Contemporary Theory – Hitlin, Fall 2018

Contemporary Sociological Theory 1 Steve Hitlin

W110 Seashore Hall
Sociology 6140:0001, Fall, 2018 335-2499
1:00P - 3:30P Th W113 SSH steven-hitlin@uiowa.edu

August 23 Introduction: What is “Theory” in Modern Sociology?

August 30 ‘Structure’ and its introduction to social science
September 6 Dissolving the Consensus
September 13 Macro and Micro in Contemporary Theory
September 20 Cultural Turn
September 27 Institutions and Institutionalization
October 4 Network Approach: Structural Relationism
October 11 Network Approach: Culture, Narrative, Identity
October 18 Rationality at the Micro and Macro levels
October 25 Agency and Interaction
November 1 “Field”
November 8 Practice and Embodiment
November 15 Neo-Pragmatist reconstruction of action theory
November 29 Culture and Cognition
December 6 Bio-Sociality and Challenges to Theory

Course Description:

This course takes a broad-but-deep look at current trends in sociological theory. Many scholars
trace contemporary theory back to Talcott Parsons attempt to offer programmatic statements about the
nature of social life. We begin by examining these attempts and their critiques, exploring how this
dialogue informs modern conceptions of a macro-micro separation – along with attempts to synthesize
or explain away this distinction. Rather than parade through some of what I call “classical contemporary
theory”, we will spend the bulk of the semester engaging current conceptualizations of human action
that focus more or less on individuals, structures, context, culture, biology, and conceptions of organized
social life.

This course is organized around a few principles: We will not spend a lot of time reading the
works of famous scholars whose ideas ultimately end up recapitulating classical theorists. Rather, we
will spend most of our time focused on usable, testable, influential theoretical traditions. The works
selected for this course ideally have some relevance to empirical research in mainstream sociology. The
ideas we discuss, ideally, are not domain-specific but are able to be applied to the study of a number of
substantive social domains and research areas. In a sense, we are exploring meta-understandings of the
nature of individuals and social organization that explicate the taken-for-granted assumptions
sociologists employ in their more focused research areas.

1 Course topics are highly influenced by Omar Lizardo’s Graduate Course. He never cites himself; I chose any of his papers on this syllabus.

1
 Contemporary Theory – Hitlin, Fall 2018

Course Requirements and Grading

This course is reading intensive. Rather than ask students to write a seminar paper on a topic that may
or may not inform your research, we will approach this semester a little differently than the standard
seminar. You are expected to write the following assignments over the course of the semester:

• One-page weekly reaction papers (Due Wednesday before class)

• ONE week as the Discussion Leader
o Prepare a 5-ish page summary paper about the readings (due the Tuesday
before seminar)
o Prepare a 15-20 minute presentation for the class about that week’s
readings/topic
 This may require going beyond the assigned readings to provide context
for students to more fully understand the main
concepts/ideas/contributions important for that topic
o Prepare discussion questions to ensure the class understands salient concepts
o Post discussion questions by Tuesday, 5pm
• ONE week as the Co-Leader
o Involves READING and commenting on the Discussion Leader’s 5-page paper
o Be extra-prepared to contribute to that week’s discussion
• Final Week 2-3 Page Course Reaction Paper
• Active participation in discussion

2
 Contemporary Theory – Hitlin, Fall 2018

Contemporary Theory Topics and Readings:

CLASSICAL CONTEMPORARY THEORY

1. Introduction: What is “Theory” in Modern Sociology?

• Benezecry, Claudio E., Monika Krause and Isaac Ariail Reed. (2017). “Introduction.” Pp. 1-12 in Social Theory Now.
University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
• Lizardo, Omar. (2015). “The End of Theorists: The Relevance, Opportunities, and Pitfalls of Theorizing in Sociology
Today. Lewis Coser Memorial Lecture.
• Swedberg, Richard. (2017). “Theorizing in Sociological Research: A New Perspective, a New Departure?” Annual
Review of Sociology, 43(1):189-206.
• Abend, Gabriel. (2008). “The Meaning of ‘Theory’”. Sociological Theory, 26(2): 173-199.
• Healey, Kieran. (2017). “Fuck Nuance.” Sociological Theory, 35(2):118-127.

