Search results

The differences of urban and rural as social spaces, their functions in society, as well as their mutual dependence have been a subject of scientific thinking since the antique times. This chapter revisits the topic from a sociological point of view, studying the evolution of the functions of rural in relation to urban, and how this evolution was reflected in the basic streams of rural research. The text ends by discussing rural research in relation to present social, economic and ecological tendencies. It is argued that the post-productionist phase of rural studies is losing its plausibility, because of the return of material functions for the countryside, during such recent trends as the global food crises and the greenhouse effect. This chapter discusses the prognosis made by the three founding fathers of rural sociology, Pitirim Sorokin, Carle C. Zimmerman and Charles J. Galpin (1932) that the society is melting together into a ‘rurban’ society, and takes distance from this prognosis for several reasons, for example because ecological tendencies seem to renew rather than diminish the differences between rural and urban. It is further argued that ecosystems have increasing impacts on societies in the form of adapted ‘greenhouse rationalism’. Such changes place rural research in a crossroads, posing the question whether to pay attention to increasingly important impacts of ecosystems on society, or not.

This chapter describes how the technologies of big data might apply to rural contexts. It considers the relative advantages and disadvantages of such ‘new’ innovations.

It uses two case studies, one of online community specialist groups linked to rural activities and a second from a policy shift relating to firearm legislation in the English context.

The chapter suggests that digital data in the forms discussed here can be both benign and underutilised in its potential. In relation to the management of datasets holding information on firearm owners, these need careful reflection regarding their establishment, access and general use.

The chapter provides insight into the rural context and makes a case that such locales are not immune from the influence of the dataverse. The appearance of ‘big data’ here is not without political implications. The case of UK firearm legislation reform demonstrates the implications of policy falling short of its potential and how a social science analysis can unpack the operation of power as well as position the debate more broadly.

After briefly covering Bill Freudenburg’s early years, this essay reviews his major scholarly contributions and professional accomplishments while a faculty member at Washington State University, the University of Wisconsin, and the University of California-Santa Barbara. Bill’s unique strengths – especially his keen sociological imagination – and crucial conceptual, theoretical and empirical contributions are highlighted, as well as his commitment to providing valuable mentoring for students and colleagues. The enduring importance of his work is ensured by the continuing application and extension of his ideas by other scholars.

Purpose – To discuss the rural–urban dichotomy and its far-reaching implications, first and foremost from a rural sociological point of view, and at the same time, to structure the volume and present the individual chapters.

Methodology/approach – Literature review and analysis of scientific discourse.

Findings – The rural–urban dichotomy has been very persistent in demographic and other kinds of rural and urban research despite intense discussions about its shortcomings in nearly half a century. However, there are mounting arguments for alternative conceptions of rural–urban relations, some of which are found in the chapters in this volume.

Originality/value of chapter – This chapter presents some new ideas about the rural–urban dichotomy, and alternative, more realistic conceptions of rural–urban relations, at the same time as it gives an introduction to the volume.

As academic fields increasingly turn to social action and seek partnerships with groups beyond the academy, so too are we looking for guidance. Rural sociology developed out of applying research to social action and within this field was a unique unit. The purpose of this paper is to present a history of the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life, which was part of the US Department of Agriculture from 1919 to 1953 was a pioneer in applying sociological knowledge to policy and action.

This article looks back to the history of this unit to examine the lessons to be learned.

Placing these lessons within the context of contemporary issues underscores the continuing relevance of this historical experience.

The issues surrounding engaging external partners are both particularistic and universal. However, without an historical sense of the challenges, each time we encounter them, the challenges feel new and somehow unique. This article looks back to history to examine lessons that can be learned. Placing these lessons within the context of contemporary issues underscores relevance of the historical experience from events and people that occurred several generations of professionals ago.

Young people are widely known to have poorer outcomes, social status and political representation than older adults. These disadvantages, which have come to be largely normalized in the contemporary context, can be further compounded by other factors, however, and are particularly amplified by coming from a lower social class background. An additional challenge for young people is associated with place, with youth who live in more remote and less urban areas at a higher risk of being socially excluded (Alston & Kent, 2009; Shucksmith, 2004) and/or to face complex and multiple barriers to employment and education than their urban-dwelling peers (Cartmel & Furlong, 2000). Drawing upon interviews and focus groups in a qualitative project with 16 young people and five practitioners, and using Nancy Fraser’s tripartite theory of social justice, this paper highlights the various and interlocking disadvantages experienced by working-class young people moving into and through adulthood in Clackmannanshire, mainland Scotland’s smallest council area.

A Community Studies tradition based on the theory and methods of a functionalist social anthropology has since the 1930's been the dominant one in both characterising the social structure of rural Ireland and in theorising social change in Ireland in general. This social anthropological method, while of possible utility in the study of primitive cultures and peoples, confronts certain difficulties when attempts are made to employ pure ethnographic analysis as a method for studying social change in either urban or rural settings in industrialising societies like Ireland. Despite attempts to do so, the Community Studies tradition has been unable to establish a coherent method for the study of local social systems and their structural relations of dependency on wider social, economic and political forces at play in capitalist social formations. Instead, it has fallen on an isolationist approach to studying local areas. In Irish sociology this abstractionism is inevitably undergirded by some variant of the modernisation thesis in which ‘traditional life and culture’ is progressively ‘threatened’ by the onslaught of urban‐industrial modernity.

This chapter introduces the theoretical and political-practical underpinnings of this volume. It also gives an outline of the editorial organisation of the book and the various chapters. The chapter examines the literature on rural-urban relations, city-near rural areas and current challenges and problems identified in these areas. We identify huge sustainability and resilience problems in current rural-urban relations and metropolitan ruralities. We also relate to writings about a transition from the current carbon-based economy and society to a post-carbon society with reduced ecological footprints. The contributions in this volume are based on the current situation and provide ideas to develop the debate on rural-urban relations, metropolitan ruralities and post-carbon transition.

Seema Arora-Jonsson is assistant professor at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Her interests are in development theories and practice, natural resource management and feminist participatory methodologies. She is currently engaged in writing a chapter for a book, Doing Science Together: The Politics and Practices of Participatory Research (with Louise Fortmann as editor) in which she as the academic researcher as well as the women in the village that she worked with, reflect on the research process and its contribution to science and the local community. In a project called At Home and Abroad: Gender and Participation in Swedish Environmental Policy Making, she is studying policy making and practice on gender and participation in environmental projects. She has recently started work on a project called Gender and Power in the Swedish Countryside: Women's Agency in Development Projects.