Exercise 1: The Problem of Objectivity Edward Hallett Carr: What Is History? (1965)


Download 64.9 Kb.
Date conversion05.03.2017
Size64.9 Kb.
Exercise 1: The Problem of Objectivity

Edward Hallett Carr: What Is History? (1965)

  1. According to Carr (p. 10), “the belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectivity and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy.” Explain this in your own words.

  1. In your own words, explain Carr’s statement on p. 9: “It used to be said that facts speak for themselves. This is, of course, untrue.” Provide an example.

  1. In your own words, explain Carr’s statement on p. 33: “I am convinced that, for any historian worth the name, the two processes of what economists call “input” and “output” go on simultaneously and are, in practice parts of a single process. If you try to separate them, or give one priority over the other, you fall into one of two heresies. Either you write scissors-and-paste history without meaning or significance; or you write propaganda or historical fiction, and merely use facts of the past to embroider a kind of writing which has nothing to do with history.”

Howard Becker, “Whose Side Are We On?” (1966)

  1. What is Becker’s answer to those who urge sociologists “not to take sides, to be neutral and do research that is technically correct and value free”?

  1. Explain the following statement (p. 243): “And thus we see why we accuse ourselves of bias only when we take the side of the subordinate.”

  1. If taking one side or the other is inescapable, as Becker argues, then how does he escape the conclusion that one person’s knowledge claims is as good as the next person’s, thus negating the value of social science altogether?

Bruce Lambert, “At 50, Levittown,” New York Times (Dec 28, 1997).
A. Logic of Inquiry (Reading WITH the Grain)

  1. Why do you think Lambert went to Levittown?

  1. List some of the sources that Lambert used in writing his story.

  1. Lambert is a journalist. How do you think a social scientist would go about conducting a study of Levittown?

B. Critical Issues (Reading AGAINST the Grain)

  1. Edward Carr writes: “Study the historian before you begin to study the facts.” In this spirit, do a Google search on Bruce Lambert. What can you decipher about where he is “coming from” in terms of his politics and policy orientation?

  1. Examine the title of the article carefully. Does it accurately represent the thrust of the article? Why or why not?

  1. Remember Becker’s question, “Whose Side Are We On?” Whose side is Lambert on? Identify specific passages where that is evident.

  1. Let us shift positions or flip lenses. How do you think most residents of Levittown responded to Lambert’s article? And how would they cast the “facts” in a different light?

  1. To play devil’s advocate (see p. 7 of the syllabus), suppose you were a follower of David Duke’s National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP). How would you interpret Lambert’s “facts” differently? Take, for example, the fact that few African Americans live in Levittown even today.

  1. Now suppose you were a sociologist and received a grant from the NAAWP to conduct an objective study of race in Levittown. What questions would you ask that Lambert shied away from? To use Carr’s metaphor, where would you go “fishing” for facts? To whom would you speak? What questions would you ask?


C. Wright Mills, “The Personal Troubles of Milieu and the Public Issues of Social Structure” (1959).

  1. In your own words, state what Mills means by “the sociological imagination.”

  1. Discuss Mills’s distinction between “the troubles of milieu” and “the public issues of social structure. Why is this distinction important?

  1. Aside from Mill’s examples, provide TWO examples of a social factor that can be understood either from a microscopic or a macroscopic perspective.

Barry Bluestone, “The Inequality Express” (1959).

Logic of Inquiry (Reading WITH the Grain)

  1. What makes Bluestone’s approach macroscopic? How is it different from a microscopic approach to inequality? (Review the distinction between macro and micro approaches in the Glossary, p. 6).

  1. Apply the QMFC schema (Glossary, p. 5). That is, for each of the four elements, write a single sentence indicating:

Q: What is the overarching question that defines the study?

M: What methods (or sources of data) were utilized?

F: What were the main findings?

C: What is Bluestone’s policy agenda for addressing wage inequality?

  1. Nutshell the Table on p. 82. [That is, in one or two carefully crafted sentences, state the main finding or trend indicated by the data.]

  1. Review in your mind the 10 factors that Bluestone identifies as determinants of wage inequality, and be prepared to discuss them in class.

Critical Issues (Reading AGAINST the Grain)

  1. Check out the Website for The American Prospect on Google (especially the “mission statement”). What does this tell you about the politics of TAP?

