Search

In the following paper we argue that the conventional "Introduction to Sociology" survey course should be restructured because such courses try to survey an unsurveyable body of knowledge and they do not teach the application of sociological research. The conventional intro course should be replaced with an intro course that surveys the types of social dynamics that sociologists typically research and the methods they use to do so. We propose a semester-long intro course with four case study learning-units that are chosen for their coverage of the underlying sociological dynamics, methods, and core concepts. We contend that case study learning-units which concentrate on topical issues and core sociological concepts are better suited for an introduction course.

Discusses and criticizes criminal justice's deviation from its roots in sociology and adaptation of a more career-oriented perspective. Maintains that the symbiotic relationship between law enforcement agencies and criminal justice as an academic discipline has corrupted the discipline and inhibited academic inquiry. (MJP)

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.

Urges sociologists to direct more attention toward computer usage because of computers' increasing importance in producing sociological knowledge. Criticizes professional ambivalence toward computer technology as inhibiting creative software development and adequate training of sociologists in computer methods. Concludes that sociology's ambivalence toward computers threatens the profession's ability to keep up in research and scholarship. (DK)

Traces the experiences surrounding the editorial review of a paper submitted to the journal, "Social Problems," that was later rejected, with the author claiming the review was not fair. Attempts to specify ethical dilemmas surrounding such an experience. Explains the ambiguity of the process from the editor's perspective. (NL)

Examines the meaning of practicing sociology, claiming to "commit a social science" still makes sense. Accepts Max Weber's arguments that sociology clarifies human affairs and is oriented to certain virtues. Suggests, however, that sociology is a passion as well as a profession, something Weber recognized but did not elaborate. (NL)

Counters arguments of Donald N. McClosky on formalism in the social sciences and claims he fails to identify important arguments that justify the practices he criticizes. Agrees that, although exposing accepted methods to critical examination is useful, this broad attack implies the rejection of good social science as well as bad. (NL)

Refutes Peter Mueser's criticisms of the author's position on formalistic research approaches. Restates that statistical significance is virtually useless. Claims mathematical economists take their intellectual positions from mathematics departments bringing irrelevant intellectual values into economics. (NL)

Contends that changes in the dominant mode of social research since 1900 have mirrored changes in the structure of society. States that graduate training in sociology must begin to define itself in relation to the functioning of modern society or face the danger of becoming "that in which no one else is interested." (Author/BSR)

Arguing that social scientists must write in an interesting and readable manner, Fine presents 11 propositions to lighten and brighten sociological writing. Suggests that sociologists write often, proofread their work, allow others to review it, make revisions, develop individual styles, use humor, and write for the readers. (GEA)

Sociology is biased by the same set of societal values that have produced many social problems in America, especially problems that severely affect the lives of women, Blacks, and other minorities. This bias, as well as other factors, tends to drive many Blacks away from the field. (Author/BE)

