The NYTimes comes out with the 10 best books of 2007. Why don’t we come up with the best sociological insights of 2007? I ask because a friend recently wrote to me, “I have to present five minutes on an interesting or compelling discovery in Sociology from 2007… [any ideas?]” So, readers, any ideas?
-
Pages
-
Categories
- books
- Canada
- contest
- cryptic
- dialogues
- disarray
- dork
- economics
- fun
- gender
- help wanted
- meta
- misadventures
- online wonders
- personal
- politics
- procrastination
- professional
- religion
- science
- students
- teaching
- too much information
- travel
- Uncategorized
- what does this have to do w/ org theory?
- work and family
- writing
-
Archives
8 Comments
Clearly top 10, maybe top 1: the Christakis contagion-of-obesity paper (link).
Correll, et al. on the motherhood penalty in hiring and pay scales:
Correll, Shelley J, Stephen Benard, and In Paik. 2007. “Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty?” American Journal of Sociology 112: 1297-1338.
My nomination is for this article on investment in children by adoptive parents (the “new” idea would be that kids don’t need biological parents):
Hamilton, L., S. Cheng, and B. Powell. 2007. “Adoptive parents, adaptive parents: Evaluating the importance of biological ties for parental investment.” American Sociological Review 72:95-116.
Darn. My pick is from 2006. Apparently, I’m behind in my reading.
anything by me.
I kinda like an article in the most recent ASR, where Hawkins et al. argue that non-resident father involvements effect on kids well-being gets the causal direction wrong. Oi. That was a terrible sentence. But anyway, they suggest that instead of father’s involvement increasing the likelihood of a child’s wellbeing, a child’s wellbeing increase the likelihood of a nonresident father’s involvement. So it’s not that non-resident dad’s being involved in kids lives make those lives so much better, it’s that if the kids have better lives the dads are more likely to be involved. Not the best done study of the year. But an interesting result that confronts some conservative arguments…
Daniel Hawkins, Raul Amato, and Valarie King, “Nonresident Father Involvement and Adolescent Well-Being”, ASR, 72:990-1010.
In the end, though, I probably support Jeremy’s vote… It’s just that I worry that people will get it wrong and decide not to hang out with me anymore!
Because I’m at IU I’m tempted to agree with alairmac on the Hamilton, Cheng, and Powell piece. But, I think Jeremy’s right.
Anything on a 10-best list should not only be good-quality, but also interesting and influential. The Christakis piece has made such a splash–not only in the academic world but also in the “real world.” It has its issues and people have certainly skewed the findings to fit a sound-bite, but I love that it is sort of outside of the box thinking. Plus, there are pictures!
I, too would agree with Jeremy — if nothing else to make sure that it is acknowledged as a sociology piece (rather than a “pure” medical piece).