**Plain Text Version: there will be formatting differences from original newsletter, but content is same** Spring 2008 Start spreading the... Social Problems Theory News Society for the Study of Social Problems *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Theory Division Chair 2006-08 Mitch Berbrier Department of Sociology UAHuntsville Huntsville, AL 35899 Office: (256) 824-2301 E-Mail: Mitch.Berbrier@uah.edu ***************************************************************************************************************************** **Message from the Chair** Greetings, Theory Mavens: The big SPTD News for Spring/Summer is this: (1) Lara Foley (U Tulsa) will become our Chair during the upcoming meetings. Lara has been among the most consistently active members of our division for several years now. She shares with me the honor of becoming Chair of this Division at around the same time that she became Chair of her academic department, thus ensuring that she will have no time for anything in the near future. Congratulations, Lara! (2) The Survey Results are here and statistically speaking you are probably not a block-modeling post-colonialist. (3) Recent success in the SPTD Student Paper Competition is positively correlated with publication in Social Problems in Feb 2008. (4) #3 bodes well for Elizabeth Cherry and Tom DeGloma, this year’s winners. (5) I want to thank the people who have assisted me in this job for two years. There are many of you but in particular if my term was successful it was largely because of two people: Michele Koontz who (as y’all know) is the heart’n’soul of the SSSP and runs the Executive Office, and Erin Reid, the historian, graphic artist, novelist, and computer technician who runs the UAHuntsville Sociology Department Executive Office. THANK YOU both so much. Peace :) Mitch Berbrier, May 2008 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ IN THIS ISSUE: * Message from the Chair * Your Schedule for the 2008 Meetings * ’06 & ‘07 paper winners published! * * 2008 Grad Student Paper Competition Winners * 2008 SESSIONS IN DETAIL * THE SURVEY RESULTS * _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *~*~* HERE IS YOUR SCHEDULE *~*~* in BOSTON Note: LISTED HERE ARE ACTIVITIES THAT YOU REALLY REALLY SHOULD ATTEND. Schedule is subject to change, but your moral commitment to it is not. Thursday, July 31 10:30am – 12:10pm Telling Social Problems I: Exploring the Role of Narrative and Dialogue in the Construction of Social Problems. Where? Cabot 10:30am – 12:10pm Border Control / Social Control: Theorizing Immigration as a Social Problem. (co-sponsored with the Racial and Ethnic Minorities Division) Where? Whittier 12:30pm – 2:10pm Telling Social Problems II: Exploring the Role of Narrative and Dialogue in the Construction of Social Problems. Where? Cabot 4:30pm – 6:10pm Our DIVISIONAL MEETING Where? Stanbro Friday, August 1 8:00am – 9:40am Claimsmaking Plus: Advancing the Constructionist Project by Building Bridges to other Approaches Where? Hancock 2:30pm – 4:10pm Social Problems and Theories of Identity: The Global Borderlands of Race, Gender, and Sexuality (co-sponsored with the Racial and Ethnic Minorities Division) Where? Lexington Saturday, August 2 12:30pm – 2:10pm Teaching Social Problems Theory in Social Problems Courses in the Core Curriculum (co-sponsored with Teaching Social Problems Division) Where? Hancock ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2008 Student Paper Competition WINNERS and their ABSTRACTS *****First prize: Elizabeth Cherry, University of Georgia***** "Deconstructing Symbolic Boundaries: Cultural Strategies of New Social Movements" Researchers typically consider boundary work to be a cause of social problems. Social actors create symbolic boundaries to differentiate themselves from others, which, when widely agreed upon, can become social boundaries and play a part in social exclusion, segregation, and inequalities. We have devoted much less attention to how boundary work might also combat social problems. I propose a typology of boundary work that differentiates four different progressive and regressive uses of boundaries to create, erase, or emphasize differences and similarities. I concentrate on the process of symbolic boundary deconstruction, used by new social movement activists who seek to change cultural codes to fight injustice. Activists deploy four main strategies of symbolic boundary deconstruction: focusing, transgression, victimization-association, and contention-association. I use the animal rights movements in France and the United States as my primary cases, with data from participant observation and interviews with activists in both countries, but I also demonstrate the broader applicability of these concepts with examples from other new social movements. This study contributes a new theoretical and empirical example to the cultural changes studied by scholars of social movements, and it also provides a useful counterpoint to studies of symbolic boundary construction and maintenance in the sociology of culture. ***Second prize: Thomas DeGloma, Rutgers University*** "Awakenings: Autobiography, Collective Memory, and the Social Geometry of Personal