How to search?
advanced search
Humanities and Social Sciences

Studia Socjologiczne

Studia Socjologiczne

Description

STUDIA SOCJOLOGICZNE is a Polish sociological quarterly, published since 1961. Its publishers are the Polish Academy of Sciences (represented by the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology and the Committee on Sociology), as well as the Faculty of Philosophy and Sociology, University of Warsaw (from 2013).

STUDIA SOCJOLOGICZNE welcomes articles in Polish and English from all sociological fields and neighbouring disciplines (as long as the authors apply a broadly defined sociological approach). Preference is given to texts that contribute to the advancement of social theory and are empirically grounded and innovative in their conceptual and methodological outlook. More at www.studiasocjologiczne.pl .

Articles published in STUDIA SOCJOLOGICZNE are indexed in Scopus, EBSCO, CEEOL, CEJSH, Social Science Citation Index, Social Scisearch, Proquest, Index Copernicus. Full texts are available online for EBSCO subscribers (SocINDEX with Full Text), as well as in open access through the Polish Academy of Sciences online journal reading room: http://journals.pan.pl/dlibra and (since 2016) at www.studiasocjologiczne.pl ("Archives").

ISSN
ISSN 0039-3371, e-ISSN 2545-2770
Publishers
Instytut Filozofii i Socjologii PAN, Komitet Socjologii PAN, Wydział Socjologii UW

Editors

Editor in Chief

Jacek Wasilewski (Institute of Political Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences) e-mail: jwasilew@swps.edu.pl

Managing Editor

Barbara Gruszka (Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences) e-mail: bgruszka@ifispan.waw.pl

Associate Editors

Wojciech Adamek (Jagiellonian University) – Classical Sociological Theory; Book-reviews; Letters and Polemics

Marta Bucholc (University of Warsaw, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn) – Humanistic Sociology

Henryk Domański (Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences) – Social Structure and Mobility

Anna Horolets (University of Warsaw) – Social Anthropology

Piotr Jabkowski (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan) – Statistical Editor; Quantitative Research Methods; Quality of Life Studies

Katarzyna Kajdanek (University of Wroclaw) – Urban Sociology; Community Studies

Łukasz Krzyżowski (University of Science and Technology – AGH Krakow, Humboldt University)– Demography and Migration Studies; Qualitative Research Methods

Magdalena Nowicka (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) – Ethnicity; Collective Identity; Sociological Theory

Marta Olcoń-Kubicka (Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences) – Economic Sociology

Krzysztof Pietrowicz (Nicolaus Copernicus University) – Contemporary Sociological Theory; Science and Technology Studies

Mikołaj Stanek (Universidad de Salamanca) – Sociology of Religion, Demographic Analysis

Tomasz Szlendak (Nicolaus Copernicus University) – Sociology of Culture; Sociology of Family

Journal Office Address

00-330 WARSZAWA, Nowy Świat 72, room 235

phone: (+48-22) 657-28-61, fax: (22) 826-78-23

e-mail: redakcja@studiasocjologiczne.pl

  • Volumes
  • Instructions for authors

Select number

Content

Studia Socjologiczne | 2024 | No 1

1 The Relevance of Civility Today
Barbara Misztal
Studia Socjologiczne | 2024 | No 1 | 5-26 | DOI: 10.24425/sts.2024.149314
Keywords: market respect civil society democracy civility
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The paper emphasizes the contemporary relevance of civility, understood as a respectful way of treating the other and recognition of people’s differences and sensibilities. It outlines the sociological importance of civility as being connected with its role as both a normative guidance orienting us towards prescriptive ideals and as an empirical concept with important social impact on identities and actions. The paper examines Adam Smith’s theory which roots civility in a commercial society, analyses Elias’s (1994) history of civility as the folding of the logic of the civilizing process, and it debates theories linking the idea of civility to civil society. In conclusion, emphases are put on the importance of civility, seen as the act of respectful engaging with people across deep divisions, for the quality of democracy.
Go to article

Bibliography

  1. Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press.
  2. Bauman, Zygmunt. 2000. Am I my brother’s keeper? European Journal of Social Work, 3, 1: 5-11.
  3. Baumgarten, Britta, Dieter Gosewinkel, Dieter Rucht. 2011. Civility: introductory notes on the history and systematic analysis of a concept. European Review of History, 18, 3: 289-312.
  4. Berger, Peter. 1998. Conclusion: general observations on normative conflicts and mediation. In: The Limits of Social Cohesion, ed., P.L. Berger. Boulder: Westview Press, 352-72.
  5. Boyd, Robert. 2006. The value of civility? Urban Studies, 43, 5-6: 863-878.
  6. Bryant, Christopher G.A. 1992. Sociology without philosophy? The case of Giddens’s structuration theory. Sociological Theory, 10, 2: 137-149.
  7. Campbell, John L., John A. Hall. 2022. What Capitalism Needs: Forgotten Lessons of Great Economists. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Chambers, Simone, Jeffrey Kopstein. 2001. Bad civil society. Political Theory, 29, 6: 837-865.
  9. Cohen, John, Andrew Arato. 1992. Civil Society. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
  10. Elias, Norbert. 1996. The Germans. Power Struggles and the Development of Habitus in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  11. Elias, Norbert. 1994. The Civilizing Process. Trans. Edmund Jephcott. Oxford: Blackwell.
  12. Elias, Norbert. 1982. State Formation and Civilization. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  13. Elias, Norbert. 1978. On the transformation of aggressiveness. Theory and Society, 5, 2: 229-242.
  14. Ferguson, Adam. [1759]1995. On Essay on the History of Civil Society. Ed. by F. Oz-Salzberger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  15. Fleischacker, Samuel. 2022. Being Me Being You: Adam Smith and Empathy. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  16. Goldfarb, Jeffrey. 1998. Civility and Subversion. The Intellectual in Democratic Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Goldfarb, Jeffrey. 1992. After the Fall: The Pursuit of Democracy in Central Europe. New York: Basic Books.
  18. Goody, Jack. 2006. The Theft of History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Gornicka, Barbara, Stephen Mennell. 2021. Processes and figurational (or process) sociology. In: P. Kivisto, ed. Cambridge Handbook of Social Theory. Cambridge University Press, vol. 1, 272-291.
  20. Hall, John A. 2013. The Importance of Being Civil. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  21. Hall, John A., Frank Trentmann. 2005. Contests over civil society. In : J.A. Hall, F. Trentmann, eds. Civil Society: A Reader in History, Theory and Global Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 1-25.
  22. Hansen, Kasper. 1997. Rediscovering the social. In : J. Weintraub,K. Kumar, eds. Public and Private in Thought and Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 268-302. 
  23. Harrel, Cyd. 2020. A Civic Technologist’s Practice Guide. San Francisco: Seven Five Books.
  24. Heilbron, Johan. 2022. The emergence of social theory. In: P. Kivisto, ed. Cambridge Handbook of Social Theory. Cambridge University Press, vol.1, 1-24.
  25. Keane, John. 1988. Civil Society and the State. London: Verso.
  26. Koselleck, Reinhart. 2004. Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time. Trans. K. Tribe. New York: Columbia University Press.
  27. Kumar, Krishan. 1993. Civil Society: An Inquiry into the usefulness of an historical term. British Journal of Sociology, 44: 375-96.
  28. Melucci, Alberto. 1989. Nomads of the Present. Social Movement and Individual Needs in Contemporary Society. London: Century Hutchinson.
  29. Mennell, Stephan. 2001. The other side of the coin. In : T. Salumets, ed. Norbert Elias and Human Independencies. Montréal: McGill-Queens’s University Press, 32-49.
  30. Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat. [1748]1988. The Spirit of the Laws. A. Cohler et al. eds. Cambridge University Press.
  31. Nehring, Holger. 2011. Civility in history: some observations on th history of the concept. European Review of History, 18, 3: 313-333.
  32. Nussbaum, Martha. 2001. Anger and Forgiveness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  33. Putnam, Robert T. 1995. Tuning in, tuning out. Political Science and Politics, 28: 664-683.
  34. Robin, Corey. 2022. Empathy & the economy. New York Review of Books, December 8: 43-46.
  35. Rucht, Dieter. 2011. Civil Society and civility. European Review of History, 18, 3: 387-407.
  36. Seligman, Adam, 1992. The Idea of Civil Society. New York: Free Press.
  37. Sennett, Richard. 2012. Together the rituals, pleasures and politics of co-operation. London: Allen Lane.
  38. Shapin, Steven. 1994. A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in SeventeenthCentury England. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  39. Shils, Edward. 1992. The virtue of civil society. Government and Opposition, 26: 3-20.
  40. Sloss, David L. 2022. Tyrants on Twitter: Protecting Democracies from Information Warfare. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  41. Smith, Adam. [1776]1999. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of Wealth of Nations. intro A. Skinner: London: Penguin Books.
  42. Smith, Adam. [1759]1982. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund Press.
  43. Susen, Simon. 2021. Civil Society. In: P. Kivisto, ed.) Cambridge Handbook of Social Theory. Cambridge University Press, vol. 2, 379-406.
  44. Swann, Abram de. 2001. Dyscivilization, mass extermination, and the state. Theory, Culture and Society, 12, 2: 25-39.
  45. Taylor, Charles. 2018. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  46. Thiranagama, Sharika, Tobias Kelly, Carlos Forment. 2018. Introduction: Whose civility? Anthropological Theory, 18, 2-3: 153-174. 
  47. Thomas, Keith. 2018. In Pursuit of Civility Manners and Civilization in Early Modern England. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  48. Tocqueville, Alexis de. [1856]1969. Democracy in America. Trans. S. Gillbert. London: Fontana.
  49. Touraine, Alain, Francois Dubet, Michel Wieviorka, Jan Strzelecki. 1983. Solidarity: Poland 1980-81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  50. Walzer, Michal. 1992. The civil society argument. In: C. Mouffe, ed.. Dimensions of Radical Democracy: Pluralism, Citizenship, Community. New York: Verso, 89-107.
  51. Wirth, Morand. 2022. Saint Francis de Sales. Roma: Centro Studi de Bosco.
  52. Zuboff, Shoshana. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York: Public Affairs.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Barbara Misztal
1
  1. University of Leicester
2 Spory wokół strategii dekolonizacji socjologii i odnowy perspektywy krytycznej
Jakub P. Barszczewski
Studia Socjologiczne | 2024 | No 1 | 27-54 | DOI: 10.24425/sts.2024.149315
Keywords: globalne Południe dekolonizacja postkolonializm socjologia publiczna socjologia globalna
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Artykuł omawia zachodnie spory wokół strategii upodmiotowienia socjologicznego dorobku peryferyjnych badaczy i specyfiki doświadczeń globalnego Południa. Ich początek wyznacza sformułowanie w I dekadzie XXI wieku przez Michaela Burawoya koncepcji socjologii globalnej jako programu deprowincjalizacji i odnowy socjologii. Spotkała się ona wówczas z krytyczną odpowiedzią zwolenników alternatywnych wizji przezwyciężenia europocentryzmu dyscypliny. W ostatnich latach spór ten toczy się wokół zasadności i ograniczeń klasycznego kanonu socjologii, w wyniku której pojawiły się nowe propozycje upodmiotowienia peryferii. Omawiając stanowisko Burawoya, odwołuję się również do prac Raewyn Connell, Juliana Go i Gurminder K. Bhambry jako najważniejszych oponentów amerykańskiego badacza. Podsumowaniem tej debaty są niepokojące głosy na temat niepożądanych konsekwencji zwrotu w stronę Południa, które rodzą pytania o granice krytycznej roli socjologii.
Go to article

