Эксоцман
на главную поиск contacts
Что такое экономическая социология? Это не "междисциплинарные исследования". Это не "изучение социальных проблем в экономике". Это не проведение опросов населения. Это не маркетинговые исследования. Что же это? (подробнее...)

American Journal of Economics and Sociology

Опубликовано на портале: 15-12-2002
Michael Davern American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 1999.  Vol. 58. No. 4. P. 843-864. 
Several hypotheses are derived that relate social networks to the occupational prestige attainment process. These hypotheses are evaluated using theoretically derived indicators and ordinary least squares regression. Most of the hypotheses considered do not receive support, and the one hypothesis that does lacks a consistent theoretical explanation. From this analysis, two important conclusions are drawn: 1. The relationship between the prestige of a social network contact and prestige attainment may be empirically strong, but the theoretical explanation linking them lacks consistency. 2. Empirical work performed to test social network theories should no longer focus on dyadic data alone. The broader implications of these conclusions for future research are considered.
Опубликовано на портале: 23-09-2003
Frank A. Hindriks American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 2003.  Vol. 62. No. 1. P. 185-. 
Searle used to analyze institutional facts in terms of the constitutive rule. In his more elaborate account in The Construction of Social Reality he introduces the notion of a status function. The "counts as" locution is central to both the constitutive rule and the status function. The main question I ask is what role is left for the constitutive rule after the introduction of the status function. In order to answer this question, I start by analyzing the notion of a status function. An examination of the relation between status functions and the function of representation reveals that the former is a species of the latter. An exploration of the relation between status functions and collective acceptance reveals that Searle does not provide an argument as to why collective acceptance is required for institutional facts. Searle's new account goes beyond his old analysis of institutional facts in terms of the constitutive rule. Rather than declaring the notion to be redundant, Searle assigns the constitutive rule a new role: it is to account for the fact that there can be counterfeit instances of a subclass of institutions, including, for example, that of money. This subclass consists of institutions that are codified.