Quantifying social organization and political polarization in online platforms.

Mass selection into groups of like-minded individuals may be fragmenting and polarizing online society, particularly with respect to partisan differences1-4. However, our ability to measure the social makeup of online communities and in turn, to understand the social organization of online platforms, is limited by the pseudonymous, unstructured and large-scale nature of digital discussion. Here we develop a neural-embedding methodology to quantify the positioning of online communities along social dimensions by leveraging large-scale patterns of aggregate behaviour. Applying our methodology to 5.1 billion comments made in 10,000 communities over 14 years on Reddit, we measure how the macroscale community structure is organized with respect to age, gender and US political partisanship. Examining political content, we find that Reddit underwent a significant polarization event around the 2016 US presidential election. Contrary to conventional wisdom, however, individual-level polarization is rare; the system-level shift in 2016 was disproportionately driven by the arrival of new users. Political polarization on Reddit is unrelated to previous activity on the platform and is instead temporally aligned with external events. We also observe a stark ideological asymmetry, with the sharp increase in polarization in 2016 being entirely attributable to changes in right-wing activity. This methodology is broadly applicable to the study of online interaction, and our findings have implications for the design of online platforms, understanding the social contexts of online behaviour, and quantifying the dynamics and mechanisms of online polarization.

Evolutionary dynamics on any population structure.

Evolution occurs in populations of reproducing individuals. The structure of a population can affect which traits evolve. Understanding evolutionary game dynamics in structured populations remains difficult. Mathematical results are known for special structures in which all individuals have the same number of neighbours. The general case, in which the number of neighbours can vary, has remained open. For arbitrary selection intensity, the problem is in a computational complexity class that suggests there is no efficient algorithm. Whether a simple solution for weak selection exists has remained unanswered. Here we provide a solution for weak selection that applies to any graph or network. Our method relies on calculating the coalescence times of random walks. We evaluate large numbers of diverse population structures for their propensity to favour cooperation. We study how small changes in population structure-graph surgery-affect evolutionary outcomes. We find that cooperation flourishes most in societies that are based on strong pairwise ties.

Different while being similar: The dual institutional process and differential organizational status.

Connecting the neoinstitutional theory with Bourdieu's field theory, we develop a framework on the dual institutional process of integration and differentiation in a field. While the neoinstitutional theory has focused on similar organizational structures, we shift the research focus to offer an institutional explanation of differential organizational status. Drawing insights from Bourdieu's theory and key concepts, we highlight that the very institutional mechanisms causing isomorphism-regulative forces, normative pressures, and cognitive processes-also generate systematic status differentiation among organizations via their different levels of capital, homologous structures, and various habitus in a field. Our extended framework has theoretical significance in advancing the neoinstitutional theory, the research of status in organizational and economic sociology, and the Bourdieusian perspective. By theorizing status differentiation among organizations, it also adds an important dimension to enrich our understanding of multilevel status and social hierarchies.

Finding Wealth in Waste: Irreplicability Re-Examined.

Irreplicability is framed as crisis, blamed on sloppy science motivated by perverse stimuli in research. Structural changes to the organization of science, targeting sloppy science (e.g., open data, pre-registration), are proposed to prevent irreplicability. While there is an unquestionable link between sloppy science and failures to replicate/reproduce scientific studies, they are currently conflated. This position can be understood as a result of the erosion of the role of theory in science. The history, sociology, and philosophy of science reveal alternative explanations for irreplicability to show it is part of proper, informative and valuable science. Irreplicability need not equate research waste. Sloppy science is the problem, also when results do replicate. Hence, the solution should focus on opposing sloppy research.

Against a descriptive turn.

While description is a valuable aspect of meaningful sociological work, this paper takes issue with Mike Savage's argument that the social sciences, and sociology in particular, should seek to prioritize description over practices of explanation and analysis, and attention to questions of causality.  The aim of this paper is not to take issue with descriptive forms of sociology in themselves, but to argue that the answer to the problems identified by Savage and Burrows in their landmark paper "The Coming Crisis of Empirical Sociology" is not to follow commercial forms of research by prioritizing practices of description and classification at the cost of asking fundamental questions about the "why?" and the "how?" of social life and politics. Rather, this paper argues that it is imperative that sociology does not simply describe inequalities of different types, but questions, explains, and analyses the structures and mechanisms through which they are created, reproduced, and sustained. The argument will be developed in three stages. First, this paper will restate the main points of Savage's call for descriptive sociology; second, it will address his critique of "epochalist thinking" and subsequent opposition to the idea of neoliberalism; and third, it will respond to his use of Thomas Piketty's work as a model for developing sociological descriptions of class and inequality.

A dynamic and multifunctional account of middle-range theories.