  1. Do a Google search to see what you can learn about Barry Bluestone that gives you an idea of where he is “coming from” politically.

  1. Is Bluestone “neutral” about the existence of wage inequality? Or does he have a definite point of view and moral stance on inequality? Explain your answer.

  1. What specific policies does Bluestone propose for remedying wage inequality? If implemented, do you think they would work? Why or why not?

  1. Can you think of one or two policies for reducing income inequality that Bluestone leaves out?

  1. In an op-ed in the New York Times in 2000, two prominent economists wrote:

Inequality is not inequity. Artificial efforts to try to curb wealth gaps invariably do more harm than good. Heavier taxation might narrow the division between rich and poor, but it would be a hollow triumph if it stifled the economy. What American ought to care most about is maintaining our growth, not the red herring of gaps in income and wealth.

How would Bluestone respond? Where do you stand on this issue?

Edna Bonacich & Richard Appelbaum, “The Return of the Sweatshop”

LOGIC OF INQUIRY (Reading WITH the Grain)

  1. What makes Bonacich & Appelbaum’s approach macroscopic? How is it different from a microscopic approach of sweatshops?

  1. List three “macro” factors that B&A cite in their study.

  1. Apply the QMFC schema. That is, for each of the four elements, write a single sentence indicating:

Q. What is the overarching question that defines the study?

M. What methods (or sources of data) were utilized?

F. What were the main findings?

C. Where do B&A end up in terms of social policy?

  1. Nutshell Figure 2. That is, in one or two carefully crafted sentences, state the main finding or trend indicated by the data.

  1. Nutshell Figure 3. Is this helpful to understanding the constellation of factors that contribute to “the reemergence of sweatshops in the US apparel industry”?

  1. What do B&A mean by “the race to the bottom”?

Critical Issues (Reading AGAINST the Grain)

  1. To ask Howard Becker’s question, which side are B&A on? Cite specific passages where this is evident.

  1. On p. 298, B&A warn that the apparel industry reflects a general “propensity for an increasing accumulation of wealth at the top and growing oppression and exploitation at the bottom.” What remedies do B&A propose? What policies do they leave out?

  1. Playing devil’s advocate (p. 7, Glossary), what is “the other side” of sweatshops? What would the mayors of cities like Los Angeles and New York say to defend or justify the existence of sweatshops? And what would B&A say in return?

Add Devil’s Advocate. Shafly. “What If Marriage Is Bad for You? Also, #9. Other macro factors that BB doesn’t mention. To #2. These findings “add up to something” What, exactly. What generalization of theory would you advance to explain these disparate results?

Exercise 5: DEMOGRAPHY
Susan Bianchi & Lynne Casper, “American Families” (2000)
Logic of Inquiry (Reading WITH the Grain)

  1. Note that Bianchi & Casper titled their report, “American Families” rather than “The American Family.” How do these two titles differ in their embedded assumptions?

  1. List five major changes in family life over the past half-century.

  1. In the section on “Economic and Family Life” (pp. 30-33), what theoretical debates do they cite about the causes of these changes? Which do you think are more plausible?

  1. Nutshell Figure 6 (p. 22), Figure 9 (p. 28), and Table 7 (p. 33). That is, in one or two carefully crafted sentences, state the main finding or trend.

  1. What factors do you think account for the racial and ethnic differences indicated in Figure 6 (p. 22)?

Critical Issues (Reading AGAINST the Grain)

  1. Note that this study has been published by the Population Reference Bureau, a private organization. Do you think this study could have been published by the U.S. Census? Why or why not?

  1. Overall, where are the authors “coming from” in terms of their values/politics/ point of view? Cite three passages where this is evident.

  1. The authors report many changes in the American family. What moral judgments do they make about these changes, and how are these evident? (HINT: the judgments are often reflected in the language that they use in talking about the changes. Identify, if you can, FIVE such instances where the words they deploy imply moral judgment—i.e., approval or disapproval.)

  1. Think back to Barry Bluestone’s article on wage inequality. What “macro” or “systemic” factors that Bluestone cites might also shed light on the “changes” in American families?