• (Optional) Swedberg, Richard. (2016). “Before theory comes theorizing or how to make social science more interesting.” The British Journal of
Sociology, 67:5-22.
• Rojas, Fabio. (2017). Theory for the Working Sociologist. Columbia University Press: New York.
• Abrutyn, Seth (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of Contemporary Sociological Theory. Springer: Switzerland.

2. Parsons, the ‘Invention’ of classical theory and the introduction of “structure” into social science
• Martin, John Levi. (2015). “On Theory in Sociology”, pp. 1-43 in Thinking Through Theory. W.W. Norton.
• Parsons, Talcott. (1938). “The role of ideas in social action.” American Sociological Review, 3(5):652-664
• Joas, Hans and Wolfgang Knobl. 2009. Chapter 2 (pp. 20-42) in Social Theory: Twenty Introductory Lectures.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Maryanski, Alexandra and Jonathan Turner. (1991). The offspring of functionalism: French and British structuralism.
Sociological Theory, 9(1):106-115.
• Porpora, Douglas V. (1989). “Four Concepts of Social Structure.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 19(2):195-
221.
• Manza, Jeff and Michael A. McCarthy. (2011). “The Neo-Marxist Legacy in American Sociology.” Annual Review of
Sociology 37: 155-183.

• (Optional): Camic, C. (1989). Structure after fifty years: the anatomy of a charter. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1):38-107.
• DiTomaso, N. (1982). "Sociological Reductionism" From Parsons to Althusser: Linking Action and Structure in Social Theory. American
Sociological Review, 47(1):14-28.
• Blau, P. M. (1974). “Presidential address: Parameters of social structure.” American Sociological Review, 39(5):615-635.
• Parsons, Talcott. (1935). “The place of ultimate values in sociological theory.” International Journal of Ethics, 45(3):282-316.
• Radclife-Brown, A. (1940). “On social structure.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 70: 1-12.

3
 Contemporary Theory – Hitlin, Fall 2018

3. Dissolving this consensus

• Tavory, Iddo. (2016). “Interactionism: Meaning and Self as Process.” Pp. 85-98 in Abrutyn, Seth (Ed.). Handbook of
Contemporary Sociological Theory. Springer: Switzerland.
• Rawls, Anne Warfield. (2015). “Interaction Order: The Making of Social Facts.” Pp. 227-247 in Lawler, Edward J.,
Shane R. Thye, and Jeongkoo Yoon (Eds.) Order on the Edge of Chaos: Social Psychology and the Problem of Social
Order. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Garfinkel, Howard. 1964. “Studies of the Routine Grounds of Everyday Interaction.” Social Problems 11(3):225-60.
• Garfinkel, Howard. 1988. “Evidence for Locally Produced, Naturally Accountable Phenomena of Order, Logic,
Reason, Meaning, Method, Etc., in and as of the Essential Quiddity of Immortal Ordinary Society, (I of IV): An
Announcement of Studies.” Sociological Theory 6(2): 103-109.
• Blumer, Herbert. 1977. Comment on Lewis’ ‘The Classic American Pragmatists as Forerunners to Symbolic
Interactionism.’ The Sociological Quarterly 18(2): 285-289.
• Diehl, David and Daniel McFarland. 2010. “Toward a Historical Sociology of Social Situations.” American Journal of
Sociology 115(6): 1713-1752.

4. Macro and Micro as concepts linking action and structures

• Joas, Hans and Wolfgang Knobl. (2009). “Giddens Theory of Structuration” (Chapter XII) pp. 281-308) in Social
Theory: Twenty Introductory Lectures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Giddens, Anthony. 1983. “Comments on the Theory of Structuration.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,
13(1): 75-80.
• Gross, Neil and Solon Simmons. (2002). “Intimacy as a Double-Edged Phenomenon? An Empirical Test of Giddens.”
Social Forces 81(2): 531-555.
• Joas, Hans and Wolfgang Knobl. (2009). “Habermas ‘Theory of Communicative Action” (Chapter X) pp. 222-248) in
Social Theory: Twenty Introductory Lectures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Martin, John Levi. (2001). “On the Limits of Sociological Theory.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 31(2):187-223.
• Lizardo, Omar. 2010. “Beyond the Antimonies of structure: Levi-Strauss, Giddens, Bourdieu, and Sewell.” Theory and
Society 39:651-688.
• Elder-Vass, Dave (2018). “Lifeworld and Systems in the Digital Economy.” European Journal of Social Theory 21(2):
227-244.

