Sociology

[Thorbal]

Another mortal lost to psuedoscience. *sigh*

It's not too late to switch to Physics!

_________

Well, Max Weber ( antipositivist ) is certainly worth trying to get the "basics" ( although you will have to read a lot of Marx as well to properly understand him imho - Marx is a must ) . But I would start with "Economy and Society" . Then perhaps Giddens, Bendix ( good secondary literature on Weber as well ) , Dahrendorf. And Norbert Elias is one of my favourites - "The Civilizing Process" is quite interesting if you like CIV . And, currently very popular over here is Pierre Bourdieu - good stuff but quite hard to digest: "Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste" ( theory of practice ) . And perhaps Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann ( system theory ) . I don´t know very much about American sociology sadly, I´m specialized in German and French sociology except for the Chicago school ( city sociology ) and I´m not a "pure" sociologist, I did politics and social psychology as well with a bit of international law mixed in.

Oh, and Michel Foucault is great, too. And what Jessiecat said: Protestantism etc.

 

[cthom]

i remember some of my soc. studies- the tiwi people, industrial sociology, and a *huge* amount of statistics. there were so many different books on very different subjects within the field. it was the stats part that led me to use a computer for the first time: a VAX/VMS machine!

 

[REDY]

Giddens
10 characters

 

[kalif]

thorbal gave a good list, imo. but i guess it's ok to get secondary literatur about weber, durkheim, marx etc. for starters.
most of it will be idle knowledge to you, if you dont look for a certain topic, that is really interesting you. sociology is segmented into so many different areas of knowledges and apllications. not everything will interest you and in the beginning the sheer amount of different authors and topics is actually quite baffling.
"civilizing process" is excellent for a socio-historical aspect about mankind and fun to read even for starters. another good read and an early survey is "Marienthal: The Sociography of an Unemployed Community" by lazarsfeld, jahoda etc. it's a nice introduction of the basics of empiric studies.
not easy to read, but about the "nature" of social sciences and science in general are parts of "dialectic of enlightenment" by horkheimer/adorno. quite the essential over here. for an introduction into cultural studies i can recommend terry eagleton "ideas of culture".
if you are bored by heavy theorizations, try stuart hall. he not only gives you the weapons, but also a reason for what to fight for!

it really all depends on what kind of topics you want to focus on.

 

[Thorbal]

another good read and an early survey is "Marienthal: The Sociography of an Unemployed Community" by lazarsfeld, jahoda etc. it's a nice introduction of the basics of empiric studies.

Ah how could I miss that one - sociology 101 . Definitely not a waste of time.

 

[kalif]

yeah...and instead you mentioned luhmann! the worst thing to recommend to a starter (and to whoever) is luhmann where did you study?

 

[Ecofarm]

Are you really dissn systems theory/thinking?

 

[kalif]

yeah, why should a starter waste his time with a set of vocabulary and terms, he will only ever need again if he specializes in an ongoing struggle with luhmann's work. i havent seen an appliable context for system theory in social sciences. and i think it's too overpowering, but if you have different experiences, i am eager to know.

 

[Fifty]

As it moves past the pernicious influence of French social theorists, sociology is becoming a more and more methodologically coherent and "sciency" discipline. There is great work being done in sociology by math people and mathematically-inclined sociologists.

Duncan Watts has a really cool book about social network theory (the whole "6 degrees" thing) that I'd commend to your attention.

 

[Thorbal]

yeah...and instead you mentioned luhmann! the worst thing to recommend to a starter (and to whoever) is luhmann where did you study?

You´re right, Luhmann is probably *not* the author you should read first . I wanted to mention as many fields as possible in a single post without remembering that we were supposed to help get people started.

Looking at your location, this could get interesting - I´m studying ( or will have studied in 2-3 months ) at Leibniz University Hannover .

 

[C~G]

Are you really dissn systems theory/thinking?

Can't understand also how one could nowadays do that...

Duncan Watts has a really cool book about social network theory (the whole "6 degrees" thing) that I'd commend to your attention.

I echo that. Interesting read...

 

[Ecofarm]

yeah, why should a starter waste his time with a set of vocabulary and terms, he will only ever need again if he specializes in an ongoing struggle with luhmann's work. i havent seen an appliable context for system theory in social sciences. and i think it's too overpowering, but if you have different experiences, i am eager to know.

Systems modelling. Stella pwns excel linear programming. Grad level though. It was useful for illustrating economic/business logistics, ecosystems, public policy impacts, etc.

I wouldn't recommend wrestling with the sub-disipline itself, but an introduction to it serves causative emphesis and the recognition of externalities.

 

[El Koeno]

Systems modelling. Stella pwns excel linear programming. Grad level though. It was useful for illustrating economic/business logistics, ecosystems, public policy impacts, etc.

I wouldn't recommend wrestling with the sub-disipline itself, but an introduction to it serves causative emphesis and the recognition of externalities.

did you just use 1337speak in a post about sociology?