Logic of Inquiry: Reading WITH the Grain

  1. In Damn Lies and Statistics, Joel Best writes that there are four basic ways to create “bad social statistics.” Briefly state what they are and give an example of each.

Critical Issues: Reading AGAINST the Grain

  1. Best levels severe criticism on activists. What is his “beef” and do you think it is valid?

  1. With Best’s warnings about “bad social statistics” in mind, for each of the following readings, indicate how statistics are misleading, deceptive, or outright fraudulent.

  • Ruy Teixiera’s, “Happy With Health Care?”

  • Steven Camarotta, “An Examination of Minority Voters’ Views on Immigration.”

  • David Leonhardt, “Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes.”

  • David Cay Johnson, “Breaking News: Tax Revenues Plummeted.”

  • Diana Furchtgott-Roth, “The Gender Wage Gap is a Myth,” Wall Street Journal (7/26/12).

  • “In Job-Placement Rates, Fuzzy Data,” Chronicle of Higher Education (7/16/12).

  • “Perry Misleads on Jobs,” www.factcheck.org (9/2/14)

  • “Misassigning Blame for Immigration Crisis,” www.factcheck.org (9/2/14)

Exercise 6. SURVEY RESEARCH (Research Design)

Johnston et al, “National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975-2013,” Monitoring the Future I (2013).

Logic of Inquiry (Reading WITH the Grain)

  1. What are the stated objectives of the research?

  1. List the main features of the research design (see the Glossary).

  1. Briefly describe each of the following:

Multi-stage random sample

Sample rationale (why the focus on youth?)

Sample representativeness

Follow-up survey

Sampling error, margin of error

Response rate

Response validity

Critical Issues (Reading AGAINST the Grain)

  1. What assumptions are embedded in study’s title: Monitoring the Future?

  1. Who sponsored this research? Is this problematic or not? Explain your answer.

  1. Check out the press release for the 1913 MTF study issued by the Institute on Drug Abuse: http://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/monitoring-future

  1. Note the logo for the Institute on Drug Abuse:

What do you make of “The Science of Drug Abuse & Addiction”? What can we say about “the politics” of this organization and the MTF study itself?

  1. Who is the intended audience for this document? Is this just a straightforward reporting of empirical findings, or are they “spinning” or “shading” the results to raise alarms about the scourge of drugs?

  1. Let’s take a closer look at some of the methodological details of their study. First, the sample (p. 68). What are the pros and cons of studying drug use based on a national sample of secondary school students? Who is left out? Does this matter?

  1. Examine Figure 3-2 on p. 84. How much attrition is there from the original sample? Is this serious? Why or why not? How do the authors deal with this problem (pp. 73-4)? Are they convincing or not?

  1. Now take a closer look at the student participation rate (pp. 74-5). Is this a problem for the study? Why or why not?

  1. Let’s take a closer look at the response validity: whether respondents tell the truth (pp. 79-81). How do the authors deal with this issue? Are they convincing or not?

Exercise 7: Survey Research II (Data Analysis)
Johnston et al, “National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975-2013,” Monitoring the Future (2013).

Logic of Inquiry (Reading WITH the Grain)

  1. Nutshell Table 5-2. In other words, in one or two carefully crafted sentences, indicate the trend in annual use of drugs among students in grade 12.

  1. Use Tables 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4 to construct a chart comparing the rate of use of illicit drugs other than marijuana in 2013, in terms of lifetime, annual, monthly, and daily use. Make the table conform to the following template:

Rate of Use of Illicit Drugs Other than Marijuana, 2013

Now repeat these comparisons for any illicit drug, for marijuana, for alcohol, and for cigarettes.

  1. Following up on question #2, what do these comparisons suggest about the pattern of drug use? About the risks of addiction? What can you infer about the motivation or practice of those who take drugs?

  1. Table 5-5 abcd present lifetime, annual, monthly, and daily use of different kinds of drugs. What does this show about the prevalence of hard-core, highly addictive drugs among the general population of school youth? Take heroin for example.

Critical Issues (Reading AGAINST the Grain)

  1. Last week we discussed the embedded assumptions in “Monitoring the Future.” Do the empirical data bear out these assumptions? Why or why not?

  1. In interpreting the findings, what assumptions or judgments do the researchers make about drugs and drug users? Identify specific passages where these are evident.