USEABLE CONTEMPORARY THEORY

5. Cultural Turn
• Swidler, Ann. (1986). “Culture in action: Symbols and strategies.” American Sociological Review, 51:273-286.
• Hays, Sharon. (1994). “Structure and agency and the sticky problem of culture.” Sociological Theory, 12(1):57-72.
• Swidler, Ann. (2001). Talk of love: How culture matters. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (Pp.160-213)
• Patterson, Orlando. (2014). “Making Sense of Culture.” Annual Review of Sociology 40:1-30.
• Lizardo, Omar. (2016). “Improving Cultural Analysis: Considering Personal Culture in its Declarative and
Nondeclarative Modes.” American Sociological Review 82(1):88-115.
• Miles, Andrew. (2014). “Addressing the Problem of Cultural Anchoring.” Social Psychology Quarterly 77(2):210-227.
• Onwuachi-Willig, Angela. (2016). “The Trauma of the Routine: Lessons on Cultural Trauma from the Emmett Till
Verdict.” Sociological Theory 34(4):335-357.

• (Optional) Emirbayer, Mustafa. (2004). The Alexander school of cultural sociology. Thesis Eleven, 79(1):5-15.
• Friedland, Robert. and Mohr, John. (2004). The cultural turn in American sociology. In Friedland, R. and Mohr, J. W., editors, Matters of culture:
Cultural sociology in practice, pages 1-69. Cambridge University Press., New York.
• Sewell, William. H. Jr. (1999). The concept(s) of culture. (pp. 35-61) in Bonnell, Victoria E. and Lynn Hunt (Eds.) Beyond the Cultural Turn.
Berkeley: University of California Press.

4
 Contemporary Theory – Hitlin, Fall 2018

6. Institutions and Institutionalization

• Lawrence, Thomas B. and Roy Suddaby (2006). “lnstitutions and institutional work.” In R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B.
Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.) Handbook of organization studies, 2nd Edition: 215-254. London: Sage.
• Hirsch, Paul M. (1997). “Sociology without Social Structure: Neoinstitutional Theory meets Brave New World.”
American Journal of Sociology, 102(6):1702-1723.
• Meyer, John W. and Brian Rowan. (1977). “Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony.”
American journal of Sociology, 83:340-363.
• Dimaggio, Paul. and Walter W. Powell. (1983). “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective
Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American Sociological Review 48(2): 147-160.
• Meyer, John W. 2010. “World Society, Institutional Theories, and the Actor.” Annual Review of Sociology 36:1-20.
• Abrutyn, Seth. (2016). “Institutional Spheres: the Macro-Structure and Culture of Social Life.” Pp. 207-228 in Abrutyn,
Seth (Ed.). Handbook of Contemporary Sociological Theory. Springer: Switzerland.

• (Optional) Meyer, John W., John Boli, George M. Thomas, and Francisco O. Ramirez. (1997). “World society and the nation-state.” American
Journal of Sociology, 103:144-181.
• Zucker, L. G. (1977). “The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence.” American Sociological Review, 42:726-743.

