Search

C. Wright Mills' The Sociological Imagination (1959) represents one of the most influential texts of postwar American sociology. The title has become a catchphrase that stands for a style of thought that transcends both theoretical dogma and the constraints of mere methodological rule following. This article sets out to show that Mills' vision of the sociological imagination had more in common with the then dominant lines of scholarship than his broadside against Parsonian grand theory and Lazarsfeldian abstracted empiricism in the main part of the book would suggest. Among the tools that Mills introduced as fostering the sociological imagination were 2 × 2 tables. The article traces the use of such tables over time and across scholarly communities and shows that, contrary to Mills' own estimate, these tables describe a common nexus between his own work and that of Parsons and Lazarsfeld. All three scholars made ample use of this formal tool to construct sociological arguments at central places of their oeuvre. Given its shared use across otherwise divergent schools, the 2 × 2 table is a prime example for what historians of science have called paper tools, i.e. statistical formulas, algorithms, tables, diagrams, graphs, etc., that structure scientific research across different schools of thought and theoretical approaches. Drawing on the notion of paper tools, the article advances a post-Kuhnian perspective on the history of sociology that shifts the research focus from substantive ideas to formal tools and demonstrates elements of commensurability among presumably incommensurable schools of thought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

American sociologist C. Wright Mills is one of the most important and controversial sociologists of the post-war period. Of Mills' works, one book stands out: The Sociological Imagination, published by Oxford University Press in 1959. Little known is that Mills drafted his book during a 12-month Fulbright visit to University of Copenhagen 1956-1957. In the rich biographical literature on Mills this is mentioned only in the passing, or not at all. Based on hitherto unused archival material, this paper offers the first detailed account of his Copenhagen-visit during the Cold War. Bringing together this bulk of new historical traces sheds new light on the year Mills himself referred to as a "pivotal moment." These 12 months in Copenhagen, amid the Cold War, was formative for Mills in two ways: First, Copenhagen was an entrepot to European center-left thinking both east and west of the Iron Curtain. Second, the stay in Copenhagen offered a 'space of selfhood', allowing Mills a necessary respite to develop his critical thinking. He did so in close cooperation with like-minded colleagues in Copenhagen. In the mid-1950s, the discipline was in the making in Denmark, and the visit of a prominent US scholar like Mills offered opportunities for Danish sociologist to further the discipline – and their standing within the discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented on sociologists conceptualizing and studying hope along with several other papers on diverse topics. Topics include refection on the state of historical consciousness in U.S. sociology, and a discussion of the recent trend toward the pre-registration and registration of research designs; and study of "social pathology" such as poverty, illness, racial/ethnic discrimination.