  1. What interests lie behind the research? In other words, who stands to benefit in the findings and the analysis advanced in the report?

  1. What political uses do you think are made of the data?

Note that the Monitoring the Future website includes this statement: “The results of the study are useful to policymakers at all levels of government, for example, to monitor progress toward national health goals. Study results are also used to monitor trends in substance use and abuse among adolescents and young adults and are used routinely in the White House Strategy on Drug Abuse.” http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/purpose.html#Purpose

Also consider the list of Congressional Testimony: http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs.html#testimony

  1. Let’s return to the Introduction, 4th paragraph, and “unpack the assumptions” in the paragraph. Are the assumptions and claims warranted by the data? Why or why not?

  1. To play devil’s advocate. Timothy Leary was a Harvard professor in the 1970s who advocated the use of psychedelic drugs to elevate consciousness.

    1. What do you think Leary would say about the Monitoring the Future Study?

    1. Suppose you received a grant from the (fictitious) Timothy Leary Foundation to study drug use among college students. Further, suppose you shared Leary’s view that the recreational use of drugs is innocuous or even beneficial. What research questions would govern your study? What questions would you put to students about drug use that were not asked in the Monitoring the Future study?

  1. What “macro” or societal factors might help to explain shifts in the trend of drug use? Why do you think drug use peaked in the 1970s and trended downward later?

Exercise 8. Qualitative Research I: Intensive Interviewing
Waldorf, Reinarman, & Murphy: Cocaine Changes: The Experience of Using and Quitting (1991).

Logic of Inquiry (Reading WITH the Grain)

  1. In two or three sentences, what is the core argument in Cocaine Changes? Who are they arguing against?

  1. What criticisms do they have of previous research?

  1. How did they choose their sample and what was the rationale for doing so?

Critical Issues (Reading AGAINST the Grain)

  1. Note the “rhetorical frame” that Waldorf et al use at the outset of their book (Chapter 1, p. 1). What does this tell you about where they are coming from?

  1. What does the title of their book convey to the reader?

  1. Remember Edward Carr’s adage that the historian is like the fisherman who knows where to go for the fish he wants and what kind of tackle and bait to use. With this in mind, consider how the methods deployed by Waldorf et al differ from those deployed in Monitoring the Future. How were the methods each used congenial to their underlying assumptions or ideologies? What does this suggest about “the politics of method”?

  1. Do you think the evidence put forward by Waldorf et. al. fully supports their conclusions or their core argument? Explain your answer.

  1. Now suppose you were Lloyd Johnston, the director of Monitoring the Future, and were asked to write a book review of Cocaine Changes for the British Journal of Addiction. What criticisms would they level against Cocaine Changes? What would Waldorf et al say in return?

Exercise 9: Qualitative Research II: Intensive Interviewing
Michael Atkinson. “Pretty in Ink: Conformity, Resistance, and Negotiation in Women’s Tattooing,” Sex Roles (2002).
Logic of Inquiry (Reading WITH the Grain)

  1. What is the rhetorical frame (see the Glossary. P. 5) that Atkinson used to provide background and rationale for his study?

  1. Note that Atkinson provides an extensive literature review of previous research on tattooing. Why does he do this? What gap does he note that provides rationale for his own study?

  1. Briefly describe Atkinson’s methods.

  1. Note that Atkinson divides his subjects into 3 categories: conformists, resisters, and negotiators. How are they different from one another?

  1. In your own words, explain the following passages:

    1. “… radically marked bodies tend to subvert hegemonic ideologies about femininity—especially images of the weak, sexually objectified, or otherwise submissive woman.” 220, 2nd par)

    1. “In the case example of tattooing, women’s involvement in the body project illustrates the ways in which forms of body modification are simultaneously replete with cultural messages about conformity and resistance.” (224: 3rd par)

    1. “It is not surprising, then, that many of the women I interviewed preferred to negotiate their involvement in tattooing.” (233, 2nd full par)

Critical Issues (Reading AGAINST the Grain)

  1. In terms of diction (word choice), is it helpful to think of tattooing as a form of “body modification” or is this an instance of pretentious or meaningless jargon?

  1. Among the three groups in Question #4 above, is there one that he favors over the others? Cite a specific passage. Do you agree with Atkinson or not? Explain your answer.

