Types Of Social Inequalities Research Articles

Наукометрія, бібліометрія і інфометрія: облік наукових досліджень і прогрес науки під кутом зору філософії стратегії глобального стійкого розвитку

Scientometrics, as a rule, is considered in details – the more accurate and ex­pressive the detailing, the more effective is the accounting of scientific research: the measurement of quantitative parameters of the results of scientific activity is aimed at improving the quality of scientific communication and, ultimately, the progress of science. This led to the transition from usual bibliometrics to sciento­metrics, and later to other more sophisticated forms of accounting for scientific activity, which can be divided into infometrics and altmetrics. Infometrics and its modifications take into account everything that could be formalized, while altmetrics seeks to include qualitative parameters in the realm of quantitative measurements. In this article, attention is focused precisely on the analysis of the relationship between quantitative methods and quantitative indicators of scien­tific activity with the progress of science thanks to a comparative assessment of bibliometrics, scientific metrics and infometrics from philosophical positions. A way out of the problematic situations in which attempts to provide a quantita­tive description of the quality of scientific activity inevitably fall, should be sought beyond the quantitative methods themselves – in the identification of their ulti­mate goal. Such a goal is the development of humanity through the progress of science. The UN program “Transforming Our World: Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development” offers a systematic vision of ways to accomplish this task, which, in particular, sets the goal of achieving equal development opportunities for every person. Bibliometrics, scientometrics and infometrics contribute to overcoming many types of social inequality – provided that people are actively involved in sci­entific activity: personal scientific achievements level out property, gender, reli­gious, ethnic and many other types of social inequality and give every participant of scientific research access to a public career and personal development. The development of each person on a rational basis is the ultimate goal of science, which is the basis of the philosophy of the strategy of global sustainable develop­ment of Mankind.

Dropout and social inequality: young people’s reasons for leaving organized sports

ABSTRACT Few quantitative studies have looked at how reasons for quitting organized sports vary according to social backgrounds. The present paper addresses this gap by investigating how youths’ perceptions of six reasons for dropping out of organized youth sports vary according to three types of social inequality: socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and gender. We utilize data from the 2015 Young in Oslo survey, where organized youth sport dropouts in grades 8–13 rated the importance of six reasons for dropping out (N = 2355, response rate = 72%). Two findings stand out. First, gender differences were subtle and often related to ethnicity; they were more pronounced among majority youths than minority youths. Second, well-resourced majority youths were more likely to consider a lack of sports skills and friends who quit as important to dropout while minority youths with less resources more often highlighted discouragement from parents and sport expenses.

JenniferShermanDividing Paradise: Rural Inequality and the Diminishing American DreamUniversity of California Press, 2021, 284 p., $85.00

JenniferShermanDividing Paradise: Rural Inequality and the Diminishing American DreamUniversity of California Press, 2021, 284 p., $85.00

Perceptions of Moscow University students of social inequality in Russia and in the modern world

This paper deals with an analysis of the results of a sociological research aimed at studying the students’ perceptions of the nature and various forms of social inequality that occur in Russia as well as the modern world. The study was conducted in 2019 at the sociology faculty of Lomonosov Moscow State University, in the framework of regular monitoring (since 2013) of Moscow student youth’ perception of socio-political processes, institutions of socialization and subjects of youth policy. A sociological study was conducted. During the study, 811 students of 50 “humanitarian” and 50 “natural” faculties of higher educational institutions in Moscow were interviewed. 45,6% of young people interviewed were males, and 54,4% were females. 60,4% of the respondents were young people aged 18 to 22 years, 18,9% — from 23 to 26 years old, 13,3% — from 14 to 18 years old, 7,4% — from 27 to 30 years old. The article analyzes the students’ answers to the following questions: Do you think that acute social inequality occurs in the modern world? What reasons underlie social inequality? What, in your opinion, is the cause of social inequality? What types of social inequality are most common in the modern world? What forms and types of social inequality are most common in modern Russian society? How often do you encounter the following manifestations of social inequality? How do you feel about the problem of global social inequality? and a number of others. A detailed analysis of the answers to these and other questions presented in the article showed that social inequality is recognized by students as an urgent social problem, which, unfortunately, the authorities do not pay enough attention to.

