《美国士兵》在社会学对话中的地位:在出版65年后绘制其在对话中的贡献

Joshua McAuliffe
{"title":"《美国士兵》在社会学对话中的地位:在出版65年后绘制其在对话中的贡献","authors":"Joshua McAuliffe","doi":"10.5744/jpms.2019.1009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An analysis of The American Soldier (TAS) using multiple correspondence analysis and citation count analysis reveals that TAS contributed to two “uniquely distinct” conversations (methods and theory) and two “polar distinct” conversations (surveys studying group phenomena and experimental studies nested in the theory conversation). The “uniquely distinct” con­versations took place in the 1950s in the American Journal of Sociol­ogy and Social Psychology Quarterly. Nested in these uniquely distinct conversations are two “polar distinct” conversations, indicating that the methods conversation had a discernible quantitative design element, while the theory conversation included a separate discussion of experimental designs. The one non-nested “polar distinct” conversation took place in the Journal of Political and Military Sociology and in Social Forces during the mid- 1970s and resurfaced again in the 2000s. Supplementary analysis finds con­tinuing, though qualified, evidence of both the palimpsestic syndrome and the obliteration phenomenon with respect to the concept of relative deprivation.","PeriodicalId":90618,"journal":{"name":"Journal of political & military sociology : JPMS","volume":"46 1","pages":"273-300"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"The American Soldier\\\"'s Place in Sociological Conversations: Mapping Its Contributions in Conversations Sixty-Five Years after Its Publication\",\"authors\":\"Joshua McAuliffe\",\"doi\":\"10.5744/jpms.2019.1009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"An analysis of The American Soldier (TAS) using multiple correspondence analysis and citation count analysis reveals that TAS contributed to two “uniquely distinct” conversations (methods and theory) and two “polar distinct” conversations (surveys studying group phenomena and experimental studies nested in the theory conversation). The “uniquely distinct” con­versations took place in the 1950s in the American Journal of Sociol­ogy and Social Psychology Quarterly. Nested in these uniquely distinct conversations are two “polar distinct” conversations, indicating that the methods conversation had a discernible quantitative design element, while the theory conversation included a separate discussion of experimental designs. The one non-nested “polar distinct” conversation took place in the Journal of Political and Military Sociology and in Social Forces during the mid- 1970s and resurfaced again in the 2000s. Supplementary analysis finds con­tinuing, though qualified, evidence of both the palimpsestic syndrome and the obliteration phenomenon with respect to the concept of relative deprivation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":90618,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of political & military sociology : JPMS\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"273-300\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of political & military sociology : JPMS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5744/jpms.2019.1009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of political & military sociology : JPMS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5744/jpms.2019.1009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

运用多重对应分析和引用计数分析对《美国士兵》(TAS)进行分析,发现TAS促成了两个“独特的”对话(方法和理论)和两个“极端的”对话(调查研究群体现象和实验研究嵌套在理论对话中)。这种“独特”的对话发生在20世纪50年代的《美国社会学杂志》和《社会心理学季刊》上。在这些独特的对话中嵌套着两个“截然不同”的对话,表明方法对话具有可识别的定量设计元素,而理论对话包括对实验设计的单独讨论。在20世纪70年代中期,《政治与军事社会学杂志》和《社会力量》上出现了一次非嵌套的“两极分化”对话,并在21世纪初再次出现。补充分析发现,在相对剥夺的概念方面,虽然有资格,但仍有证据表明出现了重写综合症和抹掉现象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
"The American Soldier"'s Place in Sociological Conversations: Mapping Its Contributions in Conversations Sixty-Five Years after Its Publication
An analysis of The American Soldier (TAS) using multiple correspondence analysis and citation count analysis reveals that TAS contributed to two “uniquely distinct” conversations (methods and theory) and two “polar distinct” conversations (surveys studying group phenomena and experimental studies nested in the theory conversation). The “uniquely distinct” con­versations took place in the 1950s in the American Journal of Sociol­ogy and Social Psychology Quarterly. Nested in these uniquely distinct conversations are two “polar distinct” conversations, indicating that the methods conversation had a discernible quantitative design element, while the theory conversation included a separate discussion of experimental designs. The one non-nested “polar distinct” conversation took place in the Journal of Political and Military Sociology and in Social Forces during the mid- 1970s and resurfaced again in the 2000s. Supplementary analysis finds con­tinuing, though qualified, evidence of both the palimpsestic syndrome and the obliteration phenomenon with respect to the concept of relative deprivation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信