  1. Do you think the use of “resistance” as a theoretical construct is helpful? Why or why not?

  1. Given that this is a study of “Women’s Tattoos,” do you detect a subtle male bias? Do you think he went far enough? Is there anything he left out?

  1. What “macro” or societal factors might help to explain the upsurge of tattooing among women? (Think back to Bluestone and Bonacich/Appleton.)

Exercise 10. Qualitative Research III: Participant Observation

Greta Foff Paules, Excerpt from Dishing It Out: Power and Resistance among Waitresses in a New Jersey Restaurant (1991).

Logic of Inquiry (Reading WITH the Grain)

  1. Apply the QMFC schema. I.E., in one or two sentences for each element:

Q: What is the overarching question that defines the study?

M: What methods were deployed?

F: What were the main findings?

C: How does Paules conclude her study?

Critical Issues (Reading AGAINST the Grain)

  1. You have logged in countless hours as a “participant observer” in restaurants. Based on your experience, what do you think of Paules’s study? Does she “see” things that escaped your notice? Do you agree with her analysis?

  1. Explain Paules’s subtitle: “Power and Resistance among Waitresses in a New Jersey Restaurant.” Are the concepts of “power” and “resistance” lluminating? Why or why not?

  1. Which side is Paules on? Where is she coming from in terms of her politics? Cite specific passages where they are evident.

  1. In a review of Paules’s book in the Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, the reviewer, R. Thomas George (associate professor, Hospitality Management Program, Department of Human Nutrition and Food Management, Ohio State University), wrote the following:

The study is not a feminist cry for change, but a serious examination of how a small group of women approach their work and the work relationships of a restaurant.

The book’s content has value to managers and to corporate personnel in the examination of the position of waitress and manager. The author also has contributed to the academic discussion of the motivation and behavior of employees.
Do you agree or disagree with this review of Paules’s book and her intentions?

  1. What are the possible implications of Paules’s analysis for social policy? What might she have done in her ethnography to suggest remedies for the conditions she rails against?

  1. Discuss the plight of the restaurant waitress from a macroscopic perspective. What relevance does Paulles’s study have for the current struggle of fast-food workers for higher wages?

Exercise 11. Community Studies
Sharon Zukin et al. “New Retail Capital and Neighborhood Change: Boutiques and Gentrification in New York City”

Logic of Inquiry (Reading WITH the Grain):

  1. On the basis of the abstract, provide an annotation (one sentence summary) that captures the core argument in Zukin’s paper. In other words, distill the abstract to a single sentence.

  1. What is the main purpose of Zukin’s study? What is it that she wanted to find out?

  1. What methods were deployed to address the research question?

  1. In your own words, explain the following statement (p. 48):

“‘Boutiquing’ is, then, part of a broad dynamic of postindustrial change and urban revitalization that may benefit certain residents while deepening economic and social polarization and place low- and middle-income neighborhoods at risk.” What do you think she has in mind when she speaks of the “broad dynamic of postindustrial change”?

  1. Zukin asserts that Harlem and Williamsburg represent “divergent paths to gentrification” (53, bottom). Explain what she means.

Critical Issues (Reading AGAINST the Grain):

  1. Zukin writes (p. 49): “Despite three decades of studying residential gentrification, only now are researchers and community groups starting to wonder how commercial gentrication may play into broader dynamics of social inequality.”

What do you think explains this lapse? Alternatively, what do you think explains the fact that “only now” these issues command the attention of researchers?

  1. Think of a gentrifying neighborhood that you know first-hand. How does it compare to the two that Zukin has studied? Let’s discuss this in class.

  1. According to Zukin (p. 53), New York media have dubbed Williamsburg as “the epicenter of cool,” and Harlem as “a new Harlem gentry in search of its latte.” Are these accurate depictions of these neighborhoods? What role do the media play in the gentrication process?

  1. Harlem used to be called “the Negro Mecca.” What judgment is to be made of “the new Harlem”? Should we bemoan “the death of a historic community” that was the anchor of black culture? Or should it be celebrated as “a cosmopolitan mix” that crosses lines of race, nationality, and income? Where do you think Zukin stands on this issue? Where do you stand?

