Social networks can be defined as relationships among individuals or relationships among groups. The literature on social networks examines how different positions within a network structure affect an individual. To best understand the jargon and causal relationship of social networks this essay will elicit Figure 1 from top to bottom. First, the economic concept of Capital will be defined and split into two features: Social Capital and Non-Social Capital. Social Capital as a form of Capital can be utilized to achieve a goal by bridging Structural Holes through Brokerage (Burt 2004), Weak Ties (Granovetter, 1973; 1983) or Prestige (Burris, 2004). On the other hand, using Strong Ties for one’s benefits is rather a substitute for Non-Social Capital and is utilized as a last resort, a Necessity (Granovetter, 1973; 1983; Burt, 2004; Chua 2011). I will then criticize the Causal Consensus, that Social Capital results in a measurable gain of a kind (monetary (Granovetter 1983), job evaluation (Burt, 2004) university ranking (Burris, 2004) ...). This essay proposes an alternative causality: Non-Social Capital may lead to various gains which lead to marginal group ties.

A convincing explanation of collective protest must explain why individuals’ benefit of joining such a movement outweighs the costs. One such attempt is made by diffusion literature. The literature of diffusion efforts explications of speedy spread of practice within a little time frame. The puzzle to be solved is one in which there is a “rapid mobilization” but without “sufficient initiating cause” (Biggs, 2003). For diffusion to be the main force of collective protest, other causes regarding the content and organization must be shown to be inferior. The question guiding this essay is: why and when the threshold of an individual is reached in order for him/her to participate in a collective protest. First, an ideological account of collective protest will be presented (Barberena et al., 2014). I will argue that such a pragmatist explanation is “proximate explanation” rather than an “ultimate explanation” (Dawkins, 2006). Next accounts of “ultimate explanations” of diffusions will be presented. I will argue that interdependence as part of diffusion is a superior explanation regarding collective protest than ideological explanations.

Not only communities and community action seems to be in decline (Putnam, 2001) but also the importance of communities in explaining individual action (Sampson,2012). In The Great American City: Chicago and the enduring Neighborhood Effect Samspson (2012) argues for the importance of communities and neighborhoods when it comes to causally explaining individual behaviour like crime, incarceration, special mobility, networks and others. This essay will firstly outline Sampson’s (2012) theoretical framework derived from the early 20th century Chicago School of Sociology. Secondly an account of The Great American City’s empirical evidence will be presented. Thirdly I will argue that, while Sampson’s attempt to revive the Chicago School of Sociology has merits, the amendments to the named school would be more coherently placed within a modern discussion of rational action theory. Sampson’s effort to revive the study of an urban laboratory could be more insightful in a rational choice theory which allows other factors, apart from the neighborhood, to explain individual choices and decisions.

Breen and Goldthorpe (1997) propose a rational action theory to explain educational attainment trends of the second half of the 20th century. The model must be able to explain four phenomena: (1) Increase in overall educational attainment; (2) Little change in class differential; (3) Decline in gender differential; (4) Exceptions to those trends. First, a presentation of assumptions and the following discussion of the cost and benefit will be presented. The model can then explain why rational action of families leads to the 4 trends mentioned above. Next assumptions of causality and joint utility function will be critically evaluated. In conclusion, empirical evidence of the last 2 decades will be presented and thus shed light on whether the rational action theory put forward by Breen and Goldthorpe (1997) holds. Breen and Goldthorpe (1997) propose a rational action theory to explain educational attainment trends of the second half of the 20th century. The model must be able to explain four phenomena: (1) Increase in overall educational attainment; (2) Little change in class differential; (3) Decline in gender differential; (4) Exceptions to those trends. First, a presentation of assumptions and the following discussion of the cost and benefit will be presented. The model can then explain why rational action of families leads to the 4 trends mentioned above. Next assumptions of causality and joint utility function will be critically evaluated. In conclusion, empirical evidence of the last 2 decades will be presented and thus shed light on whether the rational action theory put forward by Breen and Goldthorpe (1997) holds.

