BSS 4-1 2010 Methods of Research Christmasbreak Homework

SOCI 3013 METHODS OF RESEARCH Reading Guide and Assignment

Second Semester SY 2010-2011

A. Previous Assignments

1. Self Awareness Homework

2. Observation Assignment (Group)

3. Matrix (Epistemology-Ontology-Methodology)

B. Read Part I (Chapters 1-6) of the following e-book:

W.L. Neuman (2007). Basics of Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches 2^nd ed. Pearson: Boston

Answer the following questions:

1. Explain the are the different uses of research. Compare and contrast basic and applied research.

2. Explain the different types of applied research.

3. Compare and contrast the three basic purposes of research.

4. Describe briefly the different time dimension researches

5. Describe briefly the different data collection techniques.

6. Compare and contrast inductive and deductive theorizing.

7. Explain the Grounded Theory

8. Explain the different types of explanations.

9. Explain the three major approaches in the social sciences.

10. Explain the goals of literature review.

11. Describe the various sources of scholarly review.

12. Explain the steps in conducting a literature review.

13. Explain the different errors in explanation.

14. Explain how concepts are operationalized.

15. Explain Validity and Reliability

16. Explain the different types of Validity

17. Explain the different levels of Measurement. Explain the concept of “true zero.”

18. Explain the use of indices and scales. Describe some commonly used scales.

19. Explain the different non-probability sampling techniques.

20. Explain the different probability sampling techniques.

C. Choosing your topic/ Writing the Problems Statement and Doing the initial Review of Related Literature

1. On a bond paper, plot the different concepts in Sociology that you are interested in or may have written on in you major subjects. It may include social problems that you may be an advocate of or simply interested in. It may also involve a theory that you are in the process of exploring. From the concept FAMILY – you may include husband and wife relationships; children; extended family; siblings relationship etc. Under children, you may have more specific topics such as child abuse, child pornography, children’s rights, child labor, incest, social conditions of children, drug abuse, gangs, children in conflict with the law, etc. You may also include organizations, programs and laws related to your topic such as DSWD, Magna Carta for women, 4P’s (Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program), etc.

2. Represent each concept in a circle connected by lines until you have filled up the paper with a web of circles. After you have filled up the paper, try to eliminate the topics which are too broad and topics that you think are commonly researched already. Put an “X” on these circles. From the circles that are left, try to choose the ten concepts that you are most interested in.

3. List down those ten topics, and try to think of specific topics that you want to know about the topics that you chose. You may include topics identified from the recommendations of previous theses written or based on a need identified by an organization.

4. From the ten specific topics, try to surf the Internet and see if there are available materials for your topic. Among the ten, eliminate the topics that you found difficult to research.

5. Transform the five topics that are left into sentence topics. For example, “The problems experienced by lesbian and gay employees in a garment factory.”

6. For each of the five topics, try to find at least ten sources. It may be book, journals, magazine articles, Internet sources, videos, etc. List the sources using the proper format. Example. Giddens, Anthony. Central Problems in Social Theory. Berkleyt:University of California Press, 1979. Include papers written by Sociology graduates like the theses they submitted to the Department.

7. For each of the bibliographical entry, provide a summary of the portion of the book that you found relevant to your topic. For example: “The book of Giddens provided insights on my theoretical framework and helped me with identifying the variables needed in my study…” IN this way, you will be able to identify how relevant is the material that you found.

8. Based on your initial review of literature, list at least five questions that you want to answer about each of the five topics you chose

D. Group Reports: Divide the class into Seven (7) Groups to report Part Two and Part Three of the Book, namely: (Starting 2^nd week of January) Please prepare a Power point presentation and submit through email and in CD form.

Group 1 – Chapter 7 (Survey Research)

Group 2 – Chapter 8 (Experimental Research)

Group 3 – Chapter 9 (Nonreactive Research and Secondary Analysis)-Content Analysis

Group 4 – Chapter 11 (Field Research)- Ethnography; Ethnomethodology

Group 5 – Chapter 12 (Historical-Comparative Research)

Group 6 – (The Case Study)

Group 7 – (Evaluative Studies)

E. EXPECTED OUTPUT

1. INDIVIDUAL OUTPUT

a. Concept map of topics

b. List of Ten topics

c. List of Five topics in sentence form

d. A list of five to ten sources per topic with description (annotated bibliography)

e. List of Questions you want to answer

f. Answers to the 20 questions for Chapters 1-6.