Discovery" Taking a formal, sociocognitive approach to narrative analysis, I explore autobiographical stories about “awakening” to truth in political, psycho-clinical, religious, and sexual realms of social life. Despite (A) significant differences in subject matter and (B) conflicting and often oppositional ideas about what constitutes “truth,” individuals in a diverse array of social contexts tell stories that follow the same awakening formula. I plot the form of the awakening narrative to consider what these stories say about major life changes, truth and falsehood, the constitution of thought communities, and centrally, the connection between autobiographical and collective memory. Awakening narratives are important mechanisms of mnemonic and autobiographical revision that individuals use to redefine their past experiences and relationships, testify to “truth,” plot future courses of action, and explain major transformations of worldview. Awakeners divide their lives into discrete autobiographical periods and convey a temporally divided self, making a distinction between past and present versions of self that often maps to a dispute between different mnemonic communities. Individuals use this autobiographical formula to reject the mnemonic norms of one community and embrace those of another. Advancing a “social geometry” of awakening narratives, I illuminate the social logic behind our seemingly personal discoveries of “truth.” CONGRATULATIONS ELIZABETH and TOM!! Thanks to all who submitted and of course to our hard working and wonderfully efficient committee: Wayne Brekhus (Chair, second time around!), Donileen Loseke, and Frank Young. ***DID YOU NOTICE?*** TWO papers that had previously received awards from our Student Paper Competition were published in the February 2008 edition of Social Problems! Ray Maratea’s “The e-Rise and Fall of Social Problems: The Blogosphere as a Public Arena.” (2nd place in 2006) And Colin Jerolmack’s “How Pigeons Became Rats: The Cultural-Spatial Logic of Problem Animals.” (2nd place in 2007) Congratulations to Ray and Colin – and to our award committees for having their wisdom ratified by the peer reviewers! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *~*~* SP THEORY DIVISION 2008 *~*~* Our Paper Sessions Telling Social Problems: Exploring the Role of Narrative and Dialogue in the Construction of Social Problems **PART I Date: Thursday, July 31 Time: 10:30 AM - 12:10 PM Room: Cabot Organizer and Presider: Lawrence T. Nichols, West Virginia University Papers: “Perpetual Trauma and Its Organizations: Drunk Driving and MADD Revisited,” Inge Schmidt, Yale University “Grammars of Testimonial: Migrant Women’s Narratives of Trafficking and Institutional Power,” Nadia Shapkina, Georgia State University “Protected and Vulnerable Narratives in Social Problems Discourse: A Theoretical Framework for Research,” Corey Colyer, West Virginia University “Failures of Collective Memory: Collective Amnesia, Nostalgia, and Other Problematic Recollections,” Joel Best, University of Delaware “Stories Told and Untold: Police Narratives and Hate Crime Statistics,” Lawrence T. Nichols and James J. Nolan, West Virginia University Telling Social Problems: Exploring the Role of Narrative and Dialogue in the Construction of Social Problems **PART II Date: Thursday, July 31 Time: 12:30pm – 2:10pm Room: Cabot Organizer and Presider: Lawrence T. Nichols, West Virginia University Papers: “Toward Understanding the Power of Stories in Social Problem Construction,” Donileen Loseke, University of South Florida “Rhetoric and Reason: Competing Narratives in the Battle Over Expanded Psychiatric Commitment,” Linda Morrison, Duquesne University “Convicts as Claims-Makers: Using Prison Narratives to Understand Prison,” Rebecca Bordt, DePauw University “Bereavement and Dialogue: Israeli and Palestinian Mothers Foster Hope in Shared Narratives of Victimization,” Sarah Louise MacMillen and Kaitlyn Burrier, Duquesne University “Making It Personal: Book Group Cultures and the Interpretation and Construction of Social Problems,” Michelle Naffziger, Northwestern University ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *~*~* SPTD Paper Sessions *~*~* Claimsmaking Plus: Advancing the Constructionist Project by Building Bridges to other Approaches Organizers: Mitch Berbrier, University of Alabama, Huntsville Donileen Loseke, University of South Florida Presider: Donileen Loseke, University of South Florida Date: Friday, August 1 Time: 8:00am – 9:40am Room: Hancock Papers: “Netroots Activism and the Making of the Downing Street Memo Story,” Cynthia J. Bogard, Hofstra University “The Contribution of Actor-Network-Theory to Social Problems Research: Reiki, A Case Study,” Jennifer Esala, University of New Hampshire and Jared Del Rosso, Boston College “Thanks, But No Thanks: Theoretical Approaches to Disaster Relief,” Lynn Letukas, University of Delaware “From Deviance to Race: Labeling Race and Ethnic Categories as Enemy,” Gina Petonito, Miami University “Reflections on Building Constructionist Theory: A Conversation,” Donileen Loseke, University of South Florida and Mitch Berbrier, University of Alabama, Huntsville ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *~*~* Cosponsored Sessions *~*~* THEMATIC SESSION: *Border Control/Social Control: Theorizing Immigration as a Social Problem* Organizers: Kirsten E. Hunt, Teachers College, Columbia University Melinda Messineo, Ball State University Date: Thursday, July 31 Time: 10:30am – 12:10pm Room: Whittier Papers: “Battered Immigrants, Immigration Laws, and Gatekeeping: The Subtleties of Selection,” Roberta Jessica Villalon, St. John’s University “Visual Technology, Culture and Gender in Remaking the Refugee Label,” Oscar Gil-Garcia, University of California, Santa Barbara “The Global Exposure of Trafficking in Women in Israel: The Power of ‘Outside Claims and Demand-Makers’,” Dana Zarhin, Brandeis University “Assessing Theories of Immigration Policy Convergence: A Look at Japan,” Kristin Surak, University of California, Los Angeles “Explaining Local Immigration Policy: Case Histories from Connecticut,” Beth Frankel Merenstein, Central Connecticut State University *Social Problems and Theories of Identities: The Global Borderlands of Race, Gender, and Sexuality* Organizers: Michelle Corbin, University of Maryland, College Park Melinda Messineo, Ball State University Presider: Michelle Corbin, University of Maryland, College Park Date: Friday, August 1 Time: 2:30pm – 4:10pm Room: Lexington Papers: “‘Benevolent Bullying’: Hegemonic ‘American’ Masculinity and the Global War on Terrorism Campaign,” Brian V. Klocke, SUNY Plattsburgh “A Comprehensive Understanding of the Development of Transnational Identity among Migrants: The Role of Context,” Stephen Sills and Joyce Clapp, University of North Carolina, Greensboro and Samra Nasser, Wayne State University “‘I am Because’: Reasoning Identity in Transsexual Narratives,” Irene Carvalho, University of Porto, Portugal “Frantz Fanon, Don Imus and Colonial Subjectivity,” H. Alexander Welcome, CUNY, The Graduate Center “The Politics of Transnational Feminist Discourse: Negotiating Differences, Building Solidarities,” Lyndi N. Hewitt, Vanderbilt University *Teaching Social Problems Theory in Social Problems Courses in the Core Curriculum* Organizer, Presider, and Discussant: Kathleen S. Lowney, Valdosta State University Date: Saturday, August 2 Time: 12:30pm – 2:10pm Room: Hancock Papers: “Teaching Social Problems to Non-majors,” Ira Silver, Framingham State College “Teaching and Learning about Social Problems: The Community College Experience,” Suzanne B. Maurer, Delaware County Community College “Are You Saying My Life’s Work Is Misguided?: Teaching Theory Driven Social Problems Courses for Students Who Feel Threatened by Non-Objectivist Interpretations,” Heather S. Feldhaus, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania “Social Problems Theory, Teaching Social Policy, and Student Empowerment,” Cynthia J. Bogard, Hofstra University and Kathleen S. Lowney, Valdosta State University From our Archives: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “Those who wrote about their experience teaching social problems to undergraduates sometimes complained about the lack of theoretical integration in the social problems literature – something Fuller noted long ago – that presents a dilemma of what to do in such a course.” ~Joseph Schneider, “Social Problems Theory: Some Thoughts from the Membership Survey” Social Problems Theory Division Newsletter June 1983 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *~*~* THEORY BY NUMBERS: *~*~* AN ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE SURVEY RESULTS Mitch Berbrier, UAHuntsville One hundred and forty-one fine upstanding members of the Social Problems Theory Division completed the survey that I distributed late last year. They represent around one-third of the membership, a biased sample of beautiful and intelligent people who (on average) really care about our Division (Note 1). Thanks! In putting the survey together, I was trying to address two broad questions. The primary question was “who are we?” and particularly what do we mean by associating with a “social problems theory” division. Therefore, several of the questions were designed to get at our sociological approaches and interests. The other guiding theme was whether our members are satisfied with the annual meetings and particularly the structure of presentations at sessions. Does “social problems theory” accurately (reasonably, fairly) reflect who we are? **Quantitative vs. Qualitative: The majority (61%) identify themselves as primarily qualitative. They are very unlikely to prefer quantitative methods (9%), but a significant minority (30%) say they are in to both. Analysis: This is not surprising, from a bunch of theorists. **Intellectual Categories: A more probing question was designed to elicit whether a given orientation (e.g. Weberian, scholar-activist, discourse analyst) described our membership “well” “somewhat” or “not at all.” Respondents were presented with a list of 22 categories; the order in which the list was presented was randomized (Note 2). In the Appendix I present a table that lists the top and bottom five categories, and that table clearly confirms several of the following trends: It is fair to say that many of us are indeed theoretically