Objectives. To determine how frequently disciplinary terminology moves from discipline to discipline and to measure how long it takes for a term to be established in another discipline. Methods. sociology and political science as case studies, core concepts in each discipline are identified and their usage in the home and the other (adoptive) discipline assessed through a content analysis of three top journals in each field. Results. Movement of concepts between the two disciplines is sparse, though political science is more of a borrower from sociology than the reverse. Conclusions. leading disciplinary outlets over the past century, and there seems to be little reason to expect major departures from the patterns documented here. Adapted from the source document.
This is an open access special issue distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. ; The aim of this special issue is to encourage original research that seeks to study sociological or political phenomena using laboratory experiments that are based on game-theoretical benchmarks and, vice versa, that seeks mathematical modeling of game theoretical arguments to inspire experiments in the fields of Sociology and Political Science. We received 14 papers from authors in varies countries all over the world, of which 5 high-quality papers emerged for publication in the special issue after a strict review process. In the first research article of the special issue, G. Bravo, F. Squazzoni, and K. Takács experimentally study whether intermediaries can positively influence cooperation between a trustor and a trustee in an investment or trust game. The second article by L. A. Palacio, A. Cortés-Aguilar, and M. Muñoz-Herrera develops a game theoretical foundation for experimental investigations of the strategic role in games with nonbinding communication. In the third article, L. Corazzini and M. Tyszler employ quantal response equilibrium (QRE) to find out the extent of confusion and efficiency motives of laboratory participants in their decisions to contribute to a public good. The fourth article by S. A. Tulman utilizes QRE (i.e., noisy decision-making) and altruism-motivated players to investigate the "paradox of voter turnout" in a participation game experiment. Finally, in the fifth article B. Kittel, F. Paetzel, and S. Traub present a laboratory study in which they examine the role of the middle class on income distribution within the framework of a contest game. ; -- Experimental Game Theory and Its Application in Sociology and Political Science, Arthur Schram, Vincent Buskens, Klarita Gërxhani, and Jens Großer - Editorial (2 pages), Article ID 280789 -- The Strategic Role of Nonbinding Communication, Luis A. Palacio, Alexandra Cortés-Aguilar, and Manuel Muñoz-Herrera (11 pages), Article ID 910614 -- Intermediaries in Trust: Indirect Reciprocity, Incentives, and Norms, Giangiacomo Bravo, Flaminio Squazzoni, and Károly Takács (12 pages), Article ID 234528 -- Altruism, Noise, and the Paradox of Voter Turnout: An Experimental Study, Sarah A. Tulman (22 pages), Article ID 972753 -- Preference for Efficiency or Confusion? A Note on a Boundedly Rational Equilibrium Approach to Individual Contributions in a Public Good Game, Luca Corazzini and Marcelo Tyszler (8 pages), Article ID 961930 -- Competition, Income Distribution, and the Middle Class: An Experimental Study, Bernhard Kittel, Fabian Paetzel, and Stefan Traub (15 pages), Article ID 303912
What are the implications of Piketty's Capital for sociology and political science? Capital's argument focuses on the evolution of the r/g ratio (capital returns over growth rate) and outlines two modes of economic inequalities. One is characteristic of affluent (g > r) societies and the other is characteristic of patrimonial (r > g) societies. With the current return to a patrimonial society, corporations become political actors; occupational status and education's relevance are declining; the meaning of poverty is transformed, and welfare and punishment become interdependent means to social order; in politics, elitist theories gain traction; immigration is less about assimilation, and more about transnationalism and nationalist politics. We show that some theories are more relevant in an affluent society, and others are more adequate to a patrimonial society.
What are the implications of Piketty's Capital for sociology and political science? Capital's argument focuses on the evolution of the r/g ratio (capital returns over growth rate) and outlines two modes of economic inequalities. One is characteristic of affluent (g > r) societies and the other is characteristic of patrimonial (r > g) societies. With the current return to a patrimonial society, corporations become political actors; occupational status and education's relevance are declining; the meaning of poverty is transformed, and welfare and punishment become interdependent means to social order; in politics, elitist theories gain traction; immigration is less about assimilation, and more about transnationalism and nationalist politics. We show that some theories are more relevant in an affluent society, and others are more adequate to a patrimonial society.
Community based learning or service learning is a dynamic pedagogical opportunity for students to engage with their discipline in light of social concerns. This presentation will share the key challenges sociology students and lecturer encounter when working with charities and nonprofits with social justice missions. Students are asked to face what Pitt and Britzman (2003) call "difficult knowledge" in classroom readings and discussions on complicity to poverty and racism. The community engagement experience with local charities allows for a dialogue with the scholarly literature grounded in practical experience. Sociology students are challenged to see the institutional and wider structural inequalities upstream while working in community with a direct service role downstream. Taylor (2013) describes student engagement within this type of teaching tool that is critical of the status quo. Hall et al. (2004) argue that the classroom is best placed to navigate this new terrain whereas student volunteering independently might not facilitate reflection and academic literature. Students with a wide variety of needs engage with communities in different ways and lecturers may need to adjust and demonstrate flexibility to facilitate all learning environments.