  1. Zukin concludes by saying that “it is urgent to change public policy that fails to protect long-term, local shops while fostering the growth of new retail clusters.” What specific policies might be employed?

Exercise 12: Policy Analysis
Isabel Sawhill, “What Can Be Done to Reduce Teen Pregnancy and Out of Wedlock Births: A Policy Brief,” Brookings Institution (2001).

Logic of Inquiry (Reading WITH the Grain)

  1. Note that this is a “policy brief” that makes a case for a particular policy. In a sentence or two, summarize Sawhill’s policy position.

  1. How does Sawhill explain the decline in teen pregnancy in recent years? Do you find her explanation convincing? Why or why not?

Critical Issues (Reading AGAINST the Grain)

  1. What assumptions are embedded in the title of Sawhill’s article?

  1. Note that Sawhill combines teen pregnancy with out-of-wedlock births. Is this problematic or not?

  1. What evidence does Sawhill present that welfare provides incentive to have children out of wedlock, or that putting term limits on welfare will reduce out of wedlock births?

  1. What is the first item on Sawhill’s policy agenda (p. 7)? What does this tell you about her politics and priorities?

  1. What “macro” factors might help to explain teen pregnancy?

  1. The author of an op-ed piece in the New York Times (January 23, 2004) wrote:

“If the Bush administration really wants to improve the lives of low-income people, here’s some simple advice: Rather than meddle in their love lives, raise their incomes.”

    1. What do you think this author would say about Sawhill’s study?

    2. What do you think Sawhill would say in return?

Steven Cohen: “Managing Workfare: The Case of the Work Experience Program in the New York City Parks Department” (2008).

  1. Where is Cohen “coming from” in terms of his ideology and politics? Cite two specific passages.

  1. What assumptions does Cohen make about the workfare policy? About WEP workers? Cite specific passages where these assumptions are evident.

  1. Note that this study was supported by “the PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment on the Business of Government.” What can we assume about their politics (feel free to google them). What significance, if any, do you attach to this?

  1. What if the study had been funded by New York’s Working Families Party: http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/about/ How do you think this would affect the methods deployed? The policy recommendations?

  1. Remember Edward Carr’s admonition that “the facts never speak for themselves,” but only through the person interpreting them. Take one specific finding, and show how it would probably be interpreted one way by the study funded by PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment on the Business of Government and another way by the study funded by New York’s Working Families Party.

  1. Think of one question that was not asked in the PricewaterhouseCoopers study that would likely be asked in the Working Families Party study.

Douglass Abbott et al, “The Influence of a Big Brothers Program on the Adjustment of Boys in Single-Parent Families,” Journal of Psychology (1997).
Grossman and Tierney, “Does Mentoring Work? An Impact Study of the Big Brothers/Big Sisters Program,” Evaluation Review (1998).

Logic of Inquiry (Reading WITH the Grain)

  1. How do these two studies compare in terms of their objectives and methods?

  1. Overall, how do the two studies compare in terms of their results?

Critical Issues (Reading AGAINST the Grain)

  1. What meanings or assumptions are embedded

  1. In the name “Big Brothers/Big Sisters Program”?

  2. In deploying the word “mentoring” in this context?

  1. Log onto the website for the Big Brothers/Big Sisters program. What can you learn about the organization and the funding behind it? What can you discern about the ideology or politics underlying the BB/BS program?

  1. What implicit theory do these studies have regarding the reasons these children are in need of mentoring? What factors are left out?

  1. Grossman & Tierney write (p. 422): “At the conclusion of the 18-month study period, we found that Little Brothers and Little Sisters were less likely

1) to have started using drugs or alcohol

2) felt more competent about doing school work

3) attended school more often

4) got better grades

5) had better relationships with their parents and peers

Let us examine the actual empirical evidence for EACH OF THESE FIVE FACTORS. In other words, for each factor, compare the outcome for those who participated with those who did not participate in the BB/BS Program.
Do the empirical findings support Grossman & Tierney’s rosy claims regarding the efficacy of the BB/BS Program? Why or why not?

  1. Thinking again of the macroscopic perspective of C. Wright Mills and other authors we have read in this course, assess the Big Brother/Big Sister from a macroscopic or structural perspective. What is lost by the focus on microscopic factors? What specific “macro” factors deserve attention?


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page