The paper provides insights on the contemporary relevance of Talcott Parsons's writings by analyzing 20 textbooks from Austria, Germany, Great Britain and the United States, published in 1999–2019. Whether having knowledge of Parsons is helpful to today's students and other interested readers, and what knowledge, deserves consideration. Therefore , the paper asks: Which future gains of readers did textbook authors envision when they chose, in their own present, to discuss (or not) sociological writings from long ago? In order to understand what future opportunities authors wanted to create for readers, as well as how they chose to discuss Parsons to this end, the paper draws on Niklas Luhmann's notion of memory. The analysis reveals several key competencies that student and other interested readers might acquire through having knowledge of Parsons' writings and its critiques. These potentials would have gone unnoticed if authors had assessed Parsons's relevance only according to whether he adequately considered conflict or not, as has been done in many debates about his work until today. Moreover, through analyzing how authors remembered Parsons, I distilled two key selective criteria: First, what must be remembered in order to enable readers to acquire those competencies? Second, which memories would be impeding for readers and thus be better left out? These criteria are relevant for research, as well. Looking at the future, it would be desirable that sociologists let Parsons assist them in their research in many different ways, if possible. As a result, we might see a revival of Parsons that enables genuine advancement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In plotting the course for the discipline of sociology, sociologists over the past two decades have called for the practice of "public sociology" (Burawoy in American Sociological Review, 70(1), 4–28, 2005), for disciplinary convergence around a critical methodology (Carroll in Canadian Review of Sociology, 50(1), 1–26, 2013) and the devotion of our scholarly efforts to issues of social justice (Romero in American Sociological Review,85(1), 1–30, 2020). While public, critical, and social justice-oriented work is important, these disciplinary mandates can serve to marginalize other types of sociological work that are valuable as well. In this climate, work coming from perspectives that are not as left leaning politically, or that does not seek to advance any political agenda may be seen as less valued or legitimate, and scholars who choose to separate their political agendas from their research may experience marginalization (McLaughlin in Canadian Journal of Sociology, 30(1), 1–40, 2005; Pawluch in The American Sociologist,50, 204–219, 2019). Inspired by the work and doctoral mentorship of Dorothy Pawluch, this paper seeks to both understand the historical development of the field of Canadian sociology and consider the value and place of the interpretive tradition within it. Through reflecting on the research of others and my own experiences as a graduate student, I argue that the "chilly" climate Dorothy (Pawluch in The American Sociologist,50, 204–219, 2019) alludes to for scholars who operate outside of a politically informed "social-justice agenda" does exist, but that mentorship can help mediate this chill for interpretive leaning students. Finally, I suggest that the branch of the interpretive tradition which asks researchers to suspend their own perspectives and privilege the position of others still has value for Canadian sociology. It can both produce deep, meaningful research contributions and provide students with tools for engaging in productive intellectual debate and transformative encounters with difference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I describe the gradual monetization of the university and its implications for the discipline of sociology. I suggest that not only is money a guiding force for the decisions that university administrators, faculty and students make but that it is also a metaphor for the changes and challenges faced by sociologists today. The second part of the paper identifies strategies for grant success based on approaches that are common in the natural sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Erving Goffman's written legacy bears on sociology as a whole, or so he argued in his Presidential Address to the American Sociological Association (Goffman, 1983). However, while being celebrated as important to the discipline, his work is also interpreted in inconsistent ways, often downplayed or marginalized, and even neglected. This paper claims that Goffman's "well known aversion to self-disclosure" (Shalin, 2013) does not justify overlooking his trajectory, from the unknown "margins" of a Canadian small town to the elusive "center" of American sociology—and much less does it justify still circulating assessments of his personality, crafted while overlooking his life experiences—and, especially, his writings. Anecdotal evidence of his "enigmatic" personality (Lemert, 2003), or "bad-boy outrageousness" (Berger, 1986), works as a derailing tactic, leading to unwarranted appraisals of Goffman's personality—and, more importantly, to the neglect of crucial aspects of his work. From a theoretical standpoint, Simmel's treatment of "the stranger" as a social relationship, and Merton's concept of "moral alchemy", are used here to try to make some sense of the mixture of celebration and neglect still surrounding "Goffman". Historical data was gathered in part from the "Erving Goffman Archives'' (Shalin, 2013). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The decline of interest among sociologists in the works of Talcott Parsons over the last several decades has been driven in substantial respects by a belief that he was personally conservative in his political views and that his theoretical formulations were rigidly tied to a conservative view of social order. The present paper reviews Parsons' major political involvements through the course of his career from his student days through the last decade of his life. The review demonstrates that Parsons was a typical academic liberal of his time and that his liberalism was expressed especially in several major applied essays. In the 1930s, he was an early and active opponent of Nazism. During World War II, he taught professionals to administer occupied territories and nations effectively. After the war, he advocated for government support of the social sciences, citing the important contributions they had made to the war effort. In the 1950s, he wrote a famous critical analysis of the Joseph McCarthy movement in American politics. In the 1960s, he contributed supportive essays to the Civil Rights movement. Later in the decade and in the 1970s, he contributed to the protection of academic freedoms while also proposing accommodations to the demands of the student movement for more "relevant" teaching and greater participation in university governance. Throughout his career, he taught and worked closely with students of various political views and sought to protect their rights of freedom of political expression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In sociology's formative period between 1830 and 1930, evolutionary analysis organized much theorizing and research. This line of work ended abruptly in the 1920s but, over the last decades, has come back into the discipline somewhat piecemeal with the reintroduction of more sophisticated stage models of societal evolution, functional analysis, human ecological analysis, and other new lines of evolutionary inquiry outlined in this paper. Our goal is to demonstrate that revitalized paradigms of the past can still be useful with modest reconceptualization, while at the same time new intellectual movements in the other social sciences, especially economics and psychology, incorporating evolutionary ideas from biology provide sociology with an opportunity to develop its own approach to evolutionary analysis that avoids the problems that let to the demise of this line of inquiry in the 1920s, as well as the problems of other social sciences applying their more narrowly focus models to sociological problems. Indeed, sociology can become a leader in the social sciences in developing more sophisticated theoretical and methodological approaches to incorporating biology and evolutionary analysis into the social sciences. When presented in a new, more sophisticated guise, old approaches like functionalism, stage models of societal evolution, and ecological models can be seen as still having a great deal of explanatory power, while revealing a progressive and future orientation that should appeal to all contemporary sociologists. It is time, then, for sociology to remember its past in order to move into the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discourse and ideology are interrelated concepts in social sciences and the humanities and are even occasionally employed interchangeably. This paper sheds light on their relationship in academic discourse and examines the role of sociology as a scientific field in its conceptualization. Using bibliometric analysis, we examined 15,716 academic publications mentioning "discourse" or "ideology" in their title and written in English by American and British scholars between 1966 and 2015. The investigation focused on the two terms' conceptual environment, areas of usage, journals, and the organizations to which the authors were affiliated. First, we conclude that although some sociology researchers have attempted to create a sociological definition for the concept of discourse, sociologists are not its most active users. The same is true for ideology. These concepts have established niches in other disciplines (political science and history for "ideology," and educational science and linguistics for "discourse"). Second, throughout the years, the field of discourse studies has become more diversified and fragmented than that of ideology. Third, the leading organizations in both fields are prestigious American and British universities, which indicates that discourse and ideology are elements of the intellectual elites' language. Fourth, the concept of discourse was more frequently applied than that of ideology in the years 2010–2015, and we expect that it will remain popular among scholars in the next decade. As for ideology, we believe that new social challenges could foster the rediscovery of this concept in the near future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Christian Smith's paper 'The Incoherence of 'Culture' in American Sociology' is a valuable provocation that can prompt us to reflect on the role of concepts and on the role of agreement on the definition of concepts in scientific research. In this comment paper, I raise questions about Smith's empirical expectation that sociologists should agree on a concept of culture based on debates in the sociology of science. I also suggest that in terms of the future agenda for the sociology of culture, we should distinguish between dialogue and clarification on the one hand, which I agree is needed, and standardization on the other hand, which seems incompatible with open-minded empirical research. Rather than work on agreement on what culture is, we might work on clarifying relevant distinctions among dimensions of culture. [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]