Purpose: Open data and data sharing should improve transparency of research. This article investigates how different institutional and individual factors affect the data sharing behavior of authors of research articles in sociology and political science. Design/methodology/approach: Desktop research analyzed attributes of sociology and political science journals (n=262) from their websites. A second dataset of articles (n=1011, published 2012-2014) was derived from ten of the main journals (five from each discipline) and stated data sharing was examined. A survey of the authors used the Theory of Planned Behavior to examine motivations, behavioral control and perceived norms for sharing data. Statistical tests (Spearman's rho, Chi-square) examined correlations and associations. Results: Although many journals have a data policy for their authors (78% in sociology, 44% in political science), only around half of the empirical articles stated that the data was available, and for only 37% of the articles could the data be accessed. Journals with higher impact factors, those with a stated data policy, and younger journals were more likely to offer data availability. Of the authors surveyed, 446 responded (44%). Statistical analysis indicated that authors' attitudes, reported past behavior, social norms and perceived behavioral control affected their intentions to share data. Research limitations/implications: Less than 50% of the authors contacted provided responses to the survey. Results indicate that data sharing would improve if journals had explicit data sharing policies but authors also need support from other institutions (their universities, funding councils, professional associations) to improve data management skills and infrastructures. Originality/value: This article builds on previous similar research in sociology and political science and explains some of the barriers to data sharing in social sciences by combining journal policies, published articles, and authors' responses to a survey.
The empirical social sciences largely rely on the collection and analysis of research data. In recent years, several recommendations on the more open sharing of research data have been published. These recommendations aim at making science more transparent and replicable. In reality, however, many important research datasets are still not accessible. The project investigates how different factors influence the data sharing behavior of the authors of research papers in sociology and political sciences. It starts with an analysis of journal attributes and the articles published by selected journals to show how authors deal with their data. Second, a survey among the authors is conducted based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. This shows how personal characteristics are related to authors' data sharing behavior.
Acht Jahre nach der telefonischen Befragung von Soziologieprofessoren in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz fand eine Wiederholungsbefragung dieser Personengruppe statt. Grundlage der Befragung war eine Adressdatei von 442 Namen, Adressen, Telefonnummern und E-Mail-Adressen von Professoren der Soziologie in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Neben einer zentralen Produktabfrage, die die Nutzung und Zufriedenheit bzw. Nicht-Nutzung und Bekanntheit erfassen sollte, wurden weitere und für die zukünftige Arbeit der GESIS bzw. deren Positionierung wichtige Aspekte in die Befragung aufgenommen. Hierzu zählen Fragen zu Veränderungen in der wissenschaftlichen Arbeitsweise und zum Informationsverhalten über das Internet, Fragen zur Bekanntheit und Bewertung neuer GESIS-Produkte im Rahmen des Wissenstranfers und der Öffentlichkeitsarbeit, wie bspw. die neue Zeitschrift 'Methoden, Daten, Analysen (mda)' oder der 'gesis report', sowie Fragen, mit denen die Akzeptanz angedachter neuer Produkte und Dienstleistungen eingeholt werden sollte (z.B. Nutzung und Bedeutung des Social Science Citation Index). Die Bewertung des Leitbildes und des Anspruchs der GESIS rundete das inhaltliche Fragenprogramm ab. Das Internet ist für die Mehrzahl der Professoren und drei Viertel der Mitarbeiter tägliches Arbeitsmittel. Fachdatenbanken werden im Vergleich mit Suchmaschinen wie Google sehr viel seltener zum Arbeiten mit dem Internet benutzt. Ein relativ großer Anteil der Befragten greift jedoch auf beide Möglichkeiten gleichmäßig zurück. Die Bereitschaft, eigene Publikationen als Volltext ins Netz zu stellen, ist bei Fachartikeln größtenteils vorhanden, fällt aber über verschiedene Publikationsformen bis hin zum Buch gravierend ab. Die Bekanntheit von GESIS ist, gemessen über zwölf Produktgruppen, fast allumfassend. Das Angebot von GESIS wurde ebenfalls von sehr vielen bereits genutzt, mit nur geringen Ausfällen zwischen sechs und 17%. Hier zeigt sich ein deutlicher Unterschied zwischen den Disziplinen: Soziologen nutzen GESIS ausgeprägter als Politologen. Bei der Nutzung einzelner Angebote gibt es eine deutliche Rangfolge mit Publikationen sowie Literatur- und Forschungsdatenbanken an der Spitze. Die Zufriedenheit mit dem Angebot ist über alle Produktgruppen hinweg hoch, und die Unterschiede sind eher gering. Die Unbekanntheit einzelner Angebote, etwa des Fortbildungsangebots, ist ebenfalls mit der Zielgruppenbestimmung abzuwägen. Eindeutige Defizite bei der Bekanntheit - bei den Politikwissenschaftlern ganz besonders - weisen der Informationsdienst 'gesis report' und die Methodenzeitschrift 'mda' auf. (LO2)