Bibliography

  1. Afeltowicz, Łukasz, Krzysztof Pietrowicz. 2013. Maszyny społeczne. Wszystko ujdzie, o ile działa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
  2. Bacevic, Jana. 2019. Knowing Neoliberalism. Social Epistemology, 33, 4: 380-392. DOI: 10.1080/02691728.2019.1638990.
  3. Barszczewski, Jakub Piotr. 2022. Myśleć, ucząc się od globalnego Południa. Socjologia Boaventury de Sousy Santosa na tle współczesnych sporów w ramach nauk społecznych. Kraków: Nomos.
  4. Behbehanian, Laleh, Michael Burawoy. 2011. “Global Sociology”: Reflections on an Experimental Course. “Global Sociology, Live!”, http://globalsociologylive.blogspot.co.uk/. Dostęp 15.03.2023.
  5. Bhambra, Gurminder K. 2009. Introduction - Global Social Inquiry: The Challenge of Listening. Sociological Research Online, 14, 4, http://www.socresonline.org. uk/14/4/11.html. Dostęp 15.03.2023. DOI: 10.5153/sro.1991.
  6. Bhambra, Gurminder K. 2014. Connected Sociologies. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
  7. Bhambra, Gurminder K. 2016. Undoing the Epistemic Disavowal of the Haitian Revolution: A Contribution to Global Social Thought. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 37,1: 1-16. DOI: 10.1080/07256868.2015.1122578.
  8. Bhambra, Gurminder K. 2022. For a reparatory social science. Global Social Challenges Journal, 1, 1: 8-20.
  9. Bhambra, Gurminder K., Boaventura de Sousa Santos. 2017. Introduction: Global Challenges for Sociology, Sociology, 51, 1: 3-10.
  10. Bhambra, Gurminder K., John Holmwood. 2021. Capitalism and Modern Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  11. Bourdieu, Pierre, Loïc J. D. Wacquant. 2001. Zaproszenie do socjologii refleksyjnej. Przekład Anna Sawisz. Warszawa: Oficyna Naukowa.
  12. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Specyfika dziedziny naukowej i społeczne warunki rozwoju wiedzy. W: E. Mokrzycki, red. Kryzys i schizma. Antyscjentystyczne tendencje w socjologii współczesnej, t. 2. Przekład Elżbieta Neyman. Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 87-136.
  13. Buchowski, Michał. 2006. The Specter of Orientalism in Europe: From Exotic Other to Stigmatized Brother. Anthropological Quarterly, 79, 4: 463-482.
  14. Burawoy, Michael. 2001. Manufacturing the global. Ethnography, 2, 147: 147-159.
  15. Burawoy, Michael. 2005. Provincializing the Social Sciences. In: G. Steinmetz, ed. The Politics of Method in the Human. Sciences: Positivism and Its Epistemological Others. Durham-London: Duke University Press, 508-525.
  16. Burawoy, Michael. 2008. Rejoinder: For a Subaltern Global Sociology? Current Sociology, 56, 3: 435-444.
  17. Burawoy, Michael. 2009. O socjologię publiczną. Przemówienie prezydenckie z roku 2004. W: A. Manterys, J. Mucha, red. Nowe perspektywy teorii socjologicznej. Przekład Agata Dziuban. Kraków: ZW Nomos, 525-561.
  18. Burawoy, Michael. 2021a. Decolonizing sociology: The significance of W.E.B. Du Bois. Critical Sociology, 47, 4-5: 545-554. DOI: 10.1177/08969205211005180.
  19. Burawoy, Michael. 2021b. Living Sociology: On Being in the World One Studies. Annual Review of Sociology, 47: 17-40. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-soc-072320-101856.
  20. Burawoy, Michael. 2022. Walking on Two Legs: Black Marxism and the Sociological Canon. Critical Sociology, 48: 571- 586. DOI: 10.1177/0896920522108564.
  21. Burawoy, Michael, Mau-kuei Chang, Michelle Fei-yu Hsieh, eds. 2010. Facing an Unequal World: Challenges for a Global Sociology, t. 1-3. Taipei: Academia Sinica and the Council of National Associations of the International Sociological Association. 
  22. Connell, Raewyn. 2010. Learning from Each Other: Sociology on a World Scale. In: S. Patel, ed. The ISA Handbook of Diverse Sociological Traditions. London: Sage, 52-65.
  23. Connell, Raewyn. 2014. Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide by Boaventura de Sousa Santos. American Journal of Sociology, 120, 3: 949-951. DOI: 10.1086/678449.
  24. Connell, Raewyn. 2015. Meeting at the edge of fear: theory on a world scale. Feminist Theory, 16, 1: 49-66. DOI: 10.1177/14647001145625.
  25. Connell, Raewyn. 2018. Teoria z globalnego Południa. W stronę ogólnoświatowej nauki o społeczeństwie. Przekład Paweł Tomanek. Kraków: Nomos.
  26. Connell, Raewyn. 2019. Canons and Colonies: The Global Trajectory of Sociology. Estudos Históricos (Rio de Janeiro). 32, 67: 349-367.
  27. Connell, Raewyn, Fran Collyer, Joao Maia, Robert Morell, Rebecca Pearse. 2017. Re-making the global economy of knowledge: do new fields of research change the structure of North-South relations? British Journal of Sociology, 69: 738-757. DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.12294.
  28. Connell, Raewyn, Fran Collyer, Joao Maia, Robert Morell. 2017. Toward a global sociology of knowledge: post-colonial realities and intellectual practices. International Sociology, 32,1: 21-37. DOI: 10.1177/026858091667691.
  29. Go, Julian. 2016a. Postcolonial thought and social theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
  30. Go, Julian. 2016b. Globalizing Sociology, Turning South. Perspectival Realism and the Southern Standpoint. Sociologica, 2. DOI: 10.2383/85279.
  31. Go, Julian. 2020a. The Imperial Origins of American Policing: Militarization and Imperial Feedback in the Early 20th Century. American Journal of Sociology, 125, 5: 1193-1254.
  32. Go, Julian. 2020b. Race, Empire, and Epistemic Exclusion: Or the Structures of SociologicalThought.Sociological Theory, 38, 2: 79-100.DOI: 10.1177/0735275120926213.
  33. Gundorova, Tamara. 2014. W jaki sposób peryferie rozmawiają między sobą albo teoria postkolonialna pozbawiona „Centrum”. Przekład Marcin Gaczkowski. Porównania, 15, 15: 33-44.
  34. Karkov, Nikolay R., Zhivka Valiavicharska. 2018. Rethinking East-European Socialism: Notes Toward an Anti-Capitalist Decolonial Methodology. Interventions, 1-29.
  35. Mark, James, Artemy M. Kalinovsky, Steffi Marung, eds. 2020. Alternative Globalizations: Eastern Europe and the Postcolonial World. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  36. Moosavi, Leon. 2020. The decolonial bandwagon and the dangers of intellectual decolonisation. International Review of Sociology, 30, 2: 332-354, DOI: 10.1080/03906701.2020.1776919.
  37. Müller, Martin. 2020. W poszukiwaniu Globalnego Wschodu: myślenie między Północą a Południem. Przekład Anna Piekarska. Praktyka Teoretyczna, 3, 37: 157-186.
  38. Patel, Sujata, ed. 2010. The ISA Handbook of Diverse Sociological Traditions. London: Sage. 
  39. Puwar, Nirmal. 2020. Puzzlement of a déjà vu: Illuminaries of the global South. The Sociological Review, 68, 3: 540-556. DOI: 10.1177/0038026119890254.
  40. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. 2014. Epistemologies of the south: Justice against Epistemicide. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
  41. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. 2018. The End of the Cognitive Empire: The Coming Age of Epistemologies of the South. Durham-London: Duke University Press.
  42. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. 2020. Gdyby Bóg był aktywistą praw człowieka. Przekład Jakub Piotr Barszczewski. Kraków: Nomos.
  43. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa, Maria P. Meneses, eds. 2019. Knowledges Born in the Struggle: Constructing the Epistemologies of the Global South. New York-London: Routledge.
  44. Shariati, Ali.1979. On the Sociology of Islam. ByAli Shariati. Berkeley, Calif.: Mizan Press.
  45. Snochowska-Gonzalez, Claudia. 2012. Post-colonial Poland: On an unavoidable misuse. East European Politics & Societies, 26, 4: 708-723.
  46. Steinmetz, George. 2013. A Child of the Empire: British Sociology and Colonialism, 1940s-1960s. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 49, 4: 353-378.
  47. Steinmetz, George. 2014. Scientific Autonomy and Empire, 1880-1945: Four German Sociologists.” In: German Colonialism in a Global Age. G. Eley, B. Naranch, eds. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 46-73.
  48. Steinmetz, George. 2023. The Colonial Origins of Modern Social Thought: French Sociology and the Overseas Empire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  49. Sztompka, Piotr. 2012. Kolejna socjologiczna utopia. Studia Litteraria et Historica, 1: 335-349.
  50. Turkowski, Andrzej, Tomasz Zarycki. 2022. Od paradygmatu zależności do neoliberalizmu. Niedostrzeżona rewolucja w polskim polu nauk społecznych. W: T. Zarycki, red. Polskie nauki społeczne w kontekście relacji władzy i zależności międzynarodowych. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 263-296.
  51. Waldstein, Maxim. 2010. Theorizing the Second World. Ab Imperio, 1: 98-117.
  52. Warczok, Tomasz. 2016. Globalne pole nauk społecznych a socjologia polska. Zarys centro-peryferyjnego przepływu idei. W: T. Zarycki, red. Polska jako peryferie. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, 170-186.
  53. Warczok, Tomasz, Tomasz Zarycki. 2014. (Ukryte) zaangażowanie i (pozorna) neutralność: Strukturalne ograniczenia rozwoju socjologii krytycznej w warunkach pół-peryferyjnych. Stan Rzeczy, 6: 129-158.
  54. Warczok, Tomasz, Tomasz Zarycki. 2016. Gra peryferyjna. Polska politologia w globalnym polu nauk społecznych. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
  55. Zarycki, Tomasz. 2022. The Polish Elite and Language Sciences. A Perspective of Global Historical Sociology. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Jakub P. Barszczewski
1
  1. Uniwersytet w Białymstoku
3 Negatywne oddziaływanie polityki ewaluacyjnej jednostek naukowych na jakość polskiej nauki. Perspektywa Mertonowskiego etosu naukowego
Konrad Kulikowski
Studia Socjologiczne | 2024 | No 1 | 55-79 | DOI: 10.24425/sts.2024.149316
Keywords: socjologia nauki zarządzanie nauką etos naukowy normy w nauce ewaluacja jednostek naukowych
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Główne pytanie badawcze prezentowanego artykułu brzmi: czy polska polityka ewaluacji jednostek naukowych wpływa na podnoszenie poziomu nauki w polskich instytucjach naukowych? Przyjęto założenie, iż warunkiem jakości nauki jako działalności ukierunkowanej na generowanie nowej wiedzy jest etos naukowy oparty na czterech imperatywach Roberta K. Mertona: uniwersalizmie, wspólnotowości, bezinteresowności i zorganizowanym sceptycyzmie. Polityka, która za cel stawia sobie podnoszenie jakości nauki, powinna promować i wzmacniać postępowanie zgodne z normami etosu naukowego. Przeprowadzona analiza porównawcza pomiędzy normami Mertona a normami postępowania, które wymusza polityka ewaluacji, ujawniła, iż zasady ewaluacji jednostek naukowych nie sprzyjają kształtowaniu się norm etosu naukowego, a często są z nimi sprzeczne. Paradoksalnie, procedury ewaluacji stworzone do promowania jakości polskiej nauki prowadzą do obniżania jakości działalności naukowej. Jeśli celem polskiej nauki ma być generowanie nowej wiedzy, a nie tylko zapewnienie awansu społecznego, należy przeformułować zasady polityki ewaluacji jednostek naukowych tak, aby zwiększyć ich zgodność z normami etosu naukowego.
Go to article