In 1945 Davis and Moore, following an earlier formulation by Davis, proposed a functional theory of stratification that was intended to account for what they contended was the "universal necessity" for social inequality in any social order. Beginning with an article by Tumin in 1953, the Davis-Moore theory elicited regular analysis, commentary, criticism, and debate through the 1970s. Although professional work on the theory has largely ceased since the late 1980s, the Davis-Moore theory remains perhaps the single most widely cited paper in American introductory sociology and stratification textbooks and constitutes "required reading" in hundreds, if not thousands, of undergraduate and graduate courses throughout the United States. The present paper traces the history of the debate and attempts to explain the theory's longevity and vitality in the face of what has amounted to largely negative assessments by other sociologists over the preceding fifty years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Between 1885 and 1930, as sociology was becoming an academic discipline, sociology was also being practiced intelligently, innovatively, and self-consciously outside the academy in the social settlements that grew up in America's major cities. In this paper, we first define and give a brief overview of the settlement movement in America; second, we show how the settlement workers were sociologists in their self-definition and action and in their relations with other sociologists; third, in the body of the paper, we describe the sociology done by the settlements in terms of the empirical research they undertook and the theory they created. Our argument is that settlement sociologists produced empirical studies that were both substantively significant and methodologically pioneering; that they did so in terms of a coherent social theory unique in its focus on "the neighborly relation"; and that both their research and theory were part of a critical, reflexive, and activist sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the participation by sociologists in several major conferences, mostly held in New York, that focused on issues related to science, democracy and faith between the late 1930s and the early post-World War II period. These events offered sociologists an opportunity to showcase the discipline to leading scholars, public figures, and other intellectuals and public audiences outside the discipline. Amidst widespread uncertainty and a quest for answers to significant social and economic problems, sociologists revealed that they were no more adept than other intellectuals to provide definitive pathways out of potential catastrophe. At the same time, the conferences and related events demonstrated that sociologists had analytical tools and insights that could be useful in framing questions and orientations that were of interest not only to scholar bodies, but also served as potential reference points for social policy and community development. These activities, in helping to legitimize the discipline and reinforce the boundaries within which it operated, did so in a manner that also separated and privileged sociologists, as professionals or experts, from broader publics in ways that narrowed the discipline's main foci and lessened its capacity to adopt more democratic public roles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

