Annual Review of Sociology - Volume 29, 2003

Teenage childbearing has been a topic of sociological research, public discourse, and political discussion since the mid-1960s. It is surprising that the intensity and topics of the discussion over this period have corresponded poorly with research on the rates and consequences of teenage childbearing. This essay chronicles the history of the issue of early childbearing and my contributions to this field of study.

This review discusses research on the urban street gang after the 1960s, the period in which social scientists began to conceptualize the gang outside of the social-problems framework. Street-gang research has changed dramatically in the past three decades in accordance with general shifts in sociological research, including developments in gender studies, economic sociology, and race and ethnic relations. This review addresses these major trends and debates and highlights suggestions for areas of future inquiry that build on innovations of contemporary scholars.

Survey methodologists have drawn on and contributed to research by cognitive psychologists, conversation analysts, and others to lay a foundation for the science of asking questions. Our discussion of this work is structured around the decisions that must be made for two common types of inquiries: questions about events or behaviors and questions that ask for evaluations or attitudes. The issues we review for behaviors include definitions, reference periods, response dimensions, and response categories. The issues we review for attitudes include bipolar versus unipolar scales, number of categories, category labels, don't know filters, and acquiescence. We also review procedures for question testing and evaluation.

In 2002, over 600,000 individuals left state and federal prisons, four times as many as were released in 1975. However, according to a national study, within 3 years, almost 7 in 10 will have been rearrested and half will be back in prison, either for a new crime or for violating conditions of their release. Clearly, an individual's transition from prison back into a home and into a community is difficult, and avoiding crime can be the least of his or her problems. Understanding these pathways and the reasons for and the dimensions of an individual's success or failure is the focus of recent scholarly attention to the problem of “prisoner reentry,” the process of leaving prison and returning to free society. However, most of the existing research on prisoners' lives after release focuses solely on recidivism and ignores the reality that recidivism is directly affected by postprison reintegration and adjustment, which, in turn, depends on four sets of factors: personal and situational characteristics, including the individual's social environment of peers, family, community, and state-level policies. Moreover, individual transitions from prison to community are, we suggest, best understood in a longitudinal framework, taking into account an individual's circumstances before incarceration, experiences during incarceration, and the period after release—both the immediate experience and long-term situational circumstances. This review summarizes what we know about the four specified dimensions and how they affect an individual's transition from prison to community. The review concludes with a call to the research community for interdisciplinary, multilevel, longitudinal studies of the processes of reintegration for former prisoners. Such research may illuminate many dimensions of social life, including the effects of recent social policies.

An emerging sociological approach to the self reflects new emphases on power, reflexivity, and social constructionism. The significance of power in shaping the self is central to a new scholarship associated with Foucault. This body of work offers an important corrective to traditional sociological orientations associated with Mead and symbolic interactionism. The principle of reflexivity is at the core of the Meadian tradition and provides a pragmatic foundation for understanding agency and political action missing from much of the new scholarship. The principle of social construction is common to both new and traditional sociological approaches to the self and guides most recent empirical analyses. Promising avenues of research are evident in work that explores the sociological context of self-construction, the social resources employed in the construction process, and the growing importance of nonhuman objects in self-construction. The limitation of scholarship that overemphasizes the psychological products of self-construction is also examined.

Researchers across a wide range of fields, policy makers, and large segments of the public believe that the work-related skills of the labor force do not match the requirements of jobs and that this explains a large part of the growth of wage inequality in the United States in the past 20 years. Opinions are divided on whether the trend is driven by workforce developments, such as an absolute decline or declining growth of human capital due to changes in educational attainment or test scores, or employer-side changes, such as accelerating growth of job skill requirements due to the spread of computers and employee involvement techniques. Some believe the problem has grown worse over time. However, the evidence is often more ambiguous and fragmentary than recognized, and the argument overlooks the roles of institutional changes and management's policies toward labor in workers' changing fortunes. Evidence suggests that the growth in educational attainment has decelerated, cognitive skill levels have remained stable, and job skill requirements have gradually increased, but a large portion of employer dissatisfaction relates to effort levels and work attitudes of young people that may represent transitory, life-cycle effects. There is little information on whether job demands are actually exceeding workers' capacities. The absence of a standardized, up-to-date method of collecting information on the actual skill content of jobs is a significant obstacle to answering this question with confidence.

