a0ad - if that's your standard, then this site's boner for s**tting on On the Run is misguided
I've been waiting for someone to throw her name in the ring
Who would you want to be the public face of sociology?
-
Honestly, can someone name some publications Christakis has been "sloppy" with and also explain how the dozens of journals and peer reviewers that have published his work, as well as the many thousands (according the list above) of others who cite it, have missed this sloppiness? I do agree, however, that he may not be the best 'public face' of sociology, and this conversation has digressed. My vote is Hochschild or Brubaker.
-
This response by Christakis and Fowler to that (sole?) link you post (which has 208 citations), alone, has over 650 citations: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3830455/ There have also been many replications of that original, now-ten-year-old work, and novel approach stimulated by that work, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_degrees_of_influence Honestly, give it a rest.
-
Hey d11a, since you can't seem to scroll back a page -
From their first series of papers - https://www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a2533
And there's a lot more of it out there if you'd do a little digging. People got tired of trying though, because C&F just kept sending their work to places where they knew they wouldn't get the critics as reviewers.
-
Every one of their Framingham papers are subject to the same limitation, which they've never addressed. Moreover, those aren't even network data in the first place. They're the referral information at the end of each wave of data for how the research team can find the respondents if they aren't located. "Who will know where you are if we can't find you?" And asked for a family & non-family name. If you want to trust those as high quality data, be my guest.
-
That seems to be the opinion of most sociologists, given their tendency to tear down those who achieve public relevance.
Such a strange field. Forever striving for public impact, and complaining about not having enough of it. But then so quick to criticize those sociologists who have public impact.
-
Well we could start with the criteria first. What do you expect out of a good public face of sociology?
I want someone with a broad grasp of a lot of subfields unified under some common, more or less agreeable, thought. They should know race and ethnicity as well as general inequality, because that is what dominates, probably more than it should. But they won’t be obsessed with these things and treat them as the only things worth studying.
I think they should have a public advocacy bent without being full-blown activist. And overall pleasant. I think a broad intellectual type too. Someone concerned with big ideas.
Phil Gorski and Michael Emerson come to mind, but they probably aren’t quite as generally representative (not a knock, I like that they are unique).
-
Well we could start with the criteria first. What do you expect out of a good public face of sociology?
I want someone with a broad grasp of a lot of subfields unified under some common, more or less agreeable, thought. They should know race and ethnicity as well as general inequality, because that is what dominates, probably more than it should. But they won�t be obsessed with these things and treat them as the only things worth studying.
I think they should have a public advocacy bent without being full-blown activist. And overall pleasant. I think a broad intellectual type too. Someone concerned with big ideas.
Phil Gorski and Michael Emerson come to mind, but they probably aren�t quite as generally representative (not a knock, I like that they are unique).Uggen also seems like a reasonable choice given those criteria.