inclined, but in addition, and more specifically we seem to be largely interpretive and constructionist sociologists who also often consider ourselves interactionists. Roughly a third of respondents said these describe them “well” and over two-thirds say these describe them at least “somewhat.” Only 8% of us dissociate entirely from the “constructionist” label, replying that constructionist “does not describe me at all.” Likely this is significantly different from the entire SSSP membership (but it would be interesting to find out, empirically). Most of us are not survey researchers, although only two-thirds entirely discount the label. (I am not, and therefore these interpretations are subject to revision, regression, and reinterpretation by one of you who is. Please!) Some, but relatively few of the respondents see themselves as post-colonial, post-modern, or world systems theorists. And the respondents are not functionalists. Only 1% of respondents described themselves this way. Similarly, we seem to more closely associate with Marx and Weber than Durkheim. For example, 14.5% indicated that “Marxist” describes them "well,” and 9.2% said as much for “Weberian,” but only 4.7% listed themselves as “Durkheimian.” This is interesting, given that the explanations offered by constructionists (when they are offered) are sometimes construed as functionalist -- explaining, for example, the potency of “claims” by referring to them in one way or another as thing not all that different from Durkheimian collective representations, as Gale Miller and Jim Holstein indicated several years back. **Membership in other Divisions: Respondents were also asked about their other divisional memberships. For each of the other SSSP divisions, a respondent would indicate whether she is a member or not, and whether she is an active member or not. In interpreting the data I decided to first measure “interlock levels” as the proportion who indicated that they were either nominal or active members of the 19 other divisions listed. The top five interlock levels were with the following divisions: Crime and Juvenile Delinquency (29.2%) Teaching Social Problems (23.3%) Law and Society (22.4%) Conflict, Social Action, and Change (21.5%) Health, Health Policy, and Health Services (12.5%) The bottom five were: Educational Problems (5.8%) Labor Studies (6.9%) Family (7.1%) Youth, Aging, and the Life Course (7.1%) Mental Health (7.2%) These numbers indicate the absolute numbers of people in two camps – indicating that a relatively large proportion of us are members of the first group and a small proportion are members of the second group. Before even thinking about why we are more or less networked with other groups, the data should also be standardized according to the membership sizes of those other divisions. Instead of asking what proportion of our respondents are members of other division, I ask here what proportion of those other divisions are represented in our group of respondents. Thus, the “standardized interlock levels” presented next measure the proportion of the Other Division’s total membership that responded as either nominal or active members of that division in our survey. Top five standardized interlock levels: Teaching Social Problems (8.4%) Environment and Technology (7.6%) Crime and Juvenile Delinquency (6.7%) Law & Society (6.5%) Drinking & Drugs (5.7%) The bottom five: Racial & Ethnic Minorities (2.0%) Community Research and Development (2.1%) Family (2.3%) Sexual Behavior, Politics, and Communities (2.4%) Poverty, Class & Inequality (2.8%) This provides a very different picture, particularly with respect to the bottom five. These also give you a better sense of potential growth. Overall, we seem to be particularly closely networked with Teaching Social Problems, Crime and Juvenile Delinquency, and Law & Society, and socially distant from the Family Division. It is also interesting to note that once you take size of the divisions into account, we appear to actually be fairly well integrated with the Environment and Technology and Drinking & Drugs groups. I am honestly not sure what -- if anything -- to make of most of these numbers and I believe that more sophisticated analyses (if the N’s hold up) could yield some clarification (Note 3). Perhaps those of us with certain intellectual approaches more likely join other divisions. Similarly, it may well be that some divisions more theoretically oriented than others, or more or less welcoming of that bulk of us who are constructionists. (I recall leaving the Racial and Ethnic Minorities division several years ago because – even though this is my main substantive area of study -- as a SP constructionist there was very little of interest to me going on there. But that was many years ago and might not reflect that division these days!) I think, finally, that it is particularly interesting that two of the groups with whom we are poorly integrated are the two largest Divisions in our Society -- Racial & Ethnic Minorities (494 members as of July 31, 2007) and Poverty, Class & Inequality (568 members; incidentally, with 376, we are the fifth largest of the 20 divisions.) ** The Annual Meeting Sessions ** The