7. Network Approach: Structural Relationism

• Emirbayer, Mustafa. (1997). “Manifesto for a relational sociology.” American Journal of Sociology, 103(2):281-317.
• Granovetter, Mark. (1985). “Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness.” American Journal
of Sociology, 91(3):481-510.
• Erikson, Emily. (2013). “Formalist & Relationist Theory in Social Network Analysis.” Sociological Theory 31(3):219-42.
• Smith, Sandra. Susan. (2005). “’Don’t put my name on it’: Social Capital Activation and Job-Finding Assistance among
the Black Urban Poor.” American Journal of Sociology, 111(1): 1-57.
• Erikson, Emily. (2017). “Networks and Network Theory: Possible Directions for Unification.” Pp. 278-304 in Benezecry,
Claudio E., Monika Krause and Isaac Ariail Reed (Eds.) Social Theory Now. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
• Crossly, Nick. (2016). “Social Networks and Relational Sociology.” (pp. 167-183) in Abrutyn, Seth (Ed.). Handbook of
Contemporary Sociological Theory. Springer: Switzerland.
• Lizardo, Omar. 2009. “Formalism, Behavioral Realism and the Interdisciplinary Challenge in Sociological Theory. “
Journal for the Theory of Social behavior, 39(1): 39-79.

• (Optional) Marsden, P. and Laumann, E. (1984). “Mathematical ideas in social structural analysis.” The Journal of Mathematical Sociology,
10(3):271-294.
• Fararo, T. J. and Butts, C. T. (1999). “Advances in generative structuralism: structured agency and multilevel dynamics.” The Journal of
mathematical sociology, 24:1-65.

8. Network Approach: Culture, Narrative, Identity

• Fuhse, Jan A. (2009). “The meaning structure of social networks.” Sociological Theory, 27(1):51-73.
• Ikegami, Eiko. (2000). “A sociological theory of publics: identity and culture as emergent properties in networks.”
Social Research, 67(4):989-1029.
• Lizardo, Omar and Stephen Vaisey. 2010. “Can Cultural Worldviews Influence Network Composition?” Social Forces
88(4): 1-24
• Emirbayer, Mustafa and Jeff Goodwin. (1994). “Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency.” American
Journal of Sociology, 99(6):1411-53.
• Mische, Ann. (2011). “Relational sociology, culture and agency.” In Scott, J. and Carrington, P., editors, Sage
Handbook of Social Network Analysis. Sage, Newbury Park.
• Pachucki, Mark A. and Ronald L. Breiger. (2010). “Cultural holes: Beyond relationality in social networks and culture.”
Annual Review of Sociology, 36:205-24.
• Somers, Margaret. (1994). “The narrative constitution of identity: A relational and network approach.” Theory and
Society, 23(5):605-649.
5
 Contemporary Theory – Hitlin, Fall 2018

9. Rationality at the Micro and Macro levels

• Coleman, J. S. (1986). “Social theory, social research, and a theory of action.” American Journal of Sociology, 91:1309-
1335.
• Hechter, M. and Kanazawa, S. (1997). “Sociological rational choice theory.” Annual Review of Sociology, 23:191-214.
• Gould, R. V. (2003). “Why do networks matter? Rationalist and structuralist interpretations.” In Social movements
and networks: Relational approaches to collective action, pages 233-57. Oxford University Press, New York.
• Meyer, J. and Jepperson, R. (2000). “The actors of modern society: The cultural construction of social agency.”
Sociological Theory, 18(1):100-120.
• Ermakoff, Ivan. (2017). “On the Frontiers of Rational Choice.” Pp. 162-200 in Benezecry, Claudio E., Monika Krause
and Isaac Ariail Reed (Eds.) Social Theory Now. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
• Bruch, Elizabeth and Fred Feinberg. (2017). “Decision-Making Processes in Social Contexts.” Annual Review of
Sociology 43:207-227.

• (Optional) Goldthorpe, John H. (1998). “Rational action theory for sociology.” British Journal of Sociology, 49(2):167-192.

10. Agency, Meaning, Interaction

• Emirbayer, Mustafa and Ann Mische. (1998). “What is agency?” American Journal of Sociology, 103(4):962-1023
• Loyal, Steven and Barry Barnes. (2001). “Agency as a Red Herring in Social Theory.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences,
31(4):507-524.
• Eliasoph, Nina. And Paul Lichterman. (2003). “Culture in interaction.” American Journal of Sociology, 108(4):735-794.
• Mische, Ann. (2009). “Projects and Possibilities: Researching Futures in Action.” Sociological Forum, 24(3):694-704.
• Fine, Gary Allan. 2012. “Group Culture and the Interaction Order: Local Sociology on the Meso-Level.” Annual
Review of Sociology 38:159-79.
• Calarco, Jessica M. (2014). “Coached for the Classroom: Parents’ Cultural Transmission and Children’s Reproduction
of Educational Inequalities.” American Sociological Review, 79(5):1015-1037.
• O’Brien, John. (2015). “Individualism as a Discursive Strategy of Action: Autonomy, Agency, and Reflexivity among
Religious Americans.” Sociological Theory 33(2):173-199.

