Social scientists don’t say titwank’

Drawing on the textual evidence of a number of referees’ reports, this article maps key differences between the humanities and social sciences approaches to the study of pornography, in order to facilitate better understanding and communication between the areas. 1. Social scientists avoid ‘vulgar’ language to describe sex. Humanities scholars need not do so. 2. Social scientists remain committed to the idea of ‘objectivity’ while humanities scholars reject the idea – although this may be a confusion in language, with the term in the social sciences used to mean something more like ‘falsifiability’. 3. Social science assumes that the primary effects of exposure to pornography must be negative. 4. More generally, social science resists paradigm changes, insisting that all new work agrees with research that has gone before. 5. Social science believes that casual sex and sadomasochism are negative; humanities research need not do so.

ESD starts where STEM stops : integrating the social sciences into STEM

The Earth and its peoples are facing great challenges. As a species, humans are over-consuming the Earth’s resources and compromising the capacity of both natural and social systems to function in healthy and sustainable ways. Education at all levels and in all contexts, has a key role in helping societies move to more sustainable ways of living. Two areas in need of catch-up in relation to Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) are early childhood education and teacher education. Another area of challenge for ESD is the way it is currently oriented. To date, a great deal of emphasis has been placed on scientific and technological solutions to sustainability issues. This has led to an emphasis on STEM education as education’s main way of addressing sustainability. However, in this paper it is argued that sustainably is primarily a social issue that requires interdisciplinary education approaches. STEM approaches to ESD - emphasising knowledge construction and problem-solving - cannot, on their own, deal effectively with attitudes, values and actions towards more sustainable ways of living. In China and Australia, there are already policies, frameworks, guidelines and initiatives, such as Green Schools and Sustainable Schools that support such forms of ESD. STEM educators need to reach out to social scientists and social educators in order to more fully engage with activist and collaborative educational responses that equip learners with the knowledge, dispositions and capacities to ‘make a difference’.

The Eligibility Definition Used in the Social Security Administration’s Disability Programs Needs to be Changed

In its October 2003 report on the definition of disability used by the Social Security Administration’s (SSA’s) disability programs [i.e., Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for people with disabilities], the Social Security Advisory Board raises the issue of whether this definition is at odds with the concept of disability embodied in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and, more importantly, with the aspirations of people with disabilities to be full participants in mainstream social activities and lead fulfilling, productive lives. The Board declares that “the Nation must face up to the contradictions created by the existing definition of disability.” I wholeheartedly agree. Further, I have concluded that we have to make fundamental, conceptual changes to both how we define eligibility for economic security benefits, and how we provide those benefits, if we are ever to fulfill the promise of the ADA. To convince you of that proposition, I will begin by relating a number of facts that paint a very bleak picture – a picture of deterioration in the economic security of the population that the disability programs are intended to serve; a picture of programs that purport to provide economic security, but are themselves financially insecure and subject to cycles of expansion and cuts that undermine their purpose; a picture of programs that are facing their biggest expenditure crisis ever; and a picture of an eligibility determination process that is inefficient and inequitable -- one that rations benefits by imposing high application costs on applicants in an arbitrary fashion. I will then argue that the fundamental reason for this bleak picture is the conceptual definition of eligibility that these programs use – one rooted in a disability paradigm that social scientists, people with disabilities, and, to a substantial extent, the public have rejected as being flawed, most emphatically through the passage of the ADA. Current law requires eligibility rules to be based on the premise that disability is medically determinable. That’s wrong because, as the ADA recognizes, a person’s environment matters. I will further argue that programs relying on this eligibility definition must inevitably: reward people if they do not try to help themselves, but not if they do; push the people they serve out of society’s mainstream, fostering a culture of isolation and dependency; relegate many to a lifetime of poverty; and undermine their promise of economic security because of the periodic “reforms” that are necessary to maintain taxpayer support. I conclude by pointing out that to change the conceptual definition for program eligibility, we also must change our whole approach to providing for the economic security of people with disabilities. We need to replace our current “caretaker” approach with one that emphasizes helping people with disabilities help themselves. I will briefly describe features that such a program might require, and point out the most significant challenges we would face in making the transition.

