Explore the vast range of titles available.

Through qualitative research conducted with migrant women, this study is relevant for analyzing their perceptions and experiences of gender-based discrimination against them, when looking for a job, for marriage and family reunification, or for studying. It is about a series of difficulties encountered by migrant women in the process of integration in Romania. The study is structured as follows: I) The first part offers an analysis of empirical data extracted from specialized literature and relevant studies to highlight the main defining aspects regarding gender-based discrimination criteria in relation to migrant women's access to the labor market; II) The second part of the study consists in explaining the research methodology; III) The third part provides an analysis of the findings from oral history six interviews conducted on Zoom with migrant women, between June 2021 and January 2022; IV) The last part offers a set of relevant conclusions on the subject.

Although mixed origin is experienced as a resource by binational individuals, in some situations it can become a stigma. Through processes of othering, “mixed”, individuals experience a sort of stigmatization. It is a specific manifestation of stigma that develops its importance in connection with discourses and social lines of difference. Mixedness does not per se always lead to a stigma, but can become relevant in the intersection with race, ethnicity, class, gender, language, or religious affiliation and social hierarchies. The social contexts and their orders of belonging thus shape the stigma experiences of “mixed” individuals and, concomitantly, their opportunities. Based on my recent study on “mixed” individuals in Switzerland and Morocco, this article discusses how mixedness can turn into a stigma and how “mixed” individuals manage and resist these stigmatizations. I argue that mixedness can become an experience of stigmatization when processes of othering lead to the painful experience of non-belonging. This experience of discomfort stimulates continual negotiations between social perception and self-perception. In the article four varieties of stigma-management are developed: (1) attempting to unify the different origins, (2) developing an expert attitude, (3) looking for alternative spaces of belonging, (4) normalizing the “mixed” origin. The four types describe what I call subjective balances: the individual way of dealing with stigmatization, that is, with the problem that multiple belonging is not socially recognised.

Studying the perceptions of the therapists and the clients on the meaning of psychotherapy is important because through them one can grasp some of the realities of therapy that cannot be studied through conventional quantitative research. Reintroducing a phenomenological perspective may further ease our understanding of psychotherapy in general. In this study, the action of giving significance to one’s experience is used to describe the perceptions of the psychotherapists (N=137) and the clients (N=103). The analysis used in the study, a version of grounded theory research, revealed that when it comes to the significance given to therapy, psychotherapists and clients tend to have similar opinions. The categories found in the clients verbatim were self-knowledge, personal development, answer, help, healing and others and in therapists’ responses were: self-knowledge, healing, solution, personal development, change and others. The different themes were help for the clients and change for therapists. The difference in the analysed categories is a conceptual one, psychotherapists tending to be more idealistic in their meaning giving process than clients.

This article is an account of our practical research and cooperation experience from a participatory research project on homelessness and psychosocial disability carried out in a Hungarian university context, by a student and two experts by experience in a researcher role. We argue for the involvement of disadvantaged people using social services in research related to disadvantaged people and social services, highlighting the advantages and challenges of this kind of research based on our experience. Finally, we formulate practical recommendations that migh be useful for beginners – like we used to be – in participatory research in this field.

The concept of intersectionality is reviewed and further developed for more effective use. Six dilemmas in the debates on the concept are disentangled, addressed and resolved: the distinction between structural and political intersectionality; the tension between 'categories' and 'inequalities'; the significance of class; the balance between a fluidity and stability; the varyingly competitive, cooperative, hierarchical and hegemonic relations between inequalities and between projects; and the conundrum of 'Visibility' in the tension between the 'mutual shaping' and the 'mutual constitution' of inequalities. The analysis draws on critical realism and on complexity theory in order to find answers to the dilemmas in intersectionality theory.

The paper examines perceptions of the fairness of income distributionin Serbia from a comparative perspective. The analysis is based on data collected under Round 9 of the European Social Survey in 2018/2019. Perceptions of the fairness of personal income in Serbia are compared with those from three post-Yugoslav countries (Montenegro, Croatia and Slovenia) and three developed capitalist countries (Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom). The research findings indicate that the vast majority of Serbian citizens perceive their personal income (gross and net pay, pensions and social benefits) as being unfairly low. From a comparative perspective, it is noticeable that the perceived fairness of income distribution is influenced by a contextual variable that combines the effects of economic development, degree of income inequality and path dependency. Income from work (gross and net pay) is more often perceived as unfairly low inthe post-Yugoslav countries of the Western Balkans (Serbia and Montenegro) than in the post-Yugoslav countries that are members of the European Union (Croatia and Slovenia). When it comes to perceptions of the fairness of pensions and social benefits, the two groups of the post-Yugoslav countries do not differ from each other. All types of income are more likely to be perceived as unfairly low in the Western Balkan states than in the developed capitalist countries.

