For anyone born in the Digital Age, the question of whether a sociology course can be taught online is a no-brainer – the answer is an unequivocal “yes.” But, does it make theoretical sense to teach a course about human interaction at a digital distance?

The American Sociological Association (ASA) recently polled 1,025 university sociology departments around the U.S. to find out how many are offering online courses and the results show that more than half are teaching sociology online, which suggests that many professionals believe that it’s a viable educational tool in the field.

Or does it? Experts involved in the study acknowledge that universities may opt to offer an online option to increase revenue and lower costs. Indeed, it was found that public universities were far more likely to offer online courses than private institutions, which leaves one to believe that online sociology courses may be seen more as a auxiliary teaching method and not the preferred way to approach the material.

Regarding efficacy of online sociology courses in general, the ASA concluded in a 2012 study that “… when online courses are designed using pedagogically sound practices, they may provide equally effective learning environments” when compared to in-person sociology classes. More specifically, they found that students could derive the same amount of satisfaction and knowledge from an online sociology course as they could from the traditional classroom environment.

But, does an online classroom chat session fairly approximate the kinds of discussions and interactions found in traditional classrooms? The answer is that it does not, but it could also be missing the point. As more and more of our lives are spent online (and more personal information is made available), an argument could easily be made that the Internet is the new public forum and online learning is just one more facet of our new digital society.

Article written by James Madeiros.

“Helicopter parenting” is a phrase used to describe a parental style with which we are all familiar in one way or another, and is marked by overbearing parents who hover over their kids and second guess every decision they make as they grow up.

Unsurprisingly, scientific studies have found that helicopter parenting leads to a host of negative outcomes, typically marked by their children’s eventual inability to weather negative experiences or make independent choices. After all, when parents teach a children that they will never have to bear the consequences of a mistake it can be quite devastating when that mistake eventually occurs – and sooner or later mistakes always occur.

Two new studies published within a month of one another in the American Sociological Review and the Journal Child and Family Studies pinpoints two specific parenting decisions that can lead to trouble down the road: providing too much financial support for a child’s college education and choosing the prospective college student’s courses.

The studies revealed that providing too much financial support can lead to bad grades, and that choosing a child’s courses can make a student less interested in college as a whole. These outcomes may sound somewhat obvious, which is what makes it so surprising that more parents are failing to cut the apron strings at a time when it can most greatly benefit both parties.

Of course, reviewers of both studies are quick to mention that helping others – whether it’s one’s own children, a spouse or friends – is a necessary component of building healthy relationships and leading a rewarding life. Experts believe this is what makes it so difficult for parents; knowing when to help and when to hold back is too subjective for science to explain, particularly when all agree that every child in every family has unique needs that require adaptive parenting techniques.

Article written by James Madeiros.

When something horrible happens society is obliged to point an accusatory finger, and in the case of the recent Ohio kidnapping involving three victims held hostage for more than 10 years it appears the Cleveland Police Department (CPD) will share some of the blame.

The ghoulish tale of kidnap, torture and years-long imprisonment has made international headlines, and now many people are asking how something like this could’ve happened – and whether race and social status played a part.

Many have accused the CPD of playing favorites when it comes to the investigations they feel deserve their full attention, and critics say missing persons cases involving minorities or people of low social status are not high-priority issues. Others have suggested that age may be a factor and there have been reports that the police have told families that it’s a waste of time to file a missing persons report for an adult. The CPD denies this, however, and records show they have followed leads in cases involving people on all points of the social spectrum.

In hindsight, it appears that the CPD did miss a host of warning signs that pointed to trouble in the Castro home, but that’s only if neighbors’ testimony after the fact is to be believed. Experts have noted that selective memory and a desire to get in on the media action may influence these kinds of reports. What’s more, people have suggested that the end of community policing is to blame, and that cops are no longer afforded opportunities to gain intimate knowledge of their beats.

Even so, there is plenty of documentation suggesting Castro was a violent and abusive person, including several incidences where people reported him to authorities who failed to follow up. The reports even include on instance in 2004 when Castro, a school bus driver, was arrested for abduction and child endangerment after driving around with a boy and allegedly refusing to let him go.

Article written by James Madeiros.

Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, report that many people value ill-gotten gains less than an honest buck.

The study, recently published in Social Psychological and Personality Science, indicates that the source of wealth really does matter to people, which means that morality can and does impact financial decision-making. Perhaps more fascinating, though, is how morality impacts the wider economy.

To reach their conclusions, researchers offered test subjects the opportunity to enter a raffle for a $50 cash prize. One group was told the money would come from Target, and another group was told the money would come from Wal-Mart – and was also led to believe the prize money resulted from the company’s ability to take advantage of unfair labor practices.

