It is argued that (a) social identification is a perception of oneness with a group of persons; (b) social identification stems from the categorization of individuals, the distinctiveness and prestige of the group, the salience of outgroups, and the factors that traditionally are associated with group formation; and (c) social identification leads to activities that are congruent with the identity, support for institutions that embody the identity, stereotypical perceptions of self and others, and outcomes that traditionally are associated with group formation, and it reinforces the antecedents of identification. This perspective is applied to organizational socialization, role conflict, and intergroup relations.

Social Identity Theory and the Organization

From the Publisher: 
A Question of Identity 
Life on the Screen is a fascinating and wide-ranging investigation of the impact of computers and networking on society, peoples' perceptions of themselves, and the individual's relationship to machines. Sherry Turkle, a Professor of the Sociology of Science at MIT and a licensed psychologist, uses Internet MUDs (multi-user domains, or in older gaming parlance multi-user dungeons) as a launching pad for explorations of software design, user interfaces, simulation, artificial intelligence, artificial life, agents, "bots," virtual reality, and "the on-line way of life." 
Turkle's discussion of postmodernism is particularly enlightening. She shows how postmodern concepts in art, architecture, and ethics are related to concrete topics much closer to home, for example AI research (Minsky's "Society of Mind") and even MUDs (exemplified by students with X-window terminals who are doing homework in one window and simultaneously playing out several different roles in the same MUD in other windows). Those of you who have (like me) been turned off by the shallow, pretentious, meaningless paintings and sculptures that litter our museums of modern art may have a different perspective after hearing what Turkle has to say. 
This is a psychoanalytical book, not a technical one. However, software developers and engineers will find it highly accessible because of the depth of the author's technical understanding and credibility. Unlike most other authors in this genre, Turkle does not constantly jar the technically-literate reader with blatant errors or bogus assertions about how things work. Although I personally don't have time or patience for MUDs,view most of AI as snake-oil, and abhor postmodern architecture, I thought the time spent reading this book was an extremely good investment.

스크린 위의 삶 = Life on the screen : identity in the age of the internet

Introduction - William Foote Whyte PAR IN INDUSTRY Participatory Action Research - William Foote Whyte, Davydd J Greenwood and Peter Lazes Through Practice to Science in Social Research Participatory Action Research - Larry A Pace and Dominick R Argona A View from Xerox Participatory Action Research - Anthony J Constanza A View from ACTWU Participatory Action Research - Jose Luis Gonzalez Santos A View from FAGOR Participatory Action Research and Action Science Compared - Chris Argyris and Donald Schon A Commentary Comparing PAR and Action Science - William Foote Whyte Research, Action and Participation - Richard E Walton and Michael Gaffney The Merchant Shipping Case Co-Generative Learning - Max Elden and Morton Levin Bringing Participation into Action Research Action Research as Method - Jan Irgen Karlsen Reflections from a Program for Developing Methods and Competence Participant Observer Research - Robert E Cole An Activist Role PAR IN AGRICULTURE Participatory Strategies in Agricultural Research and Development - William Foote Whyte A Joint Venture in Technology Transfer to Increase Adoption Rates - Ramiro Ortiz Participatory Action Research in Togo - Richard Maclure and Michael Bassey An Inquiry into Maize Storage Systems The Role of the Social Scientist in Participatory Action research - Sergio Ruano Social Scientists in International Agriculture Resarch - Douglas E Horton Ensuring Relevance and Conributing to the Knowledge Base Conclusions - William Foote Whyte

Participatory Action Research

The development of competence holds great interest for parents and society alike. This article considers implications from research on competence and resilience in children and adolescents for policy and interventions designed to foster better outcomes among children at risk. Foundations of competence in early development are discussed, focusing on the role of attachment relationships and self-regulation. Results from studies of competence in the domains of peer relations, conduct, school, work, and activities are highlighted. Lessons are drawn from studies of naturally occurring resilience among children at risk because of disadvantage or trauma and also from efforts to deliberately alter the course of competence through early childhood education and preventive interventions. Converging evidence suggests that the same powerful adaptive systems protect development in both favorable and unfavorable environments.

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/53/2/205.pdf

The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments. Lessons from research on successful children

It comes as something ofa surprise to reflect that the New York Review ofBooks is now over twenty years old. Even people of my generation (that is, old enough to remember the revolutionary 196os but not young enough to have taken a very exciting part in them) think of the paper as eternally youthful. In fact, it has gone through years of relatively quiet life, yet, as always in a competitive journalistic market, it is the controversies that attract the interest of the reader and to which the history (especially an admittedly impressionistic survey that tries to include something of the intellectual context in which a journal has operated) must give some attention. Not all the attacks which the New York Review has attracted, both early in its career and more recently, are worth more than a brief summary. What do we now make, for example, of Richard Kostelanetz's forthright accusation that 'The New York Review was from its origins destined to publicize Random House's (and especially [Jason] Epstein's) books and writers'?1 Well, simply that, even if the statistics bear out the charge (and Kostelanetz provides some suggestive evidence to support it, at least with respect to some early issues), there is nothing surprising in a market economy about a publisher trying to push his books through the pages of a journal edited by his friends. True, the New York Review has not had room to review more than around fifteen books in each issue and there could be a bias in the selection of