The publication of American Apartheid (Massey & Denton 1993) was influential in shifting public discourse back toward racial residential segregation as fundamental to persisting racial inequality. At the end of the twentieth century, the majority of blacks remained severely segregated from whites in major metropolitan areas. Due to the persistence of high-volume immigration, Hispanic and Asian segregation from whites has increased, although it is still best characterized as moderate. This review examines trends in the residential segregation of blacks, Hispanics, and Asians and recent research focused on understanding the causes of persisting segregation. This discussion is organized around two broad theoretical perspectives—spatial assimilation and place stratification. After detailing the consequences of segregation for affected groups, I identify gaps in our understanding and goals for future research.

During the twentieth century, African Americans participated in one of the most significant demographic events in U.S. history. Their “Great Migration” from the South to the North contributed to profound social, economic, demographic, and cultural changes in northern cities. After the Great Migration, blacks continued to move in search of opportunity as some returned to the South, while others moved to suburbs or better neighborhoods within the North. My review focuses on the Great Migration by discussing research that has examined its causes, the characteristics of the participants, the adaptation of migrants to northern society, and their impact on northern cities. I also briefly review research on return migration to the South and residential mobility by African Americans. Finally, I identify key issues and discuss possible data sources for future research.

Sociologists often react with hostility to explanations that evoke biology, and some critics of the discipline contend that this “biophobia” undermines the credibility of sociology and makes it seem increasingly irrelevant in larger public debates. The negative reactions are many times diffuse and undiscerning of the different endeavors lumped together whenever one speaks broadly of biological (or “biosocial”) explanations. We seek to introduce greater awareness of these distinctions with a review organized in terms of some of the distinct ways that the biological can be asserted to be relevant to the conduct of social inquiry. The review has three sections. First, we discuss assertions of the relevance of the human evolutionary past for understanding the character of human nature, for which evolutionary psychology currently receives the most attention. Second, we consider the work of behavioral genetics and the assertion of the relevance of genetic differences between persons for understanding differences in behaviors and outcomes. Third, we consider assertions of the relevance of particular proximate bioindicators for understanding how the biological and social interact, focusing particularly on studies of testosterone and the prospects of developments in neuroscientific measurement. We do not believe that developments in these fields will force sociologists to acquire considerable biological expertise to pursue questions central to the discipline, but we do advocate further efforts from biologically minded sociologists to articulate understandings of the relationship between sociology and biology that will continue to push us past the commonplace view that biological and sociological explanations are inevitably opposed.

In this chapter I review recent research on the nature, meaning, and impact of extrafamilial relationships during adolescence. I use findings of quantitative and qualitative studies to develop the idea that close friendships, wider networks of peers, and romantic relationships have distinct meanings and significance for the developing adolescent. Sociologists' work inevitably focuses attention on the ways in which the adolescent's social addresses and locations (gender, race, social class) influence many aspects of these early relationships. The review also highlights some limitations of the dominant perspective on adolescent relationships, attachment theory, and provides suggestions for future research (particularly in the area of romantic relationships, where the literature is growing but still relatively undeveloped).

Over the years the secondary literature on Max Weber's sociology has grown enormously, and it is time to raise the following question: Is the picture of his sociology the same today as it was yesterday? In this review I argue that the traditional picture of Weber's sociology has begun to change and that one important factor in this change has to do with the perception of the role that the theme of the economy plays in Weber's life and work. Special attention has recently been paid to Weber's relationship to economics, his economic sociology, and the fact that Weber came from a background of wealthy merchants that he strongly identified with. Several new topics in Weber's sociology are explored that are related to the changing picture of his work. Special attention is also paid to interpretations of Weber that draw on rational choice sociology and an interest-based type of analysis.

Day labor, the practice of searching for work in open-air, informal markets such as street corners or in formal temp agencies, has become an increasingly visible and important means of securing employment for a broad segment of immigrant, primarily male, displaced workers. Our understanding of day labor has been limited by regionally focused or city-based case studies, poorly constructed methodological approaches, inconsistent definitions, and little comparative research. This review discusses the emerging research on day labor, paying particular attention to the practice of day labor, including the market's origins, its contemporary development, and its hiring and wage practices. The review also provides a synopsis of informal, open-air and formal temp agency day labor practices, their spatial and organizational configurations, and an outline of the legal issues and public policies that structure, to a large degree, worker and employer relations in this industry. The review emphasizes the multidisciplinary nature of contributions to the topic, including research by sociologists, anthropologists, and urban studies. Areas for future research are suggested.