As expected, fewer people entered to win the Wal-Mart raffle. Further, when the Wal-Mart participants were asked to guess how much they could buy with their winnings, they consistently estimated less than the Target raffle participants. In other words, they felt the money was worth less.

This has even broader implications when it comes to socially responsible spending. The study made clear that people can believe that “dirty” money will somehow corrupt them, but it also shed some light on why companies benefit from distancing themselves from corrupt investors or showing that they give back to their communities or the environment.

The study demonstrated this by using “moral licensing” to massage participants’ perceptions of their own morality. This was accomplished by asking participants to talk about good things they had done, which in turn made them feel less squeamish about taking or spending tainted money. That seems to suggest that even temporary associations with good moral character can change the perception of a business or transaction.

Of course, that doesn’t explain the behavior or the corrupt, but other studies have shown that the mere exposure to lots of money – good or bad – can contribute to the demoralization of one’s character.

One Canadian sociologist is calling on popular male sports figures – and their fans – to address the culture of misogyny she feels is being nurtured in the sports world.

University of Windsor professor Marge Holman calls sports the “dinosaur of equity,” suggesting that the world of male-dominated sports perpetuates the misogynistic attitudes of a bygone era by allowing boys who are not yet men behave in intolerable ways toward women simply because they’re good athletes.

Holman uses a recent sexual harassment case involving male players in an area hockey league, but of course examples abound in the wider arena of sports. Just a few cases of high-profile athletes who have been in the spotlight because of their alleged (or proven) actions against women include boxer Mike Tyson, NFL quarterback Ben Roethlisberger and, more recently, Olympic runner Oscar Pistorius.

What’s debatable, however, is whether it is a sporting culture that fuels misogyny or the trappings of celebrity and is an issue that’s been addressed before, perhaps most notably in response to criticisms made by writer Jacyln Friedman. Friedman has also hypothesized that sports fanaticism within a team dynamic contributes to misogynistic behavior, although the question must be raised as to whether fame is really the true culprit.

After all, one doesn’t have to look far to see misogyny at work in both entertainment and politics. Whether it’s Rush Limbaugh calling a woman a “slut” on national radio in response to her testimony at a Congressional hearing, or rapper Chris Brown physically assaulting his famous girlfriend and singer, Rihanna, US pop culture is no stranger to misogynistic behavior.

The difference, perhaps, may be how fans respond to said behavior. Limbaugh lost more than a hundred advertisers and Brown was vilified in the press, but oftentimes it seems that sports fans are willing to look the other way when their sports heroes act atrociously toward women.

In this, Holman is right: The old adage that “boys will be boys” is no excuse for misogyny in sports.

The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) is promoting March as Social Work Month and is rolling out a nationwide ad campaign to draw awareness to the need for high-quality social workers in communities of all sizes around the country.

NASW’s slogan for the campaign is “Weaving Threads of Resilience and Advocacy: The Power of Social Work,” and will be promoted throughout the month on the organization’s website as well as in various forums like NPR.

The overarching goal is to support the more than 600,000 professionals who dedicate their lives to social work, but the NASW also sees the importance of encouraging these people to advocate for themselves as much as for the people they help. For many social workers, this likely goes against the grain of their natural instincts.

Inarguably one of the most selfless professions one can pursue, a foundational element of social work is to speak loudly for those who cannot be heard. The ability to do this kind of work effectively often comes at the expense of the time and effort it requires to advocate for the profession. That’s why the NASW is providing social workers with a Social Work Month toolkit that features 100 ideas on how to speak for the profession.

Ideas in the toolkit are arranged in categories like Entertainment, Events, Media and Publications. Just a few ways NASW is encouraging social workers to get the word out on the hard work they do include:

• Inviting elected officials to speak to social work groups
• Making a Career Day presentation about social work
• Acting in support of the Social Work Reinvestment Act

This last activity may become very important as sequestration bears down on federally funded social programs. The old adage that “a closed mouth doesn’t get fed” may become words to live by for social workers and Social Work Month is the perfect time to speak up for a very necessary part of the American workforce.

How come when two male colleagues get into a workplace dispute it usually comes and goes with little fanfare, but when two women have an argument it’s labeled a “catfight” and the gossips can’t get enough?

A new study from the University of British Columbia may have an answer.

The research was conducted at UBC’s Sauder School of Business and the results were published in the journal Academy of Management Perspectives. Those results indicate that both men and women assume there are more negative implications when two women fight in the workplace. Further, the research shows that both sexes also rate the ability of two female coworkers to repair a damaged relationship following a fight lower than when the disputants are both male, or male and female.

Researchers suggest that the assumptions people make about “catfights” are unfair, which is arguably true no matter what the reality. Even so, it’s no secret that women often have difficulty cooperating in a work environment and some women describe the behavior as one of the last – and most troubling – barriers females face in the workplace.

The Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI) has conducted several studies regarding woman-on-woman workplace bullying and the results are insightful. According to the WBI, one problem women face is that if they’re nice they believe they’re viewed as “soft” and so they overcompensate by being aggressive, particularly toward other women. Another is that women believe other women are easier targets for workplace aggression because they are less likely to retaliate.

One study has even shown that some women view other women in a sexist manner in the workplace when it comes to hiring, salaries and promotions. This kind of bias can manifest itself in subtle ways, but often ends in workplace fights that are not so discreet. Experts say this behavior is culturally ingrained and that dispelling it completely is something that will take more time and focused effort.

Every sociologist knows that roshambo, otherwise known as rock-paper-scissors, is a time-honored way to solve disputes surrounding the world’s most pressing problems … like deciding who gets the last slice of pizza.

Now, it seems that this simple game may be the clue to humans’ overriding convergent behavior when it comes to how they attempt to influence one another and anticipate the competition’s moves in various social and economic markets.

Indiana University cognitive scientists are using the game as a model to explain how cycles in fashion, finance and many other markets work. To put it simply, the object of value is not what changes, but people’s perceptions about its worth to others and how they respond to those changes. Said another way, a thing is only as popular or as valuable as society collectively decides it is.

So, how does rock-paper-scissors explain this behavior? In the experiment, scientists used a more complex version of the game to discover that the most successful people in these types of market environments are the ones who think just the right number of steps ahead of those around them.

This, scientists argue, is what keeps markets moving in cyclical patterns. As the experiment was repeated, the participants demonstrated that their decisions would start to move in synchronicity over time despite the fact that they were actually competing against one another. The ultimate result in the game experiment, which involved trying to guess a number just one unit higher than another person, was that people started making similar decisions when trying to anticipate the guesses of others.

The results of the study on iterated reasoning, which was published in PLOS ONE, draws the conclusion that the ideal level of anticipation between competitors is to think about two steps ahead. Although knowing this may seem akin to the ability to predict the future in social and economic systems, the reality is that each group of humans in any giving situation is unique, and the way in which they make decisions is also unique, and so can’t be known before they are made.

The difference between a CEO and an autocrat is absolutely nothing if there is no one to stand between him (or her) and his ego.

That’s the lesson learned by researchers at Brigham Young University who have been studying the power dynamics of successful people in leadership positions.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, people in powerful positions are headstrong and aggressive, and are focused more on how they can get what they want rather the risks involved in getting it. This was the basis for concluding that CEOs and other people in corporate leadership roles require having a “low-power” person close at hand to help rein them in when their confidence gets ahead of their abilities.

Researchers involved in the study, which was published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, compared corporate titans to apex predators that enjoy the luxury of a singular focus on catching their prey because they themselves having nothing to fear but missing a meal. The prey, on the other hand, is much more attuned to risk and other variable in the environment; attributes that could come in handy for a predator with something to lose.

The trouble with CEOs and unmitigated power is nothing new and many have asked questions about the value of allowing control to be so focused. Studies have attempted to answer why company boards have failed to control so many CEOs in the past, especially at once-powerful firms like Enron and Worldcom.

The answer, according to this study, is that powerful leaders need to surround themselves with people (or at least one person) who can properly assess risk and apply constraints when needed. Confidence is a critical factor in a leader’s success, but blind ambition can get a leader into trouble when there is an overabundance and no one is there to guide it in a productive manner.

It should probably come as no surprise that the constant deluge of good news supplied by your Facebook friends is likely making you miserable.

German researchers have released results of a study detailing widespread envy in users of the social networking site that stems from viewing happiness in others that leaves people feeling lonely, sad and frustrated with their own lives.

Fretting over “keeping up with the Joneses” is as old as humanity. Envy, after all, is one of the seven deadly sins and has been chronicled in humankind for thousands of years. Many anthropologists trace the origin of envy back to Paleolithic man as a survival trait that spurred competitiveness and societal evolution in ancient civilizations.

A corollary to this emotion that proves the point in a backhanded way is captured by a German word that has no English equivalent: Schadenfreude. Simply put, this is the pleasure taken in the misfortune of others, particularly when it befalls someone who seemingly deserves it. Sociologists often argue this is a normal feeling of self-affirmation; the near opposite of envy.

Taken together, if envy is a natural emotion and feeling good about oneself is often the product of perceiving personal success when compared to others who are less fortunate, it stands to reason that viewing scads of photos of people having more fun and enjoying more wealth may have a negative effect.

The German study was not the first to uncover the trend. A similar study conducted at Utah Valley University and published in Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking Journal made the same connection between the perpetual stream of happy status updates and waning self-esteem.

While answers abound on how to limit this negativism, the best thing one may be able to do (besides quitting Facebook) is to remember that things aren’t as rosy as they seem and that everyone has bad days they’re not posting on the Internet.