This article outlines developments in empirical research on social stratification in the four countries constituting currently the Visegrád Group (V4). Sociology has been developing, if unevenly, as a discipline in these countries since the 19th or early 20th century. Empirical research on social stratification, based on data collected in large surveys, started here by the mid-1960s, first in Poland, then in Hungary, and later in the former Czechoslovakia. In spite of the ideological pressure of the communist regimes in all of these countries, the conditions for sociological studies were much better in Poland and Hungary than in Czechoslovakia, where such research was frozen for a long time after the communist putsch of 1948 and again after the Soviet occupation in 1968. After 1990, this kind of research enjoyed an energetic new start in all the post-communist countries, as they opened fully to the West and integrated into international networks. In addition, comparative research within the V4 region started with the challenging project “Social Stratification in Eastern Europe after 1989.” Many national surveys were conducted and East-West cooperation intensified. Currently, most empirical research on social stratification occurs on a national or bilateral basis, or is developed within larger European projects.

While once a mainstay of social science, class has lately been eclipsed in much of migration studies by consideration of other forms of social difference, affinity, and allegiance such as ethnicity, gender, generation, and lately religion. This article puts the case for renewing attention on the part class plays in shaping migration – particularly who is able to move and to where. It argues that the form of migration and ultimately its outcomes are shaped by the resources that would‐be migrants can muster and that in turn the capacity to mobilize such resources is largely determined by socio‐economic background or class. Drawing on Bourdieu, class can be conceived in terms of the disposal of different forms of capital – economic, social, and cultural. Having access to combinations of such capital shapes the routes and channels migrants can follow, the destinations they can reach, and their life chances after migration. The article first reflects briefly on ideas of class in social science and sketches treatment of mobility in the migration literature, before considering the ways in which class, mobility, and immobility shape each other. The article concludes by considering the interplay between migration, class, and collective action among those who move and those who stay, against the background of broader currents of social change and transformation.

Continuity of the hegemony is largely achieved by the socialization process and construction of the social consciousness in the process.While hegemony provides a window to see the world through the eyes of the ruling class, it also prevents ideas that are harmful to it from spreading, studied and accepted. So it is unrealistic to expect a social consciousness that was constructed in favor of the ruling class to include class consciousness. Foundation of the class consciousness is the feeling of belonging to a class. However the class consciousness is a threatening element to hegemony. So this study was done believing that social consciousness acts for the continuity of the hegemony, based on ''an ordinary person doesn't have a clear 'social class concept' in their mind, which brings belonging feelings and class consciousness, the notion is vague in their minds.'' hypothesis. In a research that was conducted between March-July 2019 by stratified random sampling method, the participants were asked in an open ended way ''Which class do you feel belonging to?''. Instead of a question aiming to make the participants choose between multiple answers of already existing class templates, the open ended question aimed to discover what the participants know about class structures that are used in defining them and how they interpret these classes in their minds. During the study it has been observed that one third of the participants didn't have a meaningful interpretation of the class concept corresponding in their minds thus being unable to answer the question. Nearly half of the participants who answered the question stated they think themselves as ''middle class''. Among the participants who stated they belonged in the ''middle class'', it is remarked that a quarter of them never once bought a book, 31 percent never visited the theatre, 6.7 percent never traveled out of their city and 5 percent never dined in a restaurant in their lives. When evaluating the income level of the participants who thought they belonged in the ''middle class'', it was discovered that 45.3 percent of the participants were of minimum wage to lower or no income for themselves while 51 percent of the participants had an income of minimum wage to 6k liras which showed that over half of the participants who thought themselves belonging in ''middle class'' were on the border of the poverty threshold. When factors like education, income level, social and cultural way of life considered, it was understood that the participants who gave the response ''middle class'' were implying the middle class of their vicinity, not the middle class defined by ranking of 20 percent income groups.