Bibliography

  1. Adler, Nancy J., Anne-Wil Harzing. 2009. When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8, 1: 72-95. DOI: 10.5465/amle.2009.37012181.
  2. Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. 2022. Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. https://www.scienceeurope.org/our-resources/agreement-re- forming-research-assessment/ Dostęp: 22.06.2023.
  3. Aguinis, Herman, Chailin Cummings, Ravi S. Ramani, Thomas G. Cummings. 2020. “An A is an A”: The new bottom line for valuing academic research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34, 1: 135-154. DOI: 10.5465/amp.2017.0193.
  4. Ajdukiewicz, Kazimierz. 2020. O wolności nauki. Nauka, 2: 7-24. DOI: 10.24425/ nauka.2020.132629.
  5. Alberts, Bruce. 2013. Impact factor distortions. Science, 340, 6134: 787-787. DOI: 10.1126/science.1240319.
  6. Amanatidis, Anestis. 2023. Research(er) assessment that considers open science. Leiden Madtrics. https://www.leidenmadtrics.nl/articles/researcher-assessment-that- considers-open-science.
  7. Anderson, Melissa S., Emily A. Ronning, Raymond De Vries, Brian C. Martinson. 2007. The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 4: 437-461. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5.
  8. Anderson, Melissa S., Emily A. Ronning, Raymond Vries, Brian C. Martinson. 2010. Extending the Mertonian norms: Scientists’ subscription to norms of research. The Journal of Higher Education, 81, 3: 366-393. DOI: 10.1080/0022 1546.2010.11779057.
  9. Antonakis, John, Rafael Lalive. 2008. Quantifying scholarly impact: IQp versus the Hirsch h. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 6: 956-969. DOI: 10.1002/asi.20802.
  10. Argento, Daniela, Dorota Dobija, Giuseppe Grossi. 2020. The disillusion of calculative practices in academia. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 17, 1: 1-17. DOI: 10.1108/QRAM-12-2019-0130
  11. Audretsch, David, Christian Fisch, Chiara Franzoni, Paul P. Momtaz, Silvio Vismara. 2023. Academic Freedom and Innovation: A Research Note. http://dx.doi. org/10.2139/ssrn.4384419.
  12. Baccini, Alberto, Giuseppe De Nicolao, Eugenio Petrovich. 2019.Citation gaming induced by bibliometric evaluation: A country-level comparative analysis. PLoS One, 14, 9: e0221212. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221212.
  13. Belluz, Julia, Steven, Hoffman. 2015. Let’s stop pretending peer review works. https:// www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865086/peer-review-science-problems.
  14. Benjamin, Daniel J., James O. Berger, Magnus Johannesson, Brian A. Nosek, E-J. Wagenmakers, Richard Berk, Kenneth A. Bollen et al. 2018. Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 1: 6-10. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z.
  15. Bieliński, Jacek, Aldona Tomczyńska. 2019. Etos nauki we współczesnej Polsce. Nauka i Szkolnictwo Wyższe, 1, 53-54: 219-250. DOI: 10.14746//nisw.2019.1-2.7. 
  16. Bollen, Kenneth A., Judea Pearl. 2013. Eight myths about causality and structural equation models. Handbook of causal analysis for social research. In: S.L. Morgan, ed. Handbook of Causal Analysis for Social Research. Springer, 301-328.
  17. Brembs, Björn, Katherine Button, Marcus Munafo. 2013. Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7: 291. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291.
  18. Brembs, Björn. 2019. Reliable novelty: New should not trump true. PLoS Biology, 17, 2, e3000117. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000117.
  19. Brzeziński, Jerzy Marian. 2015. Jeżeli oceniać (jednostki naukowe i badaczy), to JAK oceniać? Przeciwko IF, a za peer review. Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology, 65, 6: 476-480. DOI: 10.5603MTO.2015.0093.
  20. Brzeziński, Jerzy Marian. 2021. Dysfunkcjonalne oddziaływanie państwa w nauce. Studia Socjologiczno-Polityczne. Seria Nowa, 2, 15: 73-92. DOI: 10.26343/0585556X21504.
  21. Buranyi, Stephen. 2017. Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/ jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science.
  22. Callaway, Ewen. 2016. Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric. Nature, 535, 7611: 210-211. DOI: 10.1038/nature.2016.20224.
  23. Carlson, Kevin D., Jinpei Wu. 2012. The illusion of statistical control: Control variable practice in management research. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 3: 413-435. DOI: 10.1177/1094428111428817.
  24. CBOS. 2019. Które zawody poważamy?, Komunikat z badań, nr 157, Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej, Warszawa. https://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.PO- L/2019/K_157_19.PDF.
  25. Chu, Johan, James Evans. 2021. Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118, 41: e2021636118. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2021636118.
  26. Cohen, Barak. 2017. How should novelty be valued in science?. eLife 6, e28699. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.28699.
  27. Coles Nicholas. 2020. The Red Team Challenge (Part 1): Why I placed a bounty on my own research. The 100% CI. https://www.the100.ci/2020/06/29/red-team-part-1/.
  28. Corneille, Olivier, Jo Havemann, Emma L. Henderson, Hans IJzerman, Ian Hussey, Jean-Jacques Orban de Xivry, Lee Jussim, Nicholas P. Holmes, Artur Pilacinski, Brice Beffara, Harriet Carroll, Nicholas Otieno Outa, Peter Lush, Leon D. Lotter. 2023. Beware ‘persuasive communication devices’ when writing and reading scientific articles. Elife, 12, e88654. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.88654.
  29. Cortina, Jose, Jennifer Green, Kathleen Keeler, Robert Vandenberg. 2017. Degrees of freedom in SEM: Are we testing the models that we claim to test?. Organizational Research Methods, 20, 3: 350-378. DOI: 10.1177/1094428116676345.
  30. Council of the European Union. 2023. Council conclusions on high-quality, transparent, open, trustworthy and equitable scholarly publishing. https://data.consilium. europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9616-2023-INIT/en/pdf. Dostęp: 22.06.2023 
  31. Curry, Stephen. 2018. Let’s move beyond the rhetoric: it’s time to change how we judge research. Nature, 554, 7690: 147-148. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-018-01642-w.
  32. Czarnik, Szymon, Jarosław Górniak, Magdalena Jelonek, Krzysztof Kasparek. 2022. Bilans Kapitału Ludzkiego 2022/2021 Raport z badania ludności w wieku 18-69 lat. Polska Agencja Rozwoju Przedsiębiorczości, Uniwersytet Jagielloński. https:// www.parp.gov.pl/storage/publications/pdf/12-BKL-WCAG_ost_08_02_2023.pdf. Dostęp: 20.01.2024.
  33. De Rond, Mark, Alan N. Miller. 2005. Publish or perish: bane orboon of academic life? Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 4: 321-329. DOI: 10.1177/10564926052768.
  34. DORA. 2018. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, https://sfdora. org/read/read-the-declaration-polish/ Dostęp: 22.06.2023.
  35. European Research Council. 2022. ERC plans for 2022 announced. https://erc.eu ropa. eu/news/erc-2022-work-programme Dostęp: 22.06.2023.
  36. Fang, Ferric, Arturo Casadevall. 2015. Competitive science: is competition ruining science? Infection and Immunity, 83, 4: 1229-1233. DOI: 10.1128/IAI.02939-14.
  37. Fazackerley, Anna. 2023. ‘Too greedy’: mass walkout at global science journal over ‘unethical’ fees. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/may/07/too-greedy- mass-walkout-at-global-science-journal-over-unethical-fees.
  38. Fong, Eric, Ravi Patnayakuni, Allen Wilhite, Allen. 2023. Accommodating coercion: authors, editors, and citations. Research Policy, 52, 5: 104754. DOI: 10.1016/j. respol.2023.104754.
  39. Frey, Bruno. 2003. Publishing as prostitution?-Choosing between one’s own ideas and academic success. Public Choice, 116: 205-223. DOI: 10.1023/A:1024208701874.
  40. Garfield, Eugene. 2006. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Jama, 295, 1: 90-93. DOI: 10.1001/jama.295.1.90.
  41. Groen-Xu, Moqi, Gregor Bös, Pedro A. Teixeira, Thomas Voigt, Bernhard Knapp. 2023. Short-term incentives of research evaluations: Evidence from the UK Research Excellence Framework. Research Policy, 52, 6: 104729. DOI: 10.1016/j. respol.2023.104729.
  42. Hansson, Sven Ove. 2021. Science and Pseudo-Science. In: E. N. Zalta, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/fall2021/entries/pseudo-science/.
  43. Hicks, Diana, Paul Wouters, Ludo Waltman, Sarah de Rijcke, Ismael Rafols. 2015. Bibliometrics: the Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520, 7548: 429431. DOI: 10.1038/520429a.
  44. Huff, Tooby E. 2007. Some historical roots of the ethos of science. Journal of Classical Sociology, 7, 2: 193-210. DOI: /10.1177/1468795X07078037.
  45. Ioannidis, John, Angelo Maria Pezzullo, Stefania Boccia. 2023. The rapid growth of mega-journals: threats and opportunities. JAMA, 329, 15: 1253-1254. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.3212.
  46. Kerr, Steven. 1975. On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 4: 769-783.
  47. Kim, So Young, Yoonhoo Kim. 2018. The ethos of science and its correlates: An empirical analysis of scientists’ endorsement of Mertonian norms. Science, Technology and Society, 23, 1: 1-24. DOI: 10.1177/0971721817744438.