Beyond the Orange and the Green. The Diversification of the Qualitative Social Research Landscape in Northern Ireland.

The Northern Ireland conflict has been described as one of the most over-researched conflicts in the world. However, this is a relatively recent development. For many years, when the conflict was most intense, social scientists in Northern Ireland were silent and not vocal. The sectarian violence that dominated the life in Northern Ireland as well as the fact that the country was a fundamentally unjust society contributed to this silence. However, since the peace process began in the mid 1990s, a growing number of qualitative studies have been published, utilising one-to-one interviews and focus group discussions, in order to "make people's voices heard" and deal with the consequences of the so-called "Troubles". This paper looks into the emergence of a qualitative social research landscape in Northern Ireland beyond the conflict and explores issues so far neglected. It is argued that a number of factors have contributed to this, among them the availability of research funding to voluntary and community sector organisations that use their data to influence policy-making and equality legislation in a country which is still deeply divided along socio-religious lines.

Repositioning documents in social research

In matters of social research sociologists and other social scientists have tended to view documents primarily as sources of evidence and as receptacles of inert content.The key strategies for data exploration have consequently been associated with various styles of content or thematic analysis. Even when discourse analysis has been recommended, there has been a marked tendency to deal with records, files, and the like, primarily as containers - things to be read, understood, and categorized. In this article, however, the author seeks to demonstrate that by focussing on the functioning of documents instead of content, sociology can embrace a much wider range of approaches to both data collection and analysis. Indeed, the adoption of such a programme encourages researchers to see documents as active agents in the world, and to view documentation as a key component of dynamic networks rather than as a set of static and immutable 'things'.

Managing Island Life:Social, Economic and Political Dimensions of Formality and Informality in Island Life

"Managing Island Life: Social, Economic and Political Dimensions of Formality and Informality in Island Life" is a significant and timely contribution to the study of islands and island life. Wide-ranging in terms of both geographical and theoretical sweep, contributions consider the conceptualisation of the island as well as social, economic and political dimensions of island life and living. Showcasing the current state of island research, contributors cover diverse areas of island life such as: informal economies in the West Indies; the effects of natural convservation policies in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland; the role of internet sites in British Isles heritage tourism, and the impact of multicultural policies in the Indian Ocean. This volume will appeal to undergraduate social scientists as well as professional anthropologists, sociologists and geographers, policy makers and islands and regional specialists.

Rerum cognoscere causas: part I - How do the ideas of system dynamics relate to traditional social theories and the voluntarism/determinism debate?

This is the first half of a two-part paper which deals with the social theoretic assumptions underlying system dynamics. The motivation is that clarification in this area can help mainstream social scientists to understand how our field relates to their literature, methods and concerns. Part I has two main sections. The aim of the first is to answer the question: How do the ideas of system dynamics relate to traditional social theories? The theoretic assumptions of the field are seldom explicit but rather are implicit in its practice. The range of system dynamics practice is therefore considered and related to a framework - widely used in both operational research (OR) and systems science - that organises the assumptions behind traditional social theoretic paradigms. Distinct and surprisingly varied groupings of practice are identified, making it difficult to place system dynamics in any one paradigm with any certainty. The difficulties of establishing a social theoretic home for system dynamics are exemplified in the second main section. This is done by considering the question: Is system dynamics deterministic? An analysis shows that attempts to relate system dynamics to strict notions of voluntarism or determinism quickly indicate that the field does not fit with either pole of this dichotomous, and strictly paradigmatic, view. Part I therefore concludes that definitively placing system dynamics with respect to traditional social theories is highly problematic. The scene is therefore set for Part II of the paper, which proposes an innovative and potentially fruitful resolution to this problem.