• (Optional) Smith, Christian. 2009. “The Personal Sources of Social Structures.” Pp. 318-383 in What is a Person? Chicago Press: Chicago.
• (Optional) Fine, Gary Alan. and Kleinman, Sheryl. (1983). “Network and meaning: An interactionist approach to structure.” Symbolic Interaction,
6(1):97-110.
• Collins, Randall. 2000. “Situational Stratification: A Micro-Macro Theory of Inequality.” Sociological Theory. 18(1): 17-43.

11. “Field” – different than ‘structure’ as ways to organize collectivities

• Kluttz, Daniel N. and Neil Fligstein. (2016). “Varieties of Sociological Field Theory.” Pp. 185-204 in in Abrutyn, Seth
(Ed.). Handbook of Contemporary Sociological Theory. Springer: Switzerland.
• Joas, Hans and Wolfgang Knobl. (2009). “Between Structuralism and Theory of Practice: The Cultural Sociology of
Pierre Bourdieu.” pp. 371-400 in Social Theory: Twenty Introductory Lectures. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
• Steinmetz, George. 2008. “The Colonial State as a Social Field: Ethnographic Capital and Native Policy in the German
Overseas Empire before 1914.” American Sociological Review 73(4): 589-612.
• Fligstein, Neil. and Doug McAdam. (2011). “Toward a general theory of strategic action fields.” Sociological Theory,
29(1):1-26.
• Martin, John Levi. 2003. “What is Field Theory?” American Journal of Sociology 109(1): 1-49.
• Go, Julian. 2008. “Global Fields and Imperial Forms: Field Theory and the British and American Empires.”
Sociological Theory 26(3): 201-229.
• Dromi, Shai M. (2016). “Soldiers of the Cross: Calvinism, Humanitarianism, and the Genesis of Social Fields.”
Sociological Theory, 34(3): 196-219.

• (Optional) Fligstein, N. (2001). “Social skill and the theory of fields.” Sociological theory, 19(2):105-12.
• Benson, R. (1999). “Field theory in comparative context: A new paradigm for media studies.” Theory and Society, 28:463-498.
6
 Contemporary Theory – Hitlin, Fall 2018

12. Practice and Embodiment (a move beyond Parsonian theory of action)

• Bourdieu, Pierre. (1973). “The three forms of theoretical knowledge.” Social Science Information, 12:53-80.
• Lizardo, Omar. (2010). “Pierre Bourdieu as a Post-cultural Theorist.” Cultural Sociology 5(1): 1-22.
• Swidler, Ann. (2001). “What anchors cultural practices.” In Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K., and Savigny, E. V., editors,
The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, pages 74-92. Routledge, New York.
• Reckwitz, Andreas. (2002). “Toward a Theory of Social Practices.” European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2):243-263.
• Winchester, Daniel. 2008. “Embodying the Faith: Religious Practice and the Making of a Muslim Moral Habitus.”
Social Forces 86(4):1753-1780.
• Ignatow, Gabriel. (2007). “Theories of embodied knowledge: New directions for cultural and cognitive sociology?”
Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 37(2):115-135.
• Knorr Cetina, Karen. (2009). “The Synthetic Situation: Interactionism for a Global World.” Symbolic Interaction 32(1):
61-87.
• (Optional) Lizardo, Omar. 2009. “Is a ‘Special Psychology’ of Practice Possible? From Values and Attitudes to Embodied Dispositions.” Theory &
Psychology 19(6): 713-727.

