Dr. William Marsiglio Course Description This seminar will examine contemporary reproductive issues within the context of U.S. society. Much of the analysis will employ a gender lens. The principle topics to be covered include: the social construction of reproductive values, norms, beliefs, attitudes, and practices; contraception; life course issues and reproduction (e.g., teenage pregnancy, delayed childbearing); abortion; alternative pathways to parenthood including surrogacy, adoption, and assisted reproductive strategies; infertility; the social implications of reproductive technologies, and the sociopolitical context and social control of reproduction (Who should be allowed to procreate? Should gays and lesbians be allowed to have children? Should prisoners have fertility rights? Should the government fund abortion or assisted reproductive procedures?). Lectures, readings, and discussions will focus on these issues from both a macro and micro perspective. In other words, we will examine how culture and social structures shape the reproductive realm and we will consider the social psychological aspects of how individuals feel, think, and act in terms of specific reproductive choices. By studying the interrelationship between aspects of the larger society and people’s personal reproductive experiences from a sociological perspective, this course will examine linkages between society and the individual within a fundamental sphere of social life. The course will also stress the interdisciplinary nature of social policy issues related to reproduction. Several of the more important foci of this course will be:
Reading Assigments The following BOOK is available at Goernings Book Store (GOERNINGS@GNV.FDT.NET, 372-3975). It is located at 1717 NW 1st Ave. behind University Ave. I’ve used this book in the past, so some used copies should be available. Marsiglio, William and Hutchinson, Sally (2002). Sex, Men, and Babies: Stories of Awareness and Responsibility. New York: New York University Press. In addition, a collection of articles and chapters can be purchased through Custom Copies (pick up materials at University Book and Supply Store, 1227 West University Avenue, next to Leo’s Pizza). Student Responsibilities and Grading In Brief:
Standard Grading Scale:
Discussion Leader (15 %) Depending on the final class size, you will be responsible as part of a small group (probably 2 students) for either 2 or 3 classroom discussions during the course of the semester. Part of this assignment will be to review one article for each discussion that is not included in the assigned reading. When it is your turn to be a discussion leader, I expect that you will spend sufficient time organizing your in-class presentation with the other members in your group. Group members should participate equally in the oral presentation. You should do several things to prepare for your assigned weeks: 1. Provide an oral summary and critical analysis of the assigned reading material. Your summary should be thorough but succinct. You should prepare and distribute a brief summary of your comments to everyone in the seminar in the form of a BRIEF outline. This outline should be typed. The questions I’ve listed below should help you organize some of your thoughts about the quality of each article, chapter, and book, and their contribution to the literature. For theoretically oriented papers a) Has the article generated new concepts or connections between concepts. Has it strengthened support for previously suggested linkages among theoretical concepts? Has it shown that previously suggested linkages may be inappropriate? Has it strengthened our ability to measure theoretical concepts or provided evidence to suggest that previously employed measures may be inappropriate? Does it help explain why previously established relationships between concepts occur? b) For review articles, social policy/program pieces, and general commentaries: Does the publication provide a more complete review or a clearer explanation of findings relevant to a particular area? Does it go beyond categorizing and reciting what has already been done to suggest further implications which should be investigated or weaknesses in past research which should be corrected? Has the author(s) raised important questions? Does the work provide unique ways of viewing key controversies in the field? c) For empirical studies: Does the study focus on an important question or set of questions? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the study’s research design? What are the major conclusions? What is the quality of the measures that are used? What new questions does it raise? d) For books: Does the author(s) have a clear thesis? What is it and how does it advance our understanding of the relevant issues? What are the major strengths and weaknesses? Can you speak to how the book addresses possible gaps in the literature? How does it complement other writings in the area? What are some of the sociopolitical issues that shape the context within which the book was written? Does it suggest controversial issues that need to be addressed? In what ways does it lay the groundwork for future theorizing, research, and social policies and related initiatives? 