 

[kalif]

As it moves past the pernicious influence of French social theorists, sociology is becoming a more and more methodologically coherent and "sciency" discipline. There is great work being done in sociology by math people and mathematically-inclined sociologists.

nah, i mean there never was a real division between social science as a discipline and empiric work. empiricism (do you say that in english?) was always part of sociology. in fact statistics, data collections, methods of evaluations etc. were the beginnings of sociology as a scientific discipline back in the 18/19th century.

Looking at your location, this could get interesting - I´m studying ( or will have studied in 2-3 months ) at Leibniz University Hannover

me too, schneiderberg ftw! and in the light of this:

Duncan Watts has a really cool book about social network theory (the whole "6 degrees" thing)

what a small world

Systems modelling. Stella pwns excel linear programming. Grad level though. It was useful for illustrating economic/business logistics, ecosystems, public policy impacts, etc.

I wouldn't recommend wrestling with the sub-disipline itself, but an introduction to it serves causative emphesis and the recognition of externalities.

aha...sounds like mental no-go-areas for me

 

[Babbler]

As it moves past the pernicious influence of French social theorists, sociology is becoming a more and more methodologically coherent and "sciency" discipline. There is great work being done in sociology by math people and mathematically-inclined sociologists.

Duncan Watts has a really cool book about social network theory (the whole "6 degrees" thing) that I'd commend to your attention.

IIRC, you said that math in economics is often used to hide the lack of theoretical advancement. How does math in sociology differ?

 

[Thorbal]

me too, schneiderberg ftw!

The world is small indeed! Schneiderberg, easily the most sophisticated and beautiful university building ever made ! I don´t think I´m going to miss that particular building, especially the weird smell from the cafeteria in the morning .

Ah well... .

 

[Thorbal]

Sorry, double post .

 

[Ecofarm]

IIRC, you said that math in economics is often used to hide the lack of theoretical advancement. How does math in sociology differ?

Hard science is quantitative.
Physics, Bio, Chem, etc

It observes to confirm reality via bell curves. Real random samples, large Ns, solid statistical analysis.


Soft science is qualitative.
Anthropology, sociology, psychology, economics, etc

It observes to describe. Any quantitative analysis in soft science has gathered numbers from dubious 'random' samples and seeks to elicit causation via subjectively assembled factors.

Example

Polls (worded in various manner for perhaps unknown reasons) and personal observations are not as objective as truely random samples of soil from a given field.

The math is no different (significance = 5%+, p-values, etc) and some social studies have huge stats. What's different is where the numbers come from. Soft science is not objective quantitative observation of hard facts, it's subjective qualificative observation of causation. Personally, I do not see the point in gathering huge amounts of data for a subjective examination. To me it seems like fake armor: "Look, this is almost the same as hard science! See how many numbers and charts and graphs I have! Surely my quantity of numbers surpasses even some major studies by hard scientists. And it all proves: I'm the coolest." What's the point of having thousands of N generated via biased poll and selective observation?

Many soft scientists write books after completing a study. This is because soft science is qualitative. So after they have crammed all the quantitative data that could possibly be objective into their journal article/thesis, they write a purely qualitative book. You don't see chems or biologists writing books about the LD50 study done on a species of insect, or the biophysical study of x species. Why? Because those things are just numbers and thus are not interesting to laymen. Without questionable causation (LD50 isn't like 'well, maybe something else did it), the story is not so interesting (just boring facts... no sources to attack, no bias to discern

 

[Thorbal]

Soft science is qualitative.
Anthropology, sociology, psychology, economics, etc

It observes to describe. Any quantitative analysis in soft science has gathered numbers from dubious 'random' samples and seeks to elicit causation via subjectively assembled factors.

Example

Polls (worded in various manner for perhaps unknown reasons) and personal observations are not as objective as truely random samples of soil from a given field.

Many soft scientists write books after completing a study. This is because soft science is qualitative. So after they have crammed all the quantitative data that could possibly be objective into their journal article/thesis, they write a purely qualitative book.

I think you are exaggerating a little bit. First, depending on school and cognitive interest, sociology is not necessarily observing to describe. Qualitative analysis is currently a minority in sociology, although it is growing.

There are standardized and established empirical methods of collecting data, depending on the field of study. Except for bad studies, the operationalisation into variables is not done by someone who is just paid for making up random questions and samples. And because choosing samples is indeed a problem, there are normally control groups to get a good average.
And by analysis of correlation, we can indeed find out if there is a causation, although correlation is certainly not causation, there are ways of narrowing the possibility of errors to a very acceptable degree ( if the sample is large enough ) . Except for micro-sciology, these formulae are not there to accurately pinpoint the behaviour of single individuums, but large masses using stochastics, where the methods used are very accurate.

 

[Ecofarm]

Whoa, a grown up!



Yea, sure. Soft science is quantitative, kinda. It's purpose is to descibe a condition and elicit causation. Hard science's purpose is to record empirical data. Not exactly the same thing.