13. Neo-Pragmatist reconstruction of action theory

• Camic, Charles. (1998). “Reconstructing the theory of action.” Sociological Theory, 16(3):283-291.
• Joas, Hans. (1996). The Creativity of Action. University of Chicago Press, Chicago; Chapter 3 (Pp. 145-195).
• Gross, Neil. (2009). “A Pragmatist Theory of Social Mechanisms.” American Sociological Review, 74(3):358-379.
• Dalton, Benjamin. (2004). “Creativity, Habit, and the Social Products of Creative Action: Revising Joas, Incorporating
Bourdieu.” Sociological Theory, 22(4):603-622.
• Archer, Margaret S. 2010. “Routine, Reflexivity, and Realism.” Sociological Theory 28(3): 272-303.
• Gross, Neil and Zachary Hyde. (2017). “Norms and Mental Imagery.” Pp. 361-391 in Benezecry, Claudio E., Monika
Krause and Isaac Ariail Reed (Eds.) Social Theory Now. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
• Strand, Michael and Omar Lizardo. (2015). “Beyond World Images: Belief as Embodied Action in the World.”
Sociological Theory 33(1):44-70.
• Tavory, Iddo. (2018). “Between Situations: Anticipation, Rhythms, and the Theory of Interaction.” Sociological Theory
36(2):117-133.

14. Culture and Cognition

• Vaisey, Stephen. (2008). “Socrates, Skinner, and Aristotle: Three ways of thinking about culture in action.”
Sociological Forum, 23:603-613.
• Swidler, Ann. (2008). “Comment on Stephen Vaisey's `Socrates, Skinner, and Aristotle: Three ways of thinking about
culture in action'.” Sociological Forum, 23:614-618.
• Lizardo, Omar and Michael Strand. (2010). “Skills, toolkits, contexts and institutions: Clarifying the relationship
between different approaches to cognition in cultural sociology.” Poetics, 38(2):205-228
• Frye, Margaret. (2017). “Cultural Meanings and the Aggregation of Actions: The Case of Sex and Schooling in Malawi.”
American Sociological Review 82(5):945-976.
• Lizardo, Omar, Robert Mowry, Brandon Sepulvado, Dustin S. Stoltz, Marshall A. Taylor, Justin Van Ness, and Michael
Wood. (2016). “What are Dual Process Models? Implications for Cultural Analysis in Sociology.” Sociological Theory
34(4):287-310.
• Lizardo, Omar. (2014). “Beyond the Comtean Schema: The Sociology of Culture and Cognition versus Cognitive Social
Science.” Sociological Forum, 29(4): 983-989.
• Vaisey, Stephen and Lauren Valentino. (2018). “Culture and Choice: Toward Integrating Cultural Sociology with the
Judgment and Decision-Making Sciences.” Poetics 68:131-143.

• (Optional) Dimaggio, Paul. (1997). “Culture and cognition.” Annual Review of Sociology, 23:263-287.
• Reed, Isaac Ariail. (2017). “On the Very Idea of Cultural Sociology.” Pp. 18-41 in Benezecry, Claudio E., Monika Krause and Isaac Ariail Reed
(Eds.) Social Theory Now. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

7
 Contemporary Theory – Hitlin, Fall 2018

15. Bio-Sociality and Challenges to Theory

• Adkins, Daniel E. and Stephen Vaisey. (2009). “Toward a Unified Stratification Theory: Structure, Genome, and Status
across Human Societies.” Sociological Theory, 27(2):99-121.
• Hopcroft, Rosemary. (2009). “The Evolved Actor in Sociology.” Sociological Theory, 27(4):390-406.
• Meloni, Maurizio. 2014. “How Biology Became Social, and What it Means for Social Theory.” The Sociological
Review 62:593-614.
• Abend, Gabriel. (2018). “The Love of Neuroscience: A Sociological Account.” Sociological Theory 36(1): 88-116.
• Watts, Duncan J. 2014. “Common Sense and Sociological Explanations.” American Journal of Sociology 120(2):313-
351.
• Hill Collins, Patricia. (2015). “Intersectionality’s Definitional Dilemmas.” Annual Review of Sociology 41:1-20.
• Mears, Ashley. (2017). “Puzzling in Sociology: On Doing and Undoing Theoretical Puzzles.” Sociological Theory 35(2):
138-146.
• Besbris, Max and Shamus Khan. (2017). “Less Theory. More Description.” Sociological Theory 35(2): 147-153.