annual meeting is of course the main event, annually, for both our Division and the Society. I asked you primarily about your experiences presenting your work. Over a quarter of respondents said that they had presented at SPTD sessions, and another quarter at SSSP sessions that were not sponsored by our Division. Quantitatively, both groups seemed to be overwhelmingly positive. Qualitative responses showed a bit more of a mixed picture. On the one hand some indicated that the sessions resulted in good feedback, good conversations, and a small enough group to facilitate that. On the other hand, when asked what could be done to improve the sessions similar points came up – for example, that more opportunities for discussion and feedback were needed. Perhaps the differences in experience reflect, in part, the number of papers presented in the 80 minute sessions. While most sessions technically start off with five papers, sometimes people drop out in the months between scheduling the meetings and the meetings themselves, leaving some sessions with “extra time.” In this regard, consider the results of the questions that inquired about the number of papers one would prefer presented at our 80 minute sessions. Here respondents were presented with closed ended options of one, two, three, four, or five papers. I asked about sessions at which “you present” and at which “you attend,” but the results were very similar: In both cases around 50% of respondents would prefer three sessions, and 40% would prefer four sessions. Only around 2% prefer five, which has been the minimum required by Program Committees in order to “make” a session. As I discuss below, it is because the current structure is not based on promoting good social science, but ensuring “numbers,” that it does not allow adequate time for either a discussant or a discussion. **Discussion** You will be shocked to learn that there are limitations to the data analysis conducted to this point (see Note 3). But I will tell you what I think anyhow (editorialize), and leave you with a couple of conundrums that I am hoping will stimulate discussion and response. First, regarding who we are: The finding that those most involved with the division are people who study the construction of social problems (CSP) is not likely a big surprise for most of our members. However, I think it is important to recognize more formally because we need to confront this situation and assess it carefully. My sense is that there is much consensus among constructionists that “we” do not want to be so dominant in the SPTD that those with other approaches feel left out. Moreover, as Joel Best has pointed out, when theories are not challenged (from within or without) they risk underdevelopment, staleness, and disinterest from subsequent generations of scholars. Our meeting sessions have increasingly been addressing this theme -- take for example the thoughts offered last year by folks like Jack Spencer, Doni Loseke and Frank Furedi, but I feel like we need to do even more. Some of this may already be happening. I have noticed a trend of CSP researchers going outside of “social problems” theory for new and “hot” ideas. For example, both the first and second place papers in our Student Paper competition seem to be as closely aligned with social movements theory (Cherry) and cultural sociology (DeGloma) as with CSP. But we need to carefully assess what this means: Does it mean that CSP will disappear, or grow? And the answer, of course is that what it means depends largely upon what we do with these trends. Are they used to develop CSP or to move past it? Another issue: What happens to constructionists of social problems if this division is successful in attracting a wonderful diversity of post-colonialists, more Marxists, more Institutional Ethnographers, and more Others? This may very well yield a more energetic membership and lots of good things. But what happens to CSP? Does this approach merit its own institutional “home” or not? So the dilemma, as I see it, is this: We do not want something called the “Theory Division” to be dominated by one theory, since this is believed to be healthy neither for the division nor for theory. On the other hand, there is no institutional home for sociologists who are constructionists – and in this sense our Division fills a void in our discipline. I want to see people writing about these things in future issues of SP Theory News! Second, regarding meeting sessions, I would echo our respondents dissatisfaction with the “five” minimum paper rule. It is intellectually indefensible, and my understanding is that it is not something that anyone defends on intellectual grounds anyhow. Rather, as I understand it, this is a practical matter: there is this notion that the number of presentations per session causally affects both the number of attendees per session and the overall number of attendees at our meetings. The higher the number of presentations, we are told, the more people come. More is better. So this is a quantity issue. The problem is, of course, that quality does not enter the equation – neither the quality of the papers nor, more to the point here, the quality of the sessions themselves. In