  48. Kisiel, Przemysław. 2011. Ethos nauki i uczonego w świetle koncepcji nauki J. Goćkowskiego. Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa, 2, 188: 203-215.
  49. Knöchelmann, Marcel. 2023. Governance by output reduces humanities scholarship to monologue. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2023/07/03/ governance-by-output-reduces-humanities-scholarship-to-monologue/.
  50. Kulczycki, Emanuel, Ewa A. Rozkosz, Krystian Szadkowski, Kinga Ciereszko, Marek Hołowiecki, Franciszek Krawczyk. 2021. Local use of metrics for the research assessment of academics: The case of Poland. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 43, 4: 435-53. DOI: 10.1080/1360080X.2020.1846243.
  51. Kulikowski, Konrad, Emil Antipow. 2020. Niezamierzone konsekwencje punktozy jako wartości kulturowej polskiej społeczności akademickiej. Studia Socjologiczne, 238, 3: 207-236. DOI: 10.24425/sts.2020.132476.
  52. Kulikowski, Konrad, Sylwia Przytuła, Łukasz Sułkowski. 2023. Podsumowanie wyników badania „Jak pracownicy naukowi oceniają systemy oceny okresowej, którym podlegają”. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/6ebw2.
  53. Lorsch, Jon. 2017. Avoiding Hype and Enhancing Awareness in Science Communication NIGMS Feedback Loop Blog - National Institute of General Medical Sciences https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/2017/09/avoiding-hype-and-enhancing-awareness-in- science-communication/.
  54. Macfarlane, Bruce. 2023. The DECAY of Merton’s scientific norms and the new academic ethos. Oxford Review of Education. DOI: 10.1080/03054985.2023.2243814.
  55. Merton, Robert King. 1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.
  56. Millar, Neil, Bojan Batalo, Brian Budgell. 2022. Trends in the Use of Promotional Language (Hype) in National Institutes of Health Funding Opportunity Announcements, 1992-2020. JAMA Network Open, 5, 11, e2243221-e2243221.
  57. Ministerstwo Edukacji i Nauki. 2020. Ewaluacja. https://www.gov.pl/web/edukacja-i- -nauka/ewaluacja Dostęp: 22.06.2023.
  58. Mitroff, Ian. 1974. Norms and counter-norms in a select group of the Apollo moon scientists: A case study of the ambivalence of scientists. American Sociological Review, 39, 4: 579-595. DOI: 10.2307/2094423.
  59. Muller, Jerry. 2018. The tyranny of metrics. Princeton University Press.
  60. Mulkay, Michael J. 1976. Norms and ideology in science. Social Science Information, 15, 4-5: 637-656. DOI: 10.1177/0539018476015004.
  61. Nosek, Brian, Jeffrey Spies, Matt Motyl. 2012. Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 6: 615-631. DOI: 10.1177/1745691612459058.
  62. Obwieszczenie Ministra Edukacji i Nauki. 2022. Obwieszczenie Ministra Edukacji i Nauki z dnia 23 lutego 2022 r w sprawie ogłoszenia jednolitego tekstu rozporządzenia Ministra Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego w sprawie ewaluacji jakości działalności naukowej. Dz.U. 2022 poz. 661. https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDe- tails.xsp?id=WDU20220000661. Dostęp: 22.06.2023.
  63. Paruzel-Czachura, Mariola, Lidia Baran, Zbigniew Spendel. 2021. Publish or be ethical? Publishing pressure and scientific misconduct in research. Research Ethics, 17, 3: 375- 397. DOI: 10.1177/1747016120980562. 
  64. Paulus, Frieder, Nicole Cruz, Soren Krach. 2018. The impact factor fallacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 9: 1487. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01487.
  65. Prawo o szkolnictwie wyższym i nauce. 2018. Ustawa z dnia 20 lipca 2018 r. Prawo o szkolnictwie wyższym i nauce, Art.265, §4. Dz.U. 2018 poz. 1668. https://isap. sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20180001668 Dostęp: 22.06.2023.
  66. Royal Society. 2023. Résumé for Researchers. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/ projects/research-culture/tools-for-support/resume-for-researchers/.
  67. Sabel, Bernhard, Emely Knaack, Gerd Gigerenzer, Mirela Bilc. 2023. Publications in Biomedical Science: Red-flagging Method Indicates Mass Production. medRxiv. DOI: 10.1101/2023.05.06.23289563.
  68. Severin, Anna, Michaela Strinzel, Matthias Egger, Tiago Barros, Alexander Sokolov, Julia Vilstrup Mouatt, Stefan Müller. 2022. Journal Impact Factor and Peer Review Thoroughness and Helpfulness: A Supervised Machine Learning Study. arXiv reprint. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2207.09821.
  69. Shore, Cris, Susan Wright. 2015. Audit culture revisited: Rankings, ratings, and the reassembling of socjety. Current Anthropology, 56, 3: 421-44. DOI: 10.1086/681534.
  70. Simons, Kai. 2008. The misused impact factor. Science, 322, 5899: 165-165. DOI: 10.1126/science.1165316.
  71. Smaldino, Paul, Richard McElreath. 2016. The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science, 3, 9: 160384. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.160384.
  72. Smith, Richard. 2006. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 4: 178-182. DOI: 10.1177/ 014107680609900414.
  73. Stein, Carolyn, Ryan Hill.2021. Race to the bottom: How competition to publish first can hurt scientific quality. Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR), December 2021. https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/race-bottom- how-competition-publish-first-can-hurt-scientific-quality.
  74. Sztompka, Piotr. 2007. Trust in science: Robert K. Merton’s inspirations. Journal of Classical Sociology, 7, 2: 211-220. DOI: 10.1177/1468795X07078038.
  75. Sztompka, Piotr. 2014. Uniwersytet współczesny; zderzenie dwóch kultur. Nauka, 1: 7-18.
  76. Tiokhin, Leonid, Minhua Yan, Thomas Morgan. 2021. Competition for priority harms the reliability of science, but reforms can help. Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 7: 857-867. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-020-01040-1.
  77. Towpik, Edward. 2015. IF-mania: Journal Impact Factor is not a proper mean to assess the quality of research, individual researchers, nor scientific institutions. Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology, 65, 6: 465-475. DOI: 10.5603MTO.2015.0092.
  78. UK Research and Innovation. 2023. Early decisions made for REF 2028 https://www. ukri.org/news/early-decisions-made-for-ref-2028/.
  79. Van Dalen, Hendrik P. 2021. How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: The case of economists. Scientometrics, 126, 2: 1675-1694. DOI: 10.1007/s11192020-03786-x.
  80. Van Noorden, Richard. 2013. Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature, 495: 426-429. DOI: 10.1038/495426a. 
  81. Vinkers, Christiaan, Joeri Tijdink, Willem Otte. 2015. Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis. BMJ, 351. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h6467.
  82. Wang, Dashun, Chaoming Song, Albert-Laszló Barabasi. 2013. Quantifying long-term scientific impact. Science, 342, 6154: 127-132. DOI: 10.1126/science.1237825.
  83. Wang, Jian, Reinhilde Veugelers, Paula Stephan. 2017. Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators. Research Policy, 46, 8: 1416-1436. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.06.006.
  84. Wasserstein, Ronald L., Nicole A. Lazar. 2016. The ASA statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70, 2: 129-133. DOI: 10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108.
  85. Wróblewski, Andrzej Kajetan. 2011. Misja uniwersytetów: poszukiwanie prawdy czy pogoń za zyskiem? Nauka, 3: 51-59.
  86. Wysocki, Anna C., Katherine M. Lawson, Mijke Rhemtulla. 2022. Statistical control requires causal justification. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 5, 2. DOI: 10.1177/25152459221095823.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Konrad Kulikowski
1
  1. Politechnika Łódzka
4 Terapeutyczny wymiar wywiadu socjologicznego: praktyka badawcza w kontekście wyzwań etycznych
Kamil Łuczaj
Studia Socjologiczne | 2024 | No 1 | 81-105 | DOI: 10.24425/sts.2024.149317
Keywords: wywiad terapeutyczny konsultacje koleżeńskie etyka badań badania bibliograficzne
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Artykuł omawia problematykę prowadzenia wywiadów jakościowych w kontekście ich potencjału terapeutycznego oraz potrzeby przygotowania zespołu badawczego do ich realizacji. Opierając się na przykładzie badań własnych z awansującymi społecznie akademikami (2020-2022) oraz projektu dotyczącego biograficznego doświadczenia posttransformacji (2022-), w artykule odpowiadam na następujące pytania: Dlaczego wywiady biograficzne mają potencjał do przeistoczenia się w rozmowę terapeutyczną? W jaki sposób można przygotować się do jego prowadzenia? Kto powinien wydawać zgodę lub rekomendacje dotyczące prowadzenia takiego wywiadu? Ze względu na poruszaną w obu projektach tematykę, wywiad może przekształcić się z typowo socjologicznej formy pomiaru rzeczywistości społecznej w rozmowę o charakterze terapeutycznym lub quasi-terapeutycznym, która zaspokaja potrzeby emocjonalne rozmówców i umożliwia zmianę ich zachowań (m.in. dzięki zwiększonej autorefleksyjności).
Go to article