2. GROUP OUTPUT

Groupings with list of members with designated leader

Draw lots on the topic (or group number)

Initial plan for group presentation and power point design

Urban Sociology Term Paper Guidelines

URBAN SOCIOLOGY 1st S emester
SY 2010-2011
Class of Justin V. Nicolas
TERM PAPER GUIDLINES

1. Based on the topic assigned to your group, try to identify several issues relevant to the Philippine urban situation. For example, for CRIME, the group might want to concentrate on Children in Conflict with the Law; or for Housing, squatters dwelling in abandoned buildings.
2. Your group may want to focus on a specific locality, say a city or a baranggay.
3. In gathering data, try to get the demographic profile of the locality you chose. Identify the social, political and economic organization of the locality. Describe the place thoroughly.
4. Then, describe the issue you chose and how it is prevalent in the locality you chose. Interview people, take pictures, and get case studies. For case studies, you might want to document your cases well, meaning, you have to transcribe your interviews and make a narrative of the data mentioned in the interview together with your observations.
5. Organize your data and try to present it in a more reader-friendly manner such as a matrix of responses or a tabulation of categories and specific data of your respondents.
6. Of course, we need not mention that you have to do a relatively significant review of literature found in books, journals, theses, magazines, documentaries, etc.
7. In writing your paper, provide an introduction and a background to your issue. Explain the issue and present the problem that your paper is trying to address. (The paper is like a deeper discussion of the papers you submitted in social problems and demography. This time, you can relate it to other issues of urbanization.
8. Your paper will also serve as an application of theories you learned not only in urban sociology but also, from you other subjects such as deviancy and demography. So part of your paper will have to be a discourse on a theory and the relevance of the study of urbanization in the discipline of Sociology.
9. Provide a Conclusion which should summarize your findings and serve as confirmation of your thesis. Provide for recommendations.
10. Propose an action plan, something that the Department can implement. In your proposal, describe the solution and specific activities to be undertake. Explain the rationale of your project, the expected outcome, and how you plan to go about the activity showing who will implement it and where you will get your resources.
11. Based on the above, your group may figure out how to present the paper. No format is prescribed. You may choose to present it in popular form but do not sacrifice the substance of the paper. You may include pictures and even pictures of the group members.
12. You may also provide a powerpoint presentation of your paper. Save you paper and powerpoint in a CD and include the CD with your hardcopy. Your written report should be ringbound or softbound.

IN addition to the term paper, please provide a powerpoint presentation of the topic you presented in class. You may include the Powerpoint in your CD. Also, take a picture of the map you did early in the semester and include the picture of the map together with the history of the assigned city (example: Quezon City History and its map) in the CD. For the group facilitators or key persons, please provide a peer rating stating your grade for your members and outlining the exact contribution of the member to the City History, Group Report, and Term paper. TARGET DATE OF SUBMISSION: September 30, 2010.

HLI TImeline

Holding on: A Hacienda Luisita timeline from the Spanish to the Noynoy eras
08/18/2010 | 11:19 PM


Share88
Spanish Period

Hacienda Luisita was once owned by the “Compañía General de Tabacos de Filipinas," also known as "Tabacalera", founded in November 1881 by Don Antonio López y López, a Spaniard from Santander, Cantabria, Spain.

Lopez acquired the estate in 1882, a year before his death, and named it “Hacienda Luisita" after his wife, Luisa Bru y Lassús.

Lopez was considered a financial genius and the “most influential Spanish businessman of his generation." He counted the King of Spain as a personal friend.

Luisita was just one of his haciendas. Lopez also owned estates in other parts of the country: Hacienda Antonio (named after his eldest son), Hacienda San Fernando, and Hacienda Isabel (named after his eldest daughter).

Tabacalera’s incorporators included the Sociedad General de Crédito Inmobiliario Español, Banque de Paris (now Paribas), and Bank of the Netherlands (now ABN-AMRO). Luisita was a sugar and tobacco plantation.

American Period

During the American Occupation (1898 to 1946), the Tabacalera experienced prosperous times because of the legendary sweet tooth of the Americans.

As Cuba could not supply all of the sugar requirements of the United States, they turned to the Philippines. At one point, Hacienda Luisita supplied almost 20% of all sugar in the US.

Japanese Regime

During the Japanese occupation, Hacienda Luisita continued to operate, like all haciendas and tabacaleras in the Philippines, because the Japanese wanted to ensure that commodities such as sugar and rice were available to Filipinos.

Pepe Cojuangco Period

1957
Problems with Huk rebels led the Spanish owners of Tabacalera to sell Hacienda Luisita and the sugar mill Central Azucarera de Tarlac.

Philippine President Ramon Magsaysay blocked the sale of the plantation to the wealthy Lópezes of Iloilo, fearing that they might become too powerful as they already owned Meralco, Negros Navigation, Manila Chronicle, ABS-CBN, and various haciendas in Western Visayas

The late Senator Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" Aquino, Jr. discussed with the late President Ramon Magsaysay the possibility of his father-in-law, Jose Cojuanco Sr., acquiring Hacienda Luisita and Central Azucarera de Tarlac from their Spanish owners.

Magsaysay was a “ninong" (principal sponsor) at the wedding of Ninoy and the late President Corazon Cojuangco Aquino, parents of the incumbent President Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" Aquino III.

August 1957
The Philippine government facilitated the Cojuangcos' takeover of Hacienda Luisita and Central Azucarera de Tarlac by:

(1) Providing Central Bank (CB) support to help the Cojuangcos obtain a dollar loan from the Manufacturer's Trust Company (MTC) in New York for the purchase of the sugar mill (Central Azucarera de Tarlac). The CB had to deposit part of the country’s dollar reserves with MTC for MTC to release Cojuangco’s loan. The CB's intervention was done under the condition that Cojuangco would also acquire Hacienda Luisita, not just the sugar mill, "with a view to distributing the hacienda to small farmers".