2. Develop 3-4 thought provoking questions for the class to discuss based on the readings for the week. You must provide the other students in the class and me with a copy of these questions by Monday at 3:00 p.m. prior to our Tuesday meeting. Please delivery a hardcopy to my office and email a copy to me as well as your classmates. Having these questions in hand a day in advance is ESSENTIAL and should improve the quality of the class discussions as well (Please Plan Ahead!). 3. Each group is expected to find and provide me with one copy (per group) of a recent journal article or book chapter published since 1995 that is clearly relevant to the general topic for the week. If you have doubts, please ask me. The group should incorporate this material into the oral presentation, keeping in mind that the other class participants are unlikely to be familiar with this new material. The group’s task, then, is to briefly summarize this new material and comment on how it informs the discussions for the week. In what ways does it raise new questions, provide additional evidence that either supports or refutes particular points made in the readings, or extend our thinking about a particular issue directly related to the week’s topics. Overall Class Participation (10 %) I expect you to come prepared to all classes including those in which you are not the discussion leader. This means that you should read all of the material and think about the discussion questions that will be distributed the day before each seminar. From my perspective, the quality of your comments and questions is as important or more so than the number of times you speak. Purpose: By assigning points to students’ overall participation in this seminar, I hope to increase the effort students put into their reading assignments when they are not discussion leaders. I also want to ensure that everyone recognizes the value of being involved in an interactive type of seminar. We will all learn more from each other if we come prepared and are eager to share our thoughts. Personal Essay (15 %) You will need to prepare an analytic, creative essay that demonstrates your ability to think sociologically about your personal life experiences (thoughts, feelings, and actions) or those close to you that are relevant to the reproductive realm. For this assignment you will need to choose a reproductive issue (or perhaps a set of interrelated issues) and develop an essay that applies perspectives and concepts learned in this course to your individual example. Your approach should emphasize the gendered dimensions to the reproductive realm. Experiences with pregnancies and the birthing process, deliberations about having kids, concerns about pregnancy scares, abortion or adoption experiences, knowledge of friends or family members who have used an assisted reproductive technique, and donating sperm or eggs are just some of the topics you might address. Remember that this course deals primarily with reproductive issues, not parenting, so it is not appropriate to focus on the hands-on aspects or moral labor associated with parenting. Your papers should be between 4 and 4 ½ pages in length. Use 1″ top/bottom and side margins and a 12 inch font. I will collect, read, and return your papers in a confidential manner. I will evaluate your papers on the following criteria: 1. Degree and quality of analytic effort (most important)
2. Organizational structure and writing style
3. Creativity of thought and presentation
4. Quality of professional presentation
Purpose: This assignment is designed to force you to think about how this course, and at least some of the issues we address, are related to your lived experience. By applying a sociological or social psychological perspective to your own thoughts, feelings, and actions in the reproductive realm, you should develop a deeper understanding of the relevant issues as well as a heightened consciousness about your own experiences. Term Project (40 %) I am requiring that you develop a term project in close consultation with me on a topic relevant to the sociology of reproduction. You must emphasize gender issues in conceptualizing your project. This project will involve an original research proposal. Given the probable diversity of students’ disciplinary and methodological backgrounds, I am willing to discuss alternative projects on an individual basis (including interview-based projects). I will require all students though to make a 15-20 minute in-class oral presentation on their project. Each presenter will field questions from the seminar participants after his/her presentation. The written portion of this assignment will be worth 325 points and the oral presentation will represent 75 points. Your project will consist of several tasks. First, you will need to identify a question or set of interrelated questions germane to the sociology of reproduction and gender that are of interest to you. Second, you will need to review the literature that is relevant to your specific topic. Third, you will need to think about how you could conduct an empirical study on this topic. You are free to choose whatever method(s) you feel will enable you to answer your question(s) most effectively. Fourth, you will need to think creatively and make sure that your proposal is theoretically informed. You should organize your paper in the following manner:
You will need to prepare and submit to me a 1-page proposal for your project. Once I approve your project, you should distribute a copy of your proposal to your classmates. You need to have my approval by the 7th week of the term. The purpose of having you share your proposals with your classmates is to encourage you to inform one another when you come across materials relevant to a classmate’s project and to develop a collegial atmosphere in this seminar.Purpose: This project provides you the opportunity to strengthen your ability to identify an important research question and to develop a strategy for conducting research that will inform your question. Learning how to articulate a relevant theoretically informed research question, develop a rationale for a study, and devise a research plan is a useful exercise because this process refines your analytic skills. From a practical point of view, this type of project prepares you for your future research efforts (theses, dissertations, and other projects). The oral presentations for those of you who have little or no experience in formal public speaking, can also serve as a form of anticipatory socialization that will prepare you to present your ideas at professional meetings or at individual work sites. For those of you who have some experience in this regard, it affords you the chance to showcase and polish your skills. Take-Home Final Exam (20 %) I will ask you to complete a take-home final exam that covers all of the course material. Your answers will need to be typed and double-spaced. I will provide you with at least one of the questions during the first several weeks of class so that you can develop your answer as we proceed through the course. I hope that this procedure will reduce your anxiety at the end of the semester and improve the quality of your answers as well. To encourage students to take all of their reading assignments seriously, I reserve the right to alter the relative weight of the question(s) you receive in advance. Put differently, if all students are conscientious and we have informed and lively class discussions (as I assume we will), then I will weigh the question(s) you get in advance quite heavily. If, on the other hand, students make a habit of coming to class unprepared, I will place more weight on the “surprise” questions. Purpose: The take-home final will encourage you to synthesize the reading materials and discussions. It will challenge you to develop a broad understanding of a sociological approach to the reproductive realm and to be able to see the forest through the trees. Part of this exam will inspire you to think creatively. Course Reading Outline Week 1 (January 6): Overview of the Sociology of Reproduction 1. Gibbs, Nancy (2002). Making time for baby (pp. 48-54). Time, April 15. 2. Poniewozik, James (2002). The cost of starting families (56-58). Time, April 15. 3. Schoen, Robert, Kim, Young J., Nathanson, Constance A., Fields, Jason, and Astone, Nan (1997). Why do Americans want children? Population and Development Review 23, 333-358. 4. Marsiglio, William. (1998). Chapter: Transformations of the procreative man. Pp 31-48 in William Marsiglio (author), Procratieve Man. New York: New York University Press. 5. Burton, Linda M. (1990). Teenage childbearing as an alternative life-course strategy in multigeneration black families. Human Nature, 1, 123-143. 6. Rothman, Barbara Katz. (1989). Chapter: Motherhood under patriarchy. Pp. 29-47 in Barbara Katz Rothman (author), Recreating motherhood: Ideology and technology in a patriarchal society. New York: Norton. 1. Thornton, Arland. (1995). Attitudes, values, and norms related to nonmarital fertility. In Report to Congress on Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing, Department of Health and Human Services Pub. No. (PHS) 95-1257. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 2. Robertson, John A. (1994). Chapter 2, The presumptive primacy of procreative liberty. Pp. 22-42 in Children of choice: Freedom and the new reproductive technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 3. Marsiglio, William. (1998). Chapter 7: The future of procreative men. Pp. 102-191 in William Marsiglio (author), Procreative Man. New York: New York University Press. 4. Overall, Christine. (1987). Chapter: Sex preselection. Pp 17-39 in Christine Overall (author), Ethics and human reproduction: A feminist analysis. Boston: Allen & Unwin. Week 4 (January 27): Social Psychology of Reproduction 1. Marsiglio, William and Hutchinson, Sally (2002). Sex, Men, and Babies: Stories of Awareness and Responsibility. New York: New York University Press. Chapters 1-4 (pp. 1-138) Week 5 (February 3): Social Psychology of Reproduction 1. Marsiglio, William and Hutchinson, Sally (2002). Sex, Men, and Babies: Stories of Awareness and Responsibility. New York: New York University Press. Chapters 5-7, (pp. 139-240). 