This paper tracks Mead's induction into the sociological canon, focusing in particular on American sociologists who made a concerted effort to reconstruct Mead as a systematic social theorist and apply his ideas to empirical research. It distinguishes two interpretive strategies of framing the classic and constructing the canon -- the politics of orthodoxy and politics of the open canon. The politics of orthodoxy aims to ascertain the original meaning and close the textual canon, creating a template relative to which alternative interpretations are judged incomplete, unorthodox, or wrongheaded. The politics of the open canon proceeds on the assumption that the classic text lends itself to conflicting interpretations, that room for the honest difference of opinion must be safeguarded, and that the capacity to further productive inquiry rather than the adherence to an orthodox view recommends a particular construal as viable and canon-worhty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How does evidence-based sociological research influence public policymaking either directly or indirectly? Based on an analysis of a 2014 NSF-funded public policy research workshop and written case studies by workshop participants, this article provides a conceptual roadmap and varied examples of the pathways through which social science research and social scientists can inform public policy decision-making. Pathways include networks and relationships among academics, social scientists employed in government, special interest groups and non-profits, and members of the media. Many sociologists are committed to using their evidence-based findings to inform solutions to societal problems, yet are often too narrowly trained to write only for scholarly communities and are often unaware of the relations, connections, and networks that can increase the use of sociological and other social science research in public discourse and in the public policy arena. The paper highlights lessons learned about effective networks, communication channels and dissemination strategies from the workshop and case studies in order to better equip those social scientists interested to bring their research into a public policy realm with the tools to do so. Given the current political climate, this resolve seems all the more important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In economic sociology, relations and relationships have emerged as central yet poorly specified concepts. In this paper, I clarify these terms in a positive critique of the current state of the field. I then consider the ways in which the proposed framework can help analysts to bridge the divide between economics and sociology. Armed with techniques derived from formal network analysis, the new economic sociology offered the first sustained foray into economic territory, but sociological skeptics remain unsatisfied. Two broad rejoinders to this network-analytic approach emerged in the last two decades, but both correctives, nevertheless, leave the divide intact. In the last decade, however, a new paradigm is coalescing under the rubric of “relational economic sociology. While showing promise, it furthers the confusion surrounding the key concepts of “relations” and “relationships.” The proposed framework provides a foundation for constructive dialogue among the different traditions which constitute this new paradigm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Colin Sumner (1994) argued that the sociology of deviance "died" in 1975. This paper critically examines Sumner's argument and finds that it does not mean what it he claims it means. In fact, it is about a decline in the supposed ideological function of the field for the ruling elite and not its declining intellectual vitality. Miller, Wright, and Dannels (2001) claim to test Sumner's argument and find some empirical support for it. This paper finds Wright et al.'s tests flawed and suggests alternative explanations for their findings. Some implications of this issue for the current state of the field are discussed. While the sociology of deviance has declined in theoretical vitality since the 1960s and 1970s, it leaves a legacy of influence in other fields, it remains an ongoing academic enterprise, it still attracts a fair number of students, and its textbooks are cited in the field of sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focus groups became popular in social research in the 1980s. Robert Merton has pointed to the continuities and discontinuities between focus groups and the wartime use of ‘focused interviewing’ he and his colleagues developed at the Bureau of Applied Social Research. Using a variety of sources, the paper attempts to chart the ways in which focused interviewing came to be taken up, diffused and modified in marketing research before re-emerging into sociology as the focus group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thoughtful scholars have discussed the complex nature of the social research-social policy relationship, and yet many persons continue to plan, conduct, interepret, and fund social research as if they expected it to generate facts that have simple effects on policy. This paper argues that such expectations reflect two, untenable assumptions: simple positivism and factual efficacy. These assumptions are reviewed, and a more defensible model for the research-policy relationship is proposed based on plausible theory. Implications of the latter model are then explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the present paper is to test and reemphasize the notion that there is great unevenness in the quality of articles within any journal. In order to demonstrate this variability, the Glenn methodology (listed in parentheses below) was repeated with one major and several minor modifications. Whereas Glenn requested that respondents evaluate journals, for this study the respondents were asked to read and to evaluate journal articles. Articles were mailed in 1975 to a random sample of 1050 (250) professors and associate professors in departments of sociology with M.A. or Ph.D. programmes (Ph.D. only) listed in the Guide to Departments of Sociology, 1974 (1969). Articles in the American Sociological Review (the ASR itself) were used as the standard reference. A weight of 10 was arbitrarily assigned to an article in the ASR, (ASR itself) so that an article (journal) only half as important as an ASR article (journal) should be assigned a weight of five, an article (journal) twice as important a weight of 20 and so forth. Six "general" sociology journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper challenges the conventional academic wisdom that supports the "publish or perish" doctrine. Employing a theoretical framework derived from Berger and Luckmann (1966), other sources of legitimation are analyzed. While the doctrine is related to themes in the larger culture (i.e., a high mass production/consumption economy), this does not fully explain why research and publication receive such determined support from faculty, particularly since alternative means of evaluation exist. An explanation of the publish or perish doctrine is offered in terms of the use of esoteric knowledge (its product) to enhance and preserve professional authority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the author's response to comments about his article on the importance of terminology in sociological research. Richard Dewey suggests that I violated my own injunction to use the simplest unambiguous term for a concept when I offered "terminological overloading." Instead, he says, I should have used "term overloading." A number of comments made were simply not germane to my proposal. I shall respond more specifically to the misconceptions, as I see them found in the comments by my critics. An alternative strategy for presenting my reflections on terminology occurred to me recently, inspired by hearing a song about speaking Jabberwocky. I suggest a two-by-two matrix of language modes involving two dimensions of variation (1) the degree to which a language is intelligible to its audience and (2) the extent to which the audience finds a communication offensive or inoffensive. I must deal with a frequent confusion in the comments on my paper about the defining characteristics of a "glossary," which has to be distinguished from both a thesaurus and a dictionary. A thesaurus contains only a vocabulary, totally without definitions. The most familiar thesaurus, Roget's, contains a classified collection of synonyms which is not a controlled vocabulary. Admittedly, glosaries in the form of a standard to enhance the understanding of interrealted concepts because they use a classified arrangement of entries which facilitates the comprehension of technical definitions. For social scientists, a lexicon is assuredly more interesting and acceptable than a standard. But it is also apparent that the primary users of a lexicon will be language mediators including indexers, translators, and lexicographers, rathern than scholards engaged in the production of knowledge.

This article focuses on sociology and the mass media. The typical processing of sociology is the inception of a problem, research, preparation and submission of results, evaluation of them by reviewers, publication, citation, replication and eventually, replacement. One of the latent consequences of good press coverage has been a high rate of feedback to the author in the form of mail and telephone requests, queries and rebuttals. These have been of four basic kinds such as collegial, clarifiers of the manners, entrepreneurs and celebrity seekers. Mass dissemination of sociology can have the consequences of aggravating an already ambiguous image, distortion of any given sociological paper and misrepresentation of the nature and scope of sociology as a discipline and profession. Consequently, it is time for the American Sociological Association to institutionalize procedures for the dissemination of sociology to the public. One of the proposals for consideration by the association are recognition that in order to obtain constitutionally defined objective to stimulate and improve research, instruction and discussion and to encourage cooperative relations among persons engaged in the scientific study of society, we must take the mass media into account.

This article focuses one of the best known of sociologists Michael Burawoy's works on "public sociology," the version of his presidential address published in the American Sociological Review under the title "For Public Sociology." It presents a proposal for resolving the conflicts that have arisen among sociologists of different orientations. Burawoy sees possibilities for "reciprocal interdependence" among four sociologies, which he calls "professional sociology," "policy sociology," "public sociology," and "critical sociology."

Recent revisionist scholarship on the history of sociology suggests that women scholars in the pre-World War II era made distinctive contributions to the development of the field of sociology. Most research, however, has focused on women prominent in their era, whose works might or might not be typical of all women who published during the same periods. Furthermore, few studies have made explicit comparisons between works by women and by men writing in this same era, so it has been difficult to sort out gender effects from historical era effects. This study explores writings by women and men in the first volumes of the American Journal of Sociology, from 1895 through 1940. As the oldest continuously published sociology journal in the U.S., AJS played a central role in the development of American sociology. We find that women authors were present in AJS from the earliest days, though their share of authorships never was large, and fluctuated year by year. Women's work was distinctively different from that of men, with more women than men writing empirical, evidence-based articles, focusing on women, children, immigrants, the poor, and other have-not groups, and advocating for social reform. Writings of rank-and-file and prominent women sociologists were similar in methods, content, and form, and their distinctive contributions to sociology paralleled many of the concerns of feminist sociologists today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents an autobiographical account of the author's academic career, with special emphasis on the balance between his professional activities as a sociologist and his interdisciplinary activities. My doctoral degree is in sociology, and I spent 36 years of my career in a sociology department. I have conducted sociological research, written textbooks in sociology, edited the American Sociological Review, and participated and held many offices in the American Sociological Association. At the same time I believe I am regarded as among the most interdisciplinary of sociologists. My research has clearly included many other disciplines--especially economics, history, psychology, and education--along with sociology. Furthermore, I have been institutionally involved in numerous transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary activities with publishers, private foundations, the Social Science Research Council, and the National Academy of Sciences. Interdisciplinary intellectual activity does little to solidify the disciplines with one another, though it can work modestly in that direction by generating mutual interdependence and appreciation. But, the kind of interdisciplinary institutional activities in which I have participated extensively is helpful and essential for the institutional protection and promotion of the enterprise as a whole.

Sociologists tend to believe our field is noncumulative because little knowledge is widely recognized throughout the discipline. Disagreement is most widely publicized among theorists. This social recognition criterion of knowledge begs the question of how large a group must be to validate knowledge. Specialized cumulation of knowledge has however taken place in particular research communities. Examples include world-system research, state-breakdown theory of revolution, military-centered theory of state development, social movement theory, and some micro-sociological research programs. There are also instances of lost specialized cumulation, in which fields shift course and ignore previous results, for example in organizational research and small group research. Some independent specialties converge on parallel findings but do not recognize cumulation across fields (as in different specialties studying networks). We can identify and possibly overcome obstacles to recognizing cumulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]