How JustAnswer Works:

  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.

Ask judybailey61 Your Own Question

judybailey61, Bachelor's Degree
Category: Long Paper (3+ pages)
Satisfied Customers: 632
Experience:  Writing expert on for five years. College degree in mathematics. Long papers are my strong points!
Type Your Long Paper (3+ pages) Question Here...
judybailey61 is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

First, from the Argosy University online library, select one

Customer Question

First, from the Argosy University online library, select one of the following articles to read:
◦Fantasia, Rick. (1995). From class consciousness to culture, action, and social organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, p. 267-289.
Second, answer the following questions in an organized essay:
◦What is the social problem the researchers are investigating?
◦What is the research method (i.e.: survey, participant observation, experiment, secondary sources) used by the researchers?
◦What were the results or findings of the research?
◦What do you think would be a good solution to the social problem
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Long Paper (3+ pages)
Expert:  asciandwildlife replied 1 year ago.
Hello. Please post the article that needs to be read. Also, how long does this response need to be?
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
For over three decades following World War II, the study of class consciousness in American society was constrained by two separate but not unrelated historical developments. The first was a Cold War imperative that rendered most Marxist-inspired theoretical conceptualization ideologically suspect and therefore unlikely to attract serious sociological treatment, particularly within the terms set by Marx's own analysis (Bottomore 1976). The second was American sociology's shift from its roots in Chicago School social anthropology toward the "Lazarsfeldian" research edifice that had begun to shape the discipline in profound ways (Boudon 1993).In many respects Richard Centers's classic study (1949) was emblematic of these dual processes. Initially undertaken as a challenge to the findings of an earlier Fortune magazine survey that had found over 80% of the sample population identifying themselves as "middle class," Centers sought to demonstrate the existence of a significant working class consciousness in the United States. Adding the response "working class" to his survey of what was considered a nationally representative sample population (1097 white men), Centers found a sizeable portion (51%) registering under that label, thus offering empirical support to his euphemistically termed "interest group theory of social classes." Though some disputed his findings and interpretations (Gross 1953, Case 1955, Gordon 1963, Wilensky 1970), Centers's study served as a model for understanding the subjective dimensions of social class.The specific methodologies have differed across a range of systematic data collection techniques, from self-administered questionnaires, to face-to-face interviews and telephone surveys, to analyses of election data. In general, however, quantitative methods that yield large data sets, utilize precise sampling techniques, and provide opportunities for statistical manipulation of the data have been strongly favored in the study of class consciousness in the United States. Though the amount of research in the United States has not been voluminous (Kerbo 1991:346-47, Gilbert & Kahl 1993:233), a substantial body of research has developed on class identification (Gross 1953, Kahl & Davis 1955, Tucker 1966, Hodge & Treiman 1968, Schreiber & Nygreen 1970, Jackman & Jackman 1983, Davis & Robinson 1988, Simpson et al 1988), on class attitudes (Eysenck 1950, Manis & Meltzer 1954, Leggett 1968, Wright 1985, Kluegel & Smith 1986), and on class political preferences and opinions (Lipset 1960, Hamilton 1972, Szymanski 1978, Weakliem 1993). Some researchers have found indications of one or another sort of class consciousness employing such methods, others have not, and still others have found it and denied it. Such differences have tended to reveal more about the preconceptions of the researchers than they have about any collective consciousness of class in the society (Marshall 1983:288, Vanneman & Cannon 1987:48).Whether or not Marx's conceptualization is posed as the key theoretical reference point (as it often is), from a basic sociological standpoint, survey research methodology embodies some questionable assumptions with regard to the study of class consciousness. The most basic criticisms have been advanced previously and summarized by Marshall (1983). They are:1. Survey research acquires an individualist bias by treating the responses of isolated individuals as the primary data source. Though there is an assumption that individual attitudes can be summed to equal one or another form of collective consciousness, the intersubjective nature of meaning-construction in a class (or indeed any group) consciousness cannot easily be apprehended.2. Survey responses tend to be recorded as fixed, static entities, minimizing any denotation of process, change, maturation, or ambivalence in consciousness. Contradictory or seemingly opposed meanings, oscillations, and shifts in interpretation, which are often the consequence of intersubjective processes, are ignored.3. The exclusive focus on ideation and attitude significantly limits what may be considered an expression of consciousness. In standard survey research, class consciousness tends to be viewed as a fact that exists (or not) in the minds of subjects.4. Such research assumes that most of what needs to be known about attitudes, conceptions, or beliefs can be learned by eliciting verbal or written responses to questions.5. In the social survey, attitudes and ideation are artificially decontextualizd because they are abstracted from the class practices and social relations that give them meaning.Though the implications of basing class consciousness on survey methods are considerable, they are rarely considered explicitly (Coser 1975, Vanneman & Cannon 1987). However, in one case, a pair of survey researchers decided to abandon the method when they realized the limitations that it imposed on their ability to document the ambivalences and