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3507774.pdf

The New York Review of Books

This article draws on data gathered through participant observation with preadolescent children in and outside elementary schools to focus on the role of popularity in gender socialization. Within their gendered peer subcultures, boys and girls constructed idealized images of masculinity and femininity on which they modeled their behavior. These images were reflected in the composite of factors affecting children's popularity among their peers. Boys achieved high status on the basis of their athletic ability, coolness, toughness, social skills, and success in cross-gender relationships. Girls gained popularity because of their parents' socioeconomic status and their own physical appearance, social skills, and academic success. Although boys' gender images embody more active and achieved features than girls', which are comparatively passive and ascribed, these roles embody complex integrations of oppositional elements that expand and androgenize them. The research illustrates subtle changes in children's, especially girls', gender roles, resulting from historical changes in society.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2112807.pdf

Socialization to Gender Roles: Popularity among Elementary School Boys and Girls.

Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation.

During the past 6 years (1989-1994), the Journal of Marriage and the Family has published 527 articles. Only 10 or 1.9% were qualitative, either entirely (4) or partly (1), or in a combination of qualitative and quantitative data (5). Four other articles were based on qualitative data, but the results were entirely quantified. These four articles would raise the total of qualitative papers to 15 or 2.8%. These statistics are rather startling, especially when considering that there is a large theoretical literature pertaining to qualitative research, numerous articles and texts on its methods, a rapidly growing body of empirical research with the family field as one of its major beneficiaries (Gilgun, Daly, & Handel, 1992; Rosenblatt & Fischer, 1993), and a well-organized network on qualitative family research, with a newsletter of the same name. JMF, however, is not unique in terms of rarely publishing qualitative articles (see LaRossa & Wolf, 1985; Nye, 1988, on family research). Editorial boards of high-profile journals in family studies, psychology, and sociology are composed of well-published scholars, only a minority of whom are experienced qualitative researchers. The result is that a majority of the qualitative articles submitted have to be evaluated by scholars who have little expertise in qualitative research, or by qualitative researchers who have no expertise in the substantive area of a submitted article or who subscribe to a different epistemology. In contrast, quantitative papers can generally be matched with reviewers who not only understand the methods, but are also knowledgeable in the substantive area covered. It thus becomes important to discuss some of the problems inherent in evaluating qualitative research. Consequently, the focus of this article is practical and not theoretical. We address naturalistic qualitative research in terms of methods. In addition, because qualitative research has become extremely varied, we have limited the purview of this article to epistemologies that involve the observation, interview, or written participation of family members, rather than the analysis or deconstruction of texts, for instance. The statistics presented earlier clearly indicate that JMF is a quantitative journal, with a readership primarily composed of quantitative researchers. We have, therefore, written this article for scholars who are quantitatively oriented: Our vocabulary and material covered reflect this focus. Because several qualitative approaches are included within the vast umbrella of naturalistic fieldwork, we also hope to reach qualitative researchers who are very specialized within one particular epistemology or qualitative approach. In order to retain a certain practical focus, we could not discuss postmodernist approaches. Moreover, because most of us are sociologically trained, the bulk of the literature reviewed falls within this discipline. We use a quantitative/qualitative dichotomy only for heuristic purposes. At a historical juncture where traditional, theoretical, and empirical alignments should at least cohabit and new configurations are appearing (Alexander & Colomy, 1990, p. 56), one can only hope for an improved understanding between advocates of both sets of approaches and a decrease in the either/or dichotomous thinking that devalues the efforts of any one approach to knowledge generation. This hope also extends to adherents of the several distinct qualitative epistemologies. In a first section, we present general information on qualitative research in terms of its goals and procedures. This is followed by a discussion of linkages between epistemologies and methods in qualitative research; our own diverse orientations are outlined at the end of this discussion. In a third section, we broach more specific aspects of the evaluation process. Then we examine frequently encountered problems in the evaluation process, focusing on problems unwittingly created both by reviewers and authors. …

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/353409.pdf

Understanding and Evaluating Qualitative Research.

A critical structural form organizing the social arrangement of children's lives is the clique. This primary group colors the character of children's preadolescent years and shapes their socialization to adult life. In this paper we draw on longitudinal participant observation and on depth interviews with advanced elementary-school children to explore the central feature of clique dynamics : the techniques of inclusion and exclusion. Cliques are circles of power wherein leaders attain and wield influence over their followers by cyclically building them up and cutting them down, first drawing them into the elite inner circle and allowing them to bask in the glow of popularity and acceptance, and then reducing them to positions of dependence and subjugation by turning the group against them. We conclude by discussing the generic features of these inclusionary and exclusionary dynamics, the characteristics of this cyclical pattern, the implications of this socializing experience for the broader societal dynamics of power and manipulation, and the kind of in-group/out-group differentiation that can lead to prejudice and discrimination.

Peter Adler

Papers

Socialization to Gender Roles: Popularity among Elementary School Boys and Girls.

Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation.

Understanding and Evaluating Qualitative Research.

Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion in Preadolescent Cliques

Ethnography and Human Development: Context and Meaning in Social Inquiry