Search

Despite being a decade into the 21st century, sociological theory continues to be taught at the undergraduate and graduate level in nearly every program in the United States as if it were still 1970. 40 years ago, it made sense to dichotomize theory into two courses--"classical" and "contemporary"--because the latter of the two only covered theory from about the 1930s to the "present." Today a literal and figurative "time crunch" has emerged that makes teaching theory difficult and at times, arbitrary based on the professor's training, mentor, ideological/epistemological biases, and structural factors like textbook choice and number of academic weeks allotted per course. That is, we spend a large amount of time debating who should be in or out, and not enough time preparing our students for the application of theory towards the ultimate goal: knowledge about the social world. Students, then, leave confused at how one uses theory, what theory actually is, and, often times, disengaged from theory because of the density with which some theories approach the social world. In the paper below, the "time crunch" and its tendency to produce a "lost generation" of theorists is examined. After elucidating how the "time crunch" constrains sociology, four possible solutions are presented. This list of solutions is neither definitive nor exhaustive, and is meant to generate a rich discussion about the direction the discipline should head in the new century.

This paper presents an account of the conditions and consequences of a university-level teaching experience in the sociology of fame centered on the case of Lady Gaga. When the course "Lady Gaga and the Sociology of the Fame" at the University of South Carolina was announced in the autumn of 2010, it became the number-one Lady Gaga news story, reported and discussed in a wide variety of internet sources and media outlets across the world. The unprecedented attention devoted to the course placed its instructor in an unexpected and unique position to experience various dimensions of contemporary celebrity culture while teaching on that very subject matter. This paper offers a sociological autobiography to discuss this experience as a manifestation of the reflexivity of social knowledge and the interplay between sociology and society.

This investigation will discuss the emergence of an economistical perspective among the dominant approaches of organization theory in the United States since the inception of "organization studies" as an academic discipline. It maintains that Contingency theory, Resource Dependency theory, Population Ecology theory, and Transaction Cost theory analyze predominantly for-profit organizations within the context of the current economic environment. It further holds that the political and cultural environments, as well as the role of communities, are widely neglected by the economistical perspective. The New Institutionalism departs from this line of thinking and offers an implicit critique. With this focus, this article addresses a sociology of knowledge theme and aims to account for this theoretical limitation by drawing on social developments in the American economy, in American politics, and in the academy. Finally, this study argues that the economization of organization studies is strongly supported by the increasing proliferation of American business schools. Here the science of organization studies has found its new institutional home.

Population aging, in conjunction with social and cultural transformations of the life course, has profound implications for social systems--from large-scale structures to micro-level processes. However, much of sociology remains fairly quiet on issues of age and aging, including the subfield of social psychology that could illuminate the impact of these broader social forces on individual lives. This study examines the scope of research on age, aging, and the life course in the leading social psychological journal in sociology ("Social Psychology Quarterly") and compares it with coverage in the primary social psychology journal in psychology ("Journal of Personality and Social Psychology") and two sociology journals ("American Sociological Review" and "Journal of Health and Social Behavior"). An analysis of articles published between 1977 and 2006 shows that approximately 7 percent in "Social Psychology Quarterly" or "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology" seriously considered age. In contrast, 11% of articles in "American Sociological Review" and 25% in "Journal of Health and Social Behavior" did so. Across the journals, examinations of age increased over time. However, studies reflect a limited range of methodological and theoretical approaches with few employing qualitative methods or a symbolic interactionist perspective. We discuss several under-explored sites for research on age, aging, and the life course that would enrich social psychological and sociological scholarship more broadly.

Previous research has found that there is a good deal of stability in departmental prestige, but has not considered its long-term dynamics. This paper investigates a hypothesis implied by some accounts in the sociology of science and organizational theory: that there will be a permanent component of prestige associated with the department or university. The data are the ratings of graduate departments of sociology between 1965 and 2007 using a measure of prestige constructed from hiring patterns. There is no evidence of a permanent component for individual departments, but there is evidence of a permanent difference between departments in "elite" universities and those in other universities. Despite change in rankings within each group, the difference between the groups remained constant over the period. That is, there appear to be enduring barriers that limit the mobility of individual departments.

Between 1950 and 1980 surveys of academic sociologists revealed a major shift in the relative ratings of the top six Sociology departments. Wisconsin rose from a distant sixth to being rated first or second. Harvard and Columbia dropped from first and second the rankings to as low as sixth seventh. Underlying these trajectories were a variety of historical changes affecting academia and Sociology, particularly in the 1960s. Using complete yearly listings of the faculties of these six top departments I trace the demographic changes that appear to have been instrumental in producing the movement in ratings. In particular, the radical growth and youth of Wisconsin, and the aging of Harvard and Columbia seem to have played an important role.