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
the ambivalences and contradictory lines of thought among workers who inhabit a world full of contradictions (Blackburn & Mann 1975). More recently, Erik Wright (1985) recognized that there is "no necessary reason to assume" that the same consciousness that would be apparent in a situation of class conflict would be evident in an interview setting. He acknowledged that class consciousness is "notoriously hard to measure" and agreed that the problems raised by critics of the survey method are significant and "potentially undermine the value of questionnaire studies of class consciousness" (1985:252-53). Yet despite his reflexivity, Wright proceeded to draw upon survey data about attitudes, offering the unconvincing explanation that "the cognitive processes of people have some stability across the artificial setting of an interview and the real life setting of class struggle, and that in spite of the possible distortions of structured interviews, social surveys can potentially measure these stable elements" (p. 253). But while they may have that potential, this cannot be known using survey methods because people are not surveyed across a range of settings (let alone in class struggles), and this represents enough of a problem that the Penguin Dictionary of Sociology devotes an entire entry (on "Dual Consciousness") to the difficulty of assuming any such stability between the survey situation and other social settings (Abercrombie et al 1988).A notable exception to this rule is represented in a recent study of the beliefs of a sample of Canadian postal workers before and after a strike (as well as their actions during it) whereby the context of the strike reportedly produced an ideological shift (toward solidarism, away from conciliation) that was sustained by only a minority of workers once the collective action had subsided (Langford 1994:126-27). It is generally a worthwhile study, and one which can be instructive to the extent that it underscores the disjunction between collective action and individual belief intrinsic to most survey research.The theoretical foundations of the concept are at least as problematic as the methodological techniques used to study it. The concept of class consciousness is generally thought to have originated in the work of Karl Marx, as one of the "pivotal" elements of his theory of class and society (Gilbert & Kahl 1993:228). But I would suggest that while Marx wrote about the human consciousness that "distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees" (quoted in Bottomore & Rubel 1961:102), and while he maintained a formulation about class relations in which a working class structured "in itself" (an sich) would increasingly become a class "for itself' (fur sich) (quoted in Tucker 1978:218), to my knowledge Marx never employed the term "class consciousness," and certainly never to designate the ideational standing of a collection of individual workers, as much of the sociological (including some Marxist) research has sought to do. Even the Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs, who is probably most responsible for circulating the term, through his book History and Class Consciousness, expressly rejected reducing class consciousness to the individual, ideational level: "This analysis establishes right from the start the distance that separates class consciousness from the empirically given, and from the psychologically describable and explicable ideas which men form about their situation in life," and "...class consciousness is concerned neither with the thoughts of individuals, however advanced, nor with the state of scientific knowledge" (Lukacs, quoted in Bottomore 1973:97-100).This is mentioned not to quibble or to engage in an arcane exercise in "marxology," but to suggest that at least a share of the sociological weaponry (particularly in the United States) used against Marx himself has been based on a partial but significant misconception, particularly as it refers to something that can be understood with reference to the ideas or beliefs of individual class members at a single moment in time. Even those with friendly intent who have sought to refine the concept to bolster Marx's perspective have helped sustain ideation as the crucial ingredient. Thus, Michael Mann's (1973) otherwise commendable attempt to specify varying levels of consciousness--identifying oneself as a class member; perceiving opposition with other classes; understanding class as defining the totality of one's society; and having a vision of an alternative, classless society--may have expanded the range of categories, but it did little to shift the emphasis away from subjectivity.Marx himself once attempted a survey research project (Weiss 1973), and though the negligible rate of return on his survey of 101 questions would have made it a distinct failure in social scientific terms, its deviation from modern survey research on class consciousness is instructive. For his "enquete ouvriere" was not
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Above is the article it needs to be 750 words
Expert:  asciandwildlife replied 1 year ago.
Hello. I would be glad to assist. For an essay of 750 words, the cost would be $65. Please let me know if this works for you and I will send along the price proposal for you to accept. Also, when is this due?
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
It is due ASAP
Expert:  asciandwildlife replied 1 year ago.
I can have this answer to you by late tomorrow evening. Are you willing to pay $65? If so, I will send you the additional service/value report.

Related Long Paper (3+ pages) Questions