What are your areas of interests?

[myrrh]

It could be driving people crazy to just asking others if they've heard from some schools or to refresh the result reporting page. Let's do something alternative and perhaps it could distracting us a little bit. Also, I think no matter what results we got so far, we are somewhat considering sociology as a life long career. If the next step in sort run is vague, why don't we think about our long run plans? It could remind us that however we end up this year, we still have a long way to go.

So, how about talking about your areas of interests? I know it well that many of us have mentioned it in the stats thread or in the signature, but of course we have something more to say, rather than only stratification/ economic/ political sociology or so. It could help us know someone have overlapped interests with us, too.

About me: I was working on labor issues when doing my MA thesis. Specifically, I was working on the labor process, labor condition and industrial relation in south China. My MA thesis is a factory ethnography, for which I used to work in a factory for several months. In the very beginning, I mean as early as I'd not been in the field, I tried to write a proposal combining spatial politics (like some Foucaultian stuffs) and the labor process. Many of you would be saying, "oh, like some shop-floor panopticon". Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking about. However, I turned out wrote something more traditional, namely more close to the Marxist labor process studies.

From now on, I will be working on the same topic: labor issues in China. This time, however, I hope I can do something bigger. For example, I'm interested in comparative studies, such as the comparison between the Chinese coastal processing exporting zones and the Mexican maquiladoras. Also, it will be very interesting to examine the interrelation between political setting and labor condition, such as the Leninist party-state regime and the nominal trade unions.

Oh and I'm wondering this: during an interview, a professor said there are not so many American students interested in blue-collar workers. Is it true? It is reasonable for me as a lot of plants are moving overseas and perhaps the blue-collar labor issue is now replaced by unemployment issue. But anyway, I'm wondering is here anyone interested in the topics similar to mine. Is there anyone interested in workers, occupation, labor, economic sociology or China?

[Maya]

Your research sounds very interesting tomi! I too am interested in labour (excuse the spelling, I'm Canadian) issues, although my main focus has been on the American labour movement and its place within the American 'left'. I have a very clear idea about the issue I want to explore for a dissertation ( I wrote a research proposal for my LSE application), but there are other areas of labour, economic and political sociology that I'm very interested in as well.

edit: tomi, in response to your question about American students not being so interested in blue-collar workers, that may be accurate, althought I am not certain and obviously am no expert. Judging from the positive enthusiasm I received from the professors who I contacted back in October though, it certainly felt as if I was not in the majority in terms of research focus. Mind you, the positive responses clearly did not get me far with respect to admissions in the U.S. schools (thank goodness for LSE), but nonetheless, there certainly was excitement about my topic.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Maya

[myrrh]

Your research sounds very interesting tomi! I too am interested in labour (excuse the spelling, I'm Canadian) issues, although my main focus has been on the American labour movement and its place within the American 'left'. I have a very clear idea about the issue I want to explore for a dissertation ( I wrote a research proposal for my LSE application), but there are other areas of labour, economic and political sociology that I'm very interested in as well.

edit: tomi, in response to your question about American students not being so interested in blue-collar workers, that may be accurate, althought I am not certain and obviously am no expert. Judging from the positive enthusiasm I received from the professors who I contacted back in October though, it certainly felt as if I was not in the majority in terms of research focus. Mind you, the positive responses clearly did not get me far with respect to admissions in the U.S. schools (thank goodness for LSE), but nonetheless, there certainly was excitement about my topic.

The spelling is totally ok - I'm resubmitting a paper to a British journal, LOL! Your topic is interesting to me, and, do you know Jeff Haydu in UCSD? His recent book, Citizen Employers, looks awesome and you would like it. It's about labor movement, although from the angle of capitalists' class-identity formation.

And thanks for the response to my question(:

[Maya]

That book is cited more than a few times in my research proposal

[captiv8ed]

My interests are religion, gender, and labor. All seen through the lens of class.

[St. Jude]

My interests are family, marriage, gender, and the reproduction of stratification. I especially love divergent family formations.

[hip2btriangle]

gender/sexuality, schools, technology, surveillance

whee!

Edited February 25, 2010 by hip2btriangle

[Roll Right]

Religion, stratification, terrorism, inequality, and theory in general. I love sociological theory. I don't think thats necessarily an area of specialty, but I find that more and more sociology students are getting disconnected from theory in favor of research.

[socialcomm]

Social movements (environmental movement in particular) and technology (specifically the Internet).