Despite the fact that adoption is a common practice in the United States and in much of the world today, sociologists have devoted remarkably little attention to it. This review provides a rationale for much more extensive sociological research on adoption. It then summarizes the available empirical literature on who adopts children, and why, and on who relinquishes children for adoption, and why. Most adoptions have favorable outcomes for the members of the adoption triad (birth parents, adoptive parents, and adoptees). Yet the number of adoptions by nonrelatives has declined sharply since 1970, and only a small minority of women who have been treated for infertility have ever sought to adopt. These facts suggest that adoption may still have a stigma attached to it. Sociological research could illuminate whether such a stigma exists, and if so, what the causes and consequences of that stigma might be.

Latin America has the most unbalanced distribution of resources of all regions in the world. This review defines a set of common elements characterizing social structures on that continent, suggests some lines for analysis and theorizing, and supports the integration of regional studies into broader discussions of stratification. We begin with an overview of the situation on the continent as a whole, including a short discussion of the relationship between poverty and inequality, where we also address some concerns with data availability. We then devote a section each to class, gender, and race. We conclude by identifying three critical factors that explain Latin American inequality: its position within a global economic system, internal colonialism with maintenance of racial categories, and the underdevelopment of state structures.

This review considers a class of political activity that has largely been ignored by researchers extending social movement theory into organizations: covert political conflict. Although much of the literature we discuss focuses on contemporary corporations where the bulk of research on covert conflict has occurred, we also explore studies of covert conflict in a range of historical and organizational contexts that fall outside the contemporary work world. As we define it, covert political conflict encompasses four interrelated elements: contestation of institutionalized power and authority, perceptions of collective injury, social occlusion, and officially forbidden forms of dissent. Beyond these elements, covert conflict varies in its material and symbolic forms, collective dimensions, social visibility, and outcomes. We also examine explanatory approaches for covert conflict at the micro, organizational, field, and macro levels of analysis. Finally, we suggest a number of areas for future research on covert conflict that include developing theoretical frameworks across multiple levels of analysis, stronger linkages between organization theory and the study of covert conflict, strategies for measuring outcomes (including the emergence of overt political voice and organizational change), and new methods for empirical inquiry.

Understanding racial, ethnic, and immigrant variation in educational achievement and attainment is more important than ever as the U.S. population becomes increasingly diverse. The Census Bureau estimates that in 2000, 34% of all youth aged 15–19 were from minority groups; it estimates that by 2025, this will increase to 46% (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). In addition, approximately one in five school-age children reside in an immigrant family (Zhou 1997, Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco 2001). We provide an overview of recent empirical research on racial, ethnic, and immigrant differences in educational achievement and attainment, and we examine some current theories that attempt to explain these differences. We explore group differences in grades, test scores, course taking, and tracking, especially throughout secondary schooling, and then discuss variation in high school completion, transitions to college, and college completion. We also summarize key theoretical explanations used to explain persistent differences net of variation in socioeconomic status, which focus on family and cultural beliefs that stem from minority group and class experiences. Overall, there are many signs of optimism. Racial and ethnic gaps in educational achievement and attainment have narrowed over the past three decades by every measure available to social scientists. Educational aspirations are universally high for all racial and ethnic groups as most adolescents expect to go to college. However, substantial gaps remain, especially between less advantaged groups such as African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans and more advantaged groups such as whites and Asian Americans. The racial and ethnic hierarchy in educational achievement is apparent across varying measures of the academic experience.

Economic sociology and economics have tried to explain the organization and stability of market capitalism mostly by arguing for the effects of social structure on the patterning of relations, or for the role of the price system in balancing the demands of individual economic actors. In North America, the primary alternative to structural and individualist theories of market order has been network theory, a meso-level attempt to bridge over- and undersocialized views of actors. In Europe, the primary attempt to develop more realistic economics has centered on the role of conventions in shaping economic activity. We describe theories of market order, show how convention theory and related approaches represent a novel alternative, and suggest how convention theory can supplement network theory and institutional approaches to understanding market order.

