Canadian Journal of Sociology
Not a member yet
    892 research outputs found

    Snyder, Gregory, Skateboarding LA: Inside Professional Street Skateboarding.

    No full text

    Books Received/ Livres réçus

    No full text

    Ricciardelli, Rose and Peters, Adrienne M.F (Eds.), After Prison: Navigating Employment and Reintegration

    No full text

    Books Received/ Livres réçus

    No full text

    Schippers, Mimi, Beyond Monogamy. Polyamory and the Futures of Polyqueer Sexualities.

    No full text

    Geoffroy de Lagasnerie, The Art of Revolt: Snowden, Assange, and Manning.

    No full text

    Davis, Mike, Old Gods, New Enigmas: Marx’s Lost Theory.

    No full text

    Books Received/ Livres reçus

    No full text

    “Common Sense Geography” and the Elected Official: Technical Evidence and Conceptions of ‘Trust’ in Toronto’s Gardiner Expressway Decision

    No full text
    In fields such as Sociology and Political Science, there have been, over the course of three decades, attempts to engage elected officials in “Evidence-Based Decision-Making”. Evidence is generally conceived as “expert” advice provided to politicians. A question that has gained more centrality in recent years is “why do elected officials not trust expert opinion or technical evidence?” and the answer to this question has been sought in historical or general terms (e.g. Irwin 2006; Weiss et al. 2008; Kraft et al. 2015). Here I will propose an alternative question: “when politicians exhibit a lack of trust in expert advice, how is such skepticism publicly accounted for?” I will examine this question by utilizing a case study ethnographic approach to the City of Toronto’s controversial decision to endorse the Hybrid alternative for the Gardiner expressway. By doing so, I intend to show that knowledge controversies are not inherently a form of deficiency on the part of the elected official – that they are ignorant to the implications of evidence – but rather the standard by which elected officials and appointed experts review and understand evidence can lead to very different (although both reasonably ‘correct’) conclusions

    “If the Work Requirement is Strong”: The Business Response to Basic Income Proposals in Canada and the US

    No full text
    Historical accounts of the business response to basic income proposals imply that employer attitudes have been mixed. In the 1970s and 1980s, when an array of basic income schemes was proposed, some groups were supportive and others were opposed. This paper shows that, in a number of high-profile proposals in Canada and the US, behind the apparent dissensus among business groups lays a consensus stance against universalistic and unconditional guaranteed income schemes. The disagreement among business groups comes down to either (1) a basic misunderstanding of proposal details, or (2) the fact that the policy itself can take on a wide range of concrete forms. To the extent that business has exhibited support for guaranteed income policies, the actual policies in question tended to be “two-tiered” rather than unitary, selective rather than universal, and miserly rather than generous. The income maintenance policies that garnered some support among business groups would all include explicit or implicit work requirements for “able-bodied” adults. By contrast, generous, unconditional guaranteed income policies that reduce workers’ market dependence—namely, those that basic income advocates find desirable—found no audience in business circles. I close by exploring the mechanisms underlying the impact of basic income on bargaining relationships in the labour market and comment on the promises and pitfalls of a social policy that continues to be highly malleable

    0

    full texts

    892

    metadata records
    Updated in last 30 days.
    Canadian Journal of Sociology
    Access Repository Dashboard
    Do you manage Open Research Online? Become a CORE Member to access insider analytics, issue reports and manage access to outputs from your repository in the CORE Repository Dashboard! 👇