CSO103 - Introduction to Comparative Sociology, Updated Partial Course Outline and Reading List

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

INTRODUCTION TO COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGY ~ CSO 103.

[Partial Course Outline and Reading List, Updated in November 2016]

PROF. MAURI YAMBO

INTRODUCTION

CSO 103 is a first year course designed to introduce students to aspects of social structure common to all societies. The idea is to highlight concepts which serve as templates for a comparative or cross-cultural study of selected societies in today’s world.

CLICK HERE To Read More About The COURSE OUTLINE. 

CLICK HERE To Go To The READING LIST

APPENDIX

1. LECTURE NOTES:
1.1. Yambo, Mauri (2012) “Components of Social Control” (Topic 3)
http://mauriyambo.blogspot.co.ke/2012/05/components-of-social-control.html

1.2. Yambo, Mauri (2016) “Topic 4: Social Differentiation, Stratification and Class”
http://mauriyambo.blogspot.co.ke/2016/03/social-differentiation-stratification.html?q=topic+4

2. FINAL EXAMINATION PAPERS IN CSO 103:
2.1. Past Final Examination Papers (Batch 1):  http://mauriyambo.blogspot.co.ke/2013/04/cso103-introduction-to-comparative.html?q=cso+103

Reading List For Sections 3 and 4 of CSO 103 ~ INTRODUCTION TO COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGY (Third Edition April 7, 2016)

Click here to access Sections 3 and 4 of the CSO 103 Course Outline

HERE IS THE READING LIST FOR SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF CSO 103 ~ INTRODUCTION TO COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGY (Third Edition April 7, 2016)

Baker, James A. (2005) The Anger Busting Workbook: Simple, Powerful Techniques for Managing Anger and Saving Relationships Houston, TX: Bayou Publishing.[Relevant to Self Control and Anger Management topics]

Cohen, Bruce (1979) Theory and Problems of Introduction to Sociology. Schaum’s Outline Series. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.         

Drum, Kevin (2012) “Social Mobility in America: It’s All about the Poor” www.motherjones.com

Featherstone, Richard and Mathieu Deflem (2003) “Anomie and Strain: Context and Consequences of Merton’s Two Theories” Sociological Inquiry 73 (4): 471-489, 2003.

Final Examination Papers: CSO 103, December 2008 to December 2012 [Uploaded by Mauri Yambo]

Forman, Johanna Mendelson (2013) “Cuba’s Emerging Middle Class and Growing Private Sector” in Huffington Post, November 11, 2013

Gates, Bill and Melinda Gates (2014) “2014 Gates Annual Letter: 3 Myths that Block Progress for the

Poor” www.gatesfoundation.org

Gibbs, Jack P. (1989) Control: Sociology’s Central Notion. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. [Themes covered in the book include: The notion of control; basic types of control; inanimate, biotic and human control; and conflict and social class. Gibbs touches on the consensus-conflict debate, arguing that “The opposite of consensus is dissensus, not conflict” (p. 287). Has brief but interesting comments on certain leading conflict theorists]       

Gibbs, Jack (1990) “The Sociology of Deviance and Social Control”, pp. 483-524, in Morris Rosenberg and Ralph. H. Turner, eds. 1990. Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives. New Brunswick, NY: Transaction Publishers, Rutgers.         

Hirschi, Travis (1971) Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press. [This is a preview. Read what you can about Perspectives on Delinquency, Causes of Delinquency, Strain Theory Control Theory of Delinquency, Conventional Activities]

Hutson, Matthew (2014) “Social Darwinism Isn’t Dead: Rich people think they really are different from you and me” www.slate.com [Discusses the problematic of “Social Class Essentialism”]

Ingham, Harrison and Joseph Luft’s, “Johari Window Model” (This is meant for “understanding and training self-awareness, personal development… interpersonal development”, etc.). Note: Joe + Harry = Johari. Compare that model with this version by Alan Chapman (2003) 

Juma, Victor (2010) “Kenya Ranked Among Most Unequal Societies”. Business Daily, November 5.

Leke, Acha, et al. 2010. “What’s Driving Africa’s Growth?” McKinsey & Company, www.mckinsey.com

Maguire, Mike, Rod Morgan and Robert Reiner, Eds (2012) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. 5^th Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.    

Merton, Robert (1938) “Social Structure and Anomie” American Sociological Review, Vol. 3, No. 5, October 1938, pp. 672-682  

Mugwe, David (2011) “Kenyans in UK earn above average incomes” Business Daily, January 18, 2011. 

Parsons, Talcott (1964) “Evolutionary Universals in Society”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 29, Issue 3 (June 1964), pp. 339-357.    

Social Engineering Texts [Note that the Sociologist’s understanding and usage of  the term social engineering is contrary to the misleading usages/definitions of the  terms – usages perhaps based on extreme interpretation or implementation of the idea of “psychological manipulation” – that have in the last five or so clogged the Google search engine. I have in mind terms such as: phishing, confidence trick/trickster, pretexting, ‘diversion theft’, computer/information security, ‘forced’ system access (or break-in or hacking), fraud and deception. Here are some texts to keep you on the right track]:     

a.   Sociological conceptualization of “Social Engineering”.  See http://www.thefreedictionary.com        

b.   Thomas Avery (2000) “Popper on ‘Social Engineering’: A Classical Liberal View”, Reason Papers Vol. 26: 29-38 (Summer 2000). www.reasonpapers.com            

c.   Vincent Navarro. 2003. “Policy Without Politics: The Limits of Social Engineering” American Journal of Public Health, January 2003, 93 (1), 64-67.      

Williams, Katherine S. 2012. Textbook on Criminology. 7^th Edition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press. [Read Chapter 13 on Control Theories, pp. 370-403]

CLICK: A 2014 power point sketch of Williams’ thinking about control theories.

Yambo, Mauri (2012) “Components of Social Control” (Topic 3) www.mauriyambo.blogspot.com

Yambo, Mauri (2013) “So Living in a Middle Class Area With a Large Middle Class Boosts a Poor Child’s Prospects of Rising to Middle Class?” www.mauriyambo.com     

Yambo, Mauri (2016) “Topic 4: Social Differentiation, Stratification and Class” www.mauriyambo.blogspot.com

The Theoretical and the Empirical: Two Salient Dimensions of the Comparative Argument

The comparative argument cannot be fully closed with empirical evidence alone, but with implicit or explicit reference to theory as well. This is the only way to make sense of whatever it is that the comparative eye draws attention to. It is theory which in one way or another affirms and settles the basis for comparison, in the first place. 

Certainly, the empirical dimension provides the evidence that one can observe, as one must. However, the data it generates cannot have shape or form without help from the explanatory and agenda-setting power of theory. 

Thus, the theoretical dimension contextualizes the process by which the verdict is delivered, as well as the verdict itself. It follows from all this that the two -- the theoretical and the empirical -- are inseparable sides of the same comparative coin.

Social Differentiation, Stratification and Class ~ CSO 103, CSO 501

INTRODUCTION TO COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGY:

LECTURE NOTES

By Prof. Mauri Yambo

TOPIC 4:  SOCIAL DIFFERENTIATION, STRATIFICATION AND CLASS

-     Introduction: Conceptualizing Social Differentiation

-     Patterns and Sources of Social Differentiation

-     Evolutionary Universals

-     Social Stratification

-     The Nature of Social Class and the African Experience

-     Conclusion.