This embedded case study of the Chicago School of Civics and Philanthropy (CSCP) illustrates the development of disciplinary boundaries during a transitional period of professionalization in the social sciences, particularly for the fields of sociology and social work. Drawing on archival data (e.g., reports, scholarly and autobiographical writings, and correspondence) we first document sociological contributions of the community-based school, one of many progressive projects among social settlements and social gospelers of the day. Then using the lens of an intergenerational struggle reflective of the historical social movements of the period, we analyze the circumstances surrounding the 1920 merger of the CSCP with the University of Chicago. Succeeding their early social settlement mentors, Graham Taylor of the Chicago Commons and Jane Addams and Julia Lathrop of Hull House, a second generation of social reformer proteges became a formidable force in this disciplinary differentiation. This case can be read as a micro-level illustration of a much larger macro-level political contest as professional social scientists vied for control of the definition of social science and its applied mission. The "ghosts of sociologies past" still haunt the discipline today offering important lessons for sustaining a science that joins theory with action to solve social problems.

Although much overlooked by both sociologists and educators, Emile Durkheim's "The Evolution of Educational Thought" ("EET"; lectures from 1904-1905) not only provides extended insight into the developmental flows and disjunctures of Western education and scholarship from the classical Greek era to Durkheim's own time but also indicates the fundamentally sociological nature of these transformations. As well, and in contrast to the more heavily structuralist, Cartesian rationalist approach that Durkheim adopts in his earlier, better known works (especially "The Division of Labor in Society," "Rules of the Sociological Method," and "Suicide"), Durkheim's "EET" may be better characterized as a historically informed, sociological pragmatist approach to the study of education as a humanly engaged process. Given the extended amount of material covered in "EET" and the necessity of establishing in some detail Durkheim's position on the development of educational thought over the preceding 2000 years, it has been necessary to divide this material into smaller packages for the purpose of presentation. In the first six chapters of "EET" Durkheim addresses (a) the Greek and Latin foundations of educational thought in France, (b) the role that the early Christian church assumed in shaping and preserving education and scholarship, and (c) the nature and emphasis of the Carolingian Renaissance (8th and 9th centuries), along with its relevance for the development of universities in Europe. Following (1) an introduction to Durkheim's "EET," (2) a synopsis of the first six chapters of "EET," and (3) a highly compacted overview of the remaining 21 chapters of this volume, this paper concludes with (4) a commentary on the necessity of attending to the historical development of Western social thought for a sociological analysis of knowing and acting. An epilogue briefly considers (5) some ways that sociologists, classicists, and other students of the human condition may contribute to this exceptionally consequential venture.

This article explores potential links between Buddhism and sociology, highlighting the many commonalities between sociology and Buddhism, with an emphasis on ways that Buddhist thought and practice may contribute to the field of sociology. What could Buddhism offer to our understanding of social institutions, social problems, and to the dynamics and possibilities for social change? The Four Noble Truths, central to Buddhist teachings, are explored in reference to their sociological theory applications. Finally, mindfulness practices that are endemic to Buddhism are explored as tools for sociologists to consider as they work reflexively, develop sociological insights, and pursue social justice.

It is a truism to remind ourselves that scientific theory is a human product subject to many of the same social processes that govern other social acts. Science, however, whether social or natural, pretends to claim a higher mission, a more sophisticated methodology, and more consequential and reliable outcomes than human efforts arising from other spheres. The present paper examines the propagation, ascension, acceptance, and demise of twentieth century criminological theories in the United States. Data from publications in peer reviewed journals over the last 30 years suggest that several non-scientific factors are most influential in determining which theories are tested, cited, and discussed in criminological circles.

Mel Pollner regularly cautioned researchers not to argue with the members of settings under consideration. He warned against substituting the researcher's meaning for the meanings of those being studied. This article discusses facets of the caution as they relate to the research process. Seemingly simple, the tenet is nuanced in application. The article adds to the nuance by distinguishing what is called the "replacement" of meaning with the "displacement" of meaning, providing a way of understanding what members could mean if the contexts and settings of their accounts were taken into consideration.

