Search

In 2000, a controversial article about hormones and gender roles was published to stimulate debate about whether and how biological knowledge should be integrated in sociological research. Two decades later, this so-called biosociology debate is more relevant than ever, as biological knowledge has become widespread across societies and scientific disciplines. Hence, we as sociologists are regularly confronted with biological explanations that challenge our own explanations. Whether this happens in the scientific arena, the classroom, media, or even at social events, these situations often force us, individually, to take a stance on whether to meet such explanations with dialogue or opposition. One could therefore expect that sociologists have an interest in discussing these issues with their peers, but their lack of participation in the biosociology debate suggests otherwise. This paper explores possible reasons for this absence and how sociologists' views on biosociology are influenced by key agents – sociological associations and journals. Smith's "A Sacred project of American Sociology", and Scott's "A Sociology of Nothing" served as theoretical tools in the paper. A qualitative content analysis of presidential addresses of four sociological associations was conducted. The analyses suggest that sociologist avoid biosociology for widely different reasons, including fear that biosociology legitimizes oppression. This avoidance is probably reinforced by the leftish politization of the sociological discipline and the rightish politization of society. Overcoming obstacles to engagement in biosociology is required to safeguard the scientific integrity of sociology and enable sociologists to provide relevant contributions to research on the Covid-19 pandemic and climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper tests the theory of cumulative advantage and disadvantage as it applies to the productivity and prestige of academic departments within sociology. The theory suggests that past perceptions of departmental prestige and cumulative records of faculty productivity are of greater significance than more recent levels of productivity in determining their perceived level of eminence within the discipline; a phenomenon due to the accumulation of past performance and recognition over time. The paper employs two widely disseminated measures of departmental eminence: the 1966 Cartter Report rankings and the 1982 Conference Boards assessments. Measures of depart- mental productivity are derived from cumulative publication histories of departments between 1936 and 1989 in three preeminent sociological journals; namely, the American Sociological Review, American Journal of Sociology, and Social Forces. The paper finds that while past accomplishments do not bear importantly on current perceptions of departmental prestige after con- trolling for the level of productivity maintained during the preceding decade, prior perceptions of prestige are strongly associated with current rankings. In addition, past perceptions of academic prestige are found to be highly stable, thereby creating the potential for a stratification hierarchy that allows for little mobility over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many sociologists believe that behavioral sociology is alien to traditional sociological thought, and some have questioned its legitimacy as a sociological perspective. This paper takes the position that behavioral sociology is very much in accord with basic tenets of sociology. The belief that it is not results from misunderstanding and confusion about the foundations and practice of behavioral sociology. Three key concerns about behavioral sociology are addressed: (1) the subject matter of behavioral sociology and its distinction from behavioral psychology; (2) the unexplained "givens" of behavioral sociology (the origins of existing reward systems), and (3) the concern that behaviorists view human behavior as mechanistic and unfeeling. The paper concludes that many differences between behavioral sociology and other sociological perspectives have been exaggerated, that behavioral sociology does exhibit most traditional characteristics of the discipline, and that the concern with the legitimacy of behavioral theory in sociology has obscured the one significant difference that does exist disagreement over the goals and conduct of a science of human behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Symbolic interactionists have by and large not explored how individuals with mental illnesses — specifically, delusional misidentification syndromes — are able to exercise the cognitive factors necessary for successful interaction. Such factors include: recognition of self and others, situated interpretation, inferring others' cognitive and emotional states, anticipating what others might say or do, empathizing, maintaining a cogent belief system, etc. What needs to be addressed is how the mentally ill manage — and fail to manage — these cognitively-informed activities as they slip more and more into cognitive and existential chaos, and the associated loss of meaningful dialogue with self and others. Clinical accounts of the cognitively dysfunctional could widen and deepen our understanding of cognition, belief states, self, and self-other relations, central concepts for symbolic interactionists. Accordingly, this paper is as much a critique of symbolic interactionism as a contribution to a humanistic social psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The thesis of this paper is that sociological social psychology is theoretically dissipated, that is, the social psychological work of sociologists is tied to various theoretical problems of different "sociology of" subfields, rather than being directed toward a unified and defining set of theoretical problems. This state of affairs is reflected in the citation patterns of sociologists doing social psychological work, the recent content analyses of leading sociological journals, the contents of social psychological textbooks authored by sociologists, and the lark of concern of psychologists for the social psychological work of sociologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One main purpose of this paper is to encourage sociologists to fully support their sociological association leaders' efforts to further develop and implement comprehensive plans to improve the image of sociology, especially among those who can employ our graduates, but also among the general populace. Preceding a proposed multi-level plan is an attempt to integrate and present many of the competencies that sociologists and social psychologists have identified through research into a classification of sociological and social psychological skills. The typology can facilitate the selection of competencies appropriate for academic courses or seminars. In brief, the ten categories of this typology are: (1) Communication Skills; (2) Conceptual Tools; (3) Critical Thinking; (4) Problem Solving Strategies; (5) Special Competencies Applicable to Work Organization; (6) Group Dynamics; (7) Group Counseling; (8) Applied Social Research Methodologies; (9) Consulting Expertise; and (10) Competence in Self-Marketing Skills that Students Need. The several examples of skills within each of the ten classifications could be considered by faculty for possible inclusion in their syllabi. A discussion of the necessity to better inform business, industry, foundations, and government agencies of sociological competencies is provided followed by a multi-level public relations proposal, "A Plan to Put Career Vagueness Behind Us." The plan presented is not intended to be the plan. It can serve as a check list or supplement to the strategic plans currently being developed and implemented by the ASA and other sociological associations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]