If I can impart one lesson to all of you, it is this:
When picking your dissertation, try to focus your topic into only a few areas of literature.
My dissertation utilizes:
- Economic sociology
- Economics (in general)
- Sociology of immigration (also tied to economics)
- Literature on meatpacking plants (I don’t even know how to categorize this one)
- Rural sociology
- Urban sociology (don’t ask why both, it just is)
- Business management literature
- Social networks literature
- Social capital
- Political science
- Sociological social psychology
- Psychological social psychology
- Ethnic/racial identities (racialization/ethnicization … written by people who don’t read social psychology, seriously, though it makes no sense as they keep talking about social identities and don’t talk about social identity theory)
- Demography
I’m sure there is more. Problem is, I am (or should say WAS) only really conversant in three of these areas. So I have to learn new vocabularies, assumptions, main research findings, main debates, etc. of each field. Moreover, I really only care about a few fields. I’m sorry, but readings on the dual labor market do not make me giggle with joy. Nor does trying to decode overly long sentences that make little sense and actually say very little (how I classify economics). I hate a large part of my dissertation. A very large part.
I don’t know. Perhaps that is most dissertations. But I had plenty of dissertation ideas that would have been more narrow. Plenty. I wasn’t allowed to do those (not because they were bad but because of other structural conditions), so it means it can be done.
Filed under: crazy research ideas | Tags: affect control theory, identity, self
I’ve written and discussed before about my doubt of the position that there is no unified self. I’m wondering, however, how much it even matters if we do or we don’t. As I’ve argued before, even if we don’t have a unified self, most people believe that they do. And, if we believe something to be true, it’s true in its consequences. In other words, people will attempt to behave if there is some unification, will be stressed if different “selves” come into conflict with one another — negative emotions. I bring this up because I find myself wondering if we can predict identity adoption based on current identities. In other words, are individuals more likely to choose identities that are “closer” in meanings to identities they already have.
More concretely: Identities can be defined as the meanings one has for oneself in a particular role, group, etc. (ala Burke and Identity Theory). While IT doesn’t really strongly indicated where these meanings come from (Burke in his Mead/Cooley address says it’s cultural), other self theories (particularly affect control theory) more strongly indicate what these meanings are. In fact, ACT gives you a numerical value for each identity based on three dimensions of meaning: evaluation (how good or bad the identity is), potency (how strong or weak), and activity (how fast or slow) — all together called EPA. Let’s say you have a waitress. Her EPA is 1.46 0.25 1.63.* A teammate is 2.00 1.79 1.65. So, a teammate is somewhat better, more powerful, and a tiny bit more active than a waitress. Compare this to a nobody who is -1.01 -1.71 -1.89. Much worse, weaker, and much more passive than either a waitress or a teammate.
What I’m wondering is if identities will cluster in three dimensional space. In other words, are people more likely to be a waitress and a teammate (have those two identities) than to be a teammate and a nobody — because the first two would be closer together in the universal dimensions of meaning? I think you could make a case for this within ACT’s theoretical framework. I’m just not exactly sure how to test it. Any ideas?
*Go play with Interact, the ACT dictionaries website and applet, here.
I’ve mentioned before that I have lost someone to suicide. To memorialize this person, I got a tattoo on my wrist. The spot? Well, I can cover it with a watch if must needs and, in the area of coverage, this is not my only tattoo… so I’m running out of hidden areas to tat. Also, I like to be able to see it all the time.
Who knew that this was a fairly common occurrence? Getting a memorial tattoo? Well, it turns out it is. As I turn everything into sociology, I began a qualitative study interviewing individuals with memorial tattoos. The following is a picture of a tattoo a Vietnam Vet got to memorialize a fallen friend (killed by the kind of tank pictured).
I have spoken to people who have gotten tattoos to memorialize their mothers, fathers, children, friends, several military buddies, those who died on 9/11, and even a roommate that the tattooed person barely knew.
I have done a total of 17 interviews, and have come up against the wall. I NEED MORE. I am asking you, oh kind readers, to ask anyone you know with memorial tattoos to email me at pitselehsbackstage@gmail.com. If they do, I will send them more information about the study and arrange to do an interview (can do them over the phone) and a way to fill out the IRB.
