Search

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.

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

This article comments on the history and accomplishments of the American Sociological Association. The most astonishing activity of the ASA is an annual production, the extravaganza called the national meetings. In the 1940s and 1950s the national convention was sometimes criticized for being a market fair at which young academics were forced to kowtow to the mighty for jobs, rather than being able to take delight in truly intellectual discourse. Over the decades, the business meetings of the ASA have remained unchanged in one important way. They always have been poorly attended, except for a few times in the late 1960s. This intense apathy is characteristic of a well run learned society. First it shows the good sense of sociologists, for there is little worth capturing at the business meeting. Second, most of the time the Council and the national staff have succeeded in attaining harmony with the vibrations of their constituents, and thus, they often have made entirely independent decisions that pleased the others anyway. Even in the high drama of business meetings in the late 1960s and early 1970s, it should be noted, established sociology was the main target. In response to the sociologist's usual preference for egalitarian policy, the 1960's charges of elitism, and the sheer growth of research money, the number of papers or presentations has grown, certainly faster than the membership.

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.

This article presents a commentary on a paper by Paul Kay in a previous issue of The American Sociologist which analyzed the growth of a mythical enthusiasm for nonacademic employment in anthropology and other disciplines in the U.S. Kay proposes three tests for labeling this as an ideology, that it is demonstrably false and it serves to maintain the status quo. According to the commenter, he has seen very little evidence that the field of sociology is suffused with a growing enthusiasm about prospects for jobs outside academia. The American Sociological Association's (ASA) Expanding Employment Opportunities Committee's attempts to define the problem and to suggest useful steps to be taken to deal with it have hardly struck fire either at the grays roots or at the ASA Council level. Skepticism has been expressed as to whether the problem of a declining academic job market is not simply temporary, and thus not deserving of curriculum revision, recruiting cutbacks or some other organized response. Kay defends his second point, that the belief is false, mainly by referring to the competitive disadvantage of anthropologists in seeking to supplant others now holding nonacademic jobs or when offering their services at the same time as others displaced by the same market forces.

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. The British organization, Mass Observation existed in a relatively nonintrusive society with (as compared to the U.S.) greater concern for one's own and other people's privacy. Canada and Great Britain may in this respect have more built-in defenses against the risks of some kinds of amateur sociology that the U.S. would have. However, according to the commenter, Stebbins already anticipates this objection by requiring amateurs to be supervised and to start with a certain amount of instruction and proper cautionary comments. By engaging primarily in the use of unobtrusive measures and observations, the amateur will avoid the risks of harm to which Stebbins is already sensitive. The commenter relates that one of the public areas in which he has encouraged such unobtrusive observations is in churches, where the observer in outward appearance is similar to the congregation and hence not seen as an intruder. According to him, he has had a fair amount of experience with undergraduate amateurs of the sort described.

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. According to the commenter, there are many attractive features to what Stebbins proposes. The Mass Observation (MO) movement is an interesting case in point . The main objective of the movement was to support the British war effort in World War II by providing the Home Office with information about wartime concerns and worries of the British population. To participate as an observer in MO, listening to conversations in bars, in workplaces, on public transport, and so on, was to participate in the war effort. And then there is the anecdote problem what is to prevent amateur sociologists from being collectors of odd facts, interesting and startling experiences, miscellaneous overheard conversations and the like? All the anecdotal evidence that plagues sociologists at cocktail parties may be gathered and displayed by the amateurs at their meetings. Stebbins recognizes this problem and would establish the principle that anecdotal evidence would not be allowed in amateur sociological societies.