Search

The article analyzes the Amherst papers in relation to development of Parsons' theory. A careful analysis of the Amherst papers reveals that the basic ideas and philosophical principles that Parsons followed throughout his life were already in place, some more fully developed than others, yet forming an integrally coherent pattern to a surprising degree. The clear existence in Parsons's Amherst papers of a metatheoretical framework predating his later professional writing calls into question some still existing myths about radical breaks in the development of Parsons's theory. In one version of this mythology, Parsons began his theory as a voluntarist, then became a structural-functionalist, later moved on to become a systems-theorist and ended up as a social evolutionist. Despite such claims, Parsons always was a voluntarist, even during his so-called structural-functionalist middle period. The Amherst papers reveal an amazingly complex and logically coherent theoretical system-in the mind of a twenty-year-young man-and testify to an extraordinary scope of philosophical depth, and intellectual maturity.

This article comments on a paper by David Jenness, which focused on the efforts of the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA) in organizing the social sciences in their own interest. The future of federal support for sociology will depend on the continued mobilization efforts of COSSA and upon public recognition of sociological contributions to the realization of two prime sets of values. Much has been written since 1981, when Reaganism became the guiding hand and official ideology at the federal level, of the need for new academic-industry partnerships. Most often, research training and subject-matter expertise were the initial factors to employment. Marketable skills opened opportunities that would have been shut to someone simply proclaiming sociology as his or her trade or profession. The virtues of a range of sociological skills are recognized much more readily: for information and intelligence, for systems analysis and design, for social trend analysis and forecasting, and in general for systematic scouting of the environment within which organized efforts in the public and private sectors operate, flourish, or decline. Herbert Costner once referred to this aspect of applied work as reconnaissance sociology.

The article focuses on the relevance of communication studies for human sciences. Communication studies is often proposed as a synthetic approach to the human sciences outright, an interdisciplinary inquiry capable of linking the researches of specialized human sciences to the philosophical foundations of the project of human scientific inquiry itself. The author says that from the standpoint of the relation between philosophy and the human sciences, the constitution of perception, institutions and thought by media of communication is the thesis proper to communication studies, the thesis from which its larger significance derives. According to the author, by describing the precise point at which a theory of communication diverges from a theory of scientific meaning, it is possible to note a significant convergence between phenomenology and a Marxist critique of a semiotic theory of language.

There has been renewed interest over the past 5 years among sociologists in empirically examining the status of sociology in high school. The few studies that have recently been conducted, however, have focused almost exclusively on high school sociology teachers. The nature and structure of the courses themselves have been largely ignored. Given the American Sociological Association’s recent attempts to develop and implement an Advanced Placement course, it seems especially important to examine the characteristics of existing sociology courses. This paper uses the results of a national mail survey to describe and discuss three aspects of the nature and structure of a random sample of sociology courses that were offered during the 2005–06 school year: instructional materials and pedagogical resources, teaching techniques, and course content. I demonstrate that these aspects of the courses look remarkably similar across the country: Teachers rely overwhelmingly on standard introductory textbooks to structure their courses. They are also apt to utilize supplemental materials from textbook publishers and from newspapers and newsmagazines, and to use a combination of lecture and discussion in their sociology classes. The paper concludes with recommendations for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies on societal path dependencies tend to focus on mechanisms that anchor and stabilize national trajectories while paying less attention to transnational interactions and multilevel governance. This paper explores processes of path transformation in societies that are presumed to have the characteristics of open systems. Two pairs of case studies are presented and compared. The first illustrates institutional change through collision, when a national path meets with another. The second describes the emergence of transnational institutional paths and the impact of that process on national institutions and their (potential) transformation. The results indicate that path transformation often stems from a gradual succession and combination of incremental steps and junctures – change is gradual but consequential. They also point to increasing co-evolutionary interaction between national path transformation and transnational path creation. This implies a need for analytical tools that are adapted to the analysis of multi-level, nested processes of institutionalization and de-institutionalization. The paper suggests that the concept of path generation allows for a better specification of the conditions for change in existing societal paths and for the emergence of new paths in the case of open systems than the concept of path dependency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How has sociology evolved over the last 40 years? In this paper, we examine networks built on thousands of sociology-relevant papers to map sociology's position in the wider social sciences and identify changes in the most prominent research fronts in the discipline. We find first that sociology seems to have traded centrality in the field of social sciences for internal cohesion: sociology is central, but not nearly as well bounded as neighboring disciplines such as economics or law. Internally, sociology appears to have moved away from research topics associated with fundamental social processes and toward social-problems research. We end by discussing strategies for extending this work to wider science production networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper argues that a satisfying structural account must be distinguished from an account that simply focuses on structures, paradoxically, a sound structural account must pay close attention to actors. Consideration of specific accounts of the Nicaraguan revolution supports this claim. The paper also suggests the plausibility of the observe argument that agenital accounts of revolution must attend closely to structures. Structural account is defined as one developing the thesis that specific structures have a significant impact on the likelihood of a successful social revolution. This structural thesis is stated in formal terms, particular accounts will differ regarding the specific structures stressed and in the degree of impact upon outcomes attributed to structures. An agenital account, on the other hand, seeks to show that revolutionaries are casually important for the occurrence of revolutions. The two approaches need not be mutually exclusive. In the broad form presented in the paper, the structural and agenital theses may seem toothless. But as soon as a theorist specify the sorts of structures that affect the probability of revolution, the degree to which that probability is structurally influenced or the possible impact of agency upon the probability, it debates on the pre-conditions of revolution.