Children's evaluations of individually and structurally based inequalities: The role of status.

Social inequalities limit important opportunities and resources for members of marginalized and disadvantaged groups. Understanding the origins of how children construct their understanding of social inequalities in the context of their everyday peer interactions has the potential to yield novel insights into when-and how-individuals respond to different types of social inequalities. The present study examined whether children (N = 176; 3- to 8-years-old; 52% female, 48% male; 70% European American, 16% African American, 10% Latinx, and 4% Asian American; middle-income backgrounds) differentiate between structurally based inequalities (e.g., based on gender) and individually based inequalities (e.g., based on merit). Children were randomly assigned to a group that received more (advantaged) or fewer (disadvantaged) resources than another group due to either their groups' meritorious performance on a task or the gender biases of the peer in charge of allocating resources. Overall, children evaluated structurally based inequalities to be more unfair and worthy of rectification than individually based inequalities, and disadvantaged children were more likely to view inequalities to be wrong and act to rectify them compared to advantaged children. With age, advantaged children became more likely to rectify the inequalities and judge perpetuating allocations to be unfair. Yet, the majority of children allocated equally in response to both types of inequality. The findings generated novel evidence regarding how children evaluate and respond to individually and structurally based inequalities, and how children's own status within the inequality informs these responses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Group formation under limited resources: narrow basin of equality

The formation of groups in competition and the aggressive interactions between them are ubiquitous phenomena in society. These include student activities in the classroom, election races between political parties, and intensifying trade wars between countries. Why do individuals form themselves into groups? What is the optimal size of groups? And how does the group size distribution affect resource allocations? These questions have been the subjects of intense research in economics, political science, sociology, and ethology. In this study, we explore the group-size effects on the formation of groups and resource allocations from an economic standpoint. While being in a large group is generally advantageous in competition, an increase in the management costs would set an upper bound to the individual benefit of members. Under such counteracting size effects, we consider the dynamics of group formation in which people seek a conservative measure to reduce their possible maximum loss. We are especially interested in the effects of group size on social inequalities at both group and individual level in resource allocation. Our findings show that the low positive size-effect and the high negative size-effect result in different types of social inequalities. We conclude, from the relation between the inequality measures and group distributions predicted within the model, that overall social equality only can be achieved within a narrow region where two counteracting size-effects are balanced.

Social inequalities, social trust and civic participation—the case of Norway

Comparative studies have generally demonstrated high levels of social capital in the Scandinavian welfare states. It has also been shown that social capital is generally higher among more privileged groups of people than among less privileged groups. However, less is known about how the different types of social inequalities relate to various types of social capital. The aim of this study is to go beyond the generally high Norwegian levels of social capital and study variations of social capital within a representative sample of the Norwegian adult population. The main question is whether and to what extent socio-economic indicators relate to measures of social capital, that is, social trust and civic participation. The data are based on a representative sample of the Norwegian adult population, comprising 3190 individuals. The results show that, whereas several of the socio-economic indicators are significant with respect to social trust, it is only the level of education that is significant for both types of social capital. These findings show that the associations between socio-economic indicators and social capital vary, based on the measures applied. Nevertheless, the strong associations between education and both social capital outcomes demonstrate that social capital is not equally available to all, emphasising the importance of social policies and societal institutions in building social capital.

Whooping-cough vaccination: historical, social and political controversies.

New acellular whooping cough vaccines may have the effect of leading us to forget that infectious diseases such as whooping cough have declined in the context of particular historical, social conditions and persist in the context of particular types of social inequalities. The debates over the existence of damage from whole-cell whooping cough vaccine, and the respective risks of the vaccine and the disease are still unresolved owing to methodological limitations of studies on both sides of the argument. One-sided health 'education' campaigns on whooping cough vaccine have questionable ethics, and suppression of dissenting views is counterproductive. Health professionals and parents have a right to know the political context of the debate.