1. For more than one and half centuries,, sociology has been discipline which constantly deals with the social problems as sociological issues. This is also true in China where sociology is much younger. But from the early beginnings of the establishment of sociology in China in the 1920's, sociology was considered as a branch of (natural) science of/for society specifically created to deal with the social problems that ordinary everyday people have to face. Now is not the time for me to list such social problems which we all have known very well, nor is it the time for me to introduce the work that my colleagues in China have been doing. For instance during the last 15 years my Institute and some other colleges in China collectively have done research on the social problems and sociological analysis and, as result, we have published annual reports on the social issues since 1992. 2. However, at this time, the time we all have encountered the challenges from globalization, we need to acknowledge that, ironically, along with the development of sociology as an academic discipline, social problems actually increase in almost all parts of the world, and also they extend to regional, transnational or global levels. Sociologists in China, like those colleagues all over the world, today seem intellectually less influential, and practically less useful, than before. This is so partly because our interpretations of the quickly run-away global world are left far behind the actual pace of the change; and sometimes, because of this, are so different from and even contradictory to, the common sense of ordinary people; partly because we have been so professionalized that ordinary people cannot really follow what we are talking about, even they wanted to, and even if we want to talk to them, usually because we are using some very specific categories, too professionalized in many cases, to describe an d to explain the social world where ordinary people organize and comprehend their activities and interactions. 3. In other words, we enjoy too much talking to/among ourselves in order to make distinction from others, not only from the ordinary people, but also from those in other disciplines. What is more, even amongst sociologists, we do not really talk to others often, once again, because of the high professionalization of the discipline. Professionalization is necessary, of course, for the development of sociology as specific academic discipline, which no doubt needs further intellectual division of labor amongst ourselves. 4. As consequence, however, when others increasingly feel difficult, and thus are not able/do not want, to listen to us, we gradually isolate ourselves from others. Being increasingly professionalized we believe we have developed some very systematic and analytical frameworks for interpretations of the ongoing social change and social problems. On most occasions, however, not only our interpretations seem too specific, but also we do not like to provide any practical solutions to people either in policy making or in the actual life world. Each time when we simply try to show ordinary people, and to the business elite and policy makers, how complicated the possible reasons are behind any visible social problems, their typical response is: interesting, but so what? 5. This very difference between sociologists and other professionals, especially economists and, in many cases political scientists, tells us why we are so marginal and they are increasingly so central. 6. I have always encouraged my colleagues in China by pointing out the very fact that it is sociologists since the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century, if not earlier, who have shaped the very basic ways of thinking about, and presenting of, modern societies. As result, people in modem times, almost all became sociologists to certain extent, even without awareness of being so. …

A plethora of scholarly research has been conducted on social science: on its organizational and communicative patterns, on the historical development of research standards, and on the diversity of local research practices. But this body of work on the sociology of social research does not hang together in ways that it could, and should, if knowledge is to accumulate. Contributors hail from various fields, subfields, theoretical perspectives, and methodological bents, and there is no extant subfield to join, legitimate, and reinforce their mutual interests. Thus, the aim of this review is not only to summarize themes, identify gaps, and suggest fruitful avenues for future research, but also to serve as a unifying force for scholars interested in studying social science from a sociological perspective. The sociology of social research, far from being a trite exercise in navel-gazing, is critical for the future viability of sociology, for the discipline's legitimacy and autonomy, and for improving social research more generally.

This collection of papers adopts a sociological perspective to discuss an area of growing entrepreneurship research interest: the social-capital, trust, networks nexus. Most chapters were originally presented at the Economic Sociology Research Network of the European Sociological Association, in Helsinki, 2001 and the book presents a refreshingly European perspective on social capital. Containing theoretical and empirical investigations, the book provides a useful introduction to concepts including social capital, trust and reciprocity while developing and extending established sociological perspectives on these.

All human behavior in groups should furnish the inductive data of sociology, but historical records have not been adequately utilized. Events, movements, epochs should be studied and all recorded social behavior analyzed, classified and compared, not merely those that corroborate a special theory. The method is dubbed socio-analysis and is distinguished also from editorial interpretation and from the social survey by being confined to pure sociology. [A plan for this purpose is tentatively set forth, for undergraduate study and for seminar research.] Sources for a suitable schedule and suitable materials are suggested.

SummaryThis paper discusses the contribution that ‘interpretative’ research might make to rural sociology. Most research in rural sociology has had a heavy quantitative bias, and it is suggested that this bias has often made an understanding of the processes of social change more difficult. One way in which ‘interpretative’ sociology might prove of value is in bringing together the analysis of changes at the local ‘community’ level, and more widespread structural changes. The analysis of social transactions between peasants and cattle‐dealers in the Spanish Pyrenees, undertaken by the author, focuses attention on the process of social change through the use of ‘interpretative’ rather than positivistic research methods. It is argued that changes at the ‘community’ level are only one example of the behaviour which rural sociologists might investigate using a more ‘interpretative’ approach.ZusammenfassungDieser Artikel beschäftigt sich mit dem Beitrag, den die “Interpretations” ‐ Forschung für die ländliche Soziologie leisten könnte. Die meisten Arbeiten auf dem Gebiet der ländlichen Soziologie waren zu sehr auf quantitative Ergebnisse ausgerichtet und dies hat nach Ansicht des Autors das Verständnis der Prozesse des sozialen Wandels oft erschwert. Eine “interpretative” Soziologie könnte sich nützlich erweisen bei dem Versuch die Analyse von Veränderungen auf der lokalen “Gemeinde”‐Ebene mit der Analyse von weiterreichenden strukwellen Veränderungen zu verbinden. In einer Studie des Autors über soziale Transaktionen zwischen Bauern und Viehhändlern in den spanischen Pyrenäen wird mit mehr “interpretativen” als positivistischen Methoden versucht, die Aufmerksamkeit auf den Prozess des sozialen Wandels zu lenken. Es wird darauf hingewiesen, daß Veränderungen auf der “Gemeinde”‐Ebene nur ein Beispiel für Verhaltensweisen darstellt, die Soziologen mittels eines mehr “interpretativen” Ansatzes untersuchen könnten.