This paper presents a case study of a psychiatric intervention as an example of an institutional ethnography of psychiatric work. Institutional ethnography, a mode of inquiry outlined by Dorothy Smith (1987), is conceived here as an approach to the analysis of work in institutions as the contingent, local and context-bound insertion of a particular "case" - a patron, a pupil, a client, a patient - into both institutional and other social (e. g. gender, class) relations. The case presented in this paper, shows how a psychiatric factual account is the outcome of a process of the recognition, and/or the production, of "mentionables," followed by the documentary interpretation of mentionables as symptoms. Subsequently it is demonstrated that, and how, the recognition of mentionables depends on non-professional interpretations which by their nature express other social (such as gender, class, etc.) relations. This description of psychiatric diagnostic work is produced by means of a method of discourse analysis that consists of the juxtaposition of the various institutional texts (the two reports) with the transcript of the interview. An analysis of only the interview data would undoubtedly have resulted in some insights about psychiatric interviewing but would have shown neither how the interview functioned as a stage in the institutional process of (re)writing reports nor how ideological evaluations entered the diagnostic process. On the other hand, an analysis of only the two reports would have resulted in some insights about psychiatric reporting but would not have shown how these reports were produced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay describes institutional ethnography as a method of inquiry pioneered by Dorothy E. Smith, and introduces a collection of papers which make distinctive contributions to the development of this novel form of investigation. Institutional ethnography is presented as a research strategy which emerges from Smith‘s wide-ranging explorations of the problematic of the everyday world. Smith‘s conception of the everyday world as problematic involves a critical departure from the concepts and procedures of more conventional sociologies. She argues for an alternative sociology which begins with the standpoint of the actor in everyday life, rather than from within a professional sociological discourse aligned with the society‘s ruling institutions. The familiar sociologies of everyday life do not suffice for this purpose, since they deal with local settings and social worlds, but stop short of examining how these are knitted into broader forms of social organization. In contrast, institutional ethnography examines how the scenes of everyday life are shaped by forms of social organization which cannot be fully grasped from within those scenes. The principal tasks of institutional ethnography include describing the coordination of activities in the everyday world, discovering how ideological accounts define those activities in relation to institutional imperatives, and examining the broader social relations in which local sites of activity are embedded. The four papers which follow demonstrate that specific contributions to institutional ethnography can be made in relation to a wide array of topics, methods, and interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper asks what a sociology of modernity could sensibly look life if it existed. Briefly, the paper follows Agnes Heller both in acknowledging the deep-seated crisis of representation and in insisting on the possibility to strive for an understanding of entire social formations over long periods of time. It starts by highlighting two features of this end of an era literature. First, in describing contemporary society the ephemeral, the fugitive, the fleeting, the contingent nature of the postmodern condition is emphasized. The present is distinguished from the past by being more in motion, less fixed, what was bound is set free, what was orderly and perspicuous becomes chaotic and undecipherable, what was taken for granted and for undoubtedly real has to be questioned and, often enough, assumes an air of pervasive unreality. The second part of this article is devoted to an assessment of the theoretical significance of postmodernity. As in the case of the historical claim, the author argues that there is a considerable significance, though often less in the exact terms of such works but rather in terms of a sensitizing with regard to issues that are neglected or repressed in a social science that often was all too modern.