This collective effort (the order of authors is purely alphabetical) explores our particular Sociological perspective, explains the harriers we tire encountering in developing that perspective. and describes the strategies we are employing to create a participatory conditional environment. Our paper concludes that our alienation has decreased as our participation has increased. Now - three months after the paper went to the printer, developments in our department have to sonic extent reversed the sense of community and participation tee discuss below. Our task is larger than we first thought, though we still hope to succeed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is an attempt to in form young sociologists in academic institutions about issues of tenure. Although there is room for debate concerning the nature of tenure, a basic conception of tenure is presented here which we believe is defensible under any set of economic or political circumstances. The misconceptions about tenure by young sociologists and the misconceptions about fundamental responsibilities of department chairs often lead to dissatisfied sociologists, demoralized departments, and hated administrators Sociologists should be aware of the way tenure is implemented at their institutions. Chairs not only should be informed but also should inform their department members about the tenure process. The paper is the result of experiences gained by the authors while serving on the Committee of the Freedom of Research and Teaching of the American Sociological Association. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is taken from Chapter 6 of the publication A Lucky Journey: The Sociological Enterprise, 1931-1980, which reflects on the progress of the American Sociological Review (ASR) as a publication from 1958 to 1960. The local editorial staff of the publication began with a contingent of ten scholars. These ten scholars included representatives of various sub-fields in sociology and of related discipline as well as specialists on Soviet Russia, Africa, India and Japan. Most of the day-to-day labor on the Review was done by editorial secretary Betty Vogel, Michael Olmsted, and their nominal boss. Michael Olmsted was more than a first-rate book review editor, he evaluated papers in his special fields with sagacity and designed an attractive cover to replace what had long been the dismal front of the publication. Solicitation of papers by prominent sociologists helped to upgrade ASR as a scholarly journal. Another change was the introduction of a division of the Review on the Profession which included not merely the obituaries or communications pertaining to the sociological guild, but both solicited submitted articles on the occupation itself. This innovation, according to the author, was consistent with his own growing interest in the sociology of sociology.

