I think it was my third year in college that I signed up for a sociology elective. Now, while I had been flummoxed by several courses up to that point (namely, physics and calculus), I didn’t expect to be upended by sociology of all subjects. I recall sitting in that classroom, trying to concentrate but staring blankly at the professor as my mind wandered anywhere, everywhere, in its attempt to latch onto something sensible. After two weeks, I gave up: I dropped the course and signed up for who-knows-what. It doesn’t matter. I eventually graduated and got a job in engineering, not sociology. I don’t remember anything about that class, other than it was boring, full of jargon, and the only one I ever dropped.
Which brings us to irony. According to Wikipedia, the subject matter of sociology ranges from “the micro level of individual agency and interaction to the macro level of systems and the social structure. The traditional focuses of sociology include social stratification, social class, social mobility, religion, secularization, law, and deviance.” Given the number of words this blog has devoted to topics such as free will, religion, class, and the extent of our responsibility to others, it is evident that I have gone from being an engineer to being an armchair sociologist.
Sometimes I wonder what I would have learned if I hadn’t dropped that class. I might have been exposed to this:
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life is a book … published in 1959, written by sociologist Erving Goffman. In it, he uses the imagery of theater … to portray the importance of human and social action and interaction. He refers to this as the dramaturgical model of social life.
According to Goffman, social interaction may be likened to a theater, and people in everyday life to actors on a stage, each playing a variety of roles. The audience consists of other individuals who observe the role-playing and react to the performances. In social interaction, like in theatrical performances, there is a front region where the actors are on stage in from of an audience. There is also a back region, or back stage, where individuals can be themselves and get rid of their role or identity that they play when they are in front of others.
I really wasn’t ready for the dramaturgical model of social life at age nineteen. I had a hard enough time with assignments* such as, what does the song lyric “we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden” mean? I think the problem I had with my sociology class, besides my immaturity, was its focus on isms and theories (of which there are a multitude) instead of a more practical overview of human interactions. Even now, I find the way that sociology is presented (see this Sociology 101 slideshow — I’ll wait while you watch) to be numbing, as if the goal of the endeavor is to isolate a particular behavior and then slap an appropriate label on it.
To be fair to sociology (as if sociology would otherwise be damaged), I decided to select and read three articles from the journal Behavior and Social Issues that looked interesting to me. I then rated each article on three factors: pertinence to important human problems (as I judge them), clarity (plain language, arguments and conclusions clearly presented), and accessibility to a general audience (not restricted to specialists). So here they are.
Choose Your Words Wisely: Delay Discounting of Differently Titled Social Policy Issues
by Karyn M. Plumm, Hannah Borhart, Jeffrey N. Weatherly (Volume 21, 2012)
Abstract: The present study investigated whether altering how certain social policies were framed would alter how many participants valued and/or discounted those policies and also whether discounting of the policies would be related to several measures of the participants’ religiousness and their political party affiliation.
The term “delay discounting” refers to the fact that most people would accept a lesser reward now rather than a greater reward later. I had a hard time following the authors as they tried to explain the connection between framing and discounting: “Whether they realize it or not, people who are interested in promoting certain social issues are attempting to change how citizens discount that particular issue, potentially altering how the citizens discount other issues as a result. Thus, knowing how people discount certain social issues relative to others, what factors are associated with the rate of discounting of a particular issue, and how the framing of the issue may influence how it is discounted would seem to have potential value for policy makers and researchers alike.” Hmmm.
The authors’ aims were clear enough but the presentation of results and conclusions was muddled. The language is probably more understandable to sociologists than it was to me. The paper seemed to be addressed to think-tank researchers. I give the paper a 4.0 (on a 5.0 scale) on pertinence, 3.0 on clarity, and 2.5 on accessibility to an educated audience.
Interventions to Increase Hand Hygiene Behavior among University Students: Implications for Response Cost and Socially-Assisted Interventions
by Angela K Fournier, Thomas D Berry (Volume 21, 2012)
Abstract: A field study was conducted to examine the effect of interventions to increase hand-hygiene behavior of university students … observed during lunch. Results showed that the presence of a strategically placed hand-sanitizer dispenser was effective in increasing hand-hygiene behavior from 1.52% to over 60% (average n = 208 students per day). Participants were particularly responsive to the hand-sanitizer dispenser when combined with a change agent. Meanwhile, the tested interventions were ineffective in increasing the number of students entering a restroom to hand wash.
Regarding relevance: “Our hands pick up, deposit, and share with others a whole host of hand-borne illnesses, such as Rhinovirus, Rotavirus, E. coli, Shigella, Hepatitis A and Salmonella, resulting in gastrointestinal (GI) and respiratory infections (RI). It has been estimated that 60% of GI and 50% of RI suffered by society are the result of hand-shared and spread diseases.”
Conclusions: “The present study suggests that a strategically-placed dispenser of hand sanitizer may prove to be an effective method of increasing student hand hygiene. … The hand-sanitizer dispenser was placed in the dining hall where it did not interrupt the natural flow of students’ accessing lunch lines. In one sense, the hand-sanitizer dispenser became an additional but inserted part of a chain of behaviors leading to food service (see Figure 1). Because of dispenser placement, students (a) did not have to leave the area to clean their hands in a restroom, (b) did not lose their place in the serving line, and (c) dispensing of hand sanitizer was quick and easy, a task taking a few seconds.”
While the installation of hand-sanitizers in university cafeterias may not itself signal the end of contagious disease in humankind, this research can be applied to any number of situations involving infectious disease and compliance issues. I saw little sociological jargon here and no theory-fitting, just solid references to past research. I give this paper a 4.8 on pertinence, 4.5 on clarity, and 4.0 on accessibility.
Effects of Exposure to Macrocontingencies in Isolation and Social Situations in the Production of Ethical Self-Control
by Aécio Borba, Bruno Rodrigues da Silva, Pedro Augusto dos Anjos Cabral, Lívia Bentes de Souza, Felipe Lustosa Leite, Emmanuel Zagury Tourinho (Volume 23, 2014)
Abstract: Ethical self-control is conceived of as self-controlled responding under concurrent contingencies involving (conflicts of) consequences for the individual, and consequences for the group. The study assessed the production of ethical self-control repertoires in laboratory microcultures under four different macrocontingency arrangements. … Results from this experiment show a higher rate of impulsive selfish choices. The data on the four conditions suggest that the possibility of verbal interaction has more effect on the emergence of ethical self-controlled responses than access to each other’s responses.
If you think the abstract was obtuse, consider the first paragraph: “Skinner’s approach to behavioral phenomena was ruled by a selectionist view of causation since the development of the concept of the operant (Andery & Sério, 2001). In spite of that, it was only in the beginning of the 1980s that the causal mode of selection by consequences was formally described (Skinner, 1981/1988), and behavior was presented as the joint product of three selective levels: a phylogenetic level, an ontogenetic level and a cultural level.” Indeed.
I scanned this paper but could not read it exhaustively — it was too tough to slog through. It was replete with “five-dollar phrases” like quasi-experimental, interlocking behavioral contingency and delayed higher magnitude positive consequences. The experimental setup was just as complex. In the end I could not tell what the authors had concluded, let alone whether their conclusions were valid. I will give the authors some benefit of the doubt with respect to practical application of this work — after all, they did devote a lot of words to it. I scored this 1.5 on pertinence, 1.31594 on clarity, and 0.1 on accessibility.
So, after reading (n=3) sociological research papers: one was very good, one was fair, and one was full of the jargon that led me to drop my sociology class in the first place. I retract my blanket condemnation of sociology and replace it with conditional, ontogenetic and quasi-emergent acceptance. Maybe I will take a refresher course.
_____________________________
Note: I did not know until today that “Woodstock” was written by Joni Mitchell and not by Crosby, Stills, Nash or Young. Joni Mitchell never went to Woodstock and neither did I.
I think it was my third year in college that I signed up for a sociology elective. Now, while I had been flummoxed by several courses up to that point (namely, physics and calculus), I didn’t expect to be upended by sociology of all subjects. I recall sitting in that classroom, trying to concentrate but staring blankly at the professor as my mind wandered anywhere, everywhere, in its attempt to latch onto something sensible. After two weeks, I gave up: I dropped the course and signed up for who-knows-what. It doesn’t matter. I eventually graduated and got a job in engineering, not sociology. I don’t remember anything about that class, other than it was boring, full of jargon, and the only one I ever dropped.
Which brings us to irony. According to Wikipedia, the subject matter of sociology ranges from “the micro level of individual agency and interaction to the macro level of systems and the social structure. The traditional focuses of sociology include social stratification, social class, social mobility, religion, secularization, law, and deviance.” Given the number of words this blog has devoted to topics such as free will, religion, class, and the extent of our responsibility to others, it is evident that I have gone from being an engineer to being an armchair sociologist.
Sometimes I wonder what I would have learned if I hadn’t dropped that class. I might have been exposed to this:
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life is a book … published in 1959, written by sociologist Erving Goffman. In it, he uses the imagery of theater … to portray the importance of human and social action and interaction. He refers to this as the dramaturgical model of social life.
According to Goffman, social interaction may be likened to a theater, and people in everyday life to actors on a stage, each playing a variety of roles. The audience consists of other individuals who observe the role-playing and react to the performances. In social interaction, like in theatrical performances, there is a front region where the actors are on stage in from of an audience. There is also a back region, or back stage, where individuals can be themselves and get rid of their role or identity that they play when they are in front of others.
I really wasn’t ready for the dramaturgical model of social life at age nineteen. I had a hard enough time with assignments* such as, what does the song lyric “we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden” mean? I think the problem I had with my sociology class, besides my immaturity, was its focus on isms and theories (of which there are a multitude) instead of a more practical overview of human interactions. Even now, I find the way that sociology is presented (see this Sociology 101 slideshow — I’ll wait while you watch) to be numbing, as if the goal of the endeavor is to isolate a particular behavior and then slap an appropriate label on it.
To be fair to sociology (as if sociology would otherwise be damaged), I decided to select and read three articles from the journal Behavior and Social Issues that looked interesting to me. I then rated each article on three factors: pertinence to important human problems (as I judge them), clarity (plain language, arguments and conclusions clearly presented), and accessibility to a general audience (not restricted to specialists). So here they are.
Choose Your Words Wisely: Delay Discounting of Differently Titled Social Policy Issues
by Karyn M. Plumm, Hannah Borhart, Jeffrey N. Weatherly (Volume 21, 2012)
Abstract: The present study investigated whether altering how certain social policies were framed would alter how many participants valued and/or discounted those policies and also whether discounting of the policies would be related to several measures of the participants’ religiousness and their political party affiliation.
The term “delay discounting” refers to the fact that most people would accept a lesser reward now rather than a greater reward later. I had a hard time following the authors as they tried to explain the connection between framing and discounting: “Whether they realize it or not, people who are interested in promoting certain social issues are attempting to change how citizens discount that particular issue, potentially altering how the citizens discount other issues as a result. Thus, knowing how people discount certain social issues relative to others, what factors are associated with the rate of discounting of a particular issue, and how the framing of the issue may influence how it is discounted would seem to have potential value for policy makers and researchers alike.” Hmmm.
The authors’ aims were clear enough but the presentation of results and conclusions was muddled. The language is probably more understandable to sociologists than it was to me. The paper seemed to be addressed to think-tank researchers. I give the paper a 4.0 (on a 5.0 scale) on pertinence, 3.0 on clarity, and 2.5 on accessibility to an educated audience.