In this paper I have attempted to present, without too much violation of their original intent by my own interjections, a balance of viewpoints between those who maintain that creative sociology is conservative and those who claim that it is revolutionary (a) in the Kuhnian sense of paradigm change and (b) in the political sense.
Is it possible, on the basis of the fairly representative sample of views presented here to answer the question posed in the title of this paper: "Creative Sociology": Conservative or Revolutionary? Do the spokesmen for each side provide adequate evidence upon which one may decide? With regard to the issue of paradigm change, the answer is "no." If, as appears to be the case, a group of theorists claim to have developed a revolutionary paradigm, which will replace existing paradigms, then the burden of responsibility for support of their claim must rest on them. So far, they have not provided support which makes it possible to accept or deny their claim. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the author in this paper is to examine patterns of collaboration more systematically by analyzing 45 multi-party arguments out of a total of 75 that were gleaned from videotapes of unsupervised reading groups in a first-grade classroom. Fifty-four children from eight groups in three classrooms of one elementary school participated in the study. The subjects were Caucasian, native speakers of English and from middle class American families. This paper has aimed to remedy a neglect of multi-party disputes by addressing how those involved in a two-party argument may collaborate with others who are co-present. Collaboration is a complex phenomenon. In the first place, one have seen that disputes, although initially produced by two parties, do not consist simply of two sides. Rather, given one party's displayed position, stance, or claim, another party can produce opposition by simply aligning against that position or by aligning with a counterposition. This means that parties can dispute a particular position for different reasons and by different means. It is therefore possible for several parties to serially oppose another's claim without achieving collaboration. A second complexity, then, is just that collaboration is a negotiated phenomenon.

Erving Goffman had a fullness of perspective on the social world, an inveterate taste for the texture of social reality. These qualities drew him into the orbit of the linguistic turn, and the companionship of linguists; yet he remained always his own man, as much a critics as anything else. From first to last his own vision of an intact sphere of reality governed his participation. It can be seen in his first paper to signal his involvement in a loose confederation at Berkeley in the early 1960s, one that became the basis of a continuing network of sociolinguistic activity. The paper, The Neglected Situation, was his contribution to a symposium at the 1963 meetings of the American Anthropological Association in San Francisco, California, and was published the next year in a special number of the American Anthropologist. In this paper, as in his conversation at the time, Erving welcomed the emerging attention to the social dimension of language, but issued a warning. Research that correlated this or that aspect of speech with this or that aspect of participant and setting would entail an infinite ingress. One would always be entering upon the social reality of speech without ever encompassing it. States of talk have their own constraints and configurations that are not reducible to partial correlation.

After a review of comparable degree productivity among several social and behavioral sciences, this paper concludes that sociology was uniquely affected by forces that lowered both the production of B.A.'s, M.A.'s, and Ph.D.'s and the quality of its graduate students. From the mid-1970s to the late 1980s, sociology suffered drastic declines in student numbers and quality. The increased careerism among students apparently accounts for a substantial portion of this decline, but through a very concrete mechanism: the expansion of business programs. The paper suggests that perhaps an absence of a serious commitment to teaching scientific sociology accounts for the loss of quality, since applied sciences have fared much better than has sociology. The recent ASA Task Force recommendations for curriculum redesign are reviewed, and a call is issued for revitalizing the scientific component of undergraduate sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper proposes an applied sociology of social problems that encompasses concern with the definition of problems and the conditions defined as problematic. The literature on applied sociology focuses on social problems, but exhibits no concern with the social definition of problems, an issue that should be of primary concern according to the constructionist perspective on social problems. I propose an applied research orientation that is capable of assessing the definition of a problem as well as describing the condition defined as problematic. I illustrate the proposed orientation by discussing an applied study of the people who inhabit the streets in Santa Cruz, California. The study succeeded in redefining those people as streetpeople instead of as transients, but not as part of the new poor. The paper considers the implications of assessing the definition of a problem for policy development, the factors that constrain the redefinition of a problem, and other issues of general relevance. The paper concludes by underscoring the importance of definitional processes and politics, and indicating the prospects of an applied sociology of social problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is a review and discussion of the two most common ways sociologists distinguish sociology from common sense in their constant dental of the perennial charge that "sociology is just common sense" Sociologists routinely exaggerate the differences between sociology and common sense by insisting that common sense is (1) false and (2) contradictory. These responses are unsatisfactory, incomplete, and often untrue. Each of these points is discussed and supported by illustrative examples from a wide range of sociological literature. The paper proposes that sociologists' handling of the sociology/common sense issue is a self-serving ideology designed to mystify their audiences in an effort to monopolize their role as experts on social life and to protect their professional autonomy. The paper ends by referring the reader to published materials' which deal more adequately with the similarities and dissimilarities of sociology and common sense and by supporting the thesis that sociology must combine the two types of knowledge. [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]