Bibliography

  1. Afeltowicz, Łukasz, Joanna Suchomska, Wojciech Goszczyński. 2021. Partycypacyjne badania w działaniu: analiza polskich doświadczeń. Avant, XII: 1-25. DOI: 10.26913/avant.2021.03.04.
  2. Binns, Carole. 2019. Experiences of Academics from a Working-Class Heritage: Ghosts of Childhood Habitus. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  3. Boroń, Aleksandra, Gromkowska-Melosik, Agnieszka. 2022. Ukraińskie uchodźczynie wojenne. Tożsamość, trauma, nadzieja. Kraków: Impuls.
  4. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988. Homo academicus. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  5. Bourdieu Pierre. 1993. La misère du monde. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
  6. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. In Other Words: Essays towards a Reflexive Sociology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  7. Bradley, Kevin, Anisa Puri. 2016. Creating an Oral History Archive: Digital Opportunities and Ethical Issues. Australian Historical Studies, 47: 75-91.
  8. Bron, Agnieszka. 2017. O badaniach biograficznych krytycznie. Nauki o Wychowaniu. Studia Interdyscyplinarne, 4, 1: 16-34.
  9. Brown, Brené. 2021. Atlas of the Heart. New York: Random House.
  10. Bura, Darya, Evgenia Podobna. 2022. ïïmmuù nmmuù 2022. CeidnenuR npo nepmi dm emop^HeHHM. XapKiB: ®omo.
  11. Case, Kim. 2017. Insider Without: Journey across the Working-Class Academic Arc. Journal of Working-Class Studies, 2, 2: 16-35.
  12. Choczyński, Marcin. 2018. Quasi-terapeutyczna funkcja wywiadu częściowo ustrukturyzowanego w odniesieniu do badań własnych. Rola i znaczenie dobrej relacji w wywiadzie socjologicznym. Przegląd Socjologiczny, 4: 150-170.
  13. de Gaulejac, Vincent. 2016. La névrose de classe. Nouvelle édition actualisée. Paris: Éditions Payot & Rivages.
  14. Demetrio, Duccio. 2000. Autobiografia. Terapeutyczny wymiar pisania o sobie. Kraków: Impuls.
  15. Deręgowska, Justyna. 2016. Rola badań biograficzno-narracyjnych w budowaniu modelu wsparcia społecznego rodzin doświadczonych chorobą nowotworową dziecka. W: M. Piorunek, red. Badania biograficzne i narracyjne w perspektywie interdyscyplinarnej. Aplikacje - Egzemplifikacje - Dylematy metodologiczne. Poznań: Wydawnictwo UAM, 223-237.
  16. Dolińska, Anna, Kamil Łuczaj, Olga Kurek-Ochmańska. 2022. Metoda biograficzna w kontekście badań jakościowych realizowanych zdalnie - możliwości, ograniczenia i aspekty etyczne. Przegląd Socjologiczny, 71: 61-84. DOI: 10.26485/ PS/2021/71.1/3.
  17. Friedman, Sam. 2016. Habitus clivé and the emotional imprint of social mobility. The Sociological Review, 64: 129-147.
  18. Gałęziowski, Jakub. 2022. Recenzja książki. Adrianna Surmiak, Etyka badań jakościowych w praktyce. Analiza doświadczeń badaczy z osobami podatnymi na zranienie, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, Warszawa 2022. Przegląd Socjologiczny, 71: 219-226.
  19. Goffman, Erving. 2006. Rytuał interakcyjny. Przekład Alina Szulżycka. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
  20. Golczyńska-Grondas, Agnieszka, Marek Grondas. 2013. Biographical research and treatment. Some remarks on therapeutic aspects of sociological biographical interviews. Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej, 9, 4: 28-49.
  21. Golczyńska-Grondas, Agnieszka, Katarzyna Waniek. 2022. Superwizja w jakościowych badaniach społecznych. O radzeniu sobie z trudnymi emocjami badających i badanych. Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej, 18, 4: 6-33.
  22. Graeber, David. 2019. Praca bez sensu. Teoria. Przekład Mikołaj Denderski. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Krytyki Politycznej.
  23. Grzesiak-Feldman, Monika. 2005. Wywiad psychologiczny a wywiad dziennikarski: porównanie. W: K. Stemplewska-Żakowicz, K. Krejtz, red. Wywiad psychologiczny, t. 2. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Pracowni Testów Psychologicznych Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego, 17-26.
  24. Hochschild, Arlie. 1983. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  25. Ingram, Nicola, Jessie Abrahams. 2015. Stepping Outside of Oneself: How a cleft-habitus can lead to greater reflexivity through occupying „the third space. In: J. Thatcher, N. Ingram, C. Burke, J. Abrahams, eds. Bourdieu: The Next Generation. The development of Bourdieu ’s intellectual heritage in contemporary UK sociology. London: Routledge, 141-156.
  26. Jacyno, Małgorzata. 2007. Kultura indywidualizmu. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
  27. Januszewska, Edyta. 2019. Heterotopie dziecięcego uchodźstwa. Syryjczycy w Libanie. Kraków: Impuls.
  28. Jensen, Barbara. 2014. Dreams and Nightmares: Survivor Guilt in Working Class Crossovers. Rhizomes 27 [brak numerów stron], http://www.rhizomes.net/issue27/ Dostęp: 07.02.2023.
  29. Józefik, Barbara. 2010. Superwizja - perspektywa systemowa. Psychoterapia, 3: 11-22.
  30. Karkowska, Magda. 2018. Terapeutyczne aspekty wywiadu narracyjnego w perspektywie prowadzenia badań biograficznych. Studia Edukacyjne, 50: 107-120. DOI: 10.14746/se.2018.50.7.
  31. Kaźmierska, Kaja. 2020. Ethical Aspects of Social Research: Old Concerns in the Face of New Challenges and Paradoxes. A Reflection from the Field of Biographical Method. Qualitative Sociology Review, 3: 118-13. DOI: 10.18778/17338077.16.3.08
  32. Kaźmierska, Kaja, Katarzyna Waniek. 2020. Autobiograficzny wywiad narracyjny. Metoda - technika - analiza. Łódź: Wydawnictwo UŁ.
  33. Kvale, Steinar. 2004. Interviews. Wprowadzenie do jakościowego wywiadu badawczego. Przekład Stanisław Zabielski. Białystok: Trans Humana.
  34. Labude, Markus, Liang Shen, Yujia Zhu, G. Owen Schaefer, Catherine Ong, Vicki Xafis. 2020. Perspectives of Singaporean biomedical researchers and research support staff on actual and ideal IRB review functions and characteristics: A quantitative analysis. PLoS ONE, 15, 12: 1-22. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241783. 
  35. Lee, Elizabeth. 2017. ‘Where People Like Me Don’t Belong’: Faculty Members from Low socioeconomic-status Backgrounds. Sociology of Education, 90, 3: 197-212. DOI: 10.1177/0038040717710495.
  36. Lee, Elizabeth, Rory Kramer. 2013. Out with the Old, In with the New? Habitus and Social Mobility at Selective Colleges. Sociology of Education, 86: 18-35. DOI: 10.1177/0038040712445519.
  37. Łuczaj, Kamil. 2021. Doznawanie klasy w perspektywie mikrosocjologicznej. Przypadek pracowników naukowych. Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej, 17, 2: 6-25. DOI: 10.18778/1733-8069.17.2.01.
  38. Luczaj, Kamil. 2023a. Social class as a blessing in disguise? Beyond the deficit model in working-class and higher education studies. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 42: 193-209. DOI: 10.1108/EDI-02-2022-0040.
  39. Łuczaj, Kamil. 2023b. Upwardly mobile biographies. An analysis of turning points in the careers of working-class faculty. Advances in Life Course Research, 56: 1-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.alcr.2023.100545.
  40. Macfarlane, Bruce, Yoshiko Saitoh. 2008. Research Ethics in Japanese Higher Education: Faculty Attitudes and Cultural Mediation. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6: 181-195. DOI: 10.1007/s10805-008-9065-9.
  41. Merton, Robert. 1996. On Social Structure and Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  42. Męcfal, Sylwia, Adrianna Surmiak, Izabela Ślęzak. 2020. Badania społeczne i humanistyczne w czasach pandemii - aspekty etyczno-metodologiczne. Dyskusja podczas „Spotkań Badaczek”. Przegląd Socjologiczny, 69: 203-214.
  43. Mizielińska, Joanna, Agata Stasińska, Magdalena Żadkowska, Mateusz Halawa. 2018. Dylematy etyczne w badaniu pary intymnej. Doświadczenia z pracy badawczej. Studia Socjologiczne, 3: 71-100. DOI: 10.24425/122473.
  44. Morris, Marilyn, Jason Morris. 2016. The importance of virtue ethics in the IRB. Research Ethics, 12: 201-216. DOI: 10.1177/1747016116656023.
  45. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1979. Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects. Washington DC: National Institutes of Health. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/the-belmont-report-508c_FINAL.pdf. Dostęp: 20.04.2023.
  46. Naudet, Jules. 2018. Stepping into the Elite: Trajectories of Social Achievement in India, France, and the United States. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
  47. Nind, Melanie 2014. What is inclusive research? London: Bloomsbury Academic.
  48. Poole, Adam. 2021. From recalcitrance to rapprochement. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 44: 522-534. DOI: 10.1080/01596306.2021.2021860.
  49. Rajtar, Małgorzata. 2020. The Concept of Vulnerability within research ethics and health policies in rare diseases. Przegląd Socjologiczny, 69: 107-127. DOI: 10.26485/ PS/2020/69.3/5.
  50. Reay, Diane. 2005. Beyond Consciousness?: The Psychic Landscape of Social Class. Sociology, 39: 911-928. DOI: 10.1177/003803850505837. 
  51. Russo, John, Sherry Linkon. 2005. What’s New about New Working-Class Studies? In: J. Russo, S. Lee Linkon, eds. New Working-Class Studies. Ithaca: Cornell University Press,, 2-18.
  52. Scheff, Thomas. 1990. Microsociology: Discourse, Emotion, and Social Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  53. Sorokin, Pitirim. 2009. Ruchliwość społeczna. Przekład Jerzyna Słomczyńska. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo IFiS PAN.
  54. Soroko, Emilia. 2015. Wkład psychoanalitycznego myślenia do rozwoju rozmowy psychologicznej jako jakościowej metody badawczej i diagnostycznej. Polskie Forum Psychologiczne, 20: 514-535.
  55. Spellecy, Ryan, Thomas May. 2012. More Than Cheating: Deception, IRB Shopping, and the Normative Legitimacy of IRBs. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 40, 4: 990-996. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2012.00726.
  56. Surmiak, Adrianna. 2018. Confidentiality in Qualitative Research Involving Vulnerable Participants: Researchers’ Perspectives. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 19: 1-26.
  57. Surmiak, Adrianna. 2019. Komisje etyczne dla badań społecznych w Polsce. Perspektywa socjologów i antropologów społeczno-kulturowych. Studia Socjologiczne 4: 157-182. DOI: 10.24425/sts.2019.126163.
  58. Surmiak, Adrianna. 2022. Etyka badań jakościowych w praktyce. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
  59. Tokarska, Urszula. 2002. Narracja autobiograficzna w terapii i promocji zdrowia. W: J. Trzebiński, red. Narracja jako sposób rozumienia świata. Gdańsk: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne, 221-261.
  60. Turner, Jonathan, Jan Stets. 2009. Socjologia emocji. Przekład Marta Bucholc. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
  61. Turton, David. 1996. Migrants and refugees: a Mursi case study. In: T. Allen, ed. In Search of Cool Ground: War, Flight and Homecoming in Northeast Africa. Trenton: Africa World Press, 96-123.
  62. Wachowiak, Anna. 2008. Zakończenie. W: A. Wachowiak, red. Socjologia jako społeczna terapia. Zielona Góra: Oficyna Wydawnicza Uniwersytetu Zielonogórskiego, 271-272.
  63. Walkerdine, Valerie. 199. Working class women: Psychological and social aspects of survival. Cahiers du GEDISST, 9-10: 57-80.
  64. Waniek, Katarzyna. 2019. Lekceważone potencjały i narosłe nieporozumienia: kilka uwag o metodzie autobiograficznego wywiadu narracyjnego Fritza Schützego.
  65. Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej, 15: 132-163.
  66. Wengraf, Tom. 2001. Qualitative Research Interviewing. Biographic Narrative and Semi-Structured Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Kamil Łuczaj
1
ORCID: ORCID
  1. Uniwersytet Łódzki
5 Czym jest solidarność ekologiczna? Badanie perspektywy obrońców rzek w Polsce
Adela Malak , Marianna Strzelecka , Joanna Tusznio
Studia Socjologiczne | 2024 | No 1 | 107-129 | DOI: 10.24425/sts.2024.149318
Keywords: wartości relacyjne więź człowiek - rzeka solidarność ekologiczna troska o rzeki działania zbiorowe
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Artykuł podejmuje problematykę solidarności ekologicznej jako przejawu wartości relacyjnej z rzekami. Obecne w literaturze rozważania teoretyczne nie zostały dotąd poparte wynikami badań empirycznych. Wkładem pracy w rozwój socjologii środowiska jest zatem empiryczne zbadanie przejawów solidarności ekologicznej jako wartości relacyjnej oraz weryfikacja założeń teoretycznych na jej temat, a także wytyczenie kierunków dalszej operacjonalizacji tego pojęcia w badaniach społecznych. Podstawą osiągnięcia wskazanego celu było przeprowadzenie eksploracyjnych wywiadów jakościowych z osobami zaangażowanymi w działania na rzecz rzek w Polsce. Wyniki badań pokazują, że wskazane w literaturze trzy wymiary solidarności ekologicznej są współzależne, a wspólnie mogą motywować do działania na rzecz rzek. Zrozumienie współczesnego charakteru relacji człowieka z rzekami oraz czynników kształtujących te relacje wydaje się kluczowe dla projektowania adekwatnych rozwiązań problemów dotykających ekosystemy rzeczne w Polsce.
Go to article