Implications of college-wide competency-based education (CBE) approaches for undergraduate sociology programs are discussed, using an established program for illustration. Five basic questions for sociologists considering involvement in CBE are addressed: (1) Are courses to be built upon content or competency? (2) Is it possible to achieve the ideal of integrating content and competency in evaluating student performance without relegating content to a secondary role? (3) Is it possible to alter one's conception of teaching from dispensing knowledge to facilitating learning? (4) Is it possible to alter one's conception of professional autonomy to meet CBE demands? (5) Is the education at CBE institutions comparable to that offered at traditional institutions, both in terms of learning and career opportunities? This paper examines some implications of college-wide competency-based education (CBE) approaches for undergraduate sociology programs and curricula, using an existing program for illustration. A major difficulty in delineating CBE's impact on academic programs is that the approach is not yet marked by a set of unifying conceptual or organizational principles, nor does an adequate definition or theoretical framework exist to guide generalization (Grant, 1979:11). For these reasons, the present paper is confined to issues arising from elements that appear to be common to CBE approaches in general.[1]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Between 1915 and the late 1930s W.I. Thomas developed a theory of human motivation steering a middle course between determinism (biological or social) and unfettered free will. The theory of the four wishes posited that all human beings, across time and place, are driven by a set of connected wishes mediated by the social and physical environment. These are the wish for new experience, the wish for security, the wish for recognition, and the wish for response. Between 1917 when Thomas first published the wishes and the early 1930s when the wishes fell out of use, they were the dominant micro theory of motivation invoked by sociologists in the United States (particularly those associated with the Chicago School). This paper explores the rise and fall of Thomas's wishes in the context of the sociology of ideas, with particular emphasis on fluctuations in Thomas's professional status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Creative endeavors often resemble one another. This paper explores similarities between sociology and art based on the use of conventions and creativity. More specifically, by comparing the construction of musical mix tapes, the author draws parallels between creating sociology and mix tapes. Looking at the process of how a mix tape is created using other artists' songs and music for a specified purpose illuminates sociology and our roles as sociologists in a new light that leaves open new possibilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

My first semester as a tenure-track faculty member at a mid-size university began ignominiously and suggested that my academic career might be short-lived. It began with a blistering memo that was stridently critical of the academic dean’s policy which led to being taken to the proverbial woodshed. Other less serious episodes followed which put me at odds with the “administration.” Yet I have spent more than a third of my career in administrative positions, including a stint in the provost’s office (as an assistant vice chancellor), and only recently returned to faculty status. Over the course of my academic career I have noticed that a large number of academic sociologists have taken administrative positions in academia beyond that of the department chair. This paper will explore this phenomenon and discuss the reasons members of the ‘debunking’ discipline assume administrative roles. I will address this issue within the context of my personal odyssey in administration and how the sociological perspective and imagination has contributed to working in the ‘dark side’ of academia. Finally, I will discuss lessons learned and recommendations for the aspirant administrators among the ranks of academic sociologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In some respects, sociologists might seem to be the least obvious candidates for a deanship. They question authority and debunk bureaucracy. Yet they can be found in dean’s offices serving successfully. This paper discusses the seeming contradiction between the discipline of sociology and the position of academic dean. It is argued that the discipline of sociology can prepare one to succeed at deaning in numerous ways, including transitioning into the role, resolving unavoidable role conflict, and adopting an administrator’s perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a sociologist who has served in deanships and other university administrative positions in the past 15 years, the author has been particularly concerned with race/class/gender issues in academia. This paper identified some of the issues and discussed the relevance of sociological training in addressing them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Meso history is that branch of the history of sociology that focuses on social relations, that is, patterns of connection among groups, group members, and group meanings, as explanatory factors in the shaping of sociology. The methodology of meso history consists of strategies for discovering, documenting and patterning connections. This paper explores those strategies in terms of three moments generic to the research process in social science– moments of movement from intellectual curiosity to conceptualization, from research question to data collection and from data to presentation of findings–focusing on the distinctive permutations on this research process that occur in the practice of meso history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper traces Edward Shils’ transition, during World War II, from enthusiasm to harsh criticism of Karl Mannheim, the Hungarian-born sociologist of knowledge. While serving in London, Shils drew upon a direct and explicit intellectual assault on Mannheim by fellow emigrés to England. Even while Shils maintained regular contact with Mannheim, Shils was exposed to an often vituperative dismissal of Mannheim’s work by Karl Popper and Friedrich Hayek, in the pages of the London School of Economics (LSE) journal Economica. After the war, when both Popper and Shils joined the LSE faculty—Hayek’s affiliation dated to 1931—Shils’ encounter with their critiques was deepened. And in these early postwar years, Shils became close friends with yet another emigré Mannheim critic, Michael Polanyi. Combined, these sustained and sophisticated criticisms helped wrest Shils from his interwar, Mannheim-friendly intellectual coordinates. The implications for Shils’ later propagation of the “mass society theory” label are considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The modern increase in opportunities for social activities also brings with it unintended side effects posed by the liberating potential and the acceleration of modern life. In this paper it is argued that the views reflected in Georg Simmel's formal approach and in American sociologist Edward A. Ross' reformative sociology are (1) complementary and (2) offer fresh insights for our current sociological understanding of unexpected consequences in contemporary "high modernity" or knowledge societies. A long forgotten nexus between the ideas of Simmel's and the work of Ross will be reviewed in order to point out affinities between the two authors' takes on the unintended and sometimes tragic moments in modern culture and their relevance for sociology today. Based on these discussions a fundamental mode for framing the unexpected in modern society as a recursively-linked component to the intended is illustrated. [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]