shared problem across the sciences is to make sense of correlational data coming from observations and/or from experiments. Arguably, this means establishing when correlations are causal and when they are not. This is an old problem in philosophy. This paper, narrowing down the scope to quantitative causal analysis in social science, reformulates the problem in terms of the validity of statistical models. Two strategies to make sense of correlational data are presented: first, a 'structural strategy', the goal of which is to model and test causal structures that explain correlational data; second, a 'manipulationist or interventionist strategy', that hinges upon the notion of invariance under intervention. It is argued that while the former can offer a solution the latter cannot. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper traces the development of my theoretical and methodological approach to political sociology by referring to important intellectual influences and recounting the considerations that led me to choose particular research subjects. The term “intruder” emphasizes my discomfort with the separation of sociology and political science into distinct professions, as I ended up choosing political science as my academic profession but have always felt intellectually more at home in sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Burawoy’s manifesto connects to a long series of debates on the role of science in society as well as on the myth of pure science. This paper argues that the gap between professional sociology and public sociology is far from being unbridgeable and that public sociology is not suppressed to the extent portrayed by Burawoy. In late modern societies a number of schools, including various scientific, public and intellectual movements have questioned the possibility, value position and social relevance of a functionally differentiated pure science by applying the sine qua non of modernity, i.e. critical reflection, to science. According to the argument developed here, also illustrated by a personal example, Burawoy could possibly prevent the gate-keepers of the empire of pure science from closing the otherwise open gates in front of his program and in front of critical reflection if only he used less harsh war-cries and were more careful in detecting the changes he himself urges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We can only welcome the discourse that has been initiated in our professional community with the concept of public sociology in the focus. Undoubtedly, Michael Burawoy has indisputable merits in fuelling this international dialogue. I find, however, that his position and conceptual framework is debatable at several points, therefore my review is on the side of those who criticize his ideas. My paper is divided into three parts: in keeping with the idea that the drop mirrors the ocean, I will start with the detailed critique of a single paragraph—the one which makes comments on his table entitled Types of sociological knowledge. It will be argued that by switching his viewpoints and using vaguely defined notions without empirical evidences he often tackles his subject inconsistently. Secondly, I intend to offer an alternative, three-dimensional conceptual model in which the social scientist’s prestige, influence and position on the action chain is taken into account as the main analytical aspects of the relationship between her/him and the public. Finally, based on this model, I propose to identify some strategies in order to find a better balance between the public and professional activity of social scientists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on American sociology. The present paper aims to offer an explanation for how sociology came to its present state and what can be done to integrate the discipline. A discipline becomes integrated when there is relatively centralized control over the material, organizational and symbolic resources necessary for intellectual work. Material resources are necessary to conduct intellectual activities. Organizational resources are administrative control over the allocation of material and symbolic resources that enable a discipline develop coherence. Symbolic resources are cultural and include members of a discipline perceiving that they are part of a common intellectual community.