In studies ranging from oracular practices and court proceedings to alternative philosophies, reality disjunctures, and a family's work in maintaining the normality of a severely retarded child, Mel Pollner put together something like a cabinet of curiosities exhibiting the social character of reasoning's worldly enterprises. At the same time, he felt that ethnomethodology--and, in particular, ethnomethodological studies of work--had taken a wrong direction, turning away from disciplinary sociology's sociological project. This paper, by examining the play of bridge, soccer, checkers, and chess, reconsiders this position and illustrates some of the peculiarities of a sociology of the witnessable social order.

The so-called "Bellah affair at Princeton" began in March 1973 when a harsh but nonetheless ordinary academic fight over the appointment of Robert N. Bellah as a permanent member of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton found its way to the wider public sphere. Using published and unpublished evidence, the paper shows how two different interpretations of academic freedom were put forward by Bellah's supporters and opponents, and how the sociological profession understood the episode as a disciplinary attack on the part of the hard sciences and historical disciplines. The emerging symbolic constellation led all the relevant actors to develop a shared interest in the rapid oblivion of the episode: the Bellah affair became a lose-lose game which all the players wanted to end as rapidly as possible.

Although often overlooked in sociological circles, Emile Durkheim's ("1902-1903") "Moral Education" provides an important cornerstone in the quest to understand community life. Not only does "Moral Education" give a vibrant realism to the sociological venture in ways that Durkheim's earlier works ("1893", "1895", "1897') fail to achieve, but in addressing discipline, devotion, and informed reasoning as humanly engaged, collectively accomplished fields of activity Emile Durkheim also provides an exceptionally consequential baseline analysis of human knowing and acting. Notably as well, focusing on the organizational, intersubjectively achieved features of elementary education, Durkheim's "Moral Education" lays bare the interactional nature of the moral order of community life. Indeed, as a sustained analysis of the way of life of a group of people collectively participating in the educational process, this text addresses the most basic features of people's relations to one another and the broader society in which they find themselves. Much more than an account of childhood socialization, Durkheim's "Moral Education" also presages the more thoroughly humanist sociology that Durkheim develops in "The Evolution of Educational Thought" ("1904-1905"), "The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life" ("1912") and "Pragmatism and Sociology" ("1913-1914').

Using fiction in teaching sociology involves what Harvey Sacks calls "sociological reconstruction". Numerous comments on teaching sociology provide advice and suggestions on the use of literature and "what counts" as "sociological" literature, including specific titles. This paper goes further: while the use of literature is a routine feature of sociological accounts, discerning the relevance of a novel, or a passage within a novel, to sociological themes is an analyst's achievement. It requires work both by the teacher and the student to recognize the relevance of fiction to sociology. Previous studies on fiction in sociology focus on the pedagogic aspects of using novels but fail to acknowledge the key problem of "sociological reconstruction" attempted through the use of novels. The paper explicates the crucial and generic issue of "corpus status", which is fore-grounded by the use of non-sociological materials in sociology.

According to a 2002 study by the U.S. Department of Education, the percentage of "traditional students" on college campuses is declining. Students increasingly are delaying enrollment, attending college part time, working full time, financially independent, and single parents. In this paper, we explore the extent to which sociologists are adapting their teaching to address these shifting demographics. Based on a content analysis of articles published over a 20 year period in "Teaching Sociology" that suggest strategies for teaching social class inequality we find that most authors assume that their students are "traditional." Most often this means that students are assumed to come from a privileged, middle class background, lack direct and substantial experience in the labor market, and enter college shortly after graduating high school. Accordingly, most articles advocate classroom strategies of "looking down," whereby students pretend to be in the shoes of those less fortunate. Examples include creating household budgets based on poverty wages, playing board games, or assuming the role of the poor for a day. These strategies run the risk of being ineffective, alienating, and potentially ethically suspect when used with non-traditional students, whose real life experiences may resemble these simulations. We conclude with recommendations for pedagogical approaches to teaching social class inequality that are more appropriate for, and inclusive of, students from diverse backgrounds. Our goal in this paper is to start a discussion about pedagogy, social inequality, and the non-traditional student.

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.

Productivity differences between sociology PhD's were examined controlling for both human capital and life style differences. Productivity was defined in two ways. First, we looked at differences in article productivity to date. Next, differences in the average productivity of faculty (defined as total articles to date divided by years of experience) were explored. We aimed to capture how working in a chilly environment shapes productivity differences among faculty--especially between faculty working in ranked and unranked PhD programs. Faculty who worked in a ranked PhD department were significantly more productive than others. However, women in these departments were much more likely than men to report being in a chilly environment. Among faculty working in unranked PhD programs in sociology, two variables were critical in understanding productivity differences (age the PhD was awarded and chilly work environment). Faculty who felt welcomed in their department published more than others all else equal. Being in a chilly environment appears detrimental to establishing a publishing career for these faculty.