4.1. Introduction: Conceptualizing Social Differentiation

Differentiation and evolution are conceptual twins in many conversations about growth, structure and change, over time. Since Darwin, the two processes have been acknowledged as conjoined features or happenings, in the course of time, of all biological organisms. In turn, both social structure and societal change have been treated by influential sociologists (as we see in the next paragraph) as analogous to those observed in biology; hence the widely used phrase: organismic analogy. In this analogy, differentiation is an all-encompassing process: it pertains to and features in all forms of structuration. But not everyone is in agreement with this perceived correspondence or analogy of differentiation and evolution in long-term social change, on the one hand, and biological change, on the other.

For example, Steward (1976: 11-15), focusing on cultural evolution, points out that:

Click Here to Read the Whole Paper

Measurability: A Key Standard of Scientific Research

Nine key standards, or principles, of scientific research can be gleaned from texts on research method. As I see them, these are:

1. Universality

2. Replicability

3. Control
4. Measurability
5. Validity
6. Reliability (Pending)

7. Objectivity (Pending)

8. Ethics 

9. Representativeness.

I say something about each of the nine standards in separate posts, as shown in the links above. What I want to briefly talk about here is the measurability standard. 

Measurability 

Measurability means susceptibility to measurement. It means, in other words, that what is to be measured must embody quantities and/or qualities -- or have features, dimensions or characteristics -- that can be subjected to appropriate or 'true' measurement. Concerning the defining characteristics of a measurement, Bell (1999) notes that:

"A measurement tells us about a property of something. It might tell us how heavy an object is, or how hot, or how long it is. A measurement gives a number to that property. Measurements are always made using an instrument of some kind. Rulers, stopwatches, weighing scales, and thermometers are all measuring instruments. The result of a measurement is normally in two parts: a number and a unit of measurement, e.g. ‘How long is it?... 2 metres." 

The measurability rule is anchored on the above conceptions, and so requires that the variables around which the researcher intends to collect data should be measurable, or susceptible to acceptable ‘measurement’ (Leedy, 1980: 46)[1]. This is easier done in the natural sciences than in the social sciences; in quantitative studies than in qualitative. Still, one must, in the social sciences too, endeavor to quantify, measure and evaluate. Indeed, the guiding principle of the measurability rule -- its corollary, in other words -- is this: "What can be measured must be measured." Thus, not measuring what can be measured is not an option allowed anyone.

In quantitative research, the measurability standard features prominently in all methodological procedures that revolve around, or build up to, hypothesis testing. The testability of a hypothesis is indeed a function of the measurability of the variables that constitute it. Such measurability is, in turn, dependent on the indicators chosen to represent them; but one is not entirely free to choose just any indicator(s). They must be such as most peers or reviewers or supervisors or sponsors can be persuaded to accept as valid and reliable. Still, one has some leeway in choosing the indicators one wishes to use, so long as the reviewers, supervisors or funding entities are prepared to see or accept one's findings “in the light" of the chosen indicators.

Viswanathan (2010: 285-210) has interrogated in depth the challenges encountered in "Measure development procedures," particularly in connection with quantitatively-oriented social science research. Among these challenges, which he believes are not sufficiently appreciated, is the underpinning assumption, which he faults, that "a construct can be [readily and invariably] isolated and examined." Here is his line of thinking:

"By measuring or manipulating individual constructs, relationships between constructs are studied and substantive hypotheses about these relationships are tested. The very notion that numbers can be assigned to attributes of people, objects, or events is presumed on being able to study attributes or constructs separate from other constructs. After all, measurement relates to rules for assigning numbers to attributes of people, objects and events. [But] this is not the case for many phenomena. A complex network of constructs may influence a phenomenon and may not be separable into individual constructs for purposes of measurement." 

Measurability procedures implemented in qualitative -- that is, 'non-numerical' -- research attempt, not always successfully, to overcome or circumvent such intractables as Viswanathan has pointed out. These procedures include, for example, “comparative judgement (arranging factors in a hierarchy of importance)” or  “scaling (correct versus incorrect responses to a given set of questions)” (Leedy, 1980: 46). Other ‘non-numerical’ strategies that have been used, according to Worsley (1992: 113)[2] include: “careful classification[3], organizing and combining of field-notes [which] requires patient checking and cross-checking and the application of systematic techniques.” But he acknowledges that “numerical methods are sometimes applied to field-data too” (Worsley, 1992: 113). Indicators are often used as proxies/surrogates for more fuzzy or abstract concepts, such as status (Worsley, 1992: 96). Such indicators are inevitably numerical. 