(2) Granting the Cojuangcos a peso loan through the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) to purchase the hacienda

November 25, 1957
The GSIS approved another loan made by the Cojuangcos amounting to P5.9 million, on the condition that Hacienda Luisita would be “subdivided among the tenants who shall pay the cost thereof under reasonable terms and conditions."

However, four months later, Jose Cojuangco Sr. asked the GSIS to change the phrase to ...shall be sold at cost to tenants, "should there be any." This phrase would be cited later on as justification not to distribute the hacienda’s land.

April 8, 1958
Jose Cojuangco, Sr.’s company, the Tarlac Development Corporation (TADECO), became the new owner of Hacienda Luisita and Central Azucarera de Tarlac.

Ninoy Aquino, President Cory’s husband and President Noynoy’s father, was appointed the hacienda’s first administrator.

The Ferdinand Marcos presidency

1965
Ferdinand Edralin Marcos is elected president.

1967
The 10-year window given by the Philippine government for the Cojuangcos to distribute the land elapsed with no land distribution taking place. During this time, farmers began to organize into groups to push for land distribution.

The Cojuangcos, however, insisted that there were no tenants on the hacienda, hence no need to distribute land.

The government sent three letters to the Cojuangcos between the 1960s to the 1970s to follow up the issue of land distribution.

September 21, 1972
Marcos declared Martial Law. His most vocal critic, Ninoy Aquino, was among the first to be arrested.

May 7, 1980
The Marcos government filed a case before the Manila Regional Trial Court (MRTC) to prod the Cojuangco-owned TADECO to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform so that the land could be distributed to the farmers at cost. The case was filed as Ninoy Aquino and his family were leaving for exile in the US.

January 10, 1981
The Cojuangcos responded to the government complaint by arguing that the land could not be distributed because the hacienda did not have tenants to begin with. They also argued that sugar lands were not covered by existing agrarian reform legislations. Anti-Marcos groups claimed that the government’s case was an act of harassment against Ninoy Aquino’s family

August 21, 1983
After living in exile for three years in Boston, Massachusetts, Ninoy Aquino returned to Manila. He was assassinated on the tarmac of the Manila International Airport.

December 2, 1985
The MRTC ordered TADECO to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. The Cojuangcos decried this as an act of harassment because Cory was set to run against Marcos in the February 1986 snap elections. The family later elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals.

December 3, 1985
On December 3, 1985, Cory Aquino officially filed her certificate of candidacy for President. Land reform was among the pillars of her campaign. She promised to give “land to the tiller" and to subject Hacienda Luisita to land reform.

February 1986
The February 7 snap election was marred by allegations of widespread fraud against Marcos. The anti-Marcos sentiments led to the “People Power Revolution," a series of nonviolent and prayerful mass street demonstrations that toppled the dictatorship and installed Cory Aquino to the presidency.

Cory Aquino presidency

January 22, 1987
Eleven months into the Cory Aquino presidency, thousands of frustrated farmers marched to Malacañang demanding land reform and the distribution of land at no cost to beneficiaries. In a violent dispersal, 13 protesters were killed in what has gone down in history as the “Mendiola Massacre".

July 22, 1987
Cory issues Presidential Proclamation 131 and Executive Order No. 229, outlining her agrarian reform program, which covers sugar and coconut lands. The outline also includes a provision for the Stock Distribution Option (SDO), a mode of complying with the land reform law that did not require actual transfer of the land to the tiller.

March 17, 1988
The government under Cory Aquino withdrew its case against the Cojuangcos. Cory's appointee, Solicitor General Frank Chavez, filed a motion for the Court of Appeals to dismiss the civil case the Marcos government filed and won at the Manila Regional Trial Court against the Cojuangcos. The Department of Agrarian Reform and the GSIS, now headed by Aquino appointees Philip Juico and Feliciano “Sonny" Belmonte, respectively, did not object to the motion to dismiss the case.

The Central Bank also did not object to dismissal of case as it assumed that Luisita would be distributed anyway through the upcoming Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

May 18, 1988
The Court of Appeals dismissed the case filed by the Marcos government against the Cojuangco-owned TADECO. The government itself, under Cory, moved to withdraw the case that compelled TADECO to distribute land.

June 10, 1988
President Aquino signed into law Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. A clause in the agrarian reform program included SDO, which allows landowners to give farmers shares of stock in a corporation instead of land.

August 23, 1988
Tarlac Development Co. (TADECO) established Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) to implement the distribution of stocks to farmers in the hacienda.

1989
The Cojuangcos justified Luisita’s SDO by saying it was impractical to divide the hacienda’s 4,915.75 hectares of land among 6,296 farm workers because this would give farmers less than one hectare of land each (or 0.78 hectares of land per person).

May 9, 1989
Luisita’s farm workers were asked to choose between stocks or land in a referendum. The SDO won 92.9% of the vote. A second referendum and information campaign were held five months later, and the SDO won again, getting 96.75% of the vote.