African society is quite distinct in both its relationship to the rest of the world and its history. Africa seems beset by a myriad of crises, from famines, to civil wars, to economic meltdowns. In addition to these crises, profound population and social change has occurred. These changes are having extraordinary socioeconomic, political, and cultural consequences. Africa's demographic regimes have also been profoundly affected by the HIV/AIDS epidemic, urbanization processes, and environmental change. This review focuses on how African population growth and urbanization are clashing with constraints unique to the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. We provide an empirical profile describing population growth and constraints to this growth and the improvement in the quality of life in Africa. We suggest that more attention needs to be placed on the structural aspects of population dynamics. Although this review makes some reference to North Africa, the focus is sub-Saharan Africa.

This review investigates scholarship on the intersection of race and gender, with a particular focus on the U.S. labor market. We ask the following questions: What assumptions underlie intersectional perspectives in sociology? Is there any evidence to demonstrate that race and gender intersect in the labor market? We begin by discussing the core assumptions within Black and multiracial feminist theories, which represent the most fully articulated treatments of “intersectionality.” We then broaden our theoretical overview by identifying fundamental differences in the way that sociologists conceptualize intersectionality. We look for evidence of intersectionality in three central domains of research on labor market inequality: (a) wage inequality, (b) discrimination and stereotyping, and (c) immigration and domestic labor. We find that race and gender do intersect in the labor market under certain conditions. Finally, we consider how an intersectional approach enriches labor market research and theorizing about economic inequality.

Over the past decade, there has been a resurgence of interest and research into the connections between associations and democracy. This article divides the question of associative contributions to democracy into four component parts: What (a) contributions do (b) different kinds of associations make to advance (c) contesting ideals of democratic governance in various (d) political contexts? Associations enhance democracy in at least six ways: through the intrinsic value of associative life, fostering civic virtues and teaching political skills, offering resistance to power and checking government, improving the quality and equality of representation, facilitating public deliberation, and creating opportunities for citizens and groups to participate directly in governance. These contributions are not all mutually consonant with one another, and different forms of associations are better suited to advance some contributions than others. Furthermore, those who propose bolstering associations as a strategy for revitalizing democracy frequently have quite different ideals of democracy in mind. The forms and contributions of associations appropriate to three contesting notions of democratic governance—liberal minimalism, conventional representation-cum-administration, and participatory democracy—are also discussed. Finally, the democratic priority of associative contributions depends crucially on contextual features of particular societies. Under tyrannical regimes, for example, associations that resist government authority are more crucial than those that foster compliance and respect for political institutions.

I review studies of the roles played by cognitive skills and noncognitive traits and behaviors in stratification processes. Bowles & Gintis (1976) were among the first to argue that noncognitive traits and behaviors are more important than cognitive skills in determining schooling and employment outcomes. Now, 25 years later, these authors (Bowles & Gintis 2002) claim that the ensuing literature vindicates their position. There is much evidence for this claim, although it remains unresolved. I locate their discussion within the larger literature that has appeared during this time period. This literature provides an emerging interdisciplinary paradigm for the study of socioeconomic attainment, including differentials by social class, race, and ethnic background.

In 1977, the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) established an official classification standard for the measurement of race in the American population. In so doing, the OMB authorities created what amounted to a racial cosmology that spread throughout American society, affecting public perceptions about the racial hierarchy of American society. In 1997, the OMB issued a revised version of this classification in which small changes may profoundly affect the way policymakers and the American public think about race. At the very least, these revisions present significant challenges to social scientists who study race and ethnicity. This review begins with a brief historical overview of racial data collected by the federal government. It subsequently examines the circumstances leading up to the 1997 revisions of OMB Directive No. 15 and discusses how these revisions may affect social scientific research on the subject of race and ethnicity.

The “new-politics” perspective derives welfare state retrenchment from postindustrial changes generating budget deficits and government attempts to benefit cuts, attempts largely resisted by powerful new groups of welfare-state clients. Comparative studies based on social expenditures show little or no role of class-based parties in the retrenchment process. In the power-resources perspective, focusing on the role of distributive conflicts between major interest groups, the post-war European welfare state included full employment in the “Keynesian welfare state,” based on a social contract markedly differing from the one in the United States. The return of mass unemployment in Europe constitutes a major welfare state regress and generates government budget deficits. Analyses based on social citizenship rights indicate major retrenchment in some countries, with political parties and welfare state institutions playing significant roles. The return of mass unemployment and cuts in social rights appear as a reworking of the European postwar social contract.