This article develops a novel account of middle-range theories for combining theoretical and empirical analysis in explanatory sociology. I first revisit Robert K. Merton's original ideas on middle-range theories and identify a tension between his developmental approach to middle-range theorizing that recognizes multiple functions of theories in sociological research and his static definition of the concept of middle-range theory that focuses only on empirical testing of theories. Drawing on Merton's ideas on theorizing and recent discussions on mechanism-based explanations, I argue that this tension can be resolved by decomposing a middle-range theory into three interrelated and evolving components that perform different functions in sociological research: (i) a conceptual framework about social phenomena that is a set of interrelated concepts that evolve in close connection with empirical analysis; (ii) a mechanism schema that is an abstract and incomplete description of a social mechanism; and (iii) a cluster of all mechanism-based explanations of social phenomena that are based on the particular mechanism schema. I show how these components develop over time and how they serve different functions in sociological theorizing and research. Finally, I illustrate these ideas by discussing Merton's theory of the Matthew effect in science and its more recent applications in sociology.

Making space for 'the social': connecting sociology and professional practices in urban lighting design.

Lighting is increasingly recognized as a significant social intervention by both lighting professionals and academic social scientists. However, what counts as 'the social' is diverse and contested, with consequences for what kind of 'social' is performed or invented. Based on a long-term research programme, we argue that collaboration between sociologists and lighting professionals requires negotiating discourses and practices of 'the social'. This paper explores the quality and kinds of spaces made for 'the social' in professional practices and academic collaborations, focusing on two case studies of urban lighting that demonstrate how the space of 'the social' is constrained and impoverished by an institutionalized division between technical and aesthetic lighting. We consider the potential role of sociologists in making more productive spaces for 'the social' in urban design, as part of the central sociological task of 'inventing the social' (Marres, Guggenheim and Wilkie 2018) in the process of studying it.

Cross-domain comparison and the politics of difference.

This paper makes the case for cross-domain comparison as an undertheorized form of comparative analysis. The units of analysis in such comparisons are not (as in most comparative analysis) predefined units within a domain or system of formally similar yet substantively different categories or entities; they are the domains or systems of categorically organized differences themselves. Focusing on domains of categorical difference that are central to the contemporary politics of difference, we consider two examples of cross-domain comparison. The first compares sex/gender and race/ethnicity as systems of ascribed identities that are increasingly, yet to differing degrees and in differing ways, open to choice and change. The second compares religion and language as domains of categorically organized cultural difference that are centrally implicated in the politics of cultural pluralism. We situate these cross-domain comparisons, premised on a logic of 'different differences', between generalizing and particularizing approaches to the politics of difference, arguing that these domains are similar enough to make comparison meaningful yet different enough to make comparison interesting. We outline five analytical focal points for cross-domain comparison: the criteria of membership and belonging, the categorical versus gradational structure of variation within domains of difference, the consolidation or proliferation of categories of difference, the procedures for dealing with mixed or difficult-to-classify instances, and the relation between categories of difference and the production and reproduction of inequality. We conclude by considering several potential objections to cross-domain comparison.

Outline of a sociology of decisionism.

I propose an agenda for empirical research on decision, choice, decision-makers, and decision-making qua social facts. Given society S, group G, or field F, I make a twofold sociological proposal. First, empirically investigate the conditions under which something-call it X-is taken to be a decision or choice, or the outcome of a decision-making process. What must X be like? What doesn't count (besides, presumably, myotatic reflexes and blushing)? Whom or what must X be done by? What can't be a decision-maker (besides, presumably, rocks and apples)? Second, empirically investigate how decision/choice concepts are used in everyday life, politics, business, education, law, technology, and science. What are they used for? To what extent do people understand and represent themselves and others as decision-makers? Where do decision-centric or "decisionist" understandings succeed? These aren't armchair, theoretical, philosophical questions, but empirical ones. Decision/choice concepts' apparent ubiquity in contemporary societies calls for a well-thought-out research program on their social life and uses.

How fields vary.

Field theorists have long insisted that research needs to pay attention to the particular properties of each field studied. But while much field-theoretical research is comparative, either explicitly or implicitly, scholars have only begun to develop the language for describing the dimensions along which fields can be similar to and different from each other. In this context, this paper articulates an agenda for the analysis of variable properties of fields. It discusses variation in the degree but also in the kind of field autonomy. It discusses different dimensions of variation in field structure: fields can be more or less contested, and more or less hierarchical. The structure of symbolic oppositions in a field may take different forms. Lastly, it analyses the dimensions of variation highlighted by research on fields on the sub- and transnational scale. Post-national analysis allows us to ask how fields relate to fields of the same kind on different scales, and how fields relate to fields on the same scale in other national contexts. It allows us to ask about the role resources from other scales play in structuring symbolic oppositions within fields. A more fine-tuned vocabulary for field variation can help us better describe particular fields and it is a precondition for generating hypotheses about the conditions under which we can expect to observe fields with specified characteristics.

W. E. B. Du Bois at the center: from science, civil rights movement, to Black Lives Matter.

I am honoured to present the 2016 British Journal of Sociology Annual Lecture at the London School of Economics. My lecture is based on ideas derived from my new book, The Scholar Denied: W.E.B. Du Bois and the Birth of Modern Sociology. In this essay I make three arguments. First, W.E.B. Du Bois and his Atlanta School of Sociology pioneered scientific sociology in the United States. Second, Du Bois pioneered a public sociology that creatively combined sociology and activism. Finally, Du Bois pioneered a politically engaged social science relevant for contemporary political struggles including the contemporary Black Lives Matter movement.

