Search

Where do public sociology and the study of natural resources meet? One promising intersection is at community-based natural resource management. At this juncture there are multiple opportunities for rural sociologists to embrace the tenets of public sociology, as espoused by Michael Burawoy. By working with an active, thick, and local 'civil society', rural sociologists have the opportunity to improve livelihoods as well as contribute to the sustainability of the natural resource base that so many depend upon. This article examines these possibilities by discussing three domains for rural sociologists to apply public sociology to community-based natural resource management: participation, empowerment, and knowledge coproduction. This article makes an explicit call for rural sociologists to 'go public,' and by doing so challenge the underlying structures of marginalization and inequity that have characterized public involvement in natural resource management through the contemporary era of resource management in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Now that public sociology is beginning to move into mainstream sociology, it is necessary to understand the vital if indirect part the general public plays in the creation of public sociology. Although that sociology requires sociological work which is relevant and useful to sectors of the general public and is written in non-technical language, presenters are needed to propose that the work is eligible to become public sociology. Still, the public makes the final decision about whether it will literally become public sociology. This article hypothesizes about the process by which sociological works are transformed into public sociology, focusing particularly on the journalists, publishers, social media participants and other presenters. Empirical studies are needed to test these hypotheses, for a better understanding of the production of public sociology is needed so that it can contribute to the vitality of the discipline in the years to come. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why have social constructionists remained absent from debates over public sociology? I argue that constructionist scholarship would be particularly amenable to Michael Burawoy's notion of 'organic' public sociology, given the ability of constructionist scholars to orient awareness contexts in order to help engender constructionist imaginations. This approach requires that constructionists take on a different view of the role of the analyst. I also discuss some of the problems Canadian academics have had engaging with the media in their efforts to engage in 'traditional' public sociology, as well as what a constructionist public sociology may look like practice. I conclude by addressing potential challenges to a constructionist public sociology within Canada, including reference to sociology's disciplinary coherence and how we can approach-and what we mean by-'publics'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay treats Burawoy's advocacy for public sociology as a social problems claim. Using a social constructionist approach, I examine the rhetorical strategies Burawoy uses to construct the discipline in a way that makes public sociology seem not only relevant, but integral to what sociologists do. Sociology's history, ethos and practitioners are framed in ways that make its commitment to the civil sphere appear as a 'natural' direction for the discipline. Certain features of the discipline are foregrounded. Motives and desires are imputed. Villains are constructed and the paths to progress are outlined. By examining the framing strategies Burawoy uses to present his vision, the promise of public sociology is called into question. I do not argue that public sociology is without value. Rather, I unpack the claims its advocates make and question whether public sociology can deliver on its promise of a better sociology or a better society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper identifies the common themes in 245-plus refereed articles on whiteness studies that were published in academic journals after 1992 in an attempt to assess the implications of whiteness studies for the discipline of sociology. Of special interest is the relationship between whiteness studies and Michael Burawoy’s call for public sociology. I argue that the emerging field of whiteness studies identifies itself as a public sociology that is infused by the moral vision of critical sociology. Nevertheless, the field does not accept professional sociology as Burawoy defined it. The ontological, epistemological, and soteriological foundations of whiteness studies encourage the field to pander to one segment of the public—the marginalized—and condemn another segment of the public—“privileged whites,” thus rendering impossible a democratic dialogue on one of the most basic social issues of our time. Conflating Western epistemology with whiteness encourages a misreading of American social scientific work on race relations, thus opening the door to a so-called hermeneutics of suspicion. The result is not an innocuous “pop” sociology, but a partisan sociology, whose implications should caution sociologists against an uncritical embracing of public sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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