In recent years, the discipline of sociology has seen an increased discussion of public sociology, but the discussion has focused on whether or not it is a good idea for sociologists to become more engaged with their various publics. A different question motivates this research: What are the institutional arrangements that make doing public sociology difficult, and thus less likely? Following Dorothy Smith, we start from the perspective of frontline actors and ask them about their experiences. We combine data from two sources: individual interviews with a sample of 50 academic feminists, a group that has theoretical motivation to be interested in public sociology and group interviews with 15 feminists engaged in some form of public sociology. These informants tell us about two related institutional barriers to doing public sociology: the culture of professional sociology and the standards we use for evaluating scholarship. The impact of these disciplinary barriers probably varies by institution type and career stage but there is reason to suspect they generate costs not just for individuals but for the discipline. Taking steps to break down these barriers would ameliorate concerns some have raised about public sociology.

Reflecting on my experiences as a graduate student, I argue that the terminology of public sociology should be dropped. The public sociology rhetoric is at odds with the fundamental professional reality in the discipline. Sociology, as a "hyper-professionalized" endeavor, primarily values abstract, explanatory theories, even if those theories make the world less descriptively comprehensible to people seeking to act in the world. Moreover, I question whether sociologists, as a professional class, should or can take on the public position as the partisan representatives of civil society and marginalized peoples. Instead, I argue for a greater openness within professional sociology to descriptive work, as well as more departmental supports for graduate students to pursue careers outside of sociology. Sociologists interested in public engagement should focus primarily on cataloguing and practical evaluation of engaged research tactics and community oriented teaching strategies, rather than theoretical discussions of what sociology can or should be.

Sociologist Mabel Agnes Elliott was elected the fourth president of the Society for the Study of Social Problems in 1956-1957 and was the first woman to hold this position. She was an anti-war activist, a feminist and a creative and diligent writer. Yet she experienced many challenges. The Federal Bureau of Investigation kept an active file on Elliott for approximately 30 years, she was the victim of discrimination by her male colleagues at the University of Kansas where she spent much of her career and Professor Robert E. L. Faris used many of the ideas from her "Social Disorganization" textbook without attribution. In spite of her research productivity her salary was frozen for 18 years. Once she began teaching women at Chatham College she found an institution that appreciated her many talents and rewarded her appropriately. Even so, in a male-dominated discipline, her contributions to criminology and social disorganization have been nearly forgotten.

There has been much research on gender inequality in graduate education and the benefits of mentoring. However, most of this research focuses on how mentoring addresses female graduate students' experiences of gender inequality instead of how the gender characteristics of departments impact the level of mentoring they offer. In particular, I examine how the gender composition of departments in terms of faculty and administration as well as faculty awareness of gender inequality or feminist issues influences the types of mentoring structures found in graduate departments of sociology. Bivariate correlations indicated that these characteristics (gender characteristics in particular) had significant relationships with mentoring structures in departments. This study concludes with a discussion of these relationships, an overview of policy implications, and suggestions for future research.

This article sketches a personal story of life at a teaching institution when jobs in sociology were scarce. I examine the concept of elitism and situate it in conditions that shaped the discipline of sociology in the 1970s when a growing number of women entered the field. Throughout my story, I raise the following points: (1) Defining elitism requires comprehending its relativity, (2) Understanding what stands as elitism necessitates examining local and national standards for professional performance, (3) Recognizing that unshared standards or lack of awareness of routine standards leads to charges of elitism, and (4) Acknowledging that the discipline's class system hardens into a caste system when jobs are tight and thus fuels elitism. I conclude by reflecting on the place of standards in local sociology departments and the larger discipline.

