Qualitative data are analyzed in an attempt to further understand the costs and benefits of utilizing nonoverlapping shift work as a strategy for balancing and weaving work and family. In addition to saving on child care costs, this strategy appeals to many families with young children because it enables the parents to provide all of the child care themselves. Though many families cite difficulties with scheduling, most say that the negative effects are tolerable because this strategy allows them to provide for their children on their own. However, two negative consequences of engaging in nonoverlapping shift work: the lack of marital couple time and the effects of “solo parenting,” are also examined. Citing a need for additional research on this topic, the authors conclude with suggestions for the nature and type of research.

The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) reforms correctional institutions via administrative mechanisms and represents a major shift in both correctional policy and workplace practice. Using qualitative data within six prisons in one U.S. state, finding suggest that staff view PREA as an administrative, safety, and cultural burden, which creates a misalignment of institutional logics. Rather than seeing themselves as central to eliminating prison sexual misconduct/violence, staff see PREA as interfering with their “real” custody/control work. This misalignment has major implications for the productive implementation and use of PREA and the broader shift to administrative rather than legal processes for institutional reform.

No abstract

Race, Wrongful Conviction & Exoneration is a sociological examination of the "sociology of punishment" that is a major problem in criminological research but almost entirely ignored by sociologists who study and research issues related to crime. We argue that although legal scholars have done the bulk of research on exoneration they have not addressed the relationship of race to exoneration. This paper examines the risk that race produces for wrongful conviction and ultimately for exoneration. Additionally, we note the importance of the racial composition of the crime -African American men accused of raping White women -on wrongful convictions and exonerations.

Since the murder of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, and the racial justice protests that followed, many institutions, including the academy, pledged their support for policies and practices that combat on-going racial injustice. Social justice and anti-racism initiatives abound on college campuses, including programming, hosting speakers, and proposing required ‘diversity’ classes for all students. For all this rhetoric, college and university administrators have remained silent when it comes to diversity, equity, and inclusion practices as they relate to research. And yet, extant research documents the ways in which racial and gender biases have consistently shaped every level of research from the development of the research question, to the diversity (or not) of the sample, the availability of funding, and the probability of publishing. In this paper we focus on one aspect of the research process: the assembling (or not) of diverse research teams. We explore the benefits that diversity in research teams brings to the integrity of the data as well as the obstacles to both assembling a diverse research team and managing it successfully. Specifically, this paper focuses on the myriad ways in which diversity in research teams is treated as a set of boxes to check, rather than an epistemology that underscores positionality and power. We present a series of case examples that highlight the ways in which diversity, equity, and inclusion are successfully and unsuccessfully achieved in research teams, both in terms of outcomes and experiences. These case examples focus specifically on power relations along all forms of diversity, including race and gender as well as rank. The case examples also serve to unpack the ways in which research teams can rely on positionality as a tool for addressing power at three distinct levels: in conducting social science research generally, between the researcher and the “researched,” and among the research team itself.