This collection of papers materialized in response to the American Sociological Association's call for centennial plenary sessions in 2004 as it prepared for the 2005 annual meeting in Philadelphia. Three of the nearly two-dozen centennial plenary sessions selected for the conference proceedings focused on the subject of sociological knowledge. One of these plenary sessions was organized by me; the other two, originally intended to be one session but divided in order to accommodate the large number of proposed presenters, was organized by Barbara Schneider. Shortly after the sessions were confirmed, I contacted Barbara to determine her interest in publishing some of the presentations as a collection that offered multiple perspectives on the nature of sociological knowledge. Based on the initial interest expressed by both Barbara and the presenters, I contacted Larry Nichols to determine if he might have an interest in publishing a special issue of The American Sociologist on this topic. Upon his consent, work proceeded forward on this special issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social scientists often lament the fact that philosophically trained ethicists pay limited attention to the insights they generate. This paper presents an overview of tendencies in sociological and anthropological studies of morality, ethics and bioethics, and suggests that a lack in philosophical interest might be related to a tendency among social scientists to employ either a deficit model (social science perspectives accommodate the sense of context that philosophical ethics lacks), a replacement model (social scientists have finally found the “right way” of doing ethics), or a dismissal model (ethics should be abandoned all together as a misconstrued veil of power). Increased awareness of differences in styles of reasoning and objects of research interest might help to overcome the hostility, and an anthropological project is presented as an invitation to a dialogue informed by awareness of such differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public sociology is an attempt to redress the issues of public engagement and disciplinary identity that have beset the discipline over the past several decades. While public sociology seeks to rectify the public invisibility of sociology, this paper investigates the limitations of it program. Several points of critique are offered. First, public sociology's affiliations with Marxism serve to potentially entrench existing divisions within the discipline. Second, public sociology's advancement of an agenda geared toward a "sociology for publics" instead of a "sociology of publics" imposes limitations on the development of a public interface. Third, the lack of a methodological agenda for public sociology raises concerns of how sociology can compete within a contested climate of public opinion. Fourth, issues of disciplinary coherence are not necessarily resolved by public sociology, and are potentially exacerbated by the invocation of public sociology as a new disciplinary identity. Fifth, the incoherence of professional sociology is obviated, and a misleading affiliation is made between scientific knowledge and the hegemonic structure of the profession. Finally, the idealism of public sociology's putative defense of civil society is explored as a utopian gesture akin to that of Habermas' attempt to revive the public sphere. The development of a strong program in professional sociology is briefly offered as a means to repair the disciplinary problems that are illustrated by emergence of the project of public sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sociological production is a situated and embodied activity carried out by individuals inserted in actual social relations. Considering that this feature has an influence upon the content of scholarly literature and that it can be revealed in the scientific text itself, I propound a new interpretation of the writing process of Robert E. Park's "The City," the famous paper he published initially in 1915. Customarily depicted as a manifesto for an autonomous urban sociology, I argue on the contrary that its general economy has to be linked to Park's biographical background. When he affiliated with the Sociology Department at the University of Chicago, Park was brought to teach a course on the social survey. "The City" was to be the academic expression of his point of view on the topic. Park's biographical encounters with some active promoters of the social survey approach are evidenced and their influence on his 1915 essay is carefully analyzed, showing notably that curious intellectual omissions in "The City" can be traced back to these previous encounters. Park's latter texts, and the 1925 revised version of "The City" in particular, are shown to provide the interwar sociologists with a peculiar narrative about the history of sociology: Park's predecessors are deliberately confined in a pre-scientific stage of the discipline and Park's original essay is presented as a seminal research program destined to be later fulfilled by the newly established urban sociologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Guenther Roth's study places Max Weber in an intricate network of ties among members of his lineage. This paper presents core findings of Roth's analysis of Weber's family relations, discusses the validity of Roth's core theses and some of the implications of his analysis for Weber as a person and scholar, and addresses how Roth's book may influence future approaches to Weber's sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Selected writings from Reuel Denney's work as a social analyst are reviewed in order to establish and highlight his often-overlooked contributions to sociology. Denney's cultural studies of Americans at play, with specific reference to his writings on the subcultures of football and hot-rodding, and on television and the electronic media, advertising and architecture, are reviewed in examining some major themes emphasized in his sociology. These writings are discussed against the backdrop of Denney's early life experiences drawn from his autobiography to better enable readers to gain an appreciation of his sociological thinking. The beginnings of a Denney postmodern are sketched as a conclusion to this paper's major contention that Denney anticipated much of today's sociology as cultural studies. As one of Reuel's students, nearly forty years ago, I hope that this article serves not only to highlight Denney's contributions and place within the discipline of sociology, but also that my personal recollections will serve to reveal the strong attachments we students felt toward him as our teacher, mentor, and friend. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The introductory course is a nearly ubiquitous offering in sociology programs. There are several reasons why the discipline of sociology has settled on a standard format for introductory texts. Most instructors probably took a fairly standard introductory course when they were students, and they may take it for granted that the course ought to be taught that way. Most sociologists specialize in one or two substantive areas, teaching the introductory course probably bears little relation to their scholarly interests, and some may hope to minimize the time they invest in preparing for this course. And introductory teachers can exchange ideas at the increasingly frequent sessions about teaching at scholarly conferences. The paper examines the similarity of introductory textbooks in sociology by comparing the vocabulary presented in glossaries in major introductory textbooks with actual usage in major sociology journals to see how closely the texts' vocabulary reflects the discipline's language. The findings suggest that a major reason is that textbook authors and publishers duplicate elements of other books, both because they attempt to copy successful features and because the review process encourages conformity to a standard model.

In her paper, Molm raises whether behavioral sociology is an appropriate perspective for distinctly sociological analysis or does it lead to psychological reductionism. In the first section of the paper, where she distinguishes behavioral sociology from behavioral psychology, Molm adopts a sociological focus that is in agreement with my conception of it. The discussion in the second section of the paper seems to depart from the sociological perspective of the first section. Most of Molm's paper deals with microsociological studies, and her contribution which should be acknowledged is that she recognizes the dangers of psychological reductionism. In concluding her article, she notes that a main difference between behavioral and other sociologists is the methodological one that the former tend to prefer laboratory experiments and the latter research in natural settings. The nature of the explanatory theory depends on the conception of social structure. The theory seeks to explain the pattern of structure of social relations in terms of the structure or distribution of social positions.

The paper places the model of the media field in the context of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu's theory of fields, capital and habitus. It illustrates the media field approach by analyzing several field case studies. Through systematic comparison with other approaches to media research, it highlights the unique contributions offered by the field theory while pointing out some still unresolved difficulties. Bourdieu and associates developed a new paradigm for the sociology of journalism centered around the concept of the media field. Their basic thesis is that as journalism has become less autonomous from the economic field, its influence and pervasiveness have also increased. The news media serving as an agent of dominant power are undermining the autonomy of other spheres of cultural production and thus the optimal social conditions for the production of scientific knowledge and artistic innovation. In service of this intellectual project, Bourdieu and associates contribute to the Anglo-American tradition of news media research in various ways.