This essay explores the question of why sociology departments, compared to other university departments, are often viewed negatively by higher-level administrators (deans, provosts, chancellors and presidents). We are asked to consider, as sociologists, how departments are ranked and evaluated by administrators. The characteristics of any good university department are identified (e.g., grants, support from alumni, publications, quality of teaching, national rankings, student enrollments); and, the characteristics of dynamic and healthy departments are outlined (e.g., student learning is primary; there is a commitment to the goals of the larger organization; leadership is provided by the unit to solve all-university problems; there is a focus on learning; faculty are productive; there are strong communication links across the organization). The question is posed and then systemically answered as to how sociology departments compare in terms of these standards. It is suggested that a major factor in terms of how and why sociology departments are negatively evaluated is the fact that sociology uses narratives of power and explanations of organizational behavior that are inherently oppositional, i.e., there is an "us" and "them" mentally that sometimes develops. Other reasons for organizational marginalization are identified such as the "canon wars" and their lingering effects, and the fact that the sociological enterprise has been diluted by the teaching of "sociology" in many other campus units, such as composition programs. Finally, questions are raised about how sociology, as an intellectual enterprise, differs from other disciplines in terms of pedagogy, the sequencing of courses, "grand" theory, and forms of apprenticeship. It is recommended that sociologists act positively to help the organizations within which they work to identify common problems and solve them. It is argued that sociology can and should "own" the area of civic engagement as a means of making a positive and distinctive contribution. Sociological "stories" grounded in the reality of everyday life are compelling. It is suggested that sociologists need to deepen connections with their communities and to offer real solutions to real problems.

Sociology exists in a dynamic academic environment that influences how students view and evaluate the discipline. This essay explores the changing academic context of sociology through the author's experience as a professor and department chair over a span of four decades. Increased co-curricular programming, changing student goals, and more competitive disciplinary neighbors present sociology departments with new challenges in attracting students. Central to these challenges is the erosion of sociology's once distinctive niche in the academic ecology. Questions and suggestions are explored regarding adaptive strategies that might enable sociology to find a niche wherein it can thrive.

We present data from a survey of deans at colleges and universities throughout the USA on the relative status of disciplines. Findings indicate that the relative status of Sociology within the academy is low, although there are several specific areas of high status--namely, concerning community involvement and engagement. Our analyses also investigate which areas of activity are most closely associated with the overall prestige of disciplines. Findings indicate that research-oriented activities are the most influential, while student-oriented activities have a more ambivalent association with status. Based on those findings, we offer suggestions for raising the status of the discipline, based on the cultivation of natural synergies linking research, community engagement, student training, and focusing on the benefits of establishing social science research centers associated with Sociology departments.

In this essay, the authors present data collected in mixed-method and multi-phased projects that reveal some troubling contradictions within the discipline of Sociology. From a range of respondents, students through college presidents, several themes emerge that may not bode well for Sociology if left unchecked. Most important are the conflicting demands to provide large General Education classes while maintaining a robust, rigorous curriculum for Sociology majors; to meet university standards for scholarly production while allowing for work that is not within the traditional definitions of research; and to increase interdisciplinary collaboration without diluting the discipline.

The author, who has served as an external program reviewer for 17 sociology program reviews, gives his perspective on the views that academic administrators have of sociology. On the plus side, administrators view sociology as a discipline that teaches many students; values and incorporates diversity; produces research aimed at ameliorating societal problems; and is involved in interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary projects. On the negative side, administrators are likely to see sociology as (1) deficient in grants, research and peer reviewed publications; (2) deficient in rigor of curriculum; (3) contentious and non-collegial; (4) too ideological; (5) isolated within the college/university and not sufficiently involved in campus governance; (6) too focused on tenure track positions lost over the years; (7) not sufficiently involved with assessment of student learning outcomes and community service learning; and (8) unable to understand the values and priorities of academic institutions and administrators. The author offers some suggestions on how sociology can eliminate these deficiencies.

This article highlights contrasts between the identity and values of sociology faculty members versus the identity and values of college administrators. Some of these contrasts include: questioning authority and speaking truth to power versus being in a position of authority and engaging in political compromise; taking a critical, reflective, and independent stance as a scholar versus a dean taking a stance of positive attitude and setting direction in the organization; and acting in an egalitarian and democratic fashion versus acting in a discriminating manner and making executive decisions. This article also explores the ways in which being a sociologist can inform a dean's understanding of the structure and organizational life of the college and the group dynamics among faculty, students, administrators, and other constituents.

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.

This paper traces the history of the development of programs in ethnomethodology at Boston University and Manchester University by offering comparisons with the ideal type model of "school," The Chicago School of Sociology. It focuses primarily on institutional structures and arrangements rather than shared theoretical or methodological perspectives. It shows that a small core faculty, aided by extended collegial and research relationships in the local area and with visiting and part-time faculty, can develop and sustain a program over several decades.

Through the in-depth analysis of the features of Huabei rural industrialization, the unique factory regime in Baigou, Hebei, and the resulting special workers, this paper reveals two dilemmas the migrant workers in Baigou and larger Hubei area face: Because of the interpersonal network of labor market, personalized trade, familial labor process, and patrimonial management, the workers are unable to become either industrial working class or citizens. Facing this special group of workers, we still believe in their power of self-liberation. Drawing on Touraine's action sociology and sociological intervention, and Burawoy's public sociology and praxis-oriented research, we modify "sociological intervention" according to the reality of Chinese society and propose the methodology of "strong sociological intervention" whose vehicle is "Baigou Migrant Worker Night School." The night school provided workers with courses of labor law, English, and computer based on their actual needs. Labor law is the core to evoke the self-consciousness of the workers. Through communications in the night school and workers' real living circumstances, we collected their true information and treated it as the source of sociological knowledge. After three sessions of night school training, workers showed changes in skills, social, and psychological aspects, laying a foundation for the growth of self-consciousness.

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.

Having been placed in the unique position of teaching high school sociology at the same time when a renewed interest from professional sociological associations led to a revival of scholarly research on the topic, a commitment from professional sociological associations, my insider's view from the high school classroom and from various professional sociological association committees, I offer my insights as well as the direction future research on high school sociology might take to enhance the efficacy of teaching at that level.

Higher education is in crisis, especially in the public sector. Over the past few years, tuition at state universities across the country has increased dramatically, their budgets have been slashed and federal funding for need-based financial aid has been reduced. The results are increased class sizes, fewer course offerings, more adjunct faculty and fewer working-class students at public colleges and universities. In Massachusetts, where we teach, these trends are particularly pronounced. In this paper, we describe "Crisis in Higher Education," a "critical" experiential course we offered to raise student awareness about the crisis and to encourage them to work for change on our campus. This course is an example of critical experiential education because it integrates classroom learning with political activism. This article describes the context and rationale for teaching the course, reports on students' responses to its form and content, and discusses what we learned from this experience.

This article reports the results of a study of the sociology course in Greek secondary education. The aim is to reveal under which circumstances the course has ended up becoming one of the most downgraded courses, and more importantly, how the specific rationale of the course's structure has resulted in the (re)production of a distorted image of the science of sociology. For that purpose, the 25-year history of the course has been analyzed from the view of: (1) the sociology curriculum's variations over the years, (2) the underlying rationale of the official documents and the sociology textbooks, and (3) the sociology teachers' perceptions on the course of sociology. The findings have indicated that the downgrading of the course has resulted in the devaluation of the science of sociology inside the educational community, and that through the school's rationale (curriculum and teacher's) a specific interpretation of sociology is being reproduced, which presents it as an everyday and simple science that deals mostly with social problems and their solutions. The ultimate result is that the sociological imagination will possibly never become part of students' views on life.

This article investigates recent data on the prevalence of women in the field of sociology in order to understand whether or not the discipline has become a female preserve. Data on the top sociology departments in the USA were collected in 2007. For each university, we document the number of full time, tenured and tenure-track faculty members and present the gendered makeup of the department. Our data present mixed findings with regard to the question of whether the field is tipping toward female. Women, overall, are underrepresented in the sociology programs sampled, but a larger percentage of women occupy tenured positions within the top liberal arts programs than at the top graduate programs. And, women occupy a slim majority of assistant professor positions but have lower numbers at higher academic ranks. We can say with reasonable certainty that, while the proportion of women doctorates and assistant professors indicate a feminization of sociology, the entire discipline has not yet tipped toward female.

This paper explores whether the field of sociology harbors a dismissive attitude towards religion. Specifically it examines whether introductory sociology textbooks present the classic secularization theory over the more recent religious economies explanation of religious change. The classical secularization thesis suggests that religion is declining in importance in modern societies and may disappear completely. The religious economies perspective proposes that religion has actually become more influential and dynamic over time. While both theories are well represented in the sociology of religion literature, we explore whether generalist sociology textbooks reflect this reality. This article provides a content analysis of 31 introductory sociology textbooks published between 2003 and 2006. We assess the presence and promotion of the above theories in these textbooks. Our analysis reveals that 20 (65%) of the 31 textbooks in our study present only secularization theory, while seven (23%) of the textbooks cover both secularization theory and religious economies theory. We assess the ramifications of such a lopsided arrangement and conclude by encouraging a more open dialogue on this issue.