Interventions to Increase Hand Hygiene Behavior among University Students: Implications for Response Cost and Socially-Assisted Interventions
by Angela K Fournier, Thomas D Berry (Volume 21, 2012)
Abstract: A field study was conducted to examine the effect of interventions to increase hand-hygiene behavior of university students … observed during lunch. Results showed that the presence of a strategically placed hand-sanitizer dispenser was effective in increasing hand-hygiene behavior from 1.52% to over 60% (average n = 208 students per day). Participants were particularly responsive to the hand-sanitizer dispenser when combined with a change agent. Meanwhile, the tested interventions were ineffective in increasing the number of students entering a restroom to hand wash.
Regarding relevance: “Our hands pick up, deposit, and share with others a whole host of hand-borne illnesses, such as Rhinovirus, Rotavirus, E. coli, Shigella, Hepatitis A and Salmonella, resulting in gastrointestinal (GI) and respiratory infections (RI). It has been estimated that 60% of GI and 50% of RI suffered by society are the result of hand-shared and spread diseases.”
Conclusions: “The present study suggests that a strategically-placed dispenser of hand sanitizer may prove to be an effective method of increasing student hand hygiene. … The hand-sanitizer dispenser was placed in the dining hall where it did not interrupt the natural flow of students’ accessing lunch lines. In one sense, the hand-sanitizer dispenser became an additional but inserted part of a chain of behaviors leading to food service (see Figure 1). Because of dispenser placement, students (a) did not have to leave the area to clean their hands in a restroom, (b) did not lose their place in the serving line, and (c) dispensing of hand sanitizer was quick and easy, a task taking a few seconds.”
While the installation of hand-sanitizers in university cafeterias may not itself signal the end of contagious disease in humankind, this research can be applied to any number of situations involving infectious disease and compliance issues. I saw little sociological jargon here and no theory-fitting, just solid references to past research. I give this paper a 4.8 on pertinence, 4.5 on clarity, and 4.0 on accessibility.
Effects of Exposure to Macrocontingencies in Isolation and Social Situations in the Production of Ethical Self-Control
by Aécio Borba, Bruno Rodrigues da Silva, Pedro Augusto dos Anjos Cabral, Lívia Bentes de Souza, Felipe Lustosa Leite, Emmanuel Zagury Tourinho (Volume 23, 2014)
Abstract: Ethical self-control is conceived of as self-controlled responding under concurrent contingencies involving (conflicts of) consequences for the individual, and consequences for the group. The study assessed the production of ethical self-control repertoires in laboratory microcultures under four different macrocontingency arrangements. … Results from this experiment show a higher rate of impulsive selfish choices. The data on the four conditions suggest that the possibility of verbal interaction has more effect on the emergence of ethical self-controlled responses than access to each other’s responses.
If you think the abstract was obtuse, consider the first paragraph: “Skinner’s approach to behavioral phenomena was ruled by a selectionist view of causation since the development of the concept of the operant (Andery & Sério, 2001). In spite of that, it was only in the beginning of the 1980s that the causal mode of selection by consequences was formally described (Skinner, 1981/1988), and behavior was presented as the joint product of three selective levels: a phylogenetic level, an ontogenetic level and a cultural level.” Indeed.
I scanned this paper but could not read it exhaustively — it was too tough to slog through. It was replete with “five-dollar phrases” like quasi-experimental, interlocking behavioral contingency and delayed higher magnitude positive consequences. The experimental setup was just as complex. In the end I could not tell what the authors had concluded, let alone whether their conclusions were valid. I will give the authors some benefit of the doubt with respect to practical application of this work — after all, they did devote a lot of words to it. I scored this 1.5 on pertinence, 1.31594 on clarity, and 0.1 on accessibility.
So, after reading (n=3) sociological research papers: one was very good, one was fair, and one was full of the jargon that led me to drop my sociology class in the first place. I retract my blanket condemnation of sociology and replace it with conditional, ontogenetic and quasi-emergent acceptance. Maybe I will take a refresher course.
_____________________________
Note: I did not know until today that “Woodstock” was written by Joni Mitchell and not by Crosby, Stills, Nash or Young. Joni Mitchell never went to Woodstock and neither did I.