1. Sandelowski, Margarete (1994). Separate, but less unequal: Fetal ultrasonography and the transformation of expectant mother/fatherhood. Gender & Society, 8, 230-245. 2. Jordan, Brigitte (1997). Authoritative knowledge and its construction. Pp. 55-79 in Robbie E. David-Floyd and Carolyn F. Sargent (Eds.), Childbirth and authoritative knowledge: Cross-cultural perspectives. Berkeley: University of California Press. 3. Davis-Floyd, Robbie (1997). Gender and ritual: Giving birth the American Way. Pp. 403-415 in Caroline B. Brettell and Carolyn F. Sargent (Eds.), Gender in cross-cultural perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Week 7 (February 17): Birth Control, Pregnancy Resolution, and Abortion 1. Groat, H. Theodore, Neal, Arthur G., and Wicks, Jerry W. (1990). Sterilization anxiety and fertility control in the later years of childbearing. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 249-258. 2. Oudshoorn, Nelly. (2003). Chapter: Designing technology and masculinity: Challenging the invisibility of male reproductive bodies in scientific medicine. Pp. 3-18 in Nelly Oudshoorn (author), The male pill. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 3. Santelli, John, Rochat, Roger, Hatfield-Timajchy, Kendra, Gilbert, Brenda Colley, Curtis, Kathyrn, Cabral, Rebecca, Hirsch, Jennifer S., Schieve, Laura, and other members of the Unintended Pregnancy Working Group. (2003). The measurement and meaning of unintended pregnancy. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 35, 94-101. 4. Russo, Nancy F. and Denious, Jean. (1998). Why is abortion such a controversial issue in the United States? In Linda J. Beckman and S. Marie Harvey (Eds.) The new civil war: The Psychology, culture and politics of abortion (pp. 25-59). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 5. Finer, Lawrence B. and Henshaw, K. (2003). Abortion incidence and services in the United States in 2000. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 35, 6-15. 1. Luker, Kristin. (1996). Chapter: Bastardy, fitness, and the invention of adolescence. Pp. 15-42 in Kristin Luker (author) Dubious conceptions: The politics of teenage pregnancy. Cambridge, MASS: Harvard University press. 2. Kirby, Douglas. (2001). Emerging answers: Research findings on programs to reduce teen pregnancy. National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Washington, DC. (campaign@teenpregnancy.org; www.teenpregnancy.org) 3. Kivisto, Peter. (2001). Teenagers, pregnancy, and childbearing in a risk society: How do high-risk teens differ from their age peers? Journal of Family Issues, 22, 1044-1065. 1. Greil, Arthur L. (1991). Chapter 1: Introduction: The social construction of infertility (pp. 1-26). Chapter 2: Bodies and selves: Infertility, gender, and identity. In Arthur Greil (author). Not yet pregnant: Infertile couples in contemporary America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 2. Becker, Gay. (2000). Chapter 11: Redefining normalcy (pp. 187-204) in The elusive embryo: How women and men approach new reproductive technologies. Berkeley: University of California Press. Week 11 (March 16): Alternative Pathways to Parenthood: Focus on Surrogacy 1. Marsiglio, William. (1998). Chapter 6: Pathways to paternity and social fatherhood. Pp. 102-146 in William Marsiglio (author), Procreative Man. New York: New York University Press. 2. Ragone, Helena. (1994). Introduction (chapter 1, pp. 1-11), Surrogate mothers (chapter 2, pp. 51-86), and Surrogate motherhood and American Kinship (chapter 4, pp. 109-137) in Surrogate motherhood: Conception in the heart. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 1. March, Karen & Miall, Charlene. (2000). Adoption as a family form. Family Relations, 49, 359-362. 2. Wegar, Katarina. (2000). Adoption, family ideology, and social stigma: Bias in community attitudes, adoption research, and practice. Family Relations, 49, 363-370. 3. Lebner, Ashley. (2000). Genetic “mysteries” and international adoption: The cultural impact of biomedical technologies on the adoption family experience. Family Relations, 49, 371-377. 4. Grotevant, Harold D., Dunbar, Nora, Kohler, Julie K., & Esau, Amy M. Lash. (2000). Adoptive identity: How context within and beyond the family shape developmental pathways. Family Relations, 49, 379-387. 5. Marsiglio, William. (in press, Feb 2004). When stepfathers claim stepchildren: A conceptual analyis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 22-39. 1. Krieken, Robert van (1997). Sociology and the reproductive self: Demographic transitions and modernity. Sociology, 31, 445-471. Weeks 14 – 15: Student Project Preparation and Presentations Week 16: Conclusion RELEVANT WEB SITE LINKS: Alan Guttmacher Institute http://www.agi-usa.org/ |
|
For web site questions or comments, please contact: slogan@ufl.edu |