Bibliography

  1. Anderson, Elisabeth P., Sue Jackson, Rebecca E. Tharme i in. 2019. Understanding rivers and their social relations: A critical step to advance environmental water management. WIREs Water, 6: e1381. DOI: 10.1002/wat2.1381.
  2. Arias-Arévalo, Paola, Berta Martin-López, Erik Gómez-Baggethun. 2017. Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 22, 4: 43. DOI: 10.5751/ES-09812220443.
  3. Arias-Arévalo, Paola, Erik Gómez-Baggethun, Berta Martin-López, Mario Pérez-Rincón. 2018. Widening the Evaluative Space for Ecosystem Services: A Taxonomy of Plural Values and Valuation Methods. Environmental Values, 27, 1: 29-53. DOI: 10.3197/096327118X15144698637513. 
  4. Bennett, Nathan J., Tara S. Whitty i in. 2018. Environmental Stewardship: A Conceptual Review and Analytical Framework. Environmental Management, 61, 1-2: 597-614. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-017-0993-2.
  5. Boelens, Rutgerd, Arturo Escobar i in. 2023. Riverhood: political ecologies of socionature commoning and translocal struggles for water justice. The Journal of PeasantStudies, 50, 3: 1125-1156. DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2022.2120810.
  6. Bińczyk, Ewa. 2022. Planetarna myśl społeczna oraz wystudzanie wzrostu. Studia Socjologiczne, 3, 246: 9-27. DOI: 10.24425/sts.2022.142632.
  7. Chan, Kai M.A., Patricia Balvanera i in. 2016. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 113: 1462-1465. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1525002113.
  8. Chan, Kai M.A, Rachelle K. Gould, Unai Pascual. 2018. Relational values: what are they, and what’s the fuss about?. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35: A1-A7. DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.11.003.
  9. Cockburn, Jessica, Georgina Cundill i in. 2019. Collaborative stewardship in multifunctional landscapes: toward relational, pluralistic approaches. Ecology and Society, 24 4: 32. DOI: 10.5751/ES-11085-240432.
  10. De Vos, Alta, Bezerra Joana C., Roux Dirk. 2018. Relational values about nature in protected area research. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 8999. DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.018.
  11. Díaz, Sandra, Sebsebe Demissew i in. 2015. The IPBES conceptual framework - connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14: 1-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002.
  12. Díaz, Sandra, Unai Pascual i in. 2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Recognizing culture, and diverse sources of knowledge, can improve assessments. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 359, 6373: 270-272. DOI: 10.1126/science.aap8826.
  13. Flint, Courtney G., Bailey M. Holdaway, Caitlyn S. Rogers. 2023. Human-river relationships depend on human-human relationships: River and watershed organizations in three western US states. River Research and Applications. DOI: 10.1002/rra.4136.
  14. Folke, Carl, Stephen Polasky i in. 2021. Our future in the Anthropocene biosphere. Ambio, 50: 834-869. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-021-01544-8.
  15. Franklin, Adrian. 2017. The more-than-human city. The Sociological Review, 65, 2: 202 - 217. DOI: 10.1111/1467-954X.12396.
  16. Gonzalez-Jiménez, David, Uta Berghöfer i in. 2018. Beyond Measurements: Multiple values of nature and their diverse conceptualization. Technical Report.
  17. Gorczyca, Elżbieta, Joanna Wąs. 2021. Samoistna renaturyzacja rzek i potoków górskich. W: E. Gorczyca, A. Radecki-Pawlik, K. Krzemień, red. Procesy fluwialne a utrzymanie rzek i potoków górskich. Kraków: Instytut Geografii i Gospodarki Przestrzennej UJ, 393-414.
  18. Grubert, Emily. 2018. Relational values in environmental assessment: the social context of environmental impact. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 100-107. DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.020.
  19. Hagen, Eric J., Rachelle K. Gould. 2022. Relational values and empathy are closely connected: A study of residents of Vermont’s Winooski River watershed. Ecology&Society, 27, 3: 19. DOI: 10.5751/ES-13406-270319.
  20. Jager, Nicolas W., Edward Challies i in. 2016. Transforming European Water Governance? Participation and River Basin Management under the EU Water Framework Directive in 13 Member States. Water, 8, 4: 156. DOI: 10.3390/w8040156.
  21. Jennings, Bruce. 2015. Ecological Solidarity. Minding Nature, 8. 1.
  22. Klain, Sarah C., Paige Olmsted, Kai M.A. Chan, Terre Satterfield. 2017. Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm. PLoS ONE, 12, 8: e0183962. DOI: 10.1371/journal. pone.0183962.
  23. Kleespies, Matthias W., Paul W. Dierkes. 2020. Exploring the construct of relational values: an empirical approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 209. DOI: 10.1111/ soc4.12303.
  24. Kowalczak, Piotr, Piotr Matczak, Lena Slavikova. 2013. Institutional Evolution in Water Management in the Czech Republic and Poland. International Journal of Water Governance, 1, 3-4: 307-322. DOI: 10.7564/13-IJWG8.
  25. Kramm, Matthias. 2020. When a river becomes a person. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 21, 4: 307-319. DOI: 10.1080/19452829.2020.1801610.
  26. Lidskog Rolf, Claire Waterton. 2016. Anthropocene - a cautious welcome from environmental sociology?. Environmental Sociology, 2, 4: 395-406. DOI: 10.1080/23251042.2016.1210841.
  27. Lockie, Stewart. 2017. A better Anthropocene?. Environmental Sociology, 3, 3: 167172. DOI: 10.1080/23251042.2017.1357096.
  28. Manfredo, Michael J., Tara L. Teel, Kimberly L. Henry. 2009. Linking Society and Environment: A Multilevel Model of Shifting Wildlife Value Orientations in the Western United States. Social Science Quarterly, 90: 407-427. DOI: 10.1111/j.15406237.2009.00624.x.
  29. Matczak, Piotr, Jakub Lewandowski i in. 2017. Doing more while remaining the same? Flood risk governance in Poland. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 11, 5. DOI: 10.1111/jfr3.12300.
  30. Mathevet, Raphaël, François Bousquet i in. 2018a. The concept of stewardship in sustainability science and conservation biology. Biological Conservation, 217: 363-370. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.10.015.
  31. Mathevet, Raphaël, François Bousquet i in. 2018b. Environmental stewardship and ecological solidarity: rethinking social-ecological interdependency and responsibility. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 31: 605-623. DOI: 10.1007/s10806-018-9749-0.
  32. Moyano-Fernandez, Cristian. 2022. Building ecological solidarity: rewilding practices as an example. Philosophies, 7, 4: 77. DOI: 10.3390/philosophies7040077 .
  33. Mould, Simon A., Kirstie A. Fryirs, Richard Howitt. 2020. The importance of relational values in river management: understanding enablers and barriers for effective participation. Ecology & Society, 25, 2: 17. DOI: 10.5751/ES-11505-250217. 
  34. Muradian, Roldan, Erik Gómez-Baggethun. 2021. Beyond ecosystem services and nature’s contributions: Is it time to leave utilitarian environmentalism behind? Ecological Economics, 185. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107038.
  35. Norgaard, Kari M. 2018. The sociological imagination in a time of climate change. Global and Planetary Change, 163: 171-176. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.09.018.
  36. O’Donnell, Erin L., Julia Talbot-Jones. 2018. Creating legal rights for rivers: lessons from Australia, New Zealand, and India. Ecology and Society, 23, 1: 7. DOI: 10.5751/ES-09854-230107.
  37. Pascual, Unai, Patricia Balvanera i in. 2017. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26-27: 7-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006.
  38. Rabinowitz, Peter M., Marguerite Pappaioanou i in. 2018. A planetary vision for one health. BMJ Global Health, 3: e001137. DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001137.
  39. Sanders, Benjamin, Sim Julius i in. 2018. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant., 52, 4:1893-1907. DOI: 10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8. Epub 2017 Sep 14. PMID: 29937585; PMCID: PMC5993836.
  40. Schultz, Paul W. 2002. Inclusion with Nature: The Psychology of Human-Nature Relations. In: P. Schmuck, W.P. Schultz, eds. Psychology of Sustainable Development. Boston MA: Springer, 61-78. DOI:10.1007/978-1-4615-0995-0_4 .
  41. Stâlhammar, Sanna, Henrik Thorén. 2019. Three perspectives on relational values of nature. Sustainability Science, 14: 1201-1212. DOI: 10.1007/s11625-019-00718-4.
  42. Strzelecka, Marianna, Solène Prince, B. Bynum Boley. 2023. Resident connection to nature and attitudes towards tourism: findings from three different rural nature tourism destinations in Poland. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 31, 3: 664-687. DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2021.1995399.
  43. Thompson, John D., Raphaël Mathevet i in. 2011. Ecological solidarity as a conceptual tool for rethinking ecological and social interdependence in conservation policy for protected areas and their surrounding landscape. Comptes Rendus Biologies, 334, 5-6: 412-419. DOI: 10.1016/j.crvi.2011.02.001.
  44. Tusznio, Joanna, Piotr Matczak i in. 2023. Rising to the Challenge? The State of the Art and Future Research Directions of Polish Environmental Sociology. Polish Sociological Review, 221, 1: 27-46. DOI: 10.26412/psr221.02.
  45. Tusznio, Joanna, Marianna Strzelecka. 2022a. Mourning Rivers: A Way of Negotiating the Future. Blue Papers, 1, 1: 77-87. DOI: 10.58981/bluepapers.2022.1.08.
  46. Tusznio, Joanna, Marianna Strzelecka. 2022b. Place Loss and Re-Negotiating Local Water Heritage: The Case of Sztoła River, Bukowno, Poland. Blue Papers, 1, 1: 129-137. DOI: 10.58981/bluepapers.2022.1.13.
  47. Tsing, Anna. 2013. More-than-Human Sociality. A Call for Critical Description. In: K. Hastrup, eds. Anthropology and Nature (1st ed.). New York: Routledge, 27-42. DOI: 10.4324/9780203795361.
  48. Urry, John. 2009. Sociology and Climate Change. The Sociological Review, 57, 2: 84-100. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.2010.01887.x. 
  49. Wantzen, Karl M., eds. 2023. River Culture. Life as a dance to the rhythm of the waters. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, XIII + 901. DOI: 10.54677/HHMI3947.
  50. West, Simon, L. Jamila Haider i in. 2018. Stewardship, care and relational values. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 30-38. DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.008.
  51. WWF. 2022. Living Planet Report 2022 - Budowanie pozytywnej przyszłości w niepewnym świecie. R.E.A Almond, M. Grooten, et al. eds. WWF, Gland, Szwajcaria. https://www.wwf.pl/sites/default/files/inline-files/WWF%20Poland%20- -%20LPR_2022_PEŁNY_RAPORT_0.pdf. Dostęp: 13. 03. 2023.
  52. WWF. 2020. Zdrowe rzeki - recepta na zmianę klimatu. https://straznicy.wwf.pl/zdro- we-rzeki-recepta-na-zmiane-klimatu/. Dostęp: 13. 03. 2023.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Adela Malak
1
Marianna Strzelecka
1
Joanna Tusznio
2
  1. Uniwersytet Jagielloński
  2. Uniwersytet Jagieloński
6 Polish Immigrant Organisations in The Republic of Ireland: Theri Present State and Scenarios for Theri Future Development
Mariusz Dzięglewski
Studia Socjologiczne | 2024 | No 1 | 131-153 | DOI: 10.24425/sts.2024.149319
Keywords: enlargement post-accession migration immigrant organizations Polish diaspora
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The presence of an extensive number of Polish immigrants in Ireland has a short history, which began after Poland’s accession to the EU. Therefore, the organizations that have been set up since 2004 were to a high degree built up with no or little impact of the existing tradition of immigrant structures and institutions. This makes Ireland a specific laboratory for testing a new model of immigrants’ organization of the 21st century. The article aims to describe the development of Polish immigrant organizations in Ireland and to present their characteristics, including their goals, activities, the role of new media and technology, as well as the patterns of participation and communication. The detailed presentation of these characteristics and case studies serves the goal of answering the question: if and to what extent “young” Polish immigrant organizations in Ireland can be seen as the forerunners of a new model of immigrants’ organization of the 21st century.
Go to article