Father Joaquin Bernas, a 1987 Constitutional Commission member, said Luisita’s SDO is inconsistent with the Constitution. “The [SDO] is a loophole because it does not support the Constitution’s desire that the right of farmers to become owners of the land they till should be promoted by government," Bernas said in his June 27, 1989 column in the Manila Chronicle.

May 11,1989
When the CARP was implemented in Hacienda Luisita in 1989, the farm workers’ ownership of the plantation was pegged at 33 percent, while the Cojuangcos retained 67 percent.

Luisita’s SDO agreement spelled out a 30-year schedule for transferring the stocks to the farm workers:

“At the end of each fiscal year, for a period of 30 years, the SECOND PARTY (HLI) shall arrange with the FIRST PARTY (TADECO) the acquisition and distribution to the THIRD PARTY (farm workers) on the basis of number of days worked and at no cost to them of one-thirtieth (1/30) of 118,391,976.85 shares of the capital stock of the SECOND PARTY (HLI) that are presently owned and held by the FIRST PARTY (TADECO), until such time as the entire block of 118,391,976.85 shares shall have been completely acquired and distributed to the THIRD PARTY (farm workers)."

November 21, 1989
Agrarian Reform Secretary and now Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, approved the SDO agreement of Luisita.

However, Santiago's tenure at the DAR only lasted two months. In 2005, Santiago, already a senator, said Cory allegedly removed her from the DAR because of a comment she made to the media—that Cory should inhibit herself from being the chairperson of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC), which approves SDO agreements.

Fidel Ramos presidency

September 1, 1995
On September 1, 1995, the Sangguniang Bayan of Tarlac (Provincial Board of Tarlac) passed a resolution that reclassified 3,290 out of Luisita’s 4,915 hectares from agricultural to commercial, industrial, and residential. The governor of Tarlac province at that time was Margarita “Tingting" Cojuangco, wife of Jose “Peping" Cojuangco, Jr., brother of Cory Aquino.

Out of the 3,290 reclassified hectares, only 500 hectares were approved for conversion by the DAR.

August 14, 1996
The Department of Agrarian Reform approved for conversion 500 hectares of the Luisita land.

Gloria Arroyo presidency

2003
By this time, the farm workers’ daily wage flattened at P194.50 and work days were down to one per week. The hacienda workers then filed a petition with the DAR to have the SDO agreement revoked.

October 14, 2003
Workers from the HLI supervisory group petitioned the DAR to revoke the SDO, saying they were not receiving the dividends and other benefits earlier promised to them. Two months later, a petition to revoke the SDO bearing more than 5,300 signatures was filed by union officers at the DAR to revoke the SDO and stop land conversion in Luisita.

July 2004
The union tried to negotiate a wage increase to P225 per day. Workers also asked that the work days be 2 to 3 days per week, instead of just once a week. The management disagreed, claiming that the company was losing money.

October 1, 2004
Luisita management retrenched 327 farm workers, including union officers.

November 6, 2004
Almost all 5,000 members of the United Luisita Workers Union (ULWU) and 700 members of Central Azucarera de Tarlac Labor Union (CATLU) staged a protest against the mass retrenchment.

November 16, 2004
Violence erupted between the protesters, the police and military forces. At least seven people were killed, 121 were injured, 32 from gunshot wounds. This incident eventually became known as the “Luisita massacre."

The original petition the farm workers submitted lay dormant at the DAR since it was filed in December 2003, but began to move after the November 2004 massacre.

November 25, 2004 to February 22, 2005
The DAR's Task Force Luisita conducted an investigation and focus group discussions among the farm workers.

July 2005
The Arroyo-Aquino alliance broke up in July 2005, the same month Task Force Luisita submitted the findings and recommendations from its investigation, which became the government’s basis for revoking Luisita’s Stock Distribution Option (SDO) and ordering the distribution of the hacienda’s land to the farmers a few months later.

August 2005
A special legal team was formed by the DAR to review the report submitted by Task Force Luisita in July 2005. On September 23, 2005, the special legal team submitted its terminal report recommending the revocation of Luisita’s SDO agreement.

December 2004
In December 2004, a month after the Luisita massacre, picket lines were established around the hacienda. Soon after, eight people who supported the farmers’ cause or had evidence supporting their case were murdered one by one.

The killings began on December 8, 2004 with the death of Marcelino Beltran, a retired army officer turned peasant leader. Beltran was assassinated in his house just before he was to testify about bullet trajectories at the Senate and Congress on December 13 and 14, 2004.

September 22, 2005
Task Force Luisita recommended the revocation of the stock distribution agreement forged in May 1989, saying the SDO failed to fulfill the objectives of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law about promoting social justice and improving the lives of the farmers.

December 22, 2005
PARC issued Resolution No. 2005-32-01, ordering the revocation of Luisita’s SDO agreement and the distribution of the hacienda’s land to farmer beneficiaries.

February 1, 2006
HLI asked the Supreme Court to prevent the PARC from enforcing the resolution.

June 2006
The Supreme Court granted HLI's petition and issued a temporary restraining order, preventing the PARC from canceling the SDO agreement.

June 2007
Negotiations between the HLI management and some farmers began after representatives of AMBALA and the Supervisory group wrote to DAR that they are amenable to an out-of-court settlement.