• (Optional) Robinson, Zandria Felice. (2016). “Intersectionality.” Pp. 477-499 in Abrutyn, Seth (Ed.). Handbook of Contemporary Sociological
Theory. Springer: Switzerland.
• Perrin, Andrew J. and Katherine McFarland. 2011. “Social Theory and Public Opinion.” Annual Review of Sociology 37: 87-107.
• Choo, Hae Yeon. and Myra Marx Ferree. (2010). “Practicing Intersectionality in Sociological Research: A Critical Analysis of Inclusions,
Interactions, and Institutions in the Study of Inequalities.” Sociological Theory, 28(2): 129-149.
• Jepperson, Ronald. and John.W. Meyer. (2011). “Multiple Levels of Analysis and the Limitations of Methodological Individualisms.” Sociological
Theory, 29(1): 54-73.
• Freese, Jeremy. (2008). “Genetics and the social science explanation of individual outcomes.” American Journal of Sociology, 114(1):1-35.
• Cerulo, Karen. A. (2010). “Mining the intersections of cognitive sociology and neuroscience.” Poetics, 38(2):115-132.

8
 Contemporary Theory – Hitlin, Fall 2018

Addendum - The Department of Sociology – Fall 2018

Department Office: W140 Seashore Hall Department Phone: 319-335-2502

Department Director (DEO): Jennifer Glanville DEO Office: W125 SSH
DEO e-mail: jennifer-glanville@uiowa.edu DEO Phone: 319-335-2498

Administrative Home
The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences is the administrative home of this course and governs its add/drop deadlines, the second-grade-
only option, and other policies. These policies vary by college http://clas.uiowa.edu/students/handbook.

Electronic Communication
Students are responsible for official correspondences sent to their UI email address (uiowa.edu) and must use this address for all
communication within UI (Operations Manual, III.15.2).

Accommodations for Disabilities

UI is committed to an educational experience that is accessible to all students. A student may request academic accommodations for a
disability (such as mental health, attention, learning, vision, and physical or health-related condition) by registering with Student
Disability Services (SDS). The student should then discuss accommodations with the course instructor
(http://sds.studentlife.uiowa.edu/).

Nondiscrimination in the Classroom

UI is committed to making the classroom a respectful and inclusive space for all people irrespective of their gender, sexual, racial,
religious or other identities. Toward this goal, students are invited to optionally share their preferred names and pronouns with their
instructors and classmates. The University of Iowa prohibits discrimination and harassment against individuals on the basis of race,
class, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, and other identity categories set forth in the University’s Human Rights policy. For
more information, contact the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity at diversity@uiowa.edu or diversity.uiowa.edu.

Academic Integrity
All undergraduates enrolled in courses offered by CLAS have, in essence, agreed to the College's Code of Academic Honesty.
Misconduct is reported to the College, resulting in suspension or other sanctions, with sanctions communicated with the student through
the UI email address.

CLAS Final Examination Policies

The final examination schedule for each semester is announced around the fifth week of classes; students are responsible for knowing
the date, time, and place of a final exam. Students should not make travel plans until knowing this final exam information. No exams of
any kind are allowed the week before finals. (https://clas.uiowa.edu/faculty/teaching-policies-resources-examination-policies)

Making a Complaint
Students with a complaint should first visit with the instructor or course supervisor and then with the departmental executive officer
(DEO), also known as the Chair. Students may then bring the concern to CLAS (https://clas.uiowa.edu/students/handbook/student-
rights-responsibilities).

Understanding Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment subverts the mission of the University and threatens the well-being of students, faculty, and staff. All members of the
UI community must uphold the UI mission and contribute to a safe environment that enhances learning. Incidents of sexual harassment
must be reported immediately. For assistance, definitions, and the full University policy, see https://osmrc.uiowa.edu/.

Absence Policy
Please visit the Sociology Department webpage for the specific Absence Policy Addendum for our department.