[hip2btriangle]

...but I find that more and more sociology students are getting disconnected from theory in favor of research.

holler.

[Roll Right]

I think a lot of that is explained by the emphasis on quantitative research. It's easy to look at data and find associations. We can compile stats all day, run regression analyses and then say 'hey, look what I found! Time to write a paper.'. Thats just bad science. I've been told by some researchers that starting at the data is the best way to go...I disagree. Shouldn't researchers spend a large amount of time thinking, completely separated from data? Think on whats been theorized, look at past research, then formulate a hypothesis and test it.

Besides, theory is the most interesting part. What does it matter if poverty is related to higher crime rates if we can't explain it using some perspective??

[taiwanadian]

I'm interested in immigrant adaptation, social policies that affect their adjustment, social inequality, and prejudice. Much of my interest lies in the mental health well being, educational achievement/opportunities, and overall health. In the far far far future, I'm hoping to extend to people who immigrate and belong to several countries (aka third culture kids!)

[maximus82]

I'm interested in immigrant adaptation, social policies that affect their adjustment, social inequality, and prejudice. Much of my interest lies in the mental health well being, educational achievement/opportunities, and overall health. In the far far far future, I'm hoping to extend to people who immigrate and belong to several countries (aka third culture kids!)

I am also interested in immigrant adaptation, but especially as it relates to religion and the transmission of cultural capital. I'd like to study how immigrants send ideas, especially religious ideas, to their home countries.

Lately, I've been doing a little bit of network analysis at work. It's a very cool process and I think that it could be applied in some really interesting ways, especially for those of us who are interested in immigration.

Finally, I don't know if you are a US citizen or resident, but if you are, once you're in school you should look at ASA's minority fellowship program. They like to fund people who are doing research related to minorities and health (esp. mental health). If you are interested send me PM and I can tell you more about it.

[maximus82]

I think a lot of that is explained by the emphasis on quantitative research. It's easy to look at data and find associations. We can compile stats all day, run regression analyses and then say 'hey, look what I found! Time to write a paper.'. Thats just bad science. I've been told by some researchers that starting at the data is the best way to go...I disagree. Shouldn't researchers spend a large amount of time thinking, completely separated from data? Think on whats been theorized, look at past research, then formulate a hypothesis and test it.

Besides, theory is the most interesting part. What does it matter if poverty is related to higher crime rates if we can't explain it using some perspective??

I think the problem is that sociology as a discipline is having and identity crisis. There are so many people who try to hard to be "scientific" that they only look at the data. However, I know for a fact that theory is quite alive, just look at ASA's program and you'll see that not only does the theory section have plenty of activities, but there are also regular sessions that are completely theory-based. Anyone going to the Annual Meeting btw?

I personally like theory that is supported by data, and data that supports a theory. I don't like the arm-chair scholar approach of just theorizing and thinking about the world as this abstract thing. Instead, I think there should be a dialogue between theory and data. You modify your theory of the data doesn't match, and not the other way around.

[captiv8ed]

I definitely think that theory is alive and treated as a division of sociology. I was going to say subfield, but that doesn't make sense since it underlies all of it.

I am not doing ASA, but I am doing PSA. Anyone else?

[taiwanadian]

I am also interested in immigrant adaptation, but especially as it relates to religion and the transmission of cultural capital. I'd like to study how immigrants send ideas, especially religious ideas, to their home countries.

Lately, I've been doing a little bit of network analysis at work. It's a very cool process and I think that it could be applied in some really interesting ways, especially for those of us who are interested in immigration.

Finally, I don't know if you are a US citizen or resident, but if you are, once you're in school you should look at ASA's minority fellowship program. They like to fund people who are doing research related to minorities and health (esp. mental health). If you are interested send me PM and I can tell you more about it.

Thanks :)I'm not a resident or citizen though.. plus I haven't gotten any acceptances.. soooo.. maybe in the future!

[St. Jude]

I definitely think that theory is alive and treated as a division of sociology. I was going to say subfield, but that doesn't make sense since it underlies all of it.

I am not doing ASA, but I am doing PSA. Anyone else?

I'm doing PSA! And I will go to ASA if I can get my sociology friends to go with me.

