1980
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-16431-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Social Stratification and Occupations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
98
0
5

Year Published

1989
1989
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 216 publications
(107 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
4
98
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…3 This component score reflects the multidimensional nature of network resources. Following the British study of Li (2008), we used the Cambridge Social Interaction and Stratification Scale (Stewart et al, 1980) to assign occupational status scores to occupations. Status scores ranged from 4.14 (factory worker) to 84.75 (university/college lecturer).…”
Section: Individual Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3 This component score reflects the multidimensional nature of network resources. Following the British study of Li (2008), we used the Cambridge Social Interaction and Stratification Scale (Stewart et al, 1980) to assign occupational status scores to occupations. Status scores ranged from 4.14 (factory worker) to 84.75 (university/college lecturer).…”
Section: Individual Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Education Goldthorpe 1987) and CAMSIS (see Stewart et al 1980). We are aware that established conceptions of social stratification and social class analysis have recently drawn sharp criticism in mainstream sociology (Bergman et al 2002).…”
Section: Logistic Regression Coefficients (With Comparison Intervals)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To translate occupational categories into a status score, we used HISCAM, a stratification scale (Lambert et al 2013) that uses the same technique as CAMSIS scales do for contemporary societies (Stewart, Prandy, and Blackburn 1980). The scale ranges theoretically from 1 to 99, but we observe 10.6 (domestic servant) to 99 (e.g., lawyer) (see Table 1 for descriptives on all variables).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%