Catálogo de publicaciones - revistas

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>This article examines how social disparities in dropout rates vary by educational field. Previous studies have shown that first‐generation students, in general, have lower higher education completion rates than their fellow students. Less is known, however, about how such disparities vary between educational fields. We distinguish between <jats:italic>general</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>field specific cultural capital</jats:italic> and find that general cultural capital mainly operates through academic preparedness in upper secondary school, and after controlling for upper secondary school grade point average (GPA), students with parents with higher education degrees in a different field than themselves do not complete their degrees more often than first‐generation students. More field‐specific advantages of having a parent with a similar education are nonetheless visible in many fields also when we compare students with equal grades. Our analyses of Norwegian register data on the entire student population (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic> ≈ 400,000) show that the social inequalities are largest in fields that are both <jats:italic>soft</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>pure</jats:italic>, like humanities and social science, and that in <jats:italic>soft</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>applied</jats:italic> educational fields, like teaching and social work, the social differences are small and insignificant after controlling for GPA from upper secondary school. In fields classified as <jats:italic>hard</jats:italic>, it is only the students with parents with a similar education who complete their initial degree more often than first‐generation students. We suggest that status group formation, field‐specific cultural capital and micro‐class reproduction may all contribute to explaining these patterns.</jats:p>

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>There appears to be a mismatch between apparent incompetence in the world and the amount of sociological research it attracts. The aim of this article is to outline a sociology of incompetence and justify its value. I begin by defining incompetence as unsatisfactory performance relative to standards. Incompetence is thus intrinsically sociological in being negotiated and socially (re)constituted. The next section foregrounds how widespread and serious incompetence is. This renders effective sociological understanding crucial to welfare. The article then systematically analyses uses of the term in the <jats:italic>British Journal of Sociology</jats:italic> (a good quality general journal) to assess the current state of research. This analysis fully confirms the neglect of incompetence as a research topic. The next section proposes suitable methods for preliminary incompetence research addressing distinctive challenges like the stigma of being incompetent. These sections then allow incompetence to be better contextualised by other contributing concepts like power, bureaucracy and meritocracy. The final section justifies suggestions about directions for future research.</jats:p>

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Recent in‐depth qualitative research indicates that different people ascribe different meanings to their apparently similar stances on immigrants' entitlement to welfare. We are the first to investigate such variation quantitatively among the public‐at‐large, applying the novel method Correlational Class Analysis to an original survey fielded among a representative sample in the Netherlands (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 2138). We uncover five ways of looking at immigrants' entitlement to welfare, each including both people who oppose that entitlement and those who support it. People who adhere to these different viewpoints substantially differ when it comes to income, education, religious denomination, and political preference. We interpret these unique findings and discuss them in relation to the extant literature on welfare chauvinism. Moreover, uncovering what people's stances regarding immigrants' entitlement to welfare mean not only advances the scholarly debate on welfare chauvinism, but also provides a stepping stone for meaning‐oriented sociological research on public opinion more generally.</jats:p>

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Scholars of social mobility increasingly study the role of family background in shaping attainment throughout the entire life course. However, research has yet to establish whether the family characteristics influencing early career attainment are the same as those influencing late career attainment. In this research note, I apply an extended sibling correlation approach to analyze brothers’ life cycle earnings and family income, using data from the U.S. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. My analysis reveals a near‐perfect correlation in the family characteristics that affect attainment at early, mid, and late career stages. This finding has significant implications for how mobility scholars conceptualize the impact of family background across a career. It suggests that family background forms a single, consistent dimension in determining attainment throughout the life course. Further analysis also indicates that the imperfect relationship between current and lifetime income is exclusively driven by within‐family processes.</jats:p>

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>We analyze 391 news reports in Israeli newspapers between 2013 and 2015, covering murders of women and their family members by other family members and intimate partners. We compare articles where the perpetrators and victims are Jewish to those where the perpetrators and victims are Palestinian citizens of Israel (henceforth PCI). We found that articles tend to provide much more details about Jewish culprits than about PCI ones. As for ascribed motives, most murder cases by Jews were framed as an outcome of individual personality or the pathology of the culprit. Conversely, when Palestinian citizens were the killers, culture and tradition were invoked as the main motives. We suggest that the routine work of narration that the Israeli media preform when covering femicide is a case of political use of cultural stereotypes to gain moral ground in the intractable conflict between Jews and Palestinians.</jats:p>

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Research on the influence of family background on college graduates' earnings has not considered the importance of the match between parents' and children's field of study. Using a novel design based on within‐family comparisons, I examine long‐term earnings returns to reproducing parents' field of study in Denmark. I find that individuals whose field of study matches that of a parent have earnings that are 2 percent higher than those of their siblings with college degrees in different fields, on average. Earnings returns to field inheritance are highest in the fields of law (9 percent), medicine (6 percent), and engineering (4 percent) and are driven mainly by income from self‐employment. I find no direct evidence of nepotism as the earnings advantage does not arise from inheritance of parents' firms or employment in parents' occupational network. My findings indicate that, although a college degree generally equalizes family background differences in economic outcomes, there are additional payoffs to field inheritance, particularly in traditional fields characterized by a high degree of social closure and self‐employment.</jats:p>

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>How do parenthood and publishing contribute to gender gaps in academic career advancement? While extensive research examines the causes of gender disparities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers, we know much less about the factors that constrain women's advancement in the social sciences. Combining detailed career‐ and administrative register data on 976 Danish social scientists in Business and Management, Economics, Political Science, Psychology, and Sociology (5703 person‐years) that obtained a PhD degree between 2000 and 2015, we estimate gender differences in attainment of senior research positions and parse out how publication outputs, parenthood and parental leave contribute to these differences. Our approach is advantageous over previous longitudinal studies in that we track the careers and publication outputs of graduates from the outset of their PhD education and match this data with time‐sensitive information on each individual's publication activities and family situation. In discrete time‐event history models, we observe a ∼24 per cent female disadvantage in advancement likelihoods within the first 7 years after PhD graduation, with gender differences increasing over the observation period. A decomposition indicates that variations in publishing, parenthood and parental leave account for ∼ 40 per cent of the gender gap in career advancement, suggesting that other factors, including recruitment disparities, asymmetries in social capital and experiences of unequal treatment at work, may also constrain women's careers.</jats:p>