MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2084383009 · doi:10.1111/j.1468-4446.2005.00080_5.x

Handbook of the Sociology of Religion

2005· article· en· W2084383009 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueBritish Journal of Sociology · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueReligion and Society Interactions
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSecularizationSociologySociology of religionPluralism (philosophy)Field (mathematics)Social scienceEpistemologyPolitical scienceLawPhilosophy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Dillon, Michele (ed.) Handbook of the Sociology of Religion Cambridge : Cambridge University Press 2003 481 pp. £65.00 (hardback) Students and scholars looking for an overview of the state of the field of the sociology of religion in America today will be well served by Dillon's Handbook, which covers the sub-discipline's main theoretical, methodological, and empirical issues through a collection of balanced, well-written and well-researched chapters by leading scholars of the field in the USA, with token contributions from Israel, Britain, and Canada. Indeed, the book's main weakness is its overly American focus. Part One, ‘Religion as a Field of Sociological Knowledge’, covers the main theoretical issues in the historical development of the sociology of religion as an academic discipline. Especially relevant is Peter Beyer's essay (Ch. 4), which addresses how globalization forces us to reconsider definitions of religion, and proposes a new typology of social forms of religion. Also, Grace Davies’ contribution (Ch. 5) surveys the historical development of the discipline, and offers a useful summary of the debate between the two paradigms of secularization and rational choice theory, arguing that the former is both a product of, and more consistent with to, the European situation, while rational choice theory reflects an American religious landscape which has always been characterized by pluralism and competition between groups. Contributions to Part Two, ‘Religion and Social Change’, include a concise exposition of the religious economy model by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark; an argument by Philip S. Gorski for taking a deeper historical perspective to overcome the limitations of the secularization hypothesis; and a critical review of the literature on forms of American religious organization from 1930 to 2001, by Patricia M. Y. Chang. In the final essay of this section, Wade Clark Roof proposes an analytic scheme for understanding the relationship between ‘religion’ and ‘spirituality’ and its sociological implications. Parts Three to Six provide extensive coverage of ‘Religion and the Life Course’, ‘Religion and Social Identity’, ‘Religion, Political Behavior, and Public Culture’, and ‘Religion and Socioeconomic Inequality’. Most noteworthy in my opinion is a piece by Fred Kniss on ‘Mapping the Moral Order’, which attempts to move beyond bi-polar conceptions of the American cultural and religious scene (religious liberalism vs conservatism, the ‘culture wars’) by proposing a quadrant formed by crossing two axes based on moral authority and moral project, onto which different religious groups and tendencies can be mapped. This model facilitates the comparison of the social and individual orientations of different groups. My main criticism of the book is its almost parochial focus on the USA. While such an editorial choice is defensible in the name of intellectual and empirical coherence, I wonder if a collection of essays almost exclusively dedicated to, say, India, could ever be published under the broad title Handbook of the Sociology of Religion. Dillon's book is a classic example of a persistent anomaly in the sociology of religion (with the notable exceptions of Durkheim and Weber, and a few others), as in other branches of the social sciences, where studies of non-Western societies are relegated to the marginal status of Area Studies or anthropology, while the normative ‘disciplinary’ work is done primarily by specialists of a single Western society. Beyond my quibbling over the title, I wonder if it is even possible to focus on a single country in today's world of global religious networks and organizations, in which, since the Bush, Jnr presidency and 9–11, religion has become central to the geopolitical reconfiguration of world order and conflict. The growing influence of religion in many parts of the world, and its increasing importance as a factor in local, national, and international politics, has underlined the potential relevance of the sociology of religion for understanding the changes of contemporary global society. But only by moving beyond a localized focus on the American (or European) case will the sub-discipline be able to respond to this challenge. In that sense, then, Dillon's Handbook is both a distillation of the considerable past achievements of the American sociology of religion, but also a reminder of the work that remains to be done for it to become fully relevant to understanding the globalized society of today.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,143
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,953

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,003
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,316
Écart entre enseignants0,301 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle