Communication deviance (CD) reflects features of the content or manner of a person's speech that may confuse the listener and inhibit the establishment of a shared focus of attention. The construct was developed in the context of the study of familial risks for psychosis based on hypotheses regarding its effects during childhood. It is not known whether parental CD is associated with nonverbal parental behaviors that may be important in early development. This study explored the association between CD in a cohort of mothers (n = 287) at 32 weeks gestation and maternal sensitivity with infants at 29 weeks in a standard play procedure. Maternal CD predicted lower overall maternal sensitivity (B = –.385; p < .001), and the effect was somewhat greater for sensitivity to infant distress (B = –.514; p < .001) than for sensitivity to nondistress (B = –.311; p < .01). After controlling for maternal age, IQ and depression, and for socioeconomic deprivation, the associations with overall sensitivity and sensitivity to distress remained significant. The findings provide new pointers to intergenerational transmission of vulnerability involving processes implicated in both verbal and nonverbal parental behaviors.

This article takes a processualist position to identify the current forces conducive to rapid change in the social sciences, of which the most important is the divergence between their empirical and normative dimensions. It argues that this gap between the many and various empirical ontologies we typically use and the much more restricted normative ontology on which we base our moral judgments is problematic. In fact, the majority of social science depends on a “normative contractarianism.” While this ontology is the most widely used basis for normative judgments in the social sciences, it is not really effective when it comes to capturing the normative problems raised by the particularity and historicity of the social process, nor the astonishing diversity of values in the world. The article closes with a call to establish a truly processual foundation for our analysis of the social world, which must move away from contractualism and imagine new ways of founding the human normative project.

This paper examines the appropriation of French sociologists by US sociologists over the last four decades. Taking cues from scientometrics and from developments in the sociology of reception, it proposes a blueprint for the study of reception in times of mass digital data. Through this approach, the paper reveals two salient traits. First, out of the 200 authors of the sample, a small minority received considerable attention, while the others are virtually invisible. Second, when cited in the US, French authors are mobilized almost only as social theorists. The article then accounts for this peculiar reception by considering three levels: the intellectual structures of both fields, the local logics at play in the receiving field, and the “multiple lives” of a cited author.

Ce texte prend appui sur la tradition processualiste afin d'identifier les facteurs susceptibles de produire rapidement un changement dans les sciences sociales. Le plus important est le décalage qui existe entre les dimensions empirique et normative des sciences sociales. L'article défend l'idée qu'un tel décalage entre la diversité des ontologies empiriques à notre disposition et l'éventail plus réduit des ontologies normatives sur lesquelles nous nous appuyons est problématique. De fait, la plupart des sciences sociales ont recours à un « contractualisme normatif ». Ontologie normative la plus courante dans les sciences sociales, ce dernier n'est cependant pas en mesure d'appréhender correctement les problèmes normatifs soulevés par les notions de « particularité », d'« historicité » et de « diversité des valeurs ». Pour conclure, ce texte appelle de ses voeux une analyse normative du monde social qui se démarque du contractualisme et pose les jalons d'une approche proprement processualiste.

This article examines whether published keyword indexes to 22 British poets had any measurable effect on scholarly production related to those poets, mainly using quantitative output measures, since these are all that is available. It also draws on archival information about the individual concordances and their origins. The article tests whether concordances facilitated scholarship, or were a by-product/correlative of scholarship, or were unrelated to scholarship. The preponderance of the evidence leans toward the by-product hypothesis. More important, given the centrality of keyword indexing today, the evidence is mostly inconsistent with the facilitation argument. It is most likely that concordances emerged as a by-product and adjunct to scholarship and that their main use was by undergraduates, amateurs, and others below the elite level. Implications for the present are briefly discussed.

Carcinomatous meningitis is defined as leptomeningeal infiltration by malignant cells. A case of carcinomatous meningitis, originally diagnosed as viral meningitis, is presented here to highlight the importance of maintaining a broad differential diagnosis in patients with evidence of meningeal irritation. Clinical and laboratory clues that suggest a diagnosis of carcinomatous meningitis in a patient with meningeal irritation include the presence and type of underlying malignancy (more common with breast cancer, lung cancer, and melanoma), absence of fever, presence of radicular pain, evidence of both cranial and spinal involvement, consistent cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) findings (increased opening pressure, elevated protein concentration, decreased glucose, increased white cell count), and supportive neuroimaging. Diagnosis is based on positive CSF cytology results, which may require multiple lumbar puncture procedures to obtain. For patients with a known primary malignancy who present to the emergency department with symptoms and/or signs of meningeal irritation, carcinomatous meningitis should be included in the differential diagnosis.

This article examines the public sphere in early-twentieth-century America via a study of Charles Richmond Henderson, Chicago reformer and sociology professor. It discusses Henderson’s broad visibility, from religious and university venues, through the club and voluntary association world, and into the professions and government. It examines the relations between this archipelago of reform venues and the intimate sphere of family and religion as well as the separation of the world of Protestant reform from both the Catholic and the immigrant publics. Finally, it examines Henderson’s own experience of his public role, showing how his religious understanding yoked objectivity and advocacy into a single concept of reform knowledge-driven reform.

Twenty years ago the publication of Toward a Social Report by the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare was hailed as a major forward step in developing indicators of conditions in society into a national system of social accounting of relevance to public policy. The resulting social indicators movement quickly mobilized able social scientists to produce a variety of indicators monitoring trends in their society, and internationally. National governments too began to sponsor new types of social reports. The years since have seen an apparent decline in the momentum of the social indicators movement. Hence, to evaluate developments, the Journal of Public Policy invited a number of distinguished pioneers in the movement in Europe and America to give their individual assessment of what has happened to social indicators.

Currently, the heterogeneity in the developmental trajectories of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) is poorly understood. Preschool children with ASD participating in a longitudinal study received a battery of neurocognitive tasks that measured the learning of reward associations (Lrn-Rew), spatial working memory (SpatWM), and imitation from memory and novelty preference (Mem/Nov), as well as a measure of nonverbal problem-solving ability (NVDQ). Growth curve analyses via HLM were used to predict the variability in growth rates between age 4 to age 6.5 in Vineland Socialization and Communication scores. Individual differences in both Lrn-Rew and Mem/Nov were significantly related to Socialization and Communication growth rates above and beyond NVDQ, whereas SpatWM was not. Thus, specific aspects of neurocognitive functioning appear to be important predictors of developmental variability during the preschool years in children with ASD. We speculate that these findings support the combined role of ventromedial prefrontal and medial temporal lobe systems in the early pathogenesis of ASD and may be useful in predicting developmental trajectory. The benefits and challenges of assessing specific neurocognitive functions in children with autism is discussed with regard to general cognitive/developmental ability and the behavioral requirements of most assessment settings. (JINS, 2008, 14, 956–966.)

We develop an empirically based conception of international legalization to show how law and politics are intertwined across a wide range of institutional forms and to frame the analytic and empirical articles that follow in this volume. International legalization is a form of institutionalization characterized by three dimensions: obligation, precision, and delegation. Obligation means that states are legally bound by rules or commitments and therefore subject to the general rules and procedures of international law. Precision means that the rules are definite, unambiguously defining the conduct they require, authorize, or proscribe. Delegation grants authority to third parties for the implementation of rules, including their interpretation and application, dispute settlement, and (possibly) further rule making. These dimensions are conceptually independent, and each is a matter of degree and gradation. Their various combinations produce a remarkable variety of international legalization. We illustrate a continuum ranging from “hard” legalization (characteristically associated with domestic legal systems) through various forms of “soft” legalization to situations where law is largely absent. Most international legalization lies between the extremes, where actors combine and invoke varying degrees of obligation, precision, and delegation to create subtle blends of politics and law.

When one is asked to speak on the past, present, and future of social science history, one is less overwhelmed by the size of the task than confused by its indexicality. Whose definition of social science history? Which past? Or, put another way, whose past? Indeed, which and whose present? Moreover, should the task be taken as one of description, prescription, or analysis? Many of us might agree on, say, a descriptive analysis of the past of the Social Science History Association. But about the past of social science history as a general rather than purely associational phenomenon, we might differ considerably. The problem of description versus prescription only increases this obscurity.

Students of the welfare state have long speculated about the sequence in which welfare programs were adopted. Worker’s compensation, for example, has generally been adopted early by the various countries, while family allowances have come later. The order of these programs is important both for its inherent interest and for its bearing on theories of the welfare state.

One might have predicted that “as sociology meets history” (Tilly 1981), there would arise a demand for synthesis, for a history-as-social-science that would combine the best of both disciplines. A few voices, chief among them the late Philip Abrams (1982), issued that call. But the synthesis has not arrived. Today the relation between history and sociology is that of parents from differing backgrounds whose adolescent children have contracted a friendship at school. There is a pleasant but empty cordiality between the elders. Although the adolescents have an acrimonious rivalry, they close ranks against parental orthodoxies of either sort. One hopes that the young people will cooperatively transform the social attitudes of their parents, but unthinking loyalties ultimately prevent this transformation. So the synthesis of history and sociology, or more broadly of history and social science, has not arrived. Today, the most synthetic call we hear is for each (sub)discipline to keep the other honest (e.g., Roy 1987b).

This paper sketches a new theoretical approach to the study of professions and uses that approach to analyze differences that have emerged between the American and English legal professions since the late nineteenth century. Earlier studies have generally emphasized professional structure and organization while ignoring work and its control. I argue that control of work is central to professional development. Since work is central and since professions compete for it, interprofessional competition is the determining fact in the history of professions. This paper analyzes the work available to the legal profession, the numbers and types of legal personnel available to do that work, and the various competitors contesting it. Studying in detail complaints of unqualified practice in England (1870–1940) and two American states (1910–50), I locate the types of contested work and the competitors involved, using these to explain important aspects of the two legal prof essions today. Throughout, a variety of theoretical concepts are developed and applied to the particular case. One striking discovery is the contrast in competitors; American lawyers' chief competitors were corporations, while British lawyers' chief competitor was the state. I close by evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the particular methodology here used—the study of conflicts—and suggest alternative methods using the same theoretical framework.