So, I took a time series class this past semester for all of two days. I’m ABD and was signed up for three courses. I always knew I was going to drop one. Due to the unforeseen circumstance of eventually coming to the conclusion that the Prof. for one of the required classes I had left (for statistics, not my PhD in soc) might as well have been speaking Aramaic for all I understood him, I ended up dropping two courses. If I could go back in time, I would have stayed in Time Series, but you live and learn. Anyway, that class got me thinking in terms of seasons. Do we have identities that we cycle in and out of throughout the year? For high school and perhaps undergraduates, there is the student identity. I remember very early on in my BA career truly shucking that over the summer. But, even then, it was something I could draw on if need be (I’m NOT just a McDonald’s worker, I’m a college student — back when that meant something to me).
What would it mean to have a seasonal identity? Would it mean that the identity disappeared? Or, if we think in terms of the identity theory salience hierarchy, does that identity simply shift to the bottom of the pile and we draw on it less often (I am leaning towards that explanation)?
For all of you out there that are visiting this blog and not commenting, seriously, want your help on this one. Can you think of some examples? I’m sure they exist, but beyond student, I’m at a loss for thinking up others.
First, in your head, you should read the part two as they say it on those “I Love the [insert decade]s” VH1 shows. Just sayin.
I did absolutely nothing this weekend besides read about 1200 pages of Sci Fi fantasy and go to two departmental type events. Don’t start thinking I’m a joiner, I’m not… I just really feel my obligations. Anyway, I’m saying that I may discuss this later, after I get a little caught up on all the work I was supposed to do but refused, but wanted to give important links.
A few days ago I blogged about the relationship between happiness and money. See that original discussion here. Since that time, I found out that Wolfers is talking about these findings of his and his coauthor in the NYTs. So far he has three parts of this discussion in the Freakonomics blog (which, I have not yet read that book… it’s staring at me from across the room). Read them: here, here and here. In these papers, he attempts to dumb down discussion of logistic models for those of us who don’t know (although, it looks like he still uses the concepts of z-scores without really explaining them). But, figuring that most of us that read this blog do know at least a little somethin somethin about logistic and other regression models, I was super excited to find this link — the original paper! It was linked in the part 3 by Wolfers I list above. Don’t be too scared by the 71 page pdf. Only 33 seem to be text, with the rest references and pretty pretty pictures.
There has been a recent (well, maybe not recent, but recent to me) explosion in stories and blogs about money and happiness. A recent NYT article claims: “Maybe Money Does Buy Happiness After All.” The article describes a study by economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers from the University of Pennsylvania that made this claim. Contrary to the Easterlin paradox which states that it is not income but relative income that matters for happiness (you want to have as much as the Jones), Stevenson and Wolfers used Gallup poll information to show that the wealthiest nations have the highest life satisfaction.
From the NYT article:
If anything, Ms. Stevenson and Mr. Wolfers say, absolute income seems to matter more than relative income. In the United States, about 90 percent of people in households making at least $250,000 a year called themselves “very happy” in a recent Gallup Poll. In households with income below $30,000, only 42 percent of people gave that answer. But the international polling data suggests that the under-$30,000 crowd might not be happier if they lived in a poorer country.
When the reporter contacted “Mr.” Easterlin, his critiques were much along the same line that mine would have been. The summary from the reporter:
He agreed that people in richer countries are more satisfied. But he’s skeptical that their wealth is causing their satisfaction. The results could instead reflect cultural differences in how people respond to poll questions, he said.
Sociological as well as psychological social psychologists have long noted that emotions and moods are dependent upon the society in which we are embedded. Some cultures are populated with people, in general, who are less likely to rate things highly — no matter the question. Depending on how the questions are worded, some may not want to say they have high life satisfaction because such a comment is not culturally appropriate. Furthermore, how the heck do we know that it is the wealth that is causing this increased life satisfaction? It could be a whole slew of things — job satisfaction, higher rates of education, etc., etc., etc. Etc. is purposely a vacuous term here because it could be anything!
I think what we need are cross-cultural experiments (or even just one culture to begin with!). Have people do the same job. Have these people in different pay conditions. Perhaps have this over a period of time. Are those that paid more happier? You can vary things like autonomy — stand over the shoulder of one group and leave the other alone to do the work. Let’s see then who is happiest.
Anyone at a university with a lab who wants to do some co-authoring on this? Hmm. Cause I need more projects.
Bloggy relatedness:
Filed under: crazy research ideas | Tags: class, gender, norms, Questions, race, tips
I responded to this post on Sociological Images, but really didn’t get any replies to whether my hypotheses were silly or not. That makes sense, because I’m sure they don’t want to invite feedback and then criticize the feedback they get–that wouldn’t be good for setting up a norm of commenting. So, I thought I would put what I said here, and you can all tell me how silly and misguided I am. Here is the video from This American Life.
My comments:
Well, I spent sometime thinking about this, and here are the summary of my thoughts–for good or ill.
This restaurant is setting up a norm of hostility that violates the overriding social norm of colorblindness in this setting. Furthermore, the fact that most people who are video taped are likely inebriated, this provides two excuses for this behavior: (1) they are self-handicapping–this really doesn’t reflect who I am because I was drunk; and (2) not only was I inebriated, but the workers WANT me to treat them like this.
The workers are sending the signal that this is an unusual situation, where normal rules do not apply, when they begin abusing customers. This is clearly violating the norms for behavior that we generally understand service workers to have. Yet, to the extent the customer takes this offer for rude behavior to be returned, I think, would indicate their underlying level of prejudice–whether it is racism, sexism, classism or an intersection between the three.
I would imagine there would be a spectrum of types of customers. On one side (randomly called the left) you would have those that were dragged there by someone else and was really uncomfortable with the environment–and did little if any participation in the behavior. On the other (called the right), you would have those who go there on purpose because of their racist/ sexist/ classist beliefs, and do so to enact these beliefs (a chance to confirm an identity that is normally stigmatized–in a sanctioned environment).
What I would find most interesting is who tips and in what amount. Although bad behavior is sanctioned through the actions of the workers, the ability of tipping is yet another way of sanctioning the patrons behavior. Furthermore, tipping is another way to enact an identity–we just need to understand why they are tipping (I think you could also draw on TORA or the theory of planned behavior from Fishbein and Ajzen). The tips are, not surprisingly great (says the video). I would think those on the left would tip very highly to apologize for beginning in that environment and for seeing their friends behavior–saying, I’m not like this, let me show you by not abusing you and tipping you largely (two actions that would confirm a non-prejudice person identity). I would think that those about 3/4ths down to the right would also tip higher than most. By tipping they are giving license to their behavior which they are not fully embracing in themselves–another way of saying, “I’m just play acting, this really isn’t me. See, I like you, I gave you lots of money.”
Thus, there are two main behaviors that can be drawn on to verify level of prejudice in the person identity: (1) how they treat the workers; and (2) the amount of tips they give. I’m sure there are more (comments made to friends–”Wow, this is awesome” or “Can we leave?” or even the amount of time they stay in the shop, if they choose to eat outside away from the action, etc.). But, the intersection between action and tipping, I think, would be very telling.
So, am I theorizing out of my ass?
Filed under: crazy research ideas | Tags: endlessly theorizing, Horseback riding, status
…is needed by me.
So, much like Mad Slave talks about here, I find myself with way too much to do and not enough time to do it. But, I figure I’m supposed to be a human with interests outside of sociology. As such, I decided I needed to have a hobby that was completely unrelated to research.
As a child, we owned horses and I’ve always taken lessons. At least I did until I moved out of my dad’s house to live with my mom (who was poor). Anyway, I decided my hobby would be horseback riding. Can’t get too sociological there, right? Wrong.
I had a lesson tonight. God knows I should have canceled it because I wasn’t feeling well, but I went anyway. I ride Kirby who is a huge part draft horse who was being very pugnacious tonight. He wanted to trot when I wanted him to walk, he wanted to canter when I wanted to trot. Basically, he wanted to stay in front of, or keep up with at the least, Casino (the other lesson horse) and would do anything to get there. Like the lazy kid in gym class (like I was), he kept trying to cut corners so he had less far to travel to get out front.
My thoughts on the matter? Kirby was experiencing dissonance from status inconsistency. He is the biggest horse around, probably rules the pastor, and the other lesson horse was way in front and some human was trying to tell him what to do. This dissonance made him angry mostly at the person who was causing it–namely me.
I need help. Serious help. I think I need to sustain damage to my amygdala–that will keep me from personifying and theorizing about horses. Am I the only one who does this? Constantly? All the time? Never ending social psychologizing absolutely EVERYTHING?