How do potential knowledge users evaluate new claims about a contested resource? Problems of power and politics in knowledge exchange and mobilization.

This article examines how potential users of scientific and local/traditional/experiential knowledge evaluate new claims to knowing, using 67 interviews with government employees and non-governmental stakeholders involved in co-managing salmon fisheries in Canada's Fraser River. Research has consistently shown that there are major obstacles to moving new knowledge into policy, management, and public domains. New concepts such as Knowledge Exchange (KE) and Knowledge Mobilization (KMb) are being used to investigate these obstacles, but the processes by which potential users evaluate (sometimes competing) knowledge claims remain poorly understood. We use concepts from the sociology of science and find that potential users evaluate new knowledge claims based on three broad criteria: (1) the perceived merits of the claim, (2) perceptions of the character and motivation of the claimant, and (3) considerations of the social and political context of the claim. However, government employees and stakeholders have different interpretations of these criteria, leading to different knowledge preferences and normative expectations of scientists and other claimants. We draw both theoretical and practical lessons from these findings. With respect to theory, we argue that the sociology of science provides valuable insights into the political dimensions of knowledge and should be explicitly incorporated into KE/KMb research. With respect to practice, our findings underline the need for scientists and other claimants to make conscious decisions about whose expectations they hope to meet in their communications and engagement activities.

Before theory comes theorizing or how to make social science more interesting.

The basic argument in this article is that sociology and social science more generally are today severely hampered by the lack of attention being paid to theory. Methods--qualitative as well as quantitative methods--have proven to be very useful in practical research (as opposed to theory); and as a result they dominate modern social science. They do not, however, do the job that belongs to theory. One way to redress the current imbalance between methods and theory, it is suggested, would be to pay more attention to theorizing, that is, to the actual process that precedes the final formulation of a theory; and in this way improve theory. Students of social science are today primarily exposed to finished theories and are not aware of the process that goes into the production and design of a theory. Students need to be taught how to construct a theory in practical terms ('theorizing'); and one good way to do so is through exercises. This is the way that methods are being taught by tradition; and it helps the students to get a hands-on knowledge, as opposed to just a reading knowledge of what a theory is all about. Students more generally need to learn how to construct a theory while drawing on empirical material. The article contains a suggestion for the steps that need to be taken when you theorize. Being trained in what sociology and social science are all about--an important precondition!--students may proceed as follows. You start out by observing, in an attempt to get a good empirical grip on the topic before any theory is introduced. Once this has been done, it may be time to name the phenomenon; and either turn the name into a concept as the next step or bring in some existing concepts in an attempt to get a handle on the topic. At this stage one can also try to make use of analogies, metaphors and perhaps a typology, in an attempt to both give body to the theory and to invest it with some process. The last element in theorizing is to come up with an explanation; and at this point it may be helpful to draw on some ideas by Charles Peirce, especially his notion of abduction. Before having been properly tested against empirical material, according to the rules of the scientific community, the theory should be considered unproven. Students who are interested in learning more about theorizing may want to consult the works of such people as Everett C. Hughes, C. Wright Mills, Ludwig Wittgenstein and James G. March. Many of the issues that are central to theorizing are today also being studied in cognitive science; and for those who are interested in pursuing this type of literature, handbooks represent a good starting point. The article ends by arguing that more theorizing will not only redress the balance between theory and methods; it will also make sociology and social science more interesting.

Revitalizing sociology: urban life and mental illness between history and the present.

This paper proposes a re-thinking of the relationship between sociology and the biological sciences. Tracing lines of connection between the history of sociology and the contemporary landscape of biology, the paper argues for a reconfiguration of this relationship beyond popular rhetorics of 'biologization' or 'medicalization'. At the heart of the paper is a claim that, today, there are some potent new frames for re-imagining the traffic between sociological and biological research - even for 'revitalizing' the sociological enterprise as such. The paper threads this argument through one empirical case: the relationship between urban life and mental illness. In its first section, it shows how this relationship enlivened both early psychiatric epidemiology, and some forms of the new discipline of sociology; it then traces the historical division of these sciences, as the sociological investment in psychiatric questions waned, and 'the social' become marginalized within an increasingly 'biological' psychiatry. In its third section, however, the paper shows how this relationship has lately been revivified, but now by a nuanced epigenetic and neurobiological attention to the links between mental health and urban life. What role can sociology play here? In its final section, the paper shows how this older sociology, with its lively interest in the psychiatric and neurobiological vicissitudes of urban social life, can be our guide in helping to identify intersections between sociological and biological attention. With a new century now underway, the paper concludes by suggesting that the relationship between urban life and mental illness may prove a core testing-ground for a 'revitalized' sociology.