Noynoy Aquino presidency

February 9, 2010
In Tarlac, then-Senator Noynoy Aquino said at the kick-off of his presidential campaign that Hacienda Luisita’s land would be distributed to farm workers by 2014.

June 30, 2010
Benigno Aquino III's takes oath as the 15th Philippine president.

August 6, 2010
HLI and factions of farmers' groups sign a compromise agreement giving the farmers the chance to remain as HLI stockholders, or receive their share of Hacienda Luisita land. Many voted to retain their stocks and receive cash from HLI, only to complain later that they got minuscule amounts.

August 11, 2010
HLI asked the Supreme Court to approve the compromise deal.

August 16, 2010
A faction of the farmers’ groups asked the SC to junk the compromise deal because it was signed even before the high court could rule on the validity of the stock distribution option (SD), one of the two choices offered by HLI to the farmers in the agreement. The other choice was land distribution. The farmers’ also questioned the authority of the signatories in the agreement who claimed that they were representatives of the plantation’s farmer-beneficiaries.

August 18, 2010
For the first time since the land dispute was brought to its doors four years ago, the SC holds oral arguments to hear the Hacienda Luisita case.

Compiled by Andreo Calonzo, Stephanie Dychiu, and Veronica Pulumbarit, GMANews.TV

SOCI 3113- SO 340 BSS 3-1 MEthods

Dear BSS 3-1:

So far, we need 18 topics and if we devote one topic per meeting without any dispruption, we will finish the topics by March 12, 2010. THis does not include the time we should devote in monitoring your thesis proposals and our mock defense.

If I may suggest, let us choose the most pertinent topics, and leaave the other topics to your own readings. In that case, I may choose nine to eleven topics which then mught change the team compositions. But for now, I will post the entirety of the topics we need to cover.

METHODS OF RESEARCH
SCHEDULE OF TOPIC ASSIGNMENT
BSS 3-1 SY 2009-20100

QUANTITATIVE

1. Experimental Research: Team IX - January 8, 2010
2. Survey Research (Subtopic: Constructing a Survey Questionnaire) :Team VII – Jan 12
3. Content Analysis :Team V – Jan 15
4. Existing Statistics/ Existing Documents/Secondary Analysis: Team III – Jan 19

QUALITATIVE
5. Field Research: Team I – Jan 22
6. Grounded Theory: Team VIII – Jan 26
7. Historical-Comparative: Team VI – Jan 29
8. Feminist Research: Team IV – Feb 2
9. Ethnic Research: Team II – Feb 5
10.Ethnomethodology Team IX – Feb 9

APPLIED RESEARCH
11. Formative Research: Team VIII – Feb 12
12. Summative Research: Team VII – Feb 16
13. Action Research: Team VI – Feb 23

METHODS
14. Case Study :Team V – Feb 26
15. Focus Group Discussion: Team IV – March 2
16. Using Video as Tool: Team III – March 5
17. Conducting an Interview (Sub topic: Constructing an Interview Schedule): Team II – March 9
18. Making Sense out of Narratives/Storytelling: Team I – March 12


a. Present the Features of the Type or Research or Method (15-20 minutes)
b. Show Step by Step how to conduct the research (15-20 minutes)
c. Present a sample research in class (15-20 minutes) If possible, finish the report in 30-45 minutes.
d. Provide hand outs on the important parts of your sample research
e. Provide hand outs of your report (Notes)
f. Submit a formal and written report of your topic with references.


TEAMS

A. Nicole Rebuse & Jemar Diolata
B. Kathryn D. Cay & Louella Marie Zacarias
C. Christian Karlo De Guzman/Jonnin Palma/Edgardo Salarzon Jr.
D. Arjay Barcelona/Brillan Karlo M. Datario
E. Allan Lipata & Brynille Bantayan
F. Bonifacio Abad Jr. & Marlon Angelo Villaluna
G. Jessica Cañete & Julia Monique Valdez
H. Shara Mae Mortos & Jonnah Marie Quizon
I. Merlita Moises & Eunice Bianca Mance
J. Joanna Bhabes Gaan & Rosemarie Bestal
K. Jane Ross Nokom & Jane Rioveros
L. Maria Victoria Manoloto & Diana Elcano
M. Aljhon B. Mercado & Cherryliv Hagada
N. Krista Carla Curioso & Mary Jane Mirandilla
O. Geraldine Bermio & Maria Senora Gonzales
P. Mary Catherine L Rodriguez & Mary Grace Barbosa
Q. Joan Namol & Zigrid Lee Pan
R. Katherine Kay Manuba & Camille Piol
S. Princess Ku/Ma. Cristina Camu/ Jonalyn Cruz
T. Bernadeth Ortega/Marielle Peñafiel/Cathie Enterina
U. Randolf Victor/Dindo Dimalaluan/Jose Solis
V. Marlon Ace Yalo
W. AC
X. Erickson Gamit & Aaron Castril
Y. Christy Papelleras
Z. Moises Santos
AA. Jundel Pancho