This essay will attempt to present distinct explanations regarding the rise of Vegans in the UK. An assumption made throughout this essay is that people who claim to eat only plant-based food actually do so, and thus are vegan. According to a Guardian article citing a Vegan organization (Marsh, 2016) veganism increased by 350% between 2006 and 2016. Within this decade the number of people on such a diet rose from 150K to 542K. One explanation will employ a utility function. Here monetary gain will be substituted with Instagram likes to explain this phenomenon. This explanation could be tested with a randomized controlled experiment with the treatment of having Instagram or not having Instagram. Secondly, I will argue that being vegan has become part of a set of post-material ideals within this period. Veganism has been especially effective in method to show alignment with post-material values because rather than other post-material ideals, veganism is a “too-costly-to-fake” signal. This second theory could be tested empirically by surveying what the general public thinks of vegans- and whether vegans are associated with other post-material ideals.

This essay will focus on Jon Elster’s proposed emotion-based extension of rational choice theory. First, one must define and examine Elster’s description of a classical rational choice theory. Next, this essay will give an account of Elster’s subjections of that theory. Here four possible violations of rational choice will be presented. To amend these violations Elster proposes a model of social behavior that incorporates emotions. After describing this model, a critical evaluation of Elster’s proposed violations will be presented. While agreeing that simple economic and mathematical models cannot explain seemingly irrational action, more complex mathematical models might. Rather than using an additional variable, emotions, this essay will argue that more maths is sufficient to explain the variations of human behavior. Complex mathematical models are preferred to the notion of emotions, based on Ockham’s razor (Khalil, 1996). The implementation of emotions within a rational choice theory demands explanation of origin regarding emotions, while complex economic inquiry (“economics” if defined as a “market behavior” explaining social phenomenon (Becker and Murphey, 2001) in this essay) used as a mechanism by which actions can be explained by an individual’s desires. I will thus argue that the extension of emotions to the rational action theory poses more questions than answers. On the other hand, a narrow investigation of the apparent violations can yield outcomes of counter-intuitive nature, but outcomes never the less. Thus, lastly, this essay will attempt to amend the violations proposed by Elster, within the framework of the rational choice theory.

Models using instrumental rationality try to explain individual actions by showing that benefits are higher than costs and thus rational. Two examples of such a rational action theory regarding violence will be discussed in this paper. One describes the root of violence in a prison setting (Gambetta, 2009). The other focuses on criminal activity in the “Hood” in west Belfast (Hamill, 2010). The aim of such theories is to explain seemingly irrational and costly acts of violence. Next, an account of Collins’ (2008; 2009) critique of the core assumptions of rational action theory regarding crime will be presented. I will argue that instrumental rationality can explain acts of violence more consistently by looking at the cost and benefits of violence versus costs and benefits of nonviolence rather than only examining the seemingly unfavourable results of violence disregarding the possibility of even worse results when acting non-violently. I will argue that Collins’ attempt to present cases in which instrumental rationality cannot explain violence ignores the analysis of opportunity cost (the cost and benefits of the next best alternative (non-violence)). In support of rational action theory, this essay will lastly examine both theories in light of terrorism and suicide bombing.

This essay recognizes two distinct theories explaining the recent increase in tolerance of homosexuality in the West. The first one identifies working-class youth culture as a contributing factor to pro-gay sentiment (McCormack, 2014). I will argue that, while some aspects of this theory might partially explain tolerance, no single culture or societal aspect can account for this change. A valid account for the increase in tolerance must show how the cost of opposing tolerance has increased. There are many facades to how the cost of opposition may increase. The temporal factor of a gradual change results in costly organization of opposition (Adut 2005). A female environment in which criticism is costly leads to less criticism of lesbian behavior and thus more tolerance (Smith-Rosenberg, 1975). Inglehart et al. (2017) and Pampel (2016) show that an increase in GDP, and other security factors, decrease the necessity of reproduction and thus lower the costs of adopting a “individual choice norm” instead of a “reproduction norm”.

The ratio of female housework to male housework has decreased rapidly from 1965 to 1985 (Bianchi et al., 2012). In 1965 women did an average of 6.1 times the housework of men. Twenty Years later the ratio has decreased to women doing only twice as much housework. The rapid decrease in ratio did not see a continuation into the 21st century. The female to male household work ratio is 1.7 in 2003-2004 and 1.6 in 2009-2010 (Bianchi et al., 2012). This essay will address the question of why the gendered division of domestic labour persists. First, an economic model of domestic labour will be presented. Here the household will be identified as an economic actor, maximizing utility by household production and consumption. The household faces an optimizing problem, allocating hours between domestic labour and market labour. Based on this theoretical framework one can explain the division of labour in terms of comparative advantage and specialisation in human capital. Lastly, the gendered division of labour can be addressed by identifying that the slightest gender inequality incentivises an absolute division of labour. Here either women’s discrimination in the labour market or high fertility results in the optimal outcome of women specializing in domestic labour while men specializing in human capital market labour. This essay will focus on Becker (1965, 1985, 1991) theoretical framework to understand why the gendered division of domestic labour is steady and has not been declining drastically since 1985.

