highest it’s been in 47 years.” Scholars of crime have been energetic in countering this claim with evidence that the violent crime in the U.S. peaked in the early 1990s and has steadily declined since. Although recent data suggests murder has increased in certain cities, Trump’s characterization of the murder rate is way off. But the sentiment behind his statement in some ways reflects a fearful popular discourse about crime rates and “tough on crime” public policies. 

Even after accounting for other relevant factors, people in neighborhoods with higher crime rates are slightly more fearful about crime. While crime fears also vary along demographic lines and victimization experiences, scholars have emphasized the robust effects of social environment as drivers of crime fears. Collective efficacy — the perceived social cohesion of a neighborhood and the willingness of neighbors to intervene on others’ behalf — is a strong predictor of lower crime fears, whereas the perceived level of disorder (e.g. vandalism) is associated with greater fear.

• Chris L. Gibson, Jihong Zhao, Nicholas P. Lovrich, and Michael J. Gaffney. 2002. “Social Integration, Individual Perceptions of Collective Efficacy, and Fear of Crime in Three Cities.” Justice Quarterly, 19: 537-564.
• Jihong Zhao, Brian Lawton, and Dennis Longmire. 2015.  “An Examination of the Micro-Level Crime–Fear of Crime Link.” Crime & Delinquency 61(1): 19-44.

Scholars have noted that popular discourse around crime has revolved around talk of “random violence,” which deemphasizes patterns of crime and victimization and focuses on the claim that everyone is equally at risk. This rhetoric maximizes public concern and favors policy strategies that include individual law enforcement tactics (“tough on crime”) as opposed to changes in structural conditions (e.g. neighborhood dynamics, class) that are correlated to crime and victimization.

• Joel Best. 1999. Random Violence: How We Talk about New Crimes and New Victims. University  of California Press.

Research on the relationship between fear of crime and the emergence of “get tough on crime” policies explores whether the origins of the punitive turn in crime control resulted from the general public’s fear of crime rates or political strategies that influence the public’s perceptions of crime. Some scholars have found that, in combination with increased media coverage, political initiatives surrounding crime (and not actual crime rates) fostered increasing public concern about crime and drugs during the 1960s and 80s.

• Katherine Beckett. 1999. Making Crime Pay: Law and Order in Contemporary American Politics. Oxford University Press.

Others have recently challenged this notion, arguing that punitive public sentiment is what motivated policymakers to develop tough on crime policies. Regardless of this “chicken and egg” dilemma, crime issues developed into a key political strategy. This “governing through crime” expands racial divisions rather than increasing security for American citizens. The concentration of mass incarceration in impoverished minority communities is evidence enough that crime as a political strategy has important repercussions for American notions of equality and liberty for all.

• Peter K Enns. 2016. Incarceration Nation: How the United States Became the Most Punitive Democracy in the World. Cambridge University Press.
• Jonathan Simon. 2007. Governing Through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American Democracy and Created a Culture of Fear. Oxford University Press.