Bibliography

  1. Babis, Deby. 2016. Understanding diversity in the phenomenon of immigrant organizations: A comprehensive framework. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 17, 2: 355-369. DOI: 10.1007/s12134-014-0405-x.
  2. Bilecen, Basak, Thomas Faist. 2015. International doctoral students as knowledge brokers: Reciprocity, trust and solidarity in transnational networks. Global Networks, 15, 2: 217-235.
  3. Breton, Raymont. 1964. Institutional completeness of ethnic communities and the personal relations of immigrants. American Journal of Sociology, 70, 2: 193-205.
  4. Castells, Manuel. 2002. The Internet Galaxy. Oxford University Press.
  5. CSO. 2002. 2002 Census of Population - Volume 4 - Usual Residence, Migration, Birthplaces and Nationalities. Press Statement, 30.10.2003.
  6. CSO. 2012. Census 2011, Profile 6: Migration and Diversity. Dublin.
  7. CSO. 2017. Census of population 2016 statisticalproduct-Profile 7-migration and diversity, E7053, https://statbank.cso.ie/px/ pxeirestat/Database/eirestat/Profile%20 7%20-%20Migration%20and%20Diversity/ (accessed 7.02.2022).
  8. Department of Justice and Equality (2017) The migrant integration strategy. A blueprintfor the future, https://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Migrant_Integration_Strategy_ English.pdf/Files/Migrant_Integration_Strategy_English.pdf (accessed 4.02.2022).
  9. DiMaggio, Paul, Walter Powell. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organisational Field. American Sociological Review, 48, 2: 147-160.
  10. Domański, Henryk. 2014a. Zaufanie między ludźmi. W: P.B. Sztabiński, F. Sztabiński, red. Polska-Europa: wyniki Europejskiego Sondażu Społecznego 2002-2012. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo IFiS PAN, 8-17.
  11. Domański, Henryk. 2014b. Zaufanie do instytucji. W: P.B. Sztabiński, F. Sztabiński, red. Polska-Europa: wyniki Europejskiego Sondażu Społecznego 2002-2012. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo IFiS PAN, 18-24.
  12. Dzięglewski, Mariusz. 2015. Polish Graduates: Migration and Its Media Representations. Polish Sociological Review, 2: 171-189.
  13. Dzięglewski, Mariusz. 2021. Coming Home to an (Un)familiar Country. The Strategies of Returning Migrants, Palgrave Macmillan. 
  14. Eade, John, Stephen Drinkwater, Michal Garapich. 2007. Class and Ethnicity - Polish Migrants in Lonodon. University of Surrey: Centre for Research on Nationalism, Ethnicity and Multiculturalism.
  15. Faist, Thomas. 2010. The crucial meso-level. In: M. Martiniello, J. Rath, eds. Selected studies in international migration and immigrant incorporation. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 59-90.
  16. Fanning, Bryan, Kloc-Nowak Weronika, Lesińska Magdalena. 2021. Polish Migrant Settlement without Political Integration in the United Kingdom and Ireland: A Comparative Analysis in the Context of Brexit and Thin European Citizenship. International Migration, 59, 1: 263-80.
  17. Fauser, Margit. 2012. Migrants and cities: The accommodation of migrant organizations in Europe. Ashgate Publishing.
  18. Garapich, Michał. 2012. Between Cooperation and Hostility - Constructions of Ethnicity and Social Class among Polish Migrants in London. Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis Studia Sociologica, 4, 2: 31-45.
  19. Garapich, Michał. 2013. Homo Sovieticus Revisited - Anti-Institutionalism, Alcohol and Resistance Among Polish Homeless Men in London. International Migration, 52, 1: 100-117.
  20. GUS. 2017a. Informacja o rozmiarach i kierunkach czasowej emigracji z Polski w latach 2004 - 2016, Press release. Warszawa, 16.10.2017.
  21. GUS. 2017b. Baza organizacji i instytucji polskich i polonijnych za granicą, https://stat. gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/ludnosc/polonia-i-polacy-w-swiecie/baza-organizacjii-instytucji-polskich-i-polonijnych-za-granica,2,1.html (accessed 3.02.2022).
  22. GUS. 2021. Informacja o rozmiarach i kierunkach czasowej emigracji z Polski w latach 2004 - 2020, Press release, Warszawa, 25.10.2021.
  23. Inglehart, Ronald, Christian Welzel. 2005. Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: the human development sequence. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Jackson, David, J. 2020. Polish American Festivals and Ethnic Identity. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 15, 6: 648-65. DOI: 10.1080/1743873X.2020.1740235.
  25. Kałuski, Marian. 2007. Śladami Polaków po świecie. Polacy w Irlandii, http://przeglad.australink.pl/literatura/sladami/kaluski11.pdf, (accessed: 10.02.2022).
  26. Kloc-Nowak, Weronika. 2018. Zapuszczanie korzeni na zielonej wyspie? Polacy w Irlandii w drugiej dekadzie po akcesji do UE. CMR Working Papers, 104(162).
  27. Krings, Torben, Alicja Bobek, Elaine Moriarty, Justyna Salamońska, James Wickham. 2011. From Boom to Bust: Migrant Labour and Employers in the Irish Construction Sector. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 32, 3: 459-76. DOI:10.1177/ 0143831X10387651.
  28. Krings, Torben, Elaine Moriarty, James Wickham, Alicja Bobek, Justyna Salamońska. 2016. New mobilities in Europe: Polish migration to Ireland post-2004. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  29. Lang, Christine, Andreas Pott, Kyoko Shinozaki. 2021. Organisations and the Production of Migration and in/Exclusion, Comparative Migration Studies, 9, 1: 60, 
  30. https://comparativemigrationstudies.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40878- 021-00274-w (accessed: 24.09.2023). DOI: 10.1186/s40878-021-00274-w.
  31. Lesińska, Magdalena, Pszczółkowska, Dominika. 2019. Between Poland and Ireland. Political and public participation of migrants in a transnational social space. CMR
  32. Spotlight 1, 8.
  33. Levitt, Peggy, Deepak Lamba-Nieves. 2011. Social Remittances Revisited. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37, 1: 1-22.
  34. Levitt, Peggy. 1998. Social Remittances: Migration Driven Local-level Forms of Cultural Diffusion. International Migration Review, 32, 4: 926-48.
  35. Levitt, Peggy. 2001. The transnational villagers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  36. Lopez Rodriguez, Magdalena. 2019. Polskie organizacje imigranckie w Irlandii- raport ze studiów przypadku. Center of Migration Research, Warszawa, http://poie. uw.edu.pl/download/734/, (accessed 10.02.2022).
  37. Maffesoli, Michel. 1996. The Time of the Tribes: The Decline of Individualism in Mass Society. United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  38. McGinnity, Frances, Eamonn Fahey, Emma Quinn, Samantha Arnold, Bertrand Maître, Philip O’Connell. 2018a. Monitoring report on integration 2018. Department of Justice and Equality.
  39. McGinnity, Frances, Grotti, Helen Russell, Eamonn Fahey. 2018b. Attitudes to Diversity in Ireland. Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute and Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission.
  40. Moya, Jose. 2005. Immigrants and associations: A global and historical perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31, 5: 833-864.
  41. MSZ. 2015. Rządowy Program współpracy z Polonią i Polakami za Granicą.
  42. Mühlau, Peter. 2012. The Employment and Earnings Mobility of Polish Migrants in Ireland in the Recession. Annales Universitatis Pedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia Sociologica, 2: 81-94.
  43. Nee, Victor. 1998. Sources of Institutionalism. In: M.C. Brinton, V Nee, eds. The New Institutionalism in Sociology. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
  44. Nicholls, Walter, Justus Uitermark. 2013. Post-multicultural cities: A comparison of minority politics in Amsterdam and Los Angeles, 1970-2010. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39, 10: 1555-1575.
  45. North, Douglas. 1994. Economic Performance Through Time. The American Economic Review, 84, 3: 359-368.
  46. Nowosielski, Michał. 2016. Polskie organizacje w Niemczech. Stan i uwarunkowania. Poznań: Instytut Zachodni.
  47. Nowosielski, Michał, Mariusz Dzięglewski. 2021. Polskie organizacje imigranckie w Europie. W poszukiwaniu nowego modelu. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
  48. Pero, Davide. 2008. Migrants and the politics of governance. The Case of Barcelona. Social Anthropology, 15, 3: 271-286.
  49. Pries, Ludger, Zaynep Sezgin. 2012. Migration, organizations and transnational Ties. In: Cross Border Migrant Organizations in Comparative Perspective, L. Pries, Z. Sezgin, eds. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1-36. 
  50. Pries, Ludger. 2010. (Grenzüberschreitende) Migrantenorganisationen als Gegenstand der sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschung: Klassische Problemstellungen und neuere Forschungsbefunde. In: L. Pries, ed. Jenseits von, Identität oder Integration. VS Verlag, 15-60.
  51. Pszczółkowska, Dominika, Magdalena Lesińska. 2022. One Step Forward, Two Steps Back in Political Integration: Why Are Polish Candidates Not Making Progress in Irish Local Elections? Irish Political Studies, 37, 1: 125-146.
  52. Schrover, Marlou, Floris Vermeulen. 2005. Immigrant organisations. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31, 5: 823-832.
  53. Schrover, Marlou. 2006. ‘Whenever a Dozen Germans Meet.’ German organisations in the Netherlands in the nineteenth century. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 32, 5: 847-864.
  54. Scott, Richard. 2008. Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. Sage Publications.
  55. Szczepański, Jan. 1970. Elementarne pojęcia socjologii. Warszawa: PWN.
  56. Thomas, William, Florian Znaniecki. 1918. The Polish Peasant in Europe and America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  57. Tillie, Jean. 2004. Social capital of organisations and their members: Explaining the political integration of immigrants in Amsterdam. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30, 3: 529-541.
  58. Vermeulen, Floris. 2006. The immigrant organising process: Turkish organisations in Amsterdam and Berlin and Surinamese Organisations in Amsterdam, 1960-2000. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Mariusz Dzięglewski
1
  1. Uniwersytet Komisji Edukacji Narodowej w Krakowie
7 An Alternative God: The Non-Christian Divine Imaginary Amongst The Scientists from Lithuania and Ukraine
Maria Rogińska
Studia Socjologiczne | 2024 | No 1 | 155-180 | DOI: 10.24425/sts.2024.149320
Keywords: sociology science religion Ukraine Lithuania (de)secularization imaginary
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The relationship between science and religion, particularly their assumed conflict, has traditionally been discussed in terms of their factual or logical contradictions. The article proposes to change this perspective and to consider them both as sources of images in order to show their powerful interaction in the sphere of the imaginary. It also emphasizes that the historical and cultural context of their interaction is highly important. Based on the 66 in-depth interviews with the (post)Soviet generations of Ukrainian and Lithuanian scientists, the article reconstructs their imaginary of the Divine. Most of them have not retained their Christian belief. Instead, they created an alternative, science-related imaginary that integrated science and religion rather than put the two in conflict. The research provides evidence that the Soviet culture aimed at eradicating religion has in fact planted a seed of a religious sensibility and imaginary that was hidden under the guise of science and that has been persisting through generations.
Go to article

