Search

This article develops an alternative vision of public sociology. Whereas public sociology is often defined through the actions of professional sociologists, this article calls for a recognition of reverse tutelage in public sociology. Here, publics are seen as sociological interlocutors who can, and often do, produce sociological theories and analyses that can inform professional sociology. I demonstrate this reverse tutelage by focusing on anticolonial and anti-racist social movements, including the Zapatistas, Black Lives Matter, Palestine Action, and Cops Are Flops. I highlight how they produce sociological theories of power, neoliberalism, race, bordering, and violence that can orient professional sociology toward relational forms of analysis that build connections between different sites of resistance. In doing so, I highlight how the boundary between what Burawoy terms "professional" and "critical" sociology is much more porous than initially theorized and that critical sociology—from wider publics—can significantly shape professional sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article draws a decade of experience editing and publishing TheSocietyPages.org, and four more years editing Contexts magazine. Both projects work to bring sociological research and insight to broader public audiences, visibility, and impact. Here we build upon Herbert Gans' original call for public sociology and his emphasis on the translation and dissemination of sociological research, insight, and context on social issues and problems for broad public audiences. We begin by detailing the general challenges of such communication‐oriented public outreach and engagement. We then use our work with The Society Pages, one of the largest sociological hubs on the internet, as a case study for doing this work and addressing these challenges. Key points of emphasis include: (1) the core challenges and key principles of writing for general, nonacademic audiences; (2) organizational and infrastructure‐related needs and some pragmatic recommendations for institutionalizing publicly engaged sociology; and (3) the critical role of graduate students in these endeavors. We conclude that sociologists ourselves are best positioned to share our work with public audiences and we identify some benefits for the discipline in doing such engaged scholarship over a sustained period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this interview, Dr Prudence Carter, 2021–2022 President-Elect of the American Sociological Association, discusses how sociology can contribute to anti-racist futures across national contexts. Her insights point to the need for greater self-awareness in sociology regarding race and racism, for clarification of our aims and for better articulation and translation of popularized theoretical concepts, such as structural racism, to the general public. To achieve radical inclusion in the future, she highlights the importance of engaging in public and policy sociology, by explaining and substantiating policies and practices derived from our research. She also underscores the significance and value of comparative cross-national and multidisciplinary collaborative research. Most importantly, she brings to the fore the necessity of imagining new epistemological and methodological approaches to study the conditions that will enable our societies to attain equitable and anti-racist futures. Fundamentally, this involves extending our sociological imaginations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Environmental sustainability and ecological aesthetics experience a turbulent affair when academic language is replaced by an artistic register: can we articulate contemporary crises stemming from uncontrolled mobilities, such as hyper-consumption, hyper-automobilities, and technological pollution, better by replacing sociological analysis with affective poetic language? The following poem (unpublished but belonging to the theme of Altermodernities: A Traveller's Notes, book 1: Anthropocene Entanglements) explores what this transition offers to a "public sociology" of modernity that relays theory to multiple publics in alternative visual and textual styles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Embracing the manifesto for a 'live' sociology, I included portraiture into the research design of an ethnographic study into women's lived experiences of French suburbia and organised an exhibition entitled Habitantes d'Hier and d'Aujourd'hui: exposition sociologique et photographique. This was a personal project in the neighbourhood of my youth and was motivated by the intention to shine some light on the invisible stories of women living in lower-middle and middle-income suburbs in France. In this article, I reflect on the use of portraiture for the possibility it offers in capturing the ethnographic encounter as well as in giving saliency and offering a visual representation of the sociological analysis. I also discuss the exhibition of these portraits as a moment of conviviality grounded in the endeavour of writing differently from hegemonic modes of academic communication and dissemination allowing for a sharing and sharpening of the sociological imagination. It represents an opportunity to think beyond some of the more neoliberal imperatives that govern academia today and shape our sociological craft. I argue for the value of creating a moment of conviviality, that is a space challenging modes of dissemination, engagement and even impact to some extent, as well as modes of knowledge production: broadly opening up more possibilities for a truly public sociology to continue to exist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the meanings of racism in the sociology of race/ethnicity and provides a descriptive framework for comparing theories of