Search

Research, with a capital 'R', is a subject of considerable concern within South African ruling circles. There's not enough of it, and it's not the right kind, or so the argument runs. Recognising the importance of the material conditions of the researchers and the need for a bottom-up approach to developing research priorities, this paper focuses on the state of sociology research in South Africa today. It demonstrates that, over the past twelve years, a marked increase in the output of masters and doctoral graduates has been accompanied by a decline in the level of completed research by qualified sociologists. In terms of publications, there has been a significant increase in the proportion produced by women, but a negligible change in the number by black scholars. The paper rejects pessimistic assessments of the state of South African sociology. It concludes by arguing that the discipline should place itself at the centre of an integrated and engaged social science by drawing diverse strands together at a local level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept canon is increasingly used to refer to the core concepts, texts, theories and authors in scientific and artistic disciplines. This article examines the appropriateness of this term when used in the social sciences generally and in sociology specifically. It argues that in terms of a strict definition of 'canon' sociology does not have a canon and cannot be regarded as a canonical discipline. The concept of a 'compilatory' discipline is introduced and discussed via references to the sociological catalogue and the knowledge/power relations that account for the form and structure of the catalogue. Arguments for regarding sociology as a compilatory rather than a canonic discipline are advanced and some consequences of this are explored through a discussion of the debates and struggles that were waged over the sociology curriculum during the apartheid years and more recently. The paper concludes with a call to South African sociologists to recognise the compilatory nature of the discipline and to meet the challenges this implies in the contemporary context and for the renewal of sociology and social transformation in South Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sociology as a scholarly vocation within the university in South Africa is bedevilled with the claims of its demise. Both the discipline and a cross-section of its practitioners seem beset with 'status anxiety' and what I call 'status ambiguity.' In this presidential address, delivered to the 2005 Congress of the South African Sociological Association (SASA). I examine these claims. The paper examines the sources of the anxiety. It argues that the claims of sociology's death are grossly exaggerated, as Mark Twain might have put it. I argue that if we were to operate on a wider canvas we might have persuaded ourselves to the position that the ebbs and flows in a discipline like sociology are not evidence of 'death', 'fall' or whatever else we might want to call it: it is not even an evidence of a discipline that is yet to attain maturity. The key to doing 'sociology beyond despair' and the recovery of disciplinary nerve requires a commitment to endogeneity, with a distinct commitment to epistemic intervention in global sociology: it requires us to take our locales seriously: it requires us to take ourselves seriously. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The question of power remains critically important. South Africa provides a salient example of the relevance of soft or co-optive power. This paper investigates the South African government's use of two forms of co-optive power, namely, institutional centralisation and dispositional centralisation. The first refers to the centralising of the state apparatus as evidenced in the reformed Presidency. The second is highlighted in state-society relations as civil society is relegated to the role of implementer of state policy and its political space as an agent of accountability is severely constrained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

South African sociologists of education are living through a momentous and highly particular transition at the same time as they participate in global trends and debates This paper reviews changes in their framing concerns as they move from an oppositional positionality to a far more ambiguous space that seems to require of them to choose between critique and reconstruction The resultant re-positioning and the changes forms of appropriation of international themes as local priorities shift is the central concerns of this review [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]