Articles
Trust and Estate Planning: The Emergence of a Profession and Its Contribution to Socioeconomic Inequality
2012, Sociological Forum, 27 (4): 825-846.
This article offers a new perspective on the connection between socioeconomic inequality and occupations by examining the impact of trust and estate planners on global wealth stratification. While many studies treat the professions as mirrors of inequalities in their environments, this article looks at the ways professionals participate in the creation of stratification regimes. Trust and estate planners do this by sheltering their clients’ assets from taxation, thereby preserving private wealth for future generations. Using tools such as trusts, offshore banks, and shell corporations, these professionals keep a significant portion of the world’s private wealth beyond the reach of the state. Trust and estate planning thus contributes to creating and maintaining socioeconomic inequality on a global scale. The significance of the profession has grown as wealth itself has become more fungible, spurring innovation in legal, organizational, and financial strategies, and thwarting a myriad of laws and policies designed to limit enduring inequality in modern, democratic societies.
Politics in the Public Sphere: The Power of Tiny Publics in Classical Sociology
2008, Sociologica, 1/2008: 1-20; with Gary Fine.
As Fine and Harrington [2004] have argued, the relationship between individuals and the social systems which they inhabit is shaped within face-to-face groups. Early work by Habermas and others on the development of the public sphere suggests that interactional arenas – salons, taverns, coffee houses, or other small group modalities – create arenas of discourse in which civil society is enacted and made concrete. However, this research has not led – as one might have expected – to the explicit theoretical attention by political sociologists to small groups and their political incarnation as “tiny publics.” In this article, we make the case for a stronger linkage between the two realms of theory, arguing that political sociology requires the conceptual frameworks of social psychology to explain how meaning and action are constituted in civic life.
Can Small Investors Survive Social Security Privatization?
2007, Pp. 308-13 in David Canon, John Coleman and Kenneth Mayer (Eds.), Faultlines: Debating the Issues in American Politics, W.W. Norton.
It has become nearly axiomatic in this country to argue that everything would be better off if it were run like a business. In response, government has shifted its mission: if it used to operate like Super Glue, bonding Americans to one another, it is now working more like WD-40, minimizing friction in the pursuit of individual (and corporate) profit. Social Security is not only the largest government program, but the embodiment of the Super Glue approach to politics: the ultimate test case for privatization.
Where the Action Is: Small Groups and Contemporary Sociological Theory
2006, Small Group Research, 37 (1): 1-16; with Gary Fine.
Although small group research has been somewhat marginalized within sociology during the past decades, the authors argue that a focus on interaction arenas can contribute to a more complete analysis of social life. Specifically the authors examine three central domains of sociological analysis—culture, organizations, and the economy—to demonstrate how a focus on the mesolevel of analysis allows for a merging of macrosociology and microsociology. The authors draw on the perspective of sociological miniaturism to provide a model for cross-level research.
Tiny Publics: Small Groups and Civil Society
2004, Sociological Theory, 22 (3): 341-356; with Gary Fine.
It has been conventional to conceptualize civic life through one of two core images: the citizen as lone individualist or the citizen as joiner. Drawing on analyses of the historical development of the public sphere, we propose an alternative analytical framework for civic engagement based on small group interaction. By embracing this micro-level approach, we contribute to the debate on civil society in three ways. By emphasizing local interaction contexts—the microfoundations of civil society—we treat small groups as a cause, context, and consequence of civic engagement. First, through framing and motivating, groups encourage individuals to participate in public discourse and civic projects. Second, they provide the place and support for that involvement. Third, civic engagement feeds back into the creation of additional groups. A small-groups perspective suggests how civil society can thrive even if formal and institutional associations decline. Instead of indicating a decline in civil society, a proliferation of small groups represents a healthy development in democratic societies, creating cross-cutting networks of affiliation.
The Social Psychology of Access in Ethnographic Research
2003, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 32 (5): 592-625.