Bibliography

  1. Alisauskiene, Milda. 2016. The New Age Milieu in Lithuania: Popular Catholicism or Religious Alternative? In: M. Alisauskiene, I.W. Schröder, eds. Religious diversity in post-soviet society: ethnographies of catholic hegemony and the new pluralism in Lithuania. Routledge.
  2. Alisauskiene, Milda. 2021. The role of religion in the lives of the last Soviet generation in Lithuania. Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe, 41, 2. https:// digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/ree/vol41/iss2/3 (accessed on 1.11.2023).
  3. Anderson, Benedict. 2010. Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.
  4. Andrews, James T., Asif A. Siddiqi, eds. 2011. Into the cosmos: space exploration and soviet culture. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  5. Baudrillard, Jean. 1994. Simulacra and simulation. Michigan: University of Michigan press. 
  6. Beer, Gillian. 2000. Darwin ’s Plots. Evolutionary Narrative in Darwin, George Eliot and Nineteenth-Century Fiction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Berger, Peter. 1999. The Desecularisation of the World. Washington, D. C.: The Ethics and Public Policy Centre.
  8. Black, Max. 1962. Models and metaphors. New York: Ithaca, N.Y. : Cornell University Press.
  9. Bloor, David. 1991. Knowledge and social imagery. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  10. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature. New York: Columbia University Press.
  11. Boyd, Richard N. 1993. Metaphor and theory Change: What is ‘metaphor’ a metaphor for? In: A. Ortony, ed. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Brown, Theodore L. 2003. Making Truth. Metaphor in Science. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
  13. Bruce, Steve. 2002. God is Dead. Secularisation in the West. Oxford: Blackwell.
  14. Bruce, Steve. 2008. Fundamentalism. Cambridge: Key Concepts, Polity.
  15. Casanova, José. 2008. Introduction. In: H. de Vries, ed. Public Religions revisited in Religion. Beyond the Concept. New York, 101-119.
  16. Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
  17. Crockett, Alasdair, Voas David. 2006. Generations of decline: Religious change in 20th-century Britain. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 45, 4: 567-584.
  18. Davie, Grace. 1990. Believing without belonging: is this the future of religion in Britain? Social Compass, 37, 4: 455-469.
  19. Dawkins, Richard. 1986. The blind watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. New York: WW Norton & Company.
  20. Debord, Guy. 2021. The society of the spectacle. Cambridge, MA: Unredacted Word.
  21. Douglas, Mary. 1986. How institutions think. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press.
  22. Dobbelaere, Karel. 2002 [1981]. Secularization: An analysis at three levels. Brussels: Peter Lang.
  23. Durkheim, Emile, Marcel Mauss. [1903] 1997. Primitive classification. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  24. Durkheim, Emile. 1909. Débat sur le fondement religieux ou laïque à donner à la morale. Bulletin de la Société française de philosophie, 9: 219-231.
  25. Ecklund, Elaine Howard et al. 2019. Secularity and science: What scientists around the world really think about religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  26. Ecklund, Elaine Howard. 2010. Science vs. religion. What scientists really think. New York: Oxford University Press.
  27. Froese, Paul, Christopher Bader. 2010. America ’s four Gods: What we say about God-and what that says about us. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  28. Garfield, Eugene. 1986. The metaphor-science connection. Current Contents, 42: 3-10.
  29. Gołąb, Andrzej. 2017. Wiara lub niewiara polskich naukowców w Boga a ich poglądy na relację między nauką a religią. Roczniki Psychologiczne, 20, 1: 63-79.
  30. Greeley, Andrew. 1981. The religious imagination. Los Angeles: Sadlier.
  31. Greeley, Andrew. 2000. The Catholic imagination. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  32. Gross, Neil, Solon Simmons. 2009. The religiosity of American college and university professors. Sociology of Religion, 70: 101-129.
  33. Haack, Susan. 1994. “Dry truth and real knowledge”: epistemologies of metaphor and metaphors of epistemology. Aspects of metaphor, 1-22.
  34. Hagemeister, Michael, Birgit Menzel, eds. 2012. The New Age of Russia. Occult and esoteric dimensions, München-Berlin: Otto Sagner.
  35. Hervieu-Léger, Danièle. 1999. Religion as memory: reference to tradition and the constitution of a heritage of belief in modern societies. In: J. G. Plavoet, A. Molendijk, eds. The pragmatics of defining religion. Leiden, 73-92.
  36. Hesmondhalgh, David. 2006. Bourdieu, the media and cultural production. Media, Culture & Society, 28, 2: 211-231.
  37. Karpov, Vyacheslav. 2010. Desecularization: A conceptual framework. Journal of Church and State, 52, 2: 232- 270.
  38. Knorr Cetina, Karin. 2009. Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  39. Larson, Edward, Larry Witham. 1998. Leading scientists still reject God. Nature, 394: 313.
  40. Larson, Edward, Larry Witham. 1999. Naukowcy a religia w USA. Świat Nauki, 11: 72-78.
  41. Lehman, Joe, Wayne Shriver. 1968. Academic discipline as predictive of faculty religiosity. Social Forces, 47, 2: 171-182.
  42. Leuba, James. 1916. The belief in God and immortality. A Psychological, Anthropological and Statistical Study. Boston: Sherman, French & Co.
  43. Leuba, James. 1934. Religious beliefs of American scientists. Harper’s Magazine, 169: 291-300.
  44. Libiszowska-Żółtkowska, Maria. 2000. Wiara uczonych. Esej socjologiczny mocno osadzony w empirii. Kraków: Nomos.
  45. Lovelock, James. 1972. Gaia as seen through the atmosphere. Atmospheric Environment, 6, 8: 579-580.
  46. Machamer, Peter, Michael Silberstein. 2002. Metaphors and analogies. In: The Blackwell Guide to the philosophy of science. Edited by P. Machamer, M. Silberstein. Oxford: Blackwell.
  47. Maffesoli, Michel. 1993. The imaginary and the sacred in Durkheim’s sociology. Current Sociology, 41, 2: 59-67.
  48. Mariański, Janusz. 2013. Sekularyzacja, desekularyzacja, nowa duchowość. Kraków: PTS.
  49. Martin, David. 1969. The Religious and the Secular. Studies in Secularization. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  50. Martin, David. 2008. Does the advance of science mean secularisation? Scottish Journal of Theology, 61, 1: 51-63.
  51. Menzel, Birgit. 2007. The Occult Revival in Russia Today and Its Impact on Literature, The Harriman Review, 16, 1: 1-14. 
  52. Monivas, Jesùs Romero. 2007. Science and religion in the sociology of Émile Durkheim. European Journal of Science and Theology, 3, 1: 17-30.
  53. Moscovici, Serge. 1988. Notes towards a description of social representations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 3: 222.
  54. Nelkin, Dorothy, M. Susan Lindee. 2010. The DNA mystique: the gene as a cultural icon. MI: University of Michigan Press.
  55. Niebert, Kai, Harald Gropengiesser. 2015. Understanding Starts in the Mesocosm: Conceptual metaphor as a framework for external representations in science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 37, 5-6: 903-933.
  56. Nigel, Thomas. 2023. Mental Imagery. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/mental-imagery (accessed on 16.07.2023) .
  57. Ostwalt, Conrad. 2012. Secular Steeples: Popular Culture and the Religious Imagination. London: A&C Black
  58. Pigliucci, Massimo, Maarten Boudry. 2011. Why machine-information metaphors are bad for science and science education. Science & Education, 20, 5: 453-471.
  59. Racius, Egdûnas. 2019. Country profile: Lithuania [Global Governance Programme]. GREASE, Country Profiles. https://hdl.handle.net/1814/69903 (accessed on 17.07.2023) .
  60. Rogińska, Maria. 2021. Przyrodnicy o nadprzyrodzonym. Studium porównawcze uczonych z Polski i Ukrainy. Kraków: Nomos.
  61. Rogińska, Maria. 2023a. The religious imaginary and the repressive state: science-based beliefs of Ukrainian and Lithuanian scientists born in the USSR. Sociology of Religion. DOI: 10.1093/socrel/srad005 (accessed on 3.11.2023).
  62. Rogińska, Maria. 2023b. Imagining, not speculating? The religious imaginary of natural scientists and the secularization debate (submitted).
  63. Schröder, Ingo W. 2016. Catholic majority societies and religious hegemony: concepts and comparisons. In: M. Alisauskiene, I. Schröder, eds. Religious Diversity in Post-Soviet Society. Routledge, 17-35.
  64. Smolkin-Rothrock, Victoria. 2010. “A Sacred space is never empty”: Soviet atheism, 1954-1971. PhD thesis. University of California, Berkeley, USA.
  65. Stark, Rodney. 1999. Secularization, RIP. Sociology of Religion, 60, 3: 249-273.
  66. Thibodeau, Paul H., Lera Boroditsky. 2011. Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PloS one, 6, 2: e16782.
  67. Throntveit, Trygve. 2008. The will to behold: Thorstein Veblen’s pragmatic aesthetics. Modern Intellectual History, 5, 3: 519-546.
  68. Voas, David. 2009. The rise and fall of fuzzy fidelity in Europe. European Sociological Review, 25, 2: 155-168.
  69. Wilson, Bryan. 1969. Religion in Secular Society. Baltimore, MD.
  70. Wilson, Bryan. 1985. Secularization. The Inherited Model. In: Ph. E. Hammond, ed. The Sacred in a Secular Age. Berkeley, CA, 9-20.
  71. Wilson, Bryan. 1998. The Secularization thesis. Criticisms and rebuttals. In: R. Laermans, B. Wilson, J. Billiet, eds. Secularization and social Integration. Papers in honor of Karel Dobbelaere. Leuven: Leuven University, 45-66.
  72. В школах Украины могут появится уроки христианской этики и библейской истории https://focus.ua/ukraine/473084-v-shkolah-ukrainy-mogut-poyavit- sya-uroki-hristianskoy-etiki-i-bibleyskoy-istorii. (accessed on 19.11.2021).
  73. Казанова, Хосе. Українську демократію врятує релігійний плюралізм, Шон Кейсі та Хосе Казанова у програмі Миколи Княжицького, 10.03. 2019, https://espre- so.tv/article/2019/03/09/shon_keysi_khosa_kazanova. (accessed on: 10.10.2019)
  74. Паращевін, Максим. 2009. Релігія та релігійність в Україні. Київ: Інститут політики, Інститут соціології НАН України.
  75. Паращевін, Максим. 2017. Релігія в Україні: траєкторія інституційних змін. Київ: Ін-т соціології НАН України.
  76. Центр Разумкова, Особливості релігійного і церковно-релігійного самовизначен- ня українських громадян: тенденції 2010–2020 рр. (інформаційні матеріали), Київ 2020 https://razumkov.org.ua/uploads/article/2020_religiya.pdf (accessed on 19.11.2021).
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Maria Rogińska
1
  1. Uniwersytet Komisji Edukacji Narodowej w Krakowie
8 Nierówni, różni, podzieleni, czyli jak mierzy się nierówności społeczne i ekonomiczne. Recenzja książki: grzegorz lissowski. 2023. Nierówności społeczne i ekono- miczne. Wybrane miary. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, s. 198.
Zbigniew Karpiński
Studia Socjologiczne | 2024 | No 1 | 181-186 | DOI: 10.24425/sts.2024.149321
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Bibliography

  1. Blau, Peter M. 1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure. New York: Free Press.
  2. Fehr, Ernst, Klaus M. Schmidt. 2006. The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism: Experimental Evidence and New Theories. In: Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, Vol. 1. Serge-Christophe Kolm, Jean Mercier Ythier, eds, 615-691. Elsevier.
  3. Jasso, Guillermina. 1982. Measuring Inequality: Using the Geometric Mean/Arithmetic Mean Ratio. Sociological Methods and Research, 10, 3: 303-326.
  4. Skvoretz, John, Thomas J. Fararo. 1986. Inequality and Association: A Biased Net Theory. Current Perspectives in Social Theory, 7: 29-50.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Zbigniew Karpiński
1
  1. Instytut Filozofii i Socjologii Polska Akademia Nauk

Instructions for authors

Studia Socjologiczne ISSN 0039-3371, e-ISSN 2545-2770 is a Polish sociological quarterly journal, published uninterruptedly since 1961. Its publishers are the Polish Academy of Sciences (represented by the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology and the Committee on Sociology), as well as the Faculty of Philosophy and Sociology, University of Warsaw (from 2013).

Studia Socjologiczne welcomes articles from all sociological sub-disciplines, and neighbouring disciplines, as long as the authors apply a broadly defined sociological approach. Preference is given to texts that contribute to the advancement of social theory and are empirically grounded and innovative in their conceptual and methodological outlook. Our journal is open to scholarly debates and polemics. We also encourage authors to send us reviews of recently published books. Since 2012, contributions in English are also considered for publication in the journal.

A double-blind peer review procedure is applied to each submitted manuscript considered for publication. In order to acknowledge the reviewers’ contribution, the full list of our reviewers is included on the back of the cover page in each issue of the journal. The details of the submission and review procedure are described in the “For Authors” tab.

A full text version of Studia Socjologiczne is available online for EBSCO subscribers (SocINDEX with Full Text), as well as through the Polish Academy of Sciences online journal reading room: http://journals.pan.pl/dlibra and (since 2016) at www.studiasocjologiczne.pl ("Archives").

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more