Do women and men who have children during graduate school have access to the same institutional resources as non-parents? In the face of two greedy institutions, the academy and parenthood (especially motherhood), do they employ the same sorts of strategies in their quest to attain tenure-track jobs, and are those strategies successful? In this study we use a longitudinal survey of sociology Ph.D.s to investigate the availability and use of three types of resources and strategies during graduate school, and find that they all have important effects on the chances of obtaining a tenure-track position at a research or doctoral university. We find that some "institutional resources" are not equally distributed in graduate school, with mother's least likely to obtain them, but are significant for attainment of tenure-track positions. "Resource-based strategies," including presenting papers and publishing articles while in graduate school, have a positive and significant effect on all groups' attainment of tenure-track positions. "Family-based strategies" such as child-spacing strategies are also significant; women who have children during graduate school have lower odds of immediately obtaining tenure-track jobs at research and doctoral universities, although access to resources and the ability to use these resources helps significantly.

This article has presented a vision of what a field of altruism and social solidarity could potentially involve. An additional perspective on the nature of this field and how it could contribute to the discipline and to society is provided by the science of psychology. In the last decade a fundamental new orientation has developed in this discipline, growing from the pioneering work of Martin E.P. Seligman. Generally identified as "positive psychology" it represents a shift from a focus on trying to understand and find solutions to mental illness and various pathologies of thought and behavior in a "disease model" to a focus on human strengths, virtues, and other positive characteristics. This shift in focus is regarded as making a direct contribution to understanding what is best in human emotions and traits and how society can support the psychological flourishing of individuals. This new perspective in turn provides increased awareness of how the problems studied in the disease model can more effectively be prevented (Seligman, 2003, 2005). The importance of this focus on the positive for sociology and a call to action is stated by Seligman (2003): The third pillar of positive psychology is the study of positive institutions and positive communities.

In "Making Science" (1992) I make the distinction between two types of knowledge: research frontier knowledge and core knowledge. Core knowledge is the small body of knowledge for which the entire scientific community treats as indisputable facts. The research frontier is all new knowledge which makes claim to being facts but in practice there is no consensus on this knowledge. The two types of knowledge are linked together by the evaluation process. Most frontier knowledge turns out to be insignificant and is ignored. A small part of frontier knowledge is taken as candidates for the core and evaluated. Most of this knowledge turns out to be "wrong." Thus the important data of Jacobs (1989) loses a good deal of its impact because he forces it into a theory which he calls "social control": a theory for which there is no evidence.

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.

American sociology is a chaotic discipline. There is disagreement on foundational issues that give disciplines coherence. For example, sociologist disagree on the appropriateness of a scientific orientation, the role of activism and ideology in inquiry, the best methodologies to employ, the primacy of micro- versus macro-levels of analysis, the most important topics to study, and many other contentious issues. The recent call for a "public sociology" in which four wings of the discipline--policy (applied), professional (scientific), critical (ideological), and public (civic engagement) sociologies--are to be integrated is less of a remedy for what troubles sociology than an admission that we are a discipline divided (Burawoy, 2005). Among the social sciences, economics is the most coherent, with the other social sciences revealing varying degrees of incoherence or chaos. Sociology is probably the least integrated of the social sciences, although cultural anthropology has increasingly become much like sociology. In this paper, my goal is to offer an explanation for how sociology came to its present state and what, if anything, can be done to integrate the discipline. Let me begin by outlining what makes a discipline coherent.

In this article, we critically evaluate the expectations of assistant professors as perceived by junior and senior faculty (n=22) across seven disciplines at two universities. Our research shows that there are similarities and differences within Sociology departments, across disciplines, and across the teaching and research schools where we collected our data. In one respect, Sociology is no different than the other departments where we interviewed faculty members--ambiguity abounds in terms of expectations for junior faculty. Scholarship expectations for tenure and promotion to associate professor vary much more greatly across rank, discipline, and institution than do those for teaching or service. Based on our findings, we offer several suggestions for improving the transition to the role of Assistant Professor in Sociology. Our suggestions focus on change within graduate programs, hiring institutions, and Sociology as a discipline. While our results are consistent with prior research in many cases, we note that the generalizability of our findings is limited given the number of interviews conducted and the purposive sampling design utilized. However, we hope that our results will provide additional information that may help others as they prepare to begin their roles as assistant professors.

