orgtheory.net

trump symposium week

with 2 comments

This week, we’ll have a few posts about the candidacy of Donald Trump. It will have three parts:

  1. Tom Gill will post on Trump as a political performer.
  2. Then, Josh Pacewicz will dig into Trump’s poll numbers.
  3. We’ll wrap up with a post by me on Trump, where I’ll add some of my own thoughts.

I’ll focus on the following points. Interested readers should send me questions:

  1. How predictable/unpredictable was the Trump candidacy?
  2. Using the Entertainment Theory of the GOP to understand Trump’s nomination and likely November loss.
  3. Using Trump to explain when social science theories do/do not work.

What do you want to know about Trump? Use the comments or send me email.

50+ chapters of grad skool advice goodness: Grad Skool Rulz ($2!!!!)/From Black Power/Party in the Street

Written by fabiorojas

August 29, 2016 at 12:01 am

has twitter killed blogs?

with one comment

Fabio has written about this a bit already, but it’s worth thinking about how sociology on the internet parallels this larger story about blogs as distinctive showcases of writers’ voices to  to the greater immediacy of twitter alongside the ubiquity of “blogs” on many different kinds of websites. In the New Republic, Jeet Heer argues blogging was a victim of its own success, though it’s interesting to consider how this tracks onto the decreased importance of blogging within sociology, which seems to me a much more straightforward story of technological change (folks shifted from blogging to social media).

To judge by Read’s account, both Gawker and blogging were victims of their own success, albeit in very different ways. Gawker got big enough to earn a frighteningly powerful enemy, a relentless and unforgiving man who deployed his vast resources and the legal system to crush the publication. Blogging got so popular that it caught the attention of the mainstream media, which bought up the best talent, and of Silicon Valley, which recast the writer’s medium from an intimate platform that was all about voice to a social network all about clicks and shares. Banks are lucky enough to be too big to fail; Gawker and blogging were too big to succeed.

Written by jeffguhin

August 28, 2016 at 6:17 pm

Posted in uncategorized

having olympics withdrawal? we’re here to help

leave a comment »

From “The Breaking Winds Bassoon Quartet.”
50+ chapters of grad skool advice goodness: 
Grad Skool Rulz ($2!!!!)/From Black Power/Party in the Street

Written by fabiorojas

August 28, 2016 at 12:01 am

blogcation august 2016/ASA line up

with 2 comments

Org theory people are just coming home from the Academy of Management meetings and sociologists are about to leave for the American Sociological Association meetings. I am also trying to wrap up a really, really, really ridiculously cool project that I am so going to tell you about. So we’re taking a break here till next week. But, boy, do we have some good stuff coming up:

  • A mini-symposium on the sociology of Trump: Tim Gill from Tulane will write about political performance and Josh Pacewicz from Brown will approach the Trump candidacy from the perspective of class politics.
  • Catching up on books: The Inner Lives of Markets by Ray Fishman and Tim Sullivan; Anthony Ocampo’s The Latinos of Asia; and The Second Machine Age by Brynjolfsson and McAfee.
  • Article discussion of “Racism and Discrimination” by Nancy DiTomaso
  • My response to Pamela Oliver’s post on mass incarceration. Hint: Don’t wait. Read it now.

Also, if you are at the ASA, please drop by and say hello. I would love to meet you. I’ll be at the following events:

See you after ASA!

50+ chapters of grad skool advice goodness: Grad Skool Rulz ($2!!!!)/From Black Power/Party in the Street

Written by fabiorojas

August 15, 2016 at 6:15 pm

Posted in uncategorized

black lives matter moves to cultural nationalism: analysis and forecast

with 3 comments

Let’s start with a quiz. Guess which policy demands are from the Black Lives Matter platform and which ones are from the original 10-point plan from the Black Panthers in 1966:

  1. We believe that this racist government has robbed us, and now we are demanding the overdue debt of forty acres and two mules.
  2. An end to the privatization of education and real community control by parents, students and community members of schools including democratic school boards and community control of curriculum, hiring, firing and discipline policies.
  3. We believe in an educational system that will give to our people a knowledge of self. If a man does not have knowledge of himself and his position in society and the world, then he has little chance to relate to anything else
  4. We believe we can end police brutality in our Black community by organizing Black self-defense groups that are dedicated to defending our Black community from racist police oppression and brutality.
  5. A reallocation of funds at the federal, state and local level from policing and incarceration [specific programs omitted] to long-term safety strategies such as education, local restorative justice services, and employment programs.
  6. Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.
  7. Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Answer: BLM – 2, 5; BP – 1, 3, 4. Trick question: 6 & 7 are actually from a list of Occupy Wall Street demands. If you got some wrong, don’t worry. A lot of these demands are interchangeable and all three groups have promoted some version of most of them.