This article uses social psychological theories to unify and expand current conceptions of access in ethnographic research – the process by which researchers gather data via interpersonal relationships with participants. Although this process is acknowledged as central to the practice of ethnography, understanding of access is fragmented. A review of the ethnography methods literature, along with “tales of the field” from published ethnographies, suggests the appropriateness of reframing these segments in terms of social identity and self-presentation theories. This makes two major contributions to the ethnographic methods literature. First, it integrates present formulations of the access problem, many of which employ social psychological concepts but are not in explicit dialogue with the theories – or with each other. Second, it allows us to take a fresh perspective on current controversies in the field, complicating notions of power and identity while offering more specificity about how these processes operate in practice.
Obtrusiveness as Strategy in Ethnographic Research
2002, Qualitative Sociology, 25 (1): 49-61.
Unlocking the Iron Cage, Michael Schwalbe’s 1996 ethnography of the men’s movement, is in many ways a classic ethnographic account, involving almost three years of intensive participant-observation. But the study is innovative – and even daring – in its strategies for establishing textual authority. Schwalbe’s claims rest primarily on his status as a movement insider and full participant. Yet the credibility this provides also raises questions about Schwalbe’s ability to provide a critical analytic account of the movement. Can he be an objective observer of a group in which he is also a fully immersed participant? Schwalbe is innovative in his willingness to exploit, rather than simply minimize, the tension between participation and observation. While in most of the book Schwalbe follows conventional ethnographic practice by trying to minimize his obtrusiveness as a research presence, at several key moments in the study he emerges to provoke critical debate among the men. Without these passages, Schwalbe’s empirical claims would lose some of the most convincing sources of support. While researcher obtrusiveness is usually considered a methodological flaw in ethnography, Schwalbe’s work manages to turn it into an asset, enhancing both this data-gathering and his credibility as a critical authority. In the process, he creates a distinctive and compelling methodological style.
The Pervasive Effects of Network Content
2002, Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 50: 1-6.
While network research has become increasingly important to our understanding of organizations, there is growing speculation that the current structural approach may misspecify the nature of network effects by ignoring variation in the content of relational ties (e.g., Podolny and Baron 1997). Network research to date has focused on the structural properties of networks—the overall patterns of connection—to the neglect of qualitative dimensions of relationships (Ibarra 1992). Several recent studies have explicitly called for new research dedicated to “delineating the critical role of tie content” in organizational networks (Gulati and Westphal 1999: 499). Studying tie content, according to these authors, would mean looking closely at the nature of the underlying relationship between actors rather than assuming that content either doesn’t matter or that all ties are essentially instrumental (Adler and Kwon 1999). Variations in tie content are not well understood, although they have been linked to outcomes as various as strategic alliances among firms and individual promotion within firms (Gulati and Westphal 1999; Podolny and Baron 1997).
Organizational Performance and Corporate Social Capital
2001, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 18: 83-106.
This study develops a model of the causal impact of social capital on organizational performance, with particular attention to specifying the contingencies that transform some kinds of network ties into social capital or social liability. The study unpacks the “black box” linking social structure and firms’ goal attainment by turning to mid-level theories of group and group processes. Hypotheses were tested using data from a national survey of investment clubs. The findings indicate that net increases in instrumental ties at the individual level produce social capital at the organization level in two ways: by increasing the information pool available to decision makers, and increasing their willingness to engage in constructive debate about that information. The combined effects produce increased profits for the organization.
Opening the ‘Black Box:’ Small Groups and 21st Century Sociology
2000, Social Psychology Quarterly, 63 (4): 312-323; with Gary Fine.
As sociologists look into the new century for sources of explanatory leverage, we argue that small group research contains untapped theoretical potential. Small groups have been largely ignored as a topic in their own right; instead they are treated as a “black box” in which other social phenomena are observed. We propose a reassessment. By opening the “black box,” sociologists will find that the core issues of the discipline come together in small groups. We draw together the literatures of five domains, across which the findings on small groups are fragmented. These findings show that small groups are the locus of both social control and social change, where networks are formed, culture is created, and status order is made concrete. We refer to these as the controlling, contesting, organizing, representing, and allocating features of small groups. As the crossroads where agency meets structure, small groups offer the micro foundations for a twenty-first century sociological agenda.