One may also, in connection with the nominal level of measurement (the simplest level), and even with the ordinal level of measurement, calculate frequencies/percentages, and cross-classify in qualitative research. Scaling, moreover, is not just about correct v. incorrect. Incorporating comparative judgement, one may also use scales of: high v. low, do v. don’t, very high to very low, very good to very bad, strongly agree to strongly disagree.

To be fair to everyone, no one is quite attempting stubbornly to square the circle in this measurability conversation. Still, the challenges of measuring require, and will surely be tempered with, constant and open-minded vigilance -- as well as an abundance of capacity to deal with critiques and contrary views, including (so be it) one's own self-criticism. Bell (1999: 1), like others before her, subsumes this conversation under the theme "uncertainty of measurement". Thus:

"Uncertainty of measurement is the doubt that exists about the result of any measurement. You might think that well-made rulers, clocks and thermometers should be trustworthy, and give the right answers. But for every measurement - even the most careful - there is always a margin of doubt. In everyday speech, this might be expressed as ‘give or take’ ... e.g. a stick might be two metres long ‘give or take a centimetre’."

---

^[1] Sarantakos talks of the need for precision in measurement (pp. 18-26)

^[2] Peter Worsley, ed. 1992. The New Introducing Sociology. Revised Third Edition. London: Penguin Books.

^[3] Another word for classification, given by Worsley (1992: 97) is categorization; and both, he argues, are an often overlooked “form of measurement” – even if they are “the simplest level” (that is, the nominal level) of measurement. There are in total four levels of measurement, the others being, in an ascending order of complexity: Ordinal (or rank-order), interval and ‘ratio’ scale (Worsley, 1992: 97-98).



REFERENCES

Bell, Stephanie (1999) Measurement Good Practice Guide: A Beginner's manual to Uncertainty of Measurement. (No. 11, Issue 2). Taddington: National Physics Laboratory

Leedy, Paul D. (1980) Practical Research: Planning and Design. Second Edition. New York:  Macmillan Publishing Co.,
Sarantakos, Sartirios (1994) Social Research. London: The Macmillan Press

Viswanathan, Mathu (2010) "Understanding the Intangibles of Measurement in the Social Sciences," pp. 285-312, in Geoffrey Walford, Eric Tucker and Mathu Viswanathan, Eds. (2010) The SAGE Handbook of Measurement. Los Angeles: SAGE 

Worsley, Peter, ed (1992) The New Introducing Sociology. Revised Third Edition. London: Penguin Books

CSO 103 ~ Introduction to Comparative Sociology, Partial Course Outline and Reading List

To Get the Latest Version of this Document CLICK HERE

[The old Reading List is no longer available]

 I co-teach this course, and cover two broad topics, namely:

Topic 3: Social Control, Socialization and Deviance:

Here, we interrogate the need for social control and, additionally, cover the following subtopics:

-        Definition and Context of ‘Control’ in Society

-        Levels of control: Self and Social Control

o   Aspects of Self Control

o   Aspects of Social Control

o   Interfaces between Self Control and Social Control

-        Explaining Deviance: Sources, Patterns and Consequences

-        Social Engineering.

Topic 4: Social Differentiation, Social Stratification and Social Class:

The subtopics covered here are:

-        Conceptualizing Social Differentiation

-        Changing Social Differentiation Patterns in Africa

-        Social Stratification and Structuration

-        Social Class and the Rise of the African Middle Class.

NOTE: The old Reading List is no longer available. Click here to get the latest list.

Prof. Mauri Yambo

September-December 2013