Some of sociology's recent internal critics (e.g., Turner and Turner, 1990; Halliday and Janowitz, 1992; Collins, 1986; Gans, 1990; Crane and Small, 1992) suggest that the discipline's diversity of theoretical, methodological and substantive foci leave it in a weakened position for achieving individual and collective ends. Other sociologists (e.g., D'Antonio, 1992; Roos and Jones, 1993; Stacey and Thorne, 1985) argue that substantive diversity has made the discipline attractive to a greater variety of previously underrepresented groups, particularly women, groups that have, in turn, contributed to sociology's substantive diversity. This paper reports on a content analysis of 2,016 articles from North American sociology journals in 1936, 1956, 1976, and 1996 as well as from chemistry, anthropology, economics, political science, and psychology journals in 1996. The analysis focused on a number of, often contradictory, hypotheses drawn from the competing views of sociology's diversity with respect to its substantive concerns and its gender composition. It finds, for instance, that there is more substantive diversity in today's sociology journal articles than there was earlier, at least when diversity is measured in terms of fields that are reputed to be attractive to women. This may not be surprising, since more women are writing sociology journal articles than ever before. Moreover, the substantive diversity seems to be related to more, not less, funding of sociological research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a hypothetical format, evidence is advanced to support the proposition that sociology is in a critical stage of its development. The argument presented is that sociology very soon must abandon, at least in large part, its traditional assumptions favoring antireductionism and purposeful (teleological) explanations for human social behavior to avoid losing all academic recognition as a science (or even pre-science)
Although it was rather clearly foreseen early in the last quarter of the 20th century that sociobiology would eventually absorb the scientific aspects of sociology and supplant it (Sade, 1975:263), the speed with which this occurred was remarkable. By the mid-1980s, the trends in this direction were commonly recognized, and by the end of the 20th century, essentially nothing remained of sociology within the academic community. This paper outlines in a historical context the factors responsible for this eventuality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper summarizes briefly the formal relationship between the American Sociological Association (ASA) and the seven regional sociological societies, suggests that little has resulted from the affiliation, and recommends (1) the ASA Committee on Regional Affairs be terminated, and (2) four other ways of linking the national and regional societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines critically the possibility of utilizing concepts and techniques of analysts from structuralism in sociology. Noting some of the reasons why sociologists have expressed little interest in structuralism to date, in contrast to anthropologists, it then attempts to state the difficulties and limitations of applying the methods and theoretical assumptions of linguistic structuralism to the analysis of social phenomena other than language. Secondly, it focuses on certain weaknesses of structural anthropology as developed by Lvi-Strauss, in particular the exclusive and psychologistic emphasis on the symbolic dimension of human experiences and the problematic philosophical status of structuralism. Finally, it suggests that while structuralism may have some relevance to the study of the relatively stable structures of primitive societies, it essentially cannot deal with the complex historical and structural problems of industrial societies which are the special province of sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on democracy and child welfare. In order to study compassion sociologically, one has to look at its collective manifestations, at the organized activity that express a moral sentiment though action. Compassion is not simply an abstract feeling; it is practical humanitarianism. Many people have argued that moral sentiments like compassion are distinctively modern and have social origins. But this does not mean, at least in this paper that they are simply a ruse of the ruling class. Rather it means that moral sentiments emerged in a specific historical and social context: the rise and consolidation of capitalism. The market allows people to enter, independently of their will, into universal moral relationships. The market expands the horizons of people's moral responsibility, which were formerly limited by exclusivist bonds of memberships in corporate groups. Humanitarianism thus emerges from market relationships. Ideally, in market society everyone is a potential partner and this potential universality expands our horizons of humanity from exclusive bonds to universal ones. Moral obligations are not solely internal restraints, nor are they simply self-conscious deceptions in order to attain some goal; they are, at least in part, the reflection of an expanded sphere of action. It is true that a major part of the reform of manner did involve the transition from hierarchical control to the internalization of mores. But it was for this very reason that the process of moral reform had to involve the reformation of the manners of all parts of society.

The question to which this paper has been addressed is the nature of constraint on communication exercised by the organizational contexts of message-processing. Context is, if nothing else, assumed knowledge, it is what is absent from speech but signaled by it. Many sociologists has suggested that this is everyday knowledge, matters taken for granted. This notion must be paired with assumptions about the social distribution of knowledge, and the bounded nature of the social reality within which knowledge is assumed and used. The nature of the transition from one sort of social reality such as the citizens' world to another, the police world, is epistemologically critical. Studies of natural language which intend to illuminate the concept of context differ from studies in a more formalistic or semiotic mode such as that presented here. Conversational analysis has preferred bits of conversations, phrases or brief sentence sequences, often taped and transcribed from telephone exchanges. Textual analysis is limited by a number of its features. It is guided by a model of language and of the formal syntactical features of narrative forms. It draws heavily on written texts of traditional forms of narrative such as fairy tales, classical or traditional literature or myths.

