soci230 - class 6

Lipset, Bendix, and Zetterberg (LBZ)

What argument do LBZ make concerning the alleged greater "openness" of the stratification system in the United States, versus the "closed" systems of European countries?
What are the five processes that can affect the rate of social mobility, according to LBZ (pp. 252-255)?
What individual-level (psychological) mechanism do LBZ invoke to explain that mobile individuals experiencing "status discrepancy" might be more prone to mental illness?
What difference do LBZ find in the effects of upward mobility on voting behavior between Europe and the United States?
What is the role of "ideological equalitarianism" in the United States, according to LBZ? Has ideological equalitarianism destroyed status differences in this country?
In what ways is the LBZ approach typical of "first generation" stratification research, as described by Ganzeboom et al.?

Blau and Duncan (B&D)

Measuring the Status of Occupations

What procedure do Blau & Duncan use to estimate their socioeconomic index of the status of occupations, in a nutshell?
What is B&D's goal in designing their socio-economic index (i. e., what aspect of occupations are they trying to measure)? How does the SEI relate to classical dimensions of class, status, and party?
How does the notion of discrete social classes fit within the B&D approach?

The Process of Stratification

What role do the concepts of "ascription" versus "achievement" play within the status attainment research of B&D?
In a nutshell, what is the basic model of the stratification process constructed and estimated by B&D?
What is the interpretation of a path coefficient? For example, what does it mean to say that the direct effect of education (U) on occupation (Y) is .394?
What part of the status achievement model do B&D identify as representing (strict) "occupational inheritance", and what typical value does this occupational inheritance effect have? Does this finding imply strong mechanisms of "class reproduction"?
How damaging would it be (in terms of potential bias and erroneaous interpretation) to omit from the stratification model variables that are purely "intermediate", acting for example between first job and current job?
What is a simple way to estimate the sum of all indirect effects of an independent variable (say X) an the dependent variable (say Y)? (See p. 324, Right column, "The sum of all...".)
How do B&D discuss the idea of inherent mechanisms of "perpetuation of family position" (or "vicious circle", or "cycle of poverty") in the context of the achievement model?
To what extent does it make sense to call the B&D approach "functionalist"?

Sewell, Haller, and Portes (SHP)

What (3) justifications do Sewel, Haller, and Portes provide for incorporating psychological and social-psychological mechanisms in the status-attainment model?
What is the role of "significant others' influence" (SOI) in the SHP model? What is the potential importance of this variable for social policy?
What characteristics of the study design (e. g., the specification of the sample) may have affected the estimates of path coefficients obtained by SHP? What effects might be especially affected by the nature of the sample?
In what ways does (or does not) the SHP study represent progress in understanding mechanisms of status attainment?

Erikson and Goldthorpe (E&G)

In what sense do E&G use the term "liberal" when they discuss the "liberal theory of industrialism"?
What (three) statements concerning social mobility in industrial societies do E&G attribute to the "liberal theory"? Is this summary a fair representation of the "liberal theory", or could one argue that parts of the attribution are setting up a "strawman" to be easily destroyed by empirical evidence but that no one would seriously defend?
How do E&G characterize the Featherman-Jones-Hauser (FJH) hypothesis, in contrast with the "liberal theory"?
In broad outline, what are the results of the E&G cross-national analysis of absolute rates of social mobility (see especially pp. 303-304)? What support is found for Lipset and Zetterberg's hypothesis of a "once and for all" mobility upsurge associated with industrialization?
What conclusion do E&G draw from their analysis of relative rates of social mobility (i. e., rates of "social fluidity")?
If one were to deemphasize the parts of E&G's discussion that consist of adjudicating between conflicting theories, what overall picture of the effect of industrialization on social mobility can one derive from their analyses?

Ganzeboom, Treiman, and Ultee (GTU)

What are the five dimensions along which GTU compare and contrast the three "generations" of stratification research?
What were the major substantive research issues posed in the first generation of stratification research (p. 281)? With respect to substantive issues, has the trend in later generations of research always been toward substantive enrichment and progress, according to GTU?
What are the three innovations that set the stage for the second generation of stratification research? What sociologist is most prominently associated with these innovations (p. 282)?
How was the substantive concern for mobility and "social fluidity" in industrial societies "translated" into the second generation style of research?
Cite two names of sociologists most prominently associated with the inception of the third generation of stratification research.
What are six new developments that GTU identify as potentially important for future stratification research? In particular, what special difficulties do stratification researchers face in dealing with women, and the family, according to GTU?

Hauser and Warren (H&W)

What is the main argument made by H&W concerning the relationships between mobility models and the relative prestige, relative wages and relative educational credentials associated with different occupational categories?