TEAM I (A-O-X );
TEAM II (B-P-I ) ;
TEAM III (C-Q-L )
TEAM IV (D-R-Y-W);
TEAM V (E-S-N );
TEAM VI(F-T-P);
TEAM VII (G-U-V );
TEAM VIII (H-Z-AA);
TEAM IX (J-K-M)

SO 320 2009 World Population & Events

2009 World Population

U.S. 306,959,275
World 6,772,290,919
13:12 GMT (EST+5) Jul 20, 2009

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopinfo.php

World Vital Events

World Vital Events Per Time Unit: 2009
(Figures may not add to totals due to rounding)
-------------------------------------------------
Natural
Time unit Births Deaths increase
-------------------------------------------------
Year 134,434,533 56,622,740 77,811,793
Month 11,202,878 4,718,562 6,484,316
Day 368,314 155,131 213,183
Hour 15,346 6,464 8,883
Minute 256 108 148
Second 4.3 1.8 2.5
-------------------------------------------------

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, International Data Base.

Notes on the World POPClock and
World Vital Events

The populations displayed on the clock are not intended to imply that the population of the world is known to the last person. Rather, the clock is our estimate of the world population size and an indication of how fast it is growing. According to the current estimates, the world population reached 6 billion on May 16, 1999, at about 10:23 AM GMT (May 16, 1999 at 5:23 AM EDT). Because of the uncertainties of the estimates, and the fact that we are constantly updating our estimates, the estimate of when 6 billion was hit will change. The United Nations, whose population estimates differ somewhat from our figures, celebrated the "Day of 6 Billion" on October 12, 1999. The Census Bureau's new projections indicate that the 7 billion marker will be reached in July of 2012.
The world population estimates and projections used to produce these figures were developed by the International Programs Center based on analysis of available data on population, fertility, mortality, and migration. The analysis was performed separately for the countries or areas of the world with a population of 5,000 or more. Population estimates and projections analyses are based on census, survey, and administrative information. For most countries, and especially less developed countries, adjustment of the data is necessary to correct for errors, omissions, and inconsistencies in the data. Since the most recent data for each country are often at least 2 years old (and for most countries they are older), the population figures used for the clock are projections from those estimates based on assumed trends in fertility, mortality, and migration. As new data become available, all data are reevaluated and past conclusions may change. For general information about how these estimates and projections are made, see the "Population Estimates and Projections Methodology". These estimates and projections are contained in the International Data Base.
The World midyear population and vital event estimates result from an aggregation of the figures for the individual countries and areas. The intermediate population estimates are based on a linear interpolation between successive midyear population figures. World vital events for different units of time are computed based on the number of months, days, hours, minutes, or seconds in the given year.
Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popwnote.html

World Population: 1950-2050


The world population increased from 3 billion in 1959 to 6 billion by 1999, a doubling that occurred over 40 years. The Census Bureau's latest projections imply that population growth will continue into the 21st century, although more slowly. The world population is projected to grow from 6 billion in 1999 to 9 billion by 2043, an increase of 50 percent that is expected to require 44 years.
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopgraph.php






World Population Growth Rates: 1950-2050


The world population growth rate rose from about 1.5 percent per year from 1950-51 to a peak of over 2 percent in the early 1960s due to reductions in mortality. Growth rates thereafter started to decline due to rising age at marriage as well as increasing availability and use of effective contraceptive methods. Note that changes in population growth have not always been steady. A dip in the growth rate from1959-1960, for instance, was due to the Great Leap Forward in China. During that time, both natural disasters and decreased agricultural output in the wake of massive social reorganization caused China's death rate to rise sharply and its fertility rate to fall by almost half.
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldgrgraph.php


World Population Growth Rates: 1950-2050


In addition to growth rates, another way to look at population growth is to consider annual changes in the total population. The annual increase in world population peaked at about 88 million in the late 1980s. The peak occurred then, even though annual growth rates were past their peak in the late 1960s, because the world population was higher in the 1980s than in the 1960s.
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopchggraph.php

SO 320 Take Home Midterm Examination

SO320 Midterm

Please write your name, student number, date today, subject code and description, Year and Section, and Instructor’s name on the Blue book (You can use more than one blue book.)
DEADLINE: AUGUST 26, 2008

1) Read “Beyond Malthus:Sixteen Dimensions of the Populations Problem” and answer the following:

a. Why is the selection considered as Post-Malthusian? Compare the perspective with the classical Malthusian theory. What are the different salient points of the theory? Prove that it is post-Malthusian. Site examples from the text.

b. Choose a dimension or problem caused by population growth. Explain the problem and its relation to population. What is its implication to fertility and mortality rates (consider the World Population estimates)? What are the other chain of problems connected to the chosen dimension? Prove your answer using the data provided in the text.

c.What is the Population challenge discussed in the introduction? Did the authors propose any solution, if yes what alternatives are available to solve the problems mentioned in the text and how to respond to the population challenge in general?

Weight (50%)

2) Discuss why migration is considered in calculating population estimates. Discuss at least two perspectives in looking at the phenomenon of international migration. Relate the chosen perspectives to the plight of the overseas Filipino workers. What do you think does it mean when OFW’s become “transnationals”? Is this positive or negative? What is its implication to the population of the sending and receiving country?