While one can be labeled a sociologist in name by fulfilling formal institutional requirements, that is only part of the necessary work involved in graduate training. What is also required is mastering the informal professional culture associated with academic sociology. In this paper, we offer practical advice about informal norms in graduate school--norms we know now that we wish we'd known then. Our reflections upon our own experiences in graduate school are guided by our common research and teaching interests in informal organizational culture. What is the potential salience of informal norms, such as particularistic relations with faculty and graduate students, ceremonial versus actual practices regarding research and teaching, and emotional labor around one's work, for better understanding the professional socialization of graduate study in sociology? Our emphasis here is to offer advice on how to navigate the graduate school realities these norms present. We also believe that sociologists should turn a more focused eye on the profession, one in which the presence of such norms is readily acknowledged and more formally considered for the benefit of teaching graduate students. [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.

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]

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]

In this paper we present the results of a survey administered to a sample of American sociologists which attempted to determine the degree of attention paid to TAS, as compared with the other "core" journals, and to learn about the attitudes of our respondents concerning articles appearing in TAS that deal with the day-to-day affairs of sociology in five key areas. Thus, within the context of a general debate over the merits of navel-gazing for sociology (for example, Gouldner, 1973; Lipset and Ladd, 1973), we assess empirically how American sociologists feel about some aspects of this issue. In this study we have attempted to discover how American sociologists feel on the question of navel-gazing in sociology. The majority stated quite clearly their support for a continuing discussion of issues which relate to the day-to-day workings of sociologists and sociology. Several specific points deserve more than passing mention. First, American sociologists seem to agree that articles on the teaching of sociology and the publication process deserve attention in the pages of TAS. Articles on the distribution of specialties in sociology, prestige ratings of departments, and career mobility of sociologists seem to have less appeal, but we speculate that this is possibly more a reflection of dissatisfaction with the number of these articles than with the type. Second, although this was not emphasized in our questionnaire, some suggestions were made concerning other areas of interest which it was felt deserved attention in TAS. It would seem that a study attempting to define the broad range of issues which interest American sociologists, particularly those that it is felt have not been adequately dealt with in TAS (or in other professional journals), would be useful at this time. Finally, it can be recalled that the impetus for our study derived from a letter from a British sociologist criticizing what he considered to be a preponderance of "bizarre navel-gazing" in TAS.... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

This paper examines the impact of the recent feminization of the sociological profession on gender differences in patterns of publication in leading sociology journals. Our findings show that women are better represented in the leading journals in an absolute sense, but continue to be underrepresented relative to men. Moreover, while women are better represented in the leading journals than in the past, they more often occupy marginal locations within the structure of the discipline. Finally, we discuss the likely implications of the feminization of sociology on the production of knowledge within the discipline as a whole. [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]

