Moving kids, remaking adults
Using nationally representative Swiss data (N=4,451) and structural equation modelling, this study tests how frequent childhood moves shape adult social capital through two pathways: place-based identification and personal agency. People who moved more often report weaker identification with their city, region, and country, but that reduced identification does not translate into lower social capital. Instead, frequent movers report stronger agency—greater confidence in handling problems and decisions—which is associated with better ability to maintain supportive networks over time.
Why it might matter to you:
If you work on social cohesion, community integration, or life-course inequality, this suggests mobility’s long-run effects may operate less through “rootedness” and more through skills and self-efficacy that help sustain ties. It points to interventions that build agency as a plausible lever for protecting social support among highly mobile populations.
Diversity rises at the top—and stalls below
Drawing on evidence from more than 4,000 Black Lives Matter protests across 600 US counties (2014–2021), this paper examines how local activism is linked to corporate diversity outcomes at different organizational levels. Firms headquartered in protest-affected counties add more Black directors—especially where protests are larger—but these gains appear to come partly at the expense of other non-Black minority representation on boards. The study finds weaker and less consistent spillovers to executive ranks and the broader workforce, and it flags patterns consistent with “tokenism,” where visible appointments outpace deeper compositional change.
Why it might matter to you:
For organizational and political sociologists tracking how public contention reshapes institutions, this offers a concrete case where external pressure produces symbolic compliance that may not diffuse through internal labor structures. It also suggests that evaluating “impact” requires multi-level measurement, not board-level indicators alone.
Legitimacy by expertise has limits
This article interrogates a common assumption in research on non-majoritarian institutions: that claims of neutrality, epistemic authority, and technical expertise reliably generate legitimacy. It argues that while such “technical” appeals often work in empirical studies, they are not a uniform or self-sustaining basis for public acceptance. The piece reframes technical legitimacy as contingent—shaped by political context and how expertise is communicated and perceived—rather than as an automatic substitute for democratic authorization.
Why it might matter to you:
If you study trust, authority, or institutional compliance, the argument is a reminder that “expertise” is a social relationship, not just a credential. It implies that legitimacy strategies need to be evaluated as communicative and political practices, with attention to audiences and contestation.
If you wish to receive Briefings like this,Please.
Stay curious. Stay informed — with
Science Briefing.