The purpose of the quiz is to illustrate how the recent Black Lives Matter platform draws heavily from Black cultural nationalism and progressivism. It also shows that the Black Lives Matter movement is now evolving in a direction very similar to these groups. Like the Panthers in 1966, Black Lives was founded specifically in response to police repression. But it framed itself in Marxist terms and soon expanded to offer social programs. Similarly, Black Lives Matter started in response to police shootings and has now offered a fairly comprehensive list of demands rooted in the Left.

There are differences of course, but I think we can now articulate a framework, or baseline, for thinking about BLM. It is a progressive, community oriented movement, not a movement that primarily focuses on police reform. It is also a movement that will have wide appeal on the Left, but less appeal to the middle and the Right.

Since we’ve had a number of movements like this, we can look at their history. We’ve had the Panthers in the 1960s, the anti-globalization movement of the 1990s, and the Occupy movement of 2010s. These movements tend to be brief, but intense. They have wide cultural impact, but limited policy or electoral impact. The impact of BLM will be very concentrated in a few places and otherwise widespread and diffuse. Time will tell if the comparison with BLMs ancestry is an adequate guide to their future.

50+ chapters of grad skool advice goodness: Grad Skool Rulz ($2!!!!)/From Black Power/Party in the Street 

Written by fabiorojas

August 11, 2016 at 12:01 am

alumni affairs as institutional stratification

with 13 comments

This guest post is by Mikalia Lemonik Arthur, associate professor and chair of sociology at Rhode Island College and a long time friend of the blog. She is an expert in higher education and is the author of Student Activism and Curricular Change in Higher Education.

===

My colleague Fran Leazes and I recently released a report “How Higher Education Shapes The Workforce: A Study of Rhode Island College Graduates,” funded by TheCollaborative. Our college—Rhode Island College—is a public comprehensive college at which 85% of students come from within the state, a figure no other college in our state can come close to matching. Our project was spurred by an interest at the state policy level in why graduates of colleges in our state leave Rhode Island. But, we argue, students who were not Rhode Island residents when they began college may not be best understood as “leaving Rhode Island” when they are often really going home.  Thus, tracking our alumni—who really are from Rhode Island—provides a useful window onto both higher education outcomes and workforce development in Rhode Island.

Our project combines data from a number of sources to come to several conclusions about our alumni, including that we actually retain most of them in state. Those who leave often leave in pursuit of graduate degrees. And the majority of our graduates find employment in fields related to their undergraduate major. While the report makes several state-level policy suggestions (invest in public higher education, including expanded graduate degree offerings; better promote the excellent alumni workforce we have available in the state), our research process and findings also highlight the need for comprehensive colleges like ours to invest more substantially in their alumni offices.

Most elite private colleges have robust alumni offices. These offices work hard to maintain alumni connections to the college, largely in order to pursue fundraising opportunities. But elite private colleges know that alumni offices serve other purposes as well. By maintaining excellent databases of their alumni, elite private colleges are easily able to make claims about the percentage of alumni who have earned graduate degrees, the number living in particular geographical areas, and the representation of alumni in key professional fields like medicine or politics. Comprehensive colleges, in contrast, rarely have the resources or staffing in either the alumni office or the institutional research office to gather and maintain such information. Thus, in order to put together our report, we had to employ a team of five undergraduate research assistants, who spent the entire fall semester combing the Internet for biographical data on our sample of alumni.

Of course, it would have made our lives easier if our college already had access to such data. But more importantly, such data would enable our college to tell its story in a more persuasive fashion. Rather than talking about the kinds of outcome measures the performance funding types tend to value (employment and salaries a year after graduation), a robust alumni database would allow us to document the value our college has to our state by highlighting the number of successful professionals, community leaders, volunteers, and others RIC has educated.

Comprehensive colleges are an often-ignored sector of higher education, but we play a vital role in educating the professionals who keep our states moving—the nurses, teachers, social workers, police officers, accountants, small business owners, local politicians, and others. And we are often the most accessible and affordable colleges for working class students who will go on to do great things in our states and beyond. The fact that our alumni affairs offices are under-resourced may not be the type of educational stratification researchers and policymakers pay attention to, but it is a type of educational stratification with consequences for our reputations and our institutions’ funding streams.