Weight (30%)

3) Discuss the importance of the study of Demography to the study of society and social problems. Site specific uses of the principles of Demography to the other areas of Sociology such as Sociology of the Family, sociological theory, social change, etc.

(Weight 20%)
Good luck!

SO 320 Theories of International Migration (with assignment at the end)

THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION (Based on John R. Weeks. Population: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996)

The major theories that exist to help explain aspects of international migration, as outline by Massey et al (1993; 1994) include those that focus on the initiation of migration patterns: (1) neoclassical economics; (2) the new household economics of migration; (3) dual labor market theory; and (4) world systems theory. Then there are three perspectives that help explain the perpetuation of migration once started: (1) network theory; (2) institutional theory; and (3) cumulative causation.

The Neoclassical Economic Approach By applying the classic supply and demand paradigm to migration, this theory argues that migration is a process of labor adjustment caused by geographic differences in the supply of and demand of labor. Countries with a growing economy and a scarce labor force have higher wages than a region with a less developed economy and a larger labor force. The differential in wages causes people to move from the lower wage to the higher wage region. This continues until the gap in wages is reduced merely to the costs of migration (both monetary and psychosocial). At the individual level, migration is viewed as an investment in human capital. People choose to migrate to places where the greatest opportunities exist. This may not be where the wages are currently the highest, but rather where the individual migrant believes that, in the long run, his or her skills will earn the greatest income. These skills include education, experience, training, and language capabilities.

The New Household Economic Migration The neoclassical approach assumed that the individual was the appropriate unit of analysis, but the new household economics of migration approach argues that decisions about migration are often made in the collectively not only to maxi act text of what is best for an entire family or household. This approach accepts the idea that people act collectively not only to maximize their expected income, but also to maximize risk. Thus, migration is not just a way to get rid of people; it is also a way to diversify the family’s sources of income. Migrating members of the household have their journey subsidized and then remit portions of their earnings back home. This cushions households against the risk inherent in societies with weak institutions. If there is no unemployment insurance, no welfare, no bank from which to borrow money or even to invest money safely, then the remittances from migrant family members can be cornerstones of a household’s economic well-being.

Dual Labor Market Theory This theory offers a reason for the creation of opportunities for migration. It suggest that in developing regions of the world there are essentially two kinds of jobs—the primary sector, which employs well-educated people, pays them well, and offers them security and benefits; and the secondary labor market, characterized by low wages, unstable working conditions, and lack of reasonable prospects for advancement. It is easy enough to recruit people into the primary sector, but the secondary sector is not so attractive. Historically, women, teenagers, and racial and ethnic minorities were recruited into these jobs, but in the past few decades women and racial and ethnic minority groups have succeeded in moving increasingly into the primary sector, at the same time that low birth rate has diminished the supply of teenagers available to work. Yet the lower echelon of jobs still need to be filled, and so immigrants from developing countries are recruited—either actively (as in the case of agricultural workers) or passively (the diffusion of information that such jobs are available).
World Systems Theory This theory offers a different perspective on the emerging opportunity structure for migration in the contemporary world. The argument is that since the sixteenth century ( and as part of the Industrial Revolution in Europe) the world market has been developing and expanding into a set of core nations ( those with capital and other forms of material wealth) and a set of peripheral countries ( in essence, the rest of the world) that have been dependent on the core, as the core countries have entered the peripheral countries in search of land, raw materials, labor and new consumer markets.

According to world systems theory, migration is a natural outgrowth of disruptions and dislocations that inevitably occur in the process of capitalist development. As capitalism has expanded outward from it’s core in Western Europe, North America, Oceania, and Japan, ever-larger proportions of the globe and growing share of the human population have been incorporated into the world market economy. As land, raw material, and labor within peripheral regions come under the influence and control of markets, migration flows are inevitably generated ( Massey et al., 1993:445)

Migration flows do not tend to be random, however. In particular, peripheral countries are most likely to send migrants (including refugees and asylees) to those core nations with which they have had greatest contact, whether this contact be economic, political, or military (Rumbaut, 1991).

Network Theory Once migration has begun, it may well take on a life of it’s own, quite separate from the forces that got it going in the first place. Network theory argues that migrants establish interpersonal ties that “ connect migrants, former migrants, and non-migrants in origin and destination area through ties of kinship, friendship, and shared community origin. They increase the likelihood of international movement because they lower the costs and risks of movement and increase the expected net returns to migration” ( Massey et al., 1993:449). Once started, migration sustains itself through the process of diffusion until everyone who wishes to migrate can do so. In developing countries, such migration eventually may become a rite of passage into adulthood for community members, having little to do with economic supply and demand.


Institutional Theory Once started, migration also may be perpetuated by institutions that develop precisely to facilitate (and profit from) the continued flow of immigrants. These organizations may provide a range of services, from humanitarian protection of exploited persons to more illicit operation such as smuggling people across borders and providing counterfeit documents, and might include more benign services such as arranging for lodging or credit in the receiving country. These organizations help perpetuate migration in the face of government attempts to limit the flow of migrants.