The phenomenon which the author examines in more detail in this paper is the activity of direction giving itself. Anthropologist E.A. Schegloff's example and others which the author had collected can reveal how directions are produced using such sequential structures as, adjacency pairs and insertion sequences. However, the author hope to show that when one examine the activity of direction giving there is much work that is accomplished in and through such structures that is relevant for the activity itself. In addition to the sequential organization of insertion sequences one find that the activity of direction giving is itself sequentially organized. By examining the activity of direction-giving and asking one can discover some of the sequential and other structures which characterize the activity. The insertion sequence, as a sequential structure, can be found to be used by interactants in more than one way to accomplish different results. One can therefore consider the insertion sequence as a sequential structure and, by attending to the activity in which the interactants are engaged, discover the relation between sequential and activity system structures. In this way one can relate what persons are doing and how they are doing it to some of the basic structures of conversational interaction.

When one sells, convinces, argues, defends, justifies, accuses and complains, one is attempting to have fellow interactants arrive at certain conclusions. A major resource for doing this are the practices of description. A state of affairs is portrayed as believable, obvious, compelling, unreasonable and illogical in the way a description of it is formed. One practice used in legitimizing claims involves describing with Extreme Case formulations. Some examples of Extreme Case formulations are, brand new, every time and everyone. This paper analyzes how Extreme Case Formulations work in complaining, accusing, justifying, and defending. Within these activities, three uses of Extreme Case Formulations have been isolated for analysis. They are, to defend against the legitimacy of complaints, to propose a phenomenon is in the object rather than a product of the interaction, to propose that some behavior is not wrong, or is right, by virtue of its status. The social order essentially is a moral order. One of the ways of knowing what is acceptable and right is by finding out how people behave. There often is a shared assumption operating, how people behave tells one what is the right way to behave. Proportional measures reporting the frequency or prevalence of practices are used to propose and substantiate the rightness and wrongness of those practices.

The paper focuses on a particular type of recipient action, the vocal responses made by recipients in the midst of extended talk by another speaker. After analyzing an example, it could be noted that, the brief recipient vocalizations that occur during ongoing talk might in fact be divided into different classes. When the behavior of participants toward them is examined in empirical data this possibility is supported. Though assessments and continuers occur in roughly the same environment, that is, in the midst of extended talk by another speaker, the detailed sequential treatment each receives reveals that they are in fact being treated as different types of phenomena. Once assessments and continuers are focused on as distinguishable phenomena it becomes clear that they differ from each other not just in the details of their sequential placement within an extended turn, but in other significant ways as well. Alternative types of action are available to recipients for constructing responses in the midst of another's extended talk. Though the responses themselves are typically brief, the presence of alternatives that can be placed in a variety of sequential positions provides recipients with resources that enable them to participate in speaker's emerging talk in a differentiated fashion, something which has consequences for speaker's actions as well.

This article discusses the common sense and common convictions which are meant to put phenomenological sociology into perspective as a critique of scientific sociology. The author argues that a hermeneutical point of view is needed in order to achieve this critique. In the first section of the article, the author establishes the difference between the observer's and scientific theorist's account of what is required for the study of society and the participant's view of what he or she needs to know about society in order to be a responsible member. In the second section of the paper, the author examines commonsense knowledge as the topic of phenomenological sociology. The author also argues that phenomenological sociology doesn't follow through on the claim that members' commonsense knowledge of society is organized with reference to practical interests. In the third section of this article, the author argues that hermeneutics permits a better grasp of the practical point-of-view available to both societal members and to itself as enquiry.

This article argues that the most significant central problems of sociology are inevitable, that they constitute necessary features of the discipline's epistemological and historical conditions of possibility. At the basis of the argument will be a reading of Michel Foucault's work on the location of the human sciences within a specific epistemological configuration and on the historical preconditions of their emergence. In particular, the article attempts to show that at the basis of the human sciences is a conception of man as both subject and object and that this dualism is a precondition of the field of inquiry. As such therefore, no resolution or synthesis of the dualism or duality may be located within the field of inquiry of the human sciences. To consider the conception of man as both subject and object, and the analogue of action and structure and their respectively derivative sociologies as a problem awaiting synthesis or resolution, is to pose for solution that which must remain insoluble within the terms of reference of the human sciences. The paper begins with a few comments on conventional conceptions of sociology's history and status as a science and then proceed to a discussion of a radically different conception derived from the work of Foucault.