50+ chapters of grad skool advice goodness: Grad Skool Rulz ($2!!!!)/From Black Power/Party in the Street 

Written by fabiorojas

August 10, 2016 at 1:51 am

agreements and disagreements with rob warren

Rob Warren, of the University of Minnesota, wrote some very engaging and insightful comments about his time as the editor of Sociology of Education. Jeff Guhin covered this last week. Here, I’ll add my own comments. First, a strong nod of agreement:

First, a large percentage of papers had fundamental research design flaws. Basic methodological problems—of the sort that ought to earn a graduate student a B- in their first-year research methods course—were fairly common.4 (More surprising to me, by the way, was how frequently reviewers seemed not to notice such problems.) I’m not talking here about trivial errors or minor weaknesses in research designs; no research is perfect. I’m talking about problems that undermined the author’s basic conclusions. Some of these problems were fixable, but many were not.

Yes. Professor Warren is correct. Once you are an editor, or simply an older scholar who has read a lot of journal submissions, you quickly realize that there a lot of papers that really, really flub research methods 101. For example, a lot of paper rely on convenience samples, which lead to biased results. Warren has more on this issue.

Now, let me get to where I think Warren is incorrect:

Second, and more surprising to me: Most papers simply lacked a soul—a compelling and well-articulated reason to exist. The world (including the world of education) faces an extraordinary number of problems, challenges, dilemmas, and even mysteries.  Yet most papers failed to make a good case for why they were necessary. Many analyses were not well motivated or informed by existing theory, evidence, or debates. Many authors took for granted that readers would see the importance of their chosen topic, and failed to connect their work to related issues, ideas, or discussions. Over and over again, I kept asking myself (and reviewers also often asked): So what?

About five years ago, I used to think this way. Now, I’ve mellowed and come to a more open minded view. Why? In the past, I have rejected a fair number of papers on “framing” grounds. Later, I will see them published in other journals, often with high impact. Also, in my own career, leading journals have rejected my work on “framing” grounds and when it gets published in another leading journal, the work will get cited. The framing wasn’t that bad. Lesson? A lot of complaints about are framing are actually arbitrary. Instead, let the work get published and let the wider community decide, not the editor and a few peer reviewers.

The evidence on the reliability of the peer review process suggests that there is a lot of randomness in the process. If some of these “soul-less” papers had been resubmitted a few months later, some of them would have been accepted with enthusiastic reviews. Here’s a 2006 review of the literature on journal reliability and here’s the classic 1982 article showing that a lot of journal acceptance is indeed random. Ironically, Peters and Ceci (1982) note that “serious methodological flaws” are a common reason for rejecting papers – that had already been accepted!

This brings me to Warren’s third point – a complaint about people who submit poorly developed papers. He suggests that there are job pressures and a lack of training. On the training point, there is nothing to back up his assertion. Most social science programs have a fairly standard sequence of quantitative methods courses. The basic issues regarding causation v. description, identification, and assessment of instrument quality are all pretty easy to learn. Every year, the ICPSR offers all kinds of training. Training we have, in spades.

On the jobs point, I would like to blame people like Professor Warren and his colleagues on hiring and promotion committees (which includes me!!). The job market for the better positions in sociology (R1 jobs and competitive liberal arts schools) has essentially evolved into whoever gets into the top journals in graduate school plus graduate program reputation.

I’d suggest we simply think about the incentives here. Junior scholars live in a world where a lot of weight is placed on a very small number of journals. They also live in a world where journal acceptance is random. They also live in a world where journals routinely lose papers, reject after multiple R&R rounds and takes years (!) to respond (see my journal horror stories post). How would any rational person respond to this environment? Answer: just send out a lot of stuff until something hits. There is no incentive to develop a paper well if it will be randomly rejected after sitting at the journal for 16 months.

This is why I openly praise and encourage reforms of the journal system. I praise “platform” publishing like PLoS One. I praise “up or down” curated publishing, like Sociological Science. I praise Socius, the open access ASA journal. I praise socArxiv for creating an open pre-print portal. I praise editors who speed the review process and I praise multiple submissions practices. The basic issues that Professor Warren discusses are real. But the problem isn’t training or stressed out junior scholars. The problem is the archaic journal system. Let’s make it better.

50+ chapters of grad skool advice goodness: Grad Skool Rulz ($2!!!!)/From Black Power/Party in the Street

Written by fabiorojas

August 9, 2016 at 12:01 am

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,967 other followers