Journal Article Extension in Relation to Research in Rural Sociology Get access Bruce L. Melvin Bruce L. Melvin U. S. Department of Agriculture Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Social Forces, Volume 14, Issue 3, March 1936, Pages 362–367, https://doi.org/10.2307/2571273 Published: 01 March 1936

The global sociology was formed at end of the XXthcentury — at the beginning of the XXIthcentury. It consists of a great number of sociological theories belonging to different sociological traditions with different methodological approaches. These theories have a common object field and a common vision of sociological problems which need to be analyzed. The aim of the article is to clarify and to give a theoretical structure to the object field of the global sociology as a specifie research sphere. This specifie sphere of sociological research has its own systemic character due to the unity of the object field. The object field of the global sociology is formed, first, by the processes which have shaped the contemporary global world and second, by the structure and order of this global world. The theoretical and methodological analysis of the theories which make up the global sociology shows that these theories can be divided into two large groups. The first group is formed by theories based on a universalist approach and a universalist vision of the actual global order. The universalist sociological perspective is rooted in the Enligtenmeht social philosophy, in the theories of development of classical sociology, in the original impulses of theories of modernization and Westernization. The uniting principle of all the mentioned theories is the common vision of the contemporary world as the one universal social space which to one extent or other transcends both concrete societies and nation-states. This large group of theories can be subdivided in two subgroups. The first subgroup of universalist theories views the contemporary global world with its order as a result of some original impulses of development of modernity. These impulses are being realized as the universal global order. The article analyzes the sociological theories of I. Wallerstein and A. Giddens as examples of such universalist theories. The second subgroup is formed by theories of globalization which are based on the analysis of the processes of digitalization, networking and also of new basic “mobilities” which are shaping a new global morphology of the space of “flows”. The theories of M. Castels, J. Urry and U. Beck are the examples of such universalis theories. The article also analyzes a global sociological universalist discourse which conceptualizes the global order through “theories of empire”.The Part I of the article is dedicated to universalis theories of global sociology. The Part II is dedicated to the second large group of theories of the contemporary global sociology. These theories are based on the civilization approach which views the contemporary world as a set of civilizations.

Bibliometric analysis can provide extensive data mapping of previous research topic trends to formulate subsequent research topics. There is still a lack of bibliometric analysis of trends in sociology of communication research topics. The study used bibliometric analysis of 37,999 publications in ScienceDirect over three periods. Publication data was selected using the keyword "sociology of communication." Data processing was conducted by co-occurrence between keywords and data presentation with overlay visualization. The results of data processing with VosViewer revealed shifts in research topics over three periods. Topics that emerged after 2022 are related to Covid-19 pandemic, such as healthcare, resilience, stress, and vaccine hesitancy; methodologies like systematic literature review; recent technologies such as artificial intelligence; and other societal concerns, including sustainability. That topic was suggested for future research. However, sustainability and systematic literature review are old issues in other research fields. The research found that the sociology of communication research topics is changing dynamically and is influenced by social phenomena such as pandemics and technological advancements. The presence of two recent topics that have become old issues in other fields of social research shows the challenge for communication scientists to respond responsively to global social and methodological issues.

It is suggested that the knowledge organization (KO) field places greater emphasis on basic research that examines the sociology of KO systems (KOS) and the broader, environmental reasons for the development of both formal and informal KOS. This approach is contrasted with applied KO, which focuses on the practical construction or improvement of specific KOS. The preponderance of applied research in the field of KO is confirmed, at least within the document-centric strand more closely aligned with library and information science, through a survey of articles in the Knowledge Organization journal published between 2009 and 2018. The survey utilized the Frascati Manual definitions for basic and applied research, and referenced Tennis’s classification of KO research (2008). There is considerable potential for building on the critical tradition of KO, with various areas ripe for further sociological investigation. A sociology of KOS could also be accommodated in the popular KO approach of domain analysis.

Under the premise of emphasizing interdisciplinary learning and reference, the sociology of sports course from an interdisciplinary perspective needs to trace the historical trajectory of the interactive development of the sociology of sports course and other disciplines and grasp the law of the cross-development of the sociology of sports course and other disciplines. This study uses an interdisciplinary approach to demonstrate the need for interdisciplinary research in sports science in China, based on the overall concept of complexity of sports, completeness of sports science, the intersection of sports science research, and interdisciplinary needs of sports scientific research innovation. The innovation ability is taken as the research object, and the important influencing aspects of sports scientific research innovation ability are investigated. An index system of sports scientific research innovation ability is developed, and qualitative research is applied to examine the impact of interdisciplinary research on sports scientific research innovation. The impact of ability is exposed by quantitative analysis to explore the association between the relevant factors in scientific research innovation ability and carefully understand the important role of interdisciplinary research in Chinese sports scientific research innovation.