[bb385]

Does anyone have a set of interests that are connected by seem difficult to integrate into a coherent research program? Generally, I'm interested in political economy, economic sociology, social stratification, and slightly (but increasingly) interested in migration. Specifically, I'm interested in: how economic knowledge (theory, empirical observation, ideology, policy recommendations) is engendered, legitimized, and disseminated; social (particularly labor) movements during and after authoritarianism; identity in trade unionism; economic stratification; the sociology of authoritarianism; and migration due to oppression. Methodologically, I'm interested in quantitative methods, network analysis, and comparative/historical methods. I suppose I would like to pick up some qualitative methods as well so I can put a face on the numbers. Theoretically, I'm sympathetic to "conflict theory", or social theory in the Marxian tradition, augmented by Weber and social constructivists like Goffman, Berger, and (to an extent) Garfinkel. Regionally, I'm interested in Latin America and especially the Southern Cone. I'm not sure how I'll blend this motley mix into one proper proposal, but it's better than having nothing to build on at all

I'm also intrigued by Erik Olin Wright's "Real Utopias" project. I see it as the torch bearer of critical theory in the tradition of Marx and the Frankfurt School and an exciting alternative discourse to the prevailing orthodoxy in a number of social sciences.

Right now, my M.Phil thesis is on the economic determinants of regime type change in the Southern Cone (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay). It's basically a literature review of all of the theoretical stances on how economic factors might influence regime type change in Latin America and in general, a set of quantitative models to test those theories, and a discussion of similarities and differences between transitions from democracy to authoritarianism and vice-versa and between countries considered.

I really don't think any credible quantitative work is done without resting on a solid theoretical foundation. As previously pointed out, a load of beta coefficients and significance stars might look pretty but doesn't say anything about causal mechanisms. I give professional sociologists enough credit to see this themselves and not be spellbound by results without a theoretical backing. Theory is the bread and butter of the discipline. I would think ( or at least hope) all sociology Ph.D.s come out of their training with a solid background in classical and modern social theory.

That said, it does seem like, academically, sociology has "outsourced" theorizing to philosophy or European social science. I am inclined to think this isn't even totally accurate though; it's probably a function of my limited time in this discipline. But even if sociology became a discipline of empirical work that co-opts its theories from outside, there isn't anything "wrong" or "unscientific" about this. There is genuine debate surrounding the relative merits of inductive and deductive social science. What's more, there isn't anything "wrong" with a "division of labor" of sorts, in which one set of researchers pop out the numbers and another builds the theory around or that inspires it. It's my personal opinion that theory and empirics alone are pretty vapid, but that's just an opinion. Arguments can be made to the contrary.

.....aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand this is why sociology has trumped economics for me. There are legitimate methodological and philosophical debates in the discipline, and that's refreshing.

[herself the elf]

My long-standing interest is in international trade law and policy (US and int'l) and how it relates to the construction of gender identities here and abroad. In particular, how women's understanding of their roles in society are specifically impacted by conference room decisions seemingly about widgets. I'm relatively new to sociology, but I suppose this generally falls under economic sociology and stratification. Also, it could fall under "sociology of law," but the folks that do that rarely (if ever) talk about international trade law. It also has connections with migration, particularly rural to urban migration. There is one professor in Germany who is obsessed by this concept and she is more of an economic sociologist; here in the US, the people who do this type of work generally fall under "globalization" or are in women's studies departments.

Recently I have been thinking a lot about the same types of gender-construction concepts but as they are formed by internet technologies, e.g., social networking websites, blogs, etc. I think that this falls generally under network analysis? I've been surprised since I've been on Gradcafe that there aren't loads of people (on here) studying social networking websites. Is there a reason for this that I'm missing? Data collection concerns/limitations related to privacy or children, or something else entirely?

[myrrh]

I'm with you guys. I think theories underlies every subfield of sociology, and it implies two things: first, the existence of the subfield of "social theories" or "general theories" never means that other subfields are not working on theories; second, even you are doing so called empirical studies, you are supposedly required to have some theoretical concerns. Or, let's say, your empirical studies could respond to some theoretical puzzles or even create some theoretical arguments.

As always be considered as a "theorist" and usually introduced in a theory course, Foucault built all of his "theories" based on his empirical works. I know there are some people treat "disciplinary power" as a theoretical term only, but it was exactly the outcome of a huge empirical research project, and was right there in a book dealing with a very empirical puzzle. On the other hand, as a "ethnography", Michael Burawoy's Manufacturing Consent has really strong theoretical arguments on "class-in-itself vs. class-for-itself" and subjectivity. It's also addressing the social ontology debates between determinism and voluntarism.

I know some people would argue that they are doing "pure theories" or "pure regression", but I myself would like to do something in the middle.