Since academic sociology's birth in this country, sociologists have not been shy about publicly praising and ridiculing the discipline. Though sociologists have been the primary participants in the seemingly endless debates about sociology's proper subject matter, methods, and purpose, there is another group that has also struggled over the past 95 years to formulate a conception of the discipline--high school sociology teachers. At this point, we know virtually nothing about what the thousands of high school teachers who offer sociology each year, actually think about the discipline. This paper uses questionnaire and interview data collected from high school sociology teachers to examine their thoughts on four topics: (1) sociology's strengths, (2) its weaknesses, (3) whether high school students are capable of understanding the discipline, and (4) appropriate course objectives. The results indicate that high school teachers view sociology quite differently from academic sociologists, and that their conceptions are based primarily on "textbook sociology." I conclude by discussing the far-reaching implications of teachers' current thinking about the discipline.

We use a cross-disciplinary approach and multiple sources of data to investigate and outline sources of comparative advantage that undergraduate sociological study provides to students who are preparing for careers in business. We identify and discuss three core competencies that sociology specifically develops in students--structural consciousness, scientific thinking, and appreciation for diversity. We argue that sociology contributes unique value by combining these three competencies. We also offer thoughts on ways in which sociologists could further enhance undergraduate curricula, such as through emphasizing aspects of these contributions in a more explicit fashion.

Burawoy (2005) argues that sociology needs to re-establish a public sociology oriented toward society's problems and the practice of its unique knowledge if it is to again be taken seriously by the public, policymakers, and others. Yet, it is unclear how best to achieve these goals. We argue that the relatively young field of social gerontology provides a useful model of successful public sociology in action. As a multidisciplinary field engaged in basic and applied research and practice, social gerontology's major aim is to improve the lives of older people and to ameliorate problems associated with age and aging. Thus social gerontology has routinely reached beyond the academy to engage with its publics. We review the field's historical and theoretical development and present four examples of public sociology in action. Several factors have contributed to social gerontology's success in achieving the goals of public sociology: (1) Working in multidisciplinary teams which promote collaboration and respect for diverse perspectives. (2) Its ability to advocate "professionally" for its publics without favoring one group at the expense of another. (3) The unique affinity of its theories and practices with its disciplinary values. (4) The constructive effects of its ongoing questioning of values and ethics. Working in a multidisciplinary field with multiple publics, social gerontologists have been able to blend professional, critical, policy, and public sociologies to a considerable degree while contributing toward improvements in well-being.

After reviewing the debate about public sociologies in the American Sociological Association over the past few years, we offer a response to calls for "saving sociology" from the Burawoy approach as well as an analytic critique of the former ASA president's "For Public Sociology" address. While being sympathetic to the basic idea of public sociologies, we argue that the "reflexive" and "critical" categories of sociology, as Burawoy has conceptualized them, are too ambiguous and value-laden to allow for empirical investigation of the different major orientations of sociological research and the ways the discipline can address non-academic audiences. Debates about the future of sociology should be undertaken with empirical evidence, and we need a theoretical approach that can allow us to compare both disciplines and nations as well as taking into account the institutional context of the universities in which we operate. Research into the conditions under which professional, critical, policy, and public sociologies could work together for the larger disciplinary and societal good is called for instead of overheated rhetoric both for and against public sociologies.

Michael Burawoy's call for a public sociology disciplined by professional and policy sociology, on the one side, and driven by critical sociology, on the other, exposes the ideological biases of sociology to publics. In so doing, public sociology will thwart non-ideological efforts for sociology to exert influence on broader publics and on political decision-makers. In order for sociology to be able to influence public opinion and the decisions of key players in the political and economic arenas, it will need to earn respect through a long evolutionary process of careful research and explanation without ideological fervor. To expose the ideological biases of sociology will thwart this evolutionary process. In contrast, sociology would be much better to develop an engineering mentality in addressing issues, problems, and concerns of publics in present-day societies.

Graduate training in sociology involves more than meeting organizationally imposed demands such as satisfying departmental requirements, taking exams, and completing a dissertation. More central is the development of identity through institutional and interactional forces. We examine the experience of graduate students as tied to the social psychological processes associated with professional training. We consider the faculty-student relationship, identifying how student identities as future sociologists are negotiated and constructed within a reputation market linked to status politics. Through this process, graduate students construct frames of interpretation that make sense of a status system in which criteria for evaluation are often variable, uncertain, or undisclosed. To recognize how graduate students fit into their occupational routines, we build upon three core disciplinary constructs: identity, reputation, and group culture. This perspective permits graduate education to be grounded in sociological understandings, underlining the role of a sociological imagination. We propose strategies that sociology departments might follow to facilitate the professional socialization of graduate students, emphasizing the establishment of group culture and presentational norms. In the absence of these changes, we offer advice to graduate students on navigating their current programs.