racism. The authors argue that sociologists use racism to refer to four constructs: (1) individual attitudes, (2) cultural schema, and two constructs associated with structural racism: (3) preexisting consequential inequalities, that is, racial dominance, and (4) processes that create or maintain racial dominance. The article compares this framework with a content and citation analysis of 1,037 sociology journal articles published from 1995 to 2015, a period stretching from a major call to renew sociological attention to racism, to the founding of the American Sociological Association journal, Sociology of Race and Ethnicity. The authors find six communities organized around distinctive citations and using different meanings of racism. They conclude by pushing toward the question of what racism ought to mean by discussing the implications for both sociological research and public sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I Palaces i proposes that what the author calls "social infrastructure", "the physical spaces and organizations that shape the way people interact" (2018:5), is indispensable to the effective functioning of society. If Klinenberg has his way, social infrastructure will become as central to long-term urban planning as the highways, bridges, and hospitals that constitute "hard" infrastructure. Palaces for the People How Social Infrastructure Can Help Fight Inequality, Polarization, and the Decline of Civic Life. While the case makes clear that creating infrastructure can be difficult, the reader wanted more: How should we think about the fact that not everyone wants community-building infrastructure such as swimming pools?. [Extracted from the article]

Set against the background of mid-twentieth-century institutional changes analyzed by Jürgen Habermas, we provide an account of new social conditions that compose "the public sphere" in the contemporary United States. First, we review recent developments in theorizing the public sphere, arguing they benefit from renewed attention to institutional changes in how that sphere operates. Second, we identify and summarize three lines of recent sociological research that document a new structural transformation of the contemporary public sphere: (1) civic communication through new media; (2) the professionalization of social movements; and (3) new, hybrid institutions such as think tanks, nonprofit foundations, and other public-private partnerships. Third, we argue that these new formations define a uniquely autonomous, interstitial social field. We conclude by discussing the implications of this synthesis for sociological theories of public life, arguing it can inform more effective study of the social infrastructure of democratic practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study demonstrates that the path of the 'organic public sociology' (proposed by Michael Burowoy in his famous call of the 2004) as the dominating mode of sociological practice in the national context can be menacing with the serious pitfalls manifested in broad historical perspective. We reveal the four pitfalls basing on the analysis of the Russian experience through the last 150 years. First, the over-politicization and ideological biasness of sociological activities; second, the 'personal sacrifice' of sociologist as a romanticized practice, potentially harmful for the discipline; third, the difficulties of the professional sociology institutionalization; fourth, the deprivation of the policy sociology development. Analyzing the history of Russian sociology in the context of the current international discussions, we give particular reference to the idea of the 'Scientized Environment Supporting Actorhood' elaborated by John Meyer. We suggest the mode of communication between sociology and society, which, in our view, could be helpful for improving their interactions in various local, national and global contexts in the XXIst century. This mode escapes the political emphasis and ideological claims but rather concentrates on the more fundamental ethical issues. It also tries to overcome the limitations of the contemporary professional mainstream (instead of idealizing it). Finally, it presents itself to the publics in the understandable way, while remaining properly scientifically validated (however, avoiding the exaggerated accent on the statistical procedures and fitishization of the natural science' principles ('numerology' and 'quantofrenia')). The public activities of the prominent sociologist Pitirim Sorokin in the American period of his career are a good example of this approach to the interactions with society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As Hartmann illuminates, it is important for sociologists to engage in public sociology. Yet, public audiences do not always receive research results in a passive and positive manner. Instead, as we discuss in this brief essay, research results can contested by multiple publics. At times, particularly in social media, the attacks can be swift. Research that is not intended to be a form of public sociology can inadvertently be brought into the public discourse. We discuss how interest groups, such as patient groups, can contest research results. Researchers can be personally attacked as well. These conflicts can create a turbulent environment where sociologists can lose control of their message. While most studies are released without incident, it is helpful to build the capacity of sociologists to participate in public sociology and manage challenges of their research results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hartmann’s response to the commentaries on his 2016 MSS presidential address from Adia Harvey Wingfield, Annette Lareau, and Vanessa Muñoz. The emphasis is on conflict, different audiences, and the unique role that sociologists