This article focuses on the future of sociology archive as a discipline. The major U.S. university libraries now go to extraordinary lengths and expense to collect the papers of writers, even many who as yet have not been categorically identified as important. There is a serious lesson in this-one might even say, a vital one-for sociology as it confronts an uncertain future. As everyone of a certain age will recall, the saga of Roots, in book and television formats, single-handedly gave American blacks a collective sense of historical importance that up to that point was absent from mass culture. The new Holocaust Museum in Washington is the most eloquent and emotionally wracking contemporary expression of historical memory for public consumption on a grand scale. Other examples can be found at every juncture of the "culture wars" that have been raging in the United States since the 1960s. Every politically self-aware group is supposed to venerate its real or imagined past, both at individual and collective levels, not only because such joint expressions enhance self-conceptions but also owing to the strategic advantage.

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]

Sociological classics serve six distinct functions (1) touchstones, examples of beautiful and possible ways of doing scientific work, (2) developmental tasks to induce complexity of mind in a student, to replace the cliches of Sociology 1, (3) intellectual badges for the first footnotes of a paper to identify broad features of a style of work, (4) sources of fundamental ideas, root concerns of sociology, (5) routine science, as sources of puzzles and hypotheses for empirical work, (6) rituals to express the solidarity and common concerns of sociology as a discipline Much confusion about the roles of classic books in the education of sociologists stems from confusion of these functions, and particularly from not noticing that a classic that fails at one of the functions may serve well at another. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I argue that the selection of appropriate statistical procedures is at best haphazard without a careful consideration of the consequences of one's research, and that significant distortions often will result when applied concerns are ignored. I advance the hypothesis that typical conceptions of basic research in sociology preclude the proper use of statistics. From this it follows that mainstream, quantitative sociology can begin to save itself only by taking seriously the question of applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper focuses its attention upon the relationship between the dominant ideas in American sociology and the receptivity, opposition, or indifference to the ideas of Karl Marx. It documents that early American sociology basically ignored Marx's ideas. When his ideas were addressed, the modal response was overwhelmingly negative, and typically along ideological lines. A classificatory scheme is developed to identify the ideological nature of the treatment of Karl Marx in early American sociology. In effect, Marx was defined as beyond the limits of valid inquiry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In view of the revanchist ideology that often passes under the rubric of sociobiology, a perspective that insists on the learned nature of social behavior is welcome. Undoubtedly, a search for the causes and careers of human behavior is a legitimate enterprise in sociology, but in the context of Molm's paper, a different question must be raised regarding behaviorist sociology. The root criticism of behavioral sociology, it seems to me, is the one she attributes to symbolic interactionism. The view that human emit behavior, Molm contends, is not a mechanistic theory at all because operant behaviors are not automatically elicited by any prior stimulus, they simply occur not elicited by a stimulus. If something that is yet to happen is the cause of the behavior that is about to be emitted, then surely it is the anticipation of receiving the reinforcement that is causing the behavior. I am sure Molm is correct that the argument about behavioral sociology is really about behavioral sociology is really about the goals and aims of science.

This article discusses the American Sociological Association (ASA) as a portrait of organizational success and intellectual paralysis. There are many important things that the ASA does very well. Its conventions are now quite large and complicated, with more than 200 sessions and close to a thousand persons participating in the sessions. Planning for a convention starts four years in advance with the choice of a site, and program committees work hard for a year in setting up sessions and recruiting session organizers. The sessions have changed over the past few decades, as of 1981. In the early days, sessions were organized more casually, networks of acquaintances being used frequently as means to solicit papers for sessions. Now, participation has been placed on a more universalistic basis. More opportunities are provided for members to exchange ideas and information about work in progress through luncheon roundtables, workshops, and poster sessions. The ASA also is successful in publishing its journals and in running a monograph series. The journals do come out more or less on time and are delivered to the right addresses. If there is an establishment in the ASA, it is composed of persons who are well known, mainly through their scholarly works or other activities that bring them to the attention of the members. Although the ASA must be reckoned successful in a bureaucratic sense, it has not been successful in advancing the intellectual side of the discipline.

In this paper, I would like to try to sort out the conflict of two ways of knowing: on the one hand there are folk methods for constituting positive knowledge and on the other hand there are scientific methods of acquiring accurate, positive knowledge. Both methods try to solve the problem of subjectivity: privately, individually held states of knowing and understanding. In this endeavor, the very existence of social reality is at stake. If persons have, internally, states of understanding that are different from each other in any persistent and significant way, their behavior will be at cross purpose or to no human purpose and gradually behavior will drift irreconcilably apart. There are, of course, social controls by which to resynchronize behavior but in these, too, folk methods are challenged by scientific methods. I wish to emphasize that the human project requires both folk methods and scientific methods of knowledge constitution. The former could ensure collective praxis; the latter could contribute to the authentic self-knowledge of a social life world. Together they could reunite the alienated divisions of the knowledge process. I suggest some canons in the last section that may promote such reunification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]