Para uma ciência geral da complexidade social

O texto, inspirándose nas formulações de Edgard Morin, realiza um diagnóstico que atribui a perda de contemporaneidade da universidade à sua incapacidade de construir saberes unitários e universalistas que garantam o enfrentamento das incertezas do conhecimento e criem formas novas de entendimento do mundo. Nessa linha, questiona aqueles que atrelam o sentido do futuro, exclusivamente, ao desenvolvimento técnico, à capacidade do homem dominar a natureza e à ação demiúrgica do Estado. Insiste também quanto à necessidade de se ultrapassar o referencial antropocêntrico, cobrando dos cientistas sociais uma postura de superação da política de fragmentação e de especialização crescentes a que eles têm se submetido.

A Tool Box Half Full: How Social Science can Help Solve Human–Wildlife Conflict

There is a growing recognition among wildlife managers that focusing management on wildlife often provides a temporary fix to human–wildlife conflicts, whereas changing human behavior can provide long-term solutions. Human dimensions research of wildlife conflicts frequently focuses on stakeholders’ characteristics, problem identification, and acceptability of management, and less frequently on human behavior and evaluation of management actions to change that behavior. Consequently, little information exists to assess overall success of management. We draw on our experience studying human–bear conflicts, and argue for more human dimensions studies that focus on change in human behavior to measure management success. We call for help from social scientists to conduct applied experiments utilizing two methods, direct observation and self-reported data, to measure change in behavior. We are optimistic these approaches will help fill the managers’ tool box and lead to better integration of human dimensions into human–wildlife conflict management.