This methodological assessment of Postmaterialism and young people’s political participation in a time of austerity (Henn et al., 2018) will evaluate the named paper in three steps. First, the paper’s four hypotheses will be presented. The assessment of this part will yield that Hypotheses 1,2 and 4 out are best presented as assumptions rather than hypotheses Hypothesis 3 is better understood when framed in a causal manner.  Next, the data from the 2002(Henn et al., 2005) and 2011 (Henn and Foard, 2012) surveys used in (Henn et al., 2018) will be presented. The data collection of the two cohorts are of different nature and might thus skew results and thereby might exhibit sampling bias. Thirdly, findings of the four hypotheses will be presented. Linking to the Hypotheses section it will show that Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 are assumptions rather than testable hypotheses and that Hypothesis 3 when explicitly framed as causal claims, cannot be substantiated. The fourth and last part of this methodological assessment will emphasize that Henn et al. (2018) can amend these problems of validity and reliability by discarding hypotheses 1, 2, and 4, focusing on the effect of the economic downturn on postmaterialist/materialist views (Hypothesis 3), and inferring causality by instrumental variable (IV) testing.  

Laud Humphreys’ Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places (1975) investigates homosexual encounters in public bathrooms, so-called tearooms. This reading response aims to evaluate this qualitative fieldwork’s ethics in light of the British Sociological Association (BSA) Statement of Ethical Practice (2017), a standard guide for research ethics. Humphreys’ (1975) objectives and research methodology are evaluated on four subsections of the BSA codes of ethics: 1. Privacy, 2. Consent, 3. Anonymity, 4. Effect of research on participant. Based on Humphreys (1975) methodology, this reading response will evaluate the two separate mechanisms utilized in the study. First, this essay will give a short summary of the methodology and findings of the participant observation in Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places (1975). Possible violations of privacy and consent will be assessed for this line of inquiry. The second method of follow-up interviews and surveys will be described, evaluated and ethically measured in terms of anonymity and possible harm to participants. This essay concludes that Humphreys’ (1975) first line of inquiry, the participant observation, does not violate the BSA codes of ethics (2017) while the follow-up survey does violate the anonymity of the participants and thus possible psychosocial harm might be inflicted on them.

The general topic of this proposal concerns the attendance of collective protest. At the interview conducted on 20th of October 2018 at the “People’s March” in London, an interviewee stated that her primary reason for attending the protest was to voice her concerns about the effect of Brexit on young people (see Interview transcription: 1138379_QMinterview). She also mentioned that most of the crowd were not young people (also observed in Field Notes; see: 1138379_QMobservations), the demographic that should be concerned the most according to the interviewee. She mentioned economic reasons for the lack of young people’s attendance. This research is aimed to further investigate the reasons to why young pro-Eu supporters (18 to 30 years old) do not partake in collective protest.

This proposed research design aims to detect whether the Job Training Scheme (JTS) enhances participant’s prospects of employment and earnings. First, counterfactual hypotheses will be presented. These scenarios show that the observation of the random sample of 3000 JTS’ participants is not sufficient to infer a causal link between JTS, job prospects, and earning. Second, a solution will be presented. Here, different CVs will be constructed to mimic similar traits to the participants with the JTS as one of 4 treatments. Third, interviews will be conducted with employers accepting and rejecting the different treatment CVs, and data on possible job earnings will be collected. Lastly, the benefits of creating perfect counterfactuals as well as the limitations of possible skill and personality changes that the JTS might have on individuals in an application or interview process are reflected on. By creating four different treatment CVs for the JTS’ participants and sending them out to employers, one can causally infer whether the employers seeing JTS on a CV are more likely to respond positively than to the same CV without JTS, with a similar job training instead of JTS, and with a job instead of JTS.