Assignment: Gather data on the migration patterns of OFW’s and of Filipinos who have chosen to become resident aliens in other countries. If possible, get data for the last 10 years. Determine which is the favorite destination of Filipinos to work abroad and also determine according to the POEA and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) which countries have the most remittances in the last 10 years.

SO 320 Why do People Migrate?

SO320 Notes_Migration
Class of Justin V. Nicolas
1st Semester SY 2008-2009

WHY DO PEOPLE MIGRATE

The Push-Pull Theory

Ø based on Ravenstein (1889) conclusion of the 1881 census of Engalnd and Wales that , “Bad or oppressive laws, heavy taxation, an unattractive climate, uncongenial social surroundings, and even compulsion (slave trade, transportation), all have produced and are still producing currents of migration, but none of these currents can compare in volume with that which arises from the desire inherent in most men to ‘better’ themselves in material respects.”
Ø In other words, the desire to get ahead more than the desire to escape unpleasant situation is most responsible for the migration of the people
Ø Similar to Davis (1963) in the motivation for having small families, argued that it is the pursuit for pleasure or the fear of social slippage, not the desire to escape from poverty, that motivates people to limit fertility.
Ø The probability responding to stress by voluntary migration is rare unless they feel there is some reasonable attractive alternative – this is called PULL FACTOR.
Ø Decision is based on cost-benefit analysis of the situation; potential migrant weighs the push and pull factors and moves if the benefits of doing so exceed the costs.
Ø Between the desire to move and the actual decision to move are intervening obstacles such as the distance of expected destination, the cost of getting there, poor health, etc
Ø Implementing strategy – migration is seen as a possible means whereby a goal (ex, education, a better job, a nicer house, a more pleasant environment, etc) might be attained; “arise from a system of strategies adopted by the individual in the course of passing through the life cycle”
Ø Lee (1966) restated Ravenstein’s theory by making two major generalizations

1. Migration is selective (that is, not everyone migrates, only a selected portion of the population).
2. The heightened propensity to migrate at certain stages of the life cycle is important in the selection of migrants.(ex. Desire for obtaining more education, or the process of obtaining a job, and getting married, all have its peak periods)
Ø Migration Selectivity may be discussed according to AGE and by Life Cycle and Education (Although in the Philippines, majority of the out-migration is the OFW population.)

SO320 Notes on Migration 2008

SO320 Notes_Migration
Class of Justin V. Nicolas
1st Semester SY 2008-2009

Defining MIGRATION
ß any permanent change in residence (spatial by definition)
ß “detachment from the organization of activities at one place and the movement of the total round of activities to another (Goldscheider, 1971:64)
ß All migrants are movers but not all movers are migrants. (Ex. Construction worker who is a temporary resident elsewhere; sojourners who work abroad; those who transferred residence but leaves near the old residence)
ß United Nations: anyone who moves permanently, spending at least 1 year in a new locale, to another geographic region of the same country, and all who move permanently to another country
ß Categories of migration: internal and international migration
a) Internal migration – permanent change of residence within national bouderies
b) International migration – moving from one country to another; emigrant in terms of area of origin; immigrant in terms of the area of destination

ß Categories of migration
a) out-migrant– with reference to area of origin (the place you left behind)
b) in-migrant – with respect to your destination

ß International migration: differentiation of migrants

a) legal migrants – those who have legal and political permission to make the move they undertake
b) illegal migrants – no legal permission
c) refugees – “any person who is outside his or her country of nationality and is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of persecution or well-founded fear of persecution. Claims of persecution may be based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or public opinion.”
d) Asylees – a refugee with a geographic twist- he or she is in the country to which they are applying for admission, whereas a refugee is outside the country at the time of application.”

ß MEASURING MIGRATION


Gross rate of out-migration = ______Total out-migrants_______ X 1,000
Total midyear population



Gross rate of in-migration = ______Total in -migrants_______ X 1,000
Total midyear population
Net migration – the difference between those who move in and those who move out

Crude net migration rate – is the net number of migrants in a year per 1,000 people in s population

CNMR = __Total In –migrants - Total out-migrants__ X 1,000
Total midyear population


Total migration rate = ______In –migrants + out-migrants_____ X 1,000
Total midyear population


Migration turnover rate = ______Total migration rate_______ X 1,000
Crude net migration rate

Migration tutnover rate – the ratio of the total migration rate to the crude net migration rate

migration effectiveness – measure how “effective” the volume of migration is in redistributing the population

Migration effectiveness (E) = ______Crude net migration rate _______ X 1,000
Total migration rate

Forward survival method of migration estimation – the intercensal net migration rates for each age and sex group by combining census data with life-table probabilities of survival.

Example: Given:
- In 1980, 20,317510 males aged 20-29
- life-table values 98.15% probability of survival in 10 years OR
- 19, 941,636 still alive at ages 30-39 in 1990
- actual 1990 census counted 21,332,000

Estimated male migrants = 1,390,364


Migration ratio – the measure of the effect of migration to population by calculating the ratio of migration to the natural increase

migration ratio = ______Net migration_______ X 1,000
Births -Deaths

(Please go to Migration Process and International Migration Perspectives)