my experience, when five papers are presented at a session, there is never adequate intellectual give and take. If you are hoping for some intellectual discussion (or useful feedback if you are a presenter) you have to hope that one or two of the scheduled presenters do not show up, or that somebody follows someone else out of the room and the discussion develops in the hallway. So although there are obviously some exceptions, generally speaking useful feedback and intellectual discussion is structurally precluded from the meeting sessions. I submit that over the decades this lack of quality yields fewer session attendees no matter how many papers are presented per session, because more and more people find attending sessions less valuable than other forms of interaction (or going to the Red Sox game). And with that, I now segue out of the SPTD Chair position, and on to the Program Committee for 2009. See y’all in Boston and then in San Francisco. Take it away, Lara. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ **Notes Note 1: Regarding “biased sample,” these results indicate that over 90% of the respondents indicate that they are members of the Division because they are interested in theory (in general) or social problems theory. But likely this correlates with one’s likelihood of responding in the first place; “marginal” members of this Division (those just in it because it is free to join and they couldn’t think of another box to tick and who are not theory mavens) may well be missed here. Note 2: A pilot version was completed by about 10 people, their comments solicited. Several of the ten were feminists. Nonetheless, it was not until the survey was underway that I was alerted that “feminist” was left out. The error was ridiculous and left us without valuable data. An attempt to rectify asked people to go back and append their responses, but only 44 responded (compared to around 110 for each of the others). This meant that we had a biased sample of a biased sample. But let me tell you that of those 44, 15 (34%) said “feminist” described them extremely well, while 13 (30%) said “somewhat” and another 13 said “not at all” with 3 unsure. Note 3: The analysis that I have had the time to accomplish has been limited. Surveymonkey.com provides limited data analysis for free, and that is mostly what I am working with. There is much more work to be done. Likely for many of you (certainly for me) these results raise more questions than they answer. Hopefully others will pick it up from here. Please share your thoughts in forthcoming issues of our newsletter. Moreover, feel free to conduct your own analysis of these data. I will be passing the raw data along to my successor, Lara Foley, and she has indicated that she will be happy to work with anyone interested. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix: The Top and Bottom Five Self-Identifications of Social Problems Theory Division members (N=107) **TOP FIVE** Describes me well 1. constructionist in the Spector and Kitsuse (S&K) tradition (40.5%) 2. constructionist other than or in addition to S&K (36.4%) 3. interactionist (35.7%) 4. sociological theorist (33.0%) 5. interpretive sociologist (29.6%) Describes me somewhat OR (i.e. plus) describes me well 1. sociological theorist (79.8%) 2. constructionist other than or in addition to S&K (74.6%) 3. interpretive sociologist (70.5%) 4. interactionist (70.4%) 5. constructionist in the Spector and Kitsuse (S&K) tradition (70.2%) Does not describe me at all 1. functionalist (72.4%) 2. neo-functionalist (72.2%) 3. world systems theorist (69.5%) 4. post-colonialist (65.4%) 5. survey researcher (58.9%) **BOTTOM FIVE** Describes me well 1. functionalist (1.2%) 1. neo-functionalist (1.2%) 3. world systems theorist (2.9%) 4. post-modernist (4.6%) 5. Durkheimian (4.7%) Describes me somewhat OR (i.e. plus) does not describe me at all 1. neo-functionalist (10.2%) 2. functionalist (14.3%) 3. post-colonialist (15.9%) 4. world systems theorist (17.2%) 5. survey researcher (35.5%) Does not describe me at all 1. constructionist other than or in addition to S&K (8.2%) 2. constructionist in the Spector and Kitsuse (S&K) tradition (11.7%) 3. sociological theorist (13.8%) 4. interpretive sociologist (14.8%) 5. interactionist (17.0%) ***************************************************************************************************************************** From our Archives: “I received 40 variously completed questionnaires from the roughly 700 mailed to division members in December 1982. . . . The picture of social problems theory that I saw in the responses is of course diverse. Some people said there is no such thing as social problems theory, but only various sociological theories applied to problematic conditions. Others said if there is . . . it is really collective behavior/social movements theory going by a different name. Finally, a few argued that there is a new kind of conceptual focus . . . which turns on the study of definitional process.” ~Joseph Schneider, “Social Problems Theory: Some Thoughts from the Membership Survey” Social Problems Theory Division Newsletter June 1983 *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*