The social dimensions of risk have been neglected by the sciences and professions concerned with risk. Recent debates demonstrate deep concern, much disagreement, and misunderstanding within the risk analysis community regarding issues requiring sociological analysis. The "'people role" in risk analysis is not simply a matter of individual cognition and perception, important as these are. This paper reviews recent developments bearing on the policy implications of risk analysis which are of special interest to sociologists. [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]

The current discontent with the progress of sociology is said to be due to sociologists' ideological commitment to the hypothetico-deductive model of knowledge which obscures the accomplishments of the discipline. They are clarified by an alternative model of knowledge, the survey sampling model. The models are compared. An examination of a sample of papers from ASR supports the conclusion that sociological practice is oriented in practice to the survey sampling model of inference in spite of our verbal commitment to the hypothetico-deductive model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents a commentary about the preponderance of sociology by David Gray. Sociologists appear unable to treat methods as techniques for analyzing human group life in its naturalistic and historical contexts. The alternative model of science attempts to fit itself and its methods to the demands and variations of the empirical world. Research papers that flow from methods courses and substantive field courses must be written around bodies of theory or interpreted from the perspective of a particular theory. The increasing press to expand the foundations of mathematical sociology, at the graduate and undergraduate levels, has had the unfortunate consequence of removing the serious study of theory and substantive fields from many curricula. The mirror theory of published sociology becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This paper examines the relations between the data, methods, and interpretations of social history and sociology, with specific attention to the potential of sociolinguistics in the use of historical materials by sociologists. Data from conversation manuals, etiquette books, and grammars on introductions, greetings, and the regulation of conversational interaction illustrate diachronic variation in the use of these formulate expressions. The context of the egalitarian ethic of Jacksonian Democracy highlights a nineteenth-century shift in the use of politeness formulae by and to speakers of different social classes. These examples illustrate the need for an historically reformed sociolinguistics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the creation of an intellectual biography of the U.S. sociologist Talcott Parsons. The researcher discusses Parsons' doctoral dissertation dealing with capitalism that was analyzed by sociologist Max Weber, and how Parsons' work delivered sociology from social Darwinism at the turn of the twentieth century. The author supports Parsons' work on the basis that he was a thinker and academician who did not use inconsistent analysis. The author utilized Parsons' archives at Harvard University, such as Parsons' paper "The Problem of Controlled Institutional Change."

This article reflects on the progress of the American Sociological Association (ASA) from 1905 to 1980. The author relates that when she took office elate in 1949, there were approximately 2,700 members on the Society's roles. Ten years later there were 7,000. With the Reorganization Committee of 1950 anticipating the potential, certain goals for the Association were set early in the decade. There were eight goals that the society was determined to accomplish. It is a matter of record that considerable progress was made during the decade of the 1950s in moving toward these goals especially the first six Constitutional changes were affected. membership participation was broadened. An executive office was organized. Several new publications were started. Membership services generally were expanded. All the annual meeting, over 300 papers were presented in 1960 in contrast to 77 in 1950. In two important respects, however, the mid-century ASA was somewhat less effective in performing its supportive role in expanding the uses of sociology and in aiding the development of the discipline. For example, responding to indications that sociologists were needed in a variety of practicing professions, ASA together with Russell Sage Foundation, undertook a series of bulletins on the fields of sociological application.

The article presents an overview of the topics discussed in the September 1, 1999 issue of The American Sociologists concerning diversity and collaboration. Three papers in this issue address the question of diversity within sociology, with attention to both intellectual and social differences. Roger Clark frames his inquiry in dialectical terms that permit consideration of diversity as both problem and solution. Other authors employ descriptive methods to present profiles or snapshots of the current situation. Thus, Jane Lord and Stephen Sanderson examine the theoretical commitments and political orientations of one subgroup in the profession, namely, members of the theory section of the American Sociological Association. Joseph McFalls, Michael Engle and Bernard Gallagher tabulate the social characteristics of sociologists in the contemporary academy. Two other papers in this issue focus on changing patterns of work in sociology and on the experience of an extended career in the field. Nicholas Babchuk, Bruce Keith and George Peters analyze the trend toward increasing collaboration among sociologists and compare it to the situation in several other academic specializations. The voices in this issue offer valuable insights into the profession's past, present and emerging future as we become simultaneously more diverse and yet more collaborative.