Semiotic Analysis in the Study of Social Work

Research and professional practices have the joint aim of re-structuring the preconceived notions of reality. They both want to gain the understanding about social reality. Social workers use their professional competence in order to grasp the reality of their clients, while researchers’ pursuit is to open the secrecies of the research material. Development and research are now so intertwined and inherent in almost all professional practices that making distinctions between practising, developing and researching has become difficult and in many aspects irrelevant. Moving towards research-based practices is possible and it is easily applied within the framework of the qualitative research approach (Dominelli 2005, 235; Humphries 2005, 280). Social work can be understood as acts and speech acts crisscrossing between social workers and clients. When trying to catch the verbal and non-verbal hints of each others’ behaviour, the actors have to do a lot of interpretations in a more or less uncertain mental landscape. Our point of departure is the idea that the study of social work practices requires tools which effectively reveal the internal complexity of social work (see, for example, Adams & Dominelli & Payne 2005, 294 – 295). The boom of qualitative research methodologies in recent decades is associated with much profound the rupture in humanities, which is called the linguistic turn (Rorty 1967). The idea that language is not transparently mediating our perceptions and thoughts about reality, but on the contrary it constitutes it was new and even confusing to many social scientists. Nowadays we have got used to read research reports which have applied different branches of discursive analyses or narratologic or semiotic approaches. Although differences are sophisticated between those orientations they share the idea of the predominance of language. Despite the lively research work of today’s social work and the research-minded atmosphere of social work practice, semiotics has rarely applied in social work research. However, social work as a communicative practice concerns symbols, metaphors and all kinds of the representative structures of language. Those items are at the core of semiotics, the science of signs, and the science which examines people using signs in their mutual interaction and their endeavours to make the sense of the world they live in, their semiosis. When thinking of the practice of social work and doing the research of it, a number of interpretational levels ought to be passed before reaching the research phase in social work. First of all, social workers have to interpret their clients’ situations, which will be recorded in the files. In some very rare cases those past situations will be reflected in discussions or perhaps interviews or put under the scrutiny of some researcher in the future. Each and every new observation adds its own flavour to the mixture of meanings. Social workers have combined their observations with previous experience and professional knowledge, furthermore, the situation on hand also influences the reactions. In addition, the interpretations made by social workers over the course of their daily working routines are never limited to being part of the personal process of the social worker, but are also always inherently cultural. The work aiming at social change is defined by the presence of an initial situation, a specific goal, and the means and ways of achieving it, which are – or which should be – agreed upon by the social worker and the client in situation which is unique and at the same time socially-driven. Because of the inherent plot-based nature of social work, the practices related to it can be analysed as stories (see Dominelli 2005, 234), given, of course, that they are signifying and told by someone. The research of the practices is concentrating on impressions, perceptions, judgements, accounts, documents etc. All these multifarious elements can be scrutinized as textual corpora, but not whatever textual material. In semiotic analysis, the material studied is characterised as verbal or textual and loaded with meanings. We present a contribution of research methodology, semiotic analysis, which has to our mind at least implicitly references to the social work practices. Our examples of semiotic interpretation have been picked up from our dissertations (Laine 2005; Saurama 2002). The data are official documents from the archives of a child welfare agency and transcriptions of the interviews of shelter employees. These data can be defined as stories told by the social workers of what they have seen and felt. The official documents present only fragmentations and they are often written in passive form. (Saurama 2002, 70.) The interviews carried out in the shelters can be described as stories where the narrators are more familiar and known. The material is characterised by the interaction between the interviewer and interviewee. The levels of the story and the telling of the story become apparent when interviews or documents are examined with the use of semiotic tools. The roots of semiotic interpretation can be found in three different branches; the American pragmatism, Saussurean linguistics in Paris and the so called formalism in Moscow and Tartu; however in this paper we are engaged with the so called Parisian School of semiology which prominent figure was A. J. Greimas. The Finnish sociologists Pekka Sulkunen and Jukka Törrönen (1997a; 1997b) have further developed the ideas of Greimas in their studies on socio-semiotics, and we lean on their ideas. In semiotics social reality is conceived as a relationship between subjects, observations, and interpretations and it is seen mediated by natural language which is the most common sign system among human beings (Mounin 1985; de Saussure 2006; Sebeok 1986). Signification is an act of associating an abstract context (signified) to some physical instrument (signifier). These two elements together form the basic concept, the “sign”, which never constitutes any kind of meaning alone. The meaning will be comprised in a distinction process where signs are being related to other signs. In this chain of signs, the meaning becomes diverged from reality. (Greimas 1980, 28; Potter 1996, 70; de Saussure 2006, 46-48.) One interpretative tool is to think of speech as a surface under which deep structures – i.e. values and norms – exist (Greimas & Courtes 1982; Greimas 1987). To our mind semiotics is very much about playing with two different levels of text: the syntagmatic surface which is more or less faithful to the grammar, and the paradigmatic, semantic structure of values and norms hidden in the deeper meanings of interpretations. Semiotic analysis deals precisely with the level of meaning which exists under the surface, but the only way to reach those meanings is through the textual level, the written or spoken text. That is why the tools are needed. In our studies, we have used the semiotic square and the actant analysis. The former is based on the distinctions and the categorisations of meanings, and the latter on opening the plotting of narratives in order to reach the value structures.

Antropología social y sociología argentinas : Identidades disciplinares en cuatro congresos

En este artículo se toman como objeto la antropología social y la sociología argentinas en su estado actual. Comenzando por un comentario general sobre la relación entre estas disciplinas y sobre su institucionalización en Argentina desde 1957, se pasa luego a la descripción de una de las hipotéticas dimensiones de su diferenciación basada en un análisis de componentes principales (ACP) sobre las ponencias presentadas en cuatro reuniones científicas en cuanto a la estructura de sus referentes teóricos y metodológicos. Los resultados muestran una superposición de referencias lo suficientemente importante como para asentar la idea de que las razones para la diferenciación entre estas disciplinas están lejos de obedecer a factores vinculados ala epistemología, la metodología o la teoría. Finalmente, retomando ideas de Abbott y Passeron, se argumenta sobre una posible comunidad única de cientistas sociales