---

bb385: your specific topics are really a bit difficult to integrate into a single project, although the areas of interest looks highly related to each other. Anyway I think it's good to have some different interests! It could bring you good flexibility and creativity. However, it could also make you difficulties when you are going to build up ONE project. Good luck, I think it will be cool! BTW, I am interested in Real Utopia project, too, although I would not be attending UW Madison. I believe E. O. Wright will love your topics.

herself the elf: I'm not sure is there any other one interested social networking website. However, I think, if your topic is about the "online self-representation", you will definitely find some people interested in this topic as well as yourself, whether on Gradcafe or somewhere else!

[hip2btriangle]

My long-standing interest is in international trade law and policy (US and int'l) and how it relates to the construction of gender identities here and abroad. In particular, how women's understanding of their roles in society are specifically impacted by conference room decisions seemingly about widgets. I'm relatively new to sociology, but I suppose this generally falls under economic sociology and stratification. Also, it could fall under "sociology of law," but the folks that do that rarely (if ever) talk about international trade law. It also has connections with migration, particularly rural to urban migration. There is one professor in Germany who is obsessed by this concept and she is more of an economic sociologist; here in the US, the people who do this type of work generally fall under "globalization" or are in women's studies departments.

Recently I have been thinking a lot about the same types of gender-construction concepts but as they are formed by internet technologies, e.g., social networking websites, blogs, etc. I think that this falls generally under network analysis? I've been surprised since I've been on Gradcafe that there aren't loads of people (on here) studying social networking websites. Is there a reason for this that I'm missing? Data collection concerns/limitations related to privacy or children, or something else entirely?

hey herselftheelf! we should talk -- it doesn't necessarily have to be network analysis. i study web sites<-->gender stuff, but right now i'm studying the relationship between online and offline interactions and identity formation among youth. right now i'm doing qualitative stuff, but it could easily be a mix of everything. this is really important research and there really isn't a whole lot out there yet in sociology/anthropology. no seriously, keep in touch :]

Edited February 26, 2010 by hip2btriangle

[socialcomm]

Recently I have been thinking a lot about the same types of gender-construction concepts but as they are formed by internet technologies, e.g., social networking websites, blogs, etc. I think that this falls generally under network analysis? I've been surprised since I've been on Gradcafe that there aren't loads of people (on here) studying social networking websites. Is there a reason for this that I'm missing? Data collection concerns/limitations related to privacy or children, or something else entirely?

I'm interested in social networking and social media in general. I've been doing professional research on the topic, but not academic. I think it's just really new, although the barriers you mention might also be factors. I find Jennifer Earl's work very interesting: http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/earl/

[hip2btriangle]

I'm interested in social networking and social media in general. I've been doing professional research on the topic, but not academic. I think it's just really new, although the barriers you mention might also be factors. I find Jennifer Earl's work very interesting: http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/earl/

wow, thanks for the suggested literature. there's a developing sect of literature on technology and adolescence called "new childhood studies"; Mary Gray alludes to it in her recent book called Out in the Country -- she talks a lot about new technology and identity formation. anyone interested in adolescent development period should check out the newer literature on the construction of adolescence.

[Roll Right]

I think the problem is that sociology as a discipline is having and identity crisis. There are so many people who try to hard to be "scientific" that they only look at the data. However, I know for a fact that theory is quite alive, just look at ASA's program and you'll see that not only does the theory section have plenty of activities, but there are also regular sessions that are completely theory-based. Anyone going to the Annual Meeting btw?

I personally like theory that is supported by data, and data that supports a theory. I don't like the arm-chair scholar approach of just theorizing and thinking about the world as this abstract thing. Instead, I think there should be a dialogue between theory and data. You modify your theory of the data doesn't match, and not the other way around.

I'll be at the annual meeting in Atlanta, and I'll be at the southerns in Atlanta presenting in a session on film. I think arm chair sociology is extremely important, just as other sections of the discipline are. All sociologists contribute somehow, and those who sit and theorize about social phenomena are needed, just as the data addicts are. I just see a lot of students who have a solid background in data, and not much in the way of theory. When I tell these students that my undergrad was all theory and hardly any data (at least quantitative data), they all get very surprised. Of course, I've come full circle, and now I'm about to master regression analysis. I won't stop day dreaming about sociology though!

[herself the elf]

Thanks for the pointers hip2b and socialcomm.

Hip2b-- I'll be in touch!