This section introduces the articles featured in the summer 2002 issue of The American Sociologist. This issue features six papers that explore several related themes in the intellectual history of sociology. The authors place particular emphasis on the enduring legacies of creative minds, while also tracing out unnoticed linkages between thinkers and intellectual traditions and pointing to unresolved tensions and lacunae within individual approaches. The articles combine a retrospective glance with a commitment to incorporating and further developing the insights of earlier work. There is also a happy blending of the personal, the conceptual, and the historical. Uta Gerhardt contributes an erudite and nuanced discussion of the relations between major figures who are ordinarily regarded as polar opposites: social-action and social-system theorist Talcott Parsons and members of the frankfurt School of philosophy, psychology, and sociology, especially Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno. Jean-Francois Côté and Daniel Dagenais provide further insight into the development of critical sociology similar to that of the Frankfurt School within the context of contemporary Canada, especially Quebec.

This article presents the author's reflections on his role as a university-based sociologist who emphasize sociological practice. I pursued one such role over a thirty-year period at a major U.S. university. This role was based on both a personal and professional commitment and an institution's commitment to science with practice, societal-relevant research communicated to targeted client systems. Major areas of sociological emphasis during these thirty years were social change, communication and organizational effectiveness. The locales of research and action have ranged from local communities, districts within states, state, region, national and into twelve foreign countries. There was great range of forms and intensity of communication and interchange with clients. It involved developing learner-centered training materials for workshops varying from one-half day to two weeks duration. It may be of interest to note that despite the practice orientation of which I am very proud, it was possible to participate in many activities usually thought of as the province of the academic, for example, co-author-editor of six books, chapters in 11 additional books, 20 refereed journal articles, over 50 papers at professional meetings and 60 monographs.

This article presents Robert A. Stebbins' reaction to several comments on his paper which appeared in a previous issue of The American Sociologist, which provided an account of professional and amateur sociology in the U.S. Stebbins states that he wishes only to offer a single clarification of a poorly communicated passage that caught Althauser's attention. It concerns the four conditions that encourage the emergence and persistence of an avocational interest in science. According to Stebbins, when he wrote the passage, he had Kuhn's concept of normal science in mind. Amateurism takes root in those sciences or areas of sciences that lack a dominant paradigm as the exclusive grade to scholarly research. These fields are in a preparadigm stage of development in which several schools of thought compete. Why then, is there no amateur sociology? Among the answers to this question, according to Stebbins, are that sociologists lack a tradition of amateurism, a vision that amateurs could help professionals with some of their research interests, and a willingness to organize nonprofessional assistance on any basis other than temporary. The same conclusions could likely be reached for other sciences.

This article presents a commentary on a paper by Robert A. Stebbins in a previous issue of The American Sociologist which provided an account of professional and amateur sociology in the U.S. Amateur sociology was the parent professional, the child Park was a professional writer, an amateur sociologist. He did join the sociological fraternity, to that extent he became professional. Sumner wrote a book it got adopted by sociologists. Sumner accepted the adoption very unwillingly, and made no change in his writing or thinking. At present, sociology has a professional structure, and can control what is published as sociology, but the commenter is grateful that people cannot control what is written on sociological matters or in the sociological mood. The commenter cites that unless sociologists get much more bureaucratized, it will always be possible for people to be writers of sociology. At present, sociology has a professional structure, and can control what is published as sociology. There is no virtue in being amateur. Researchers, professional or not should not try to publish their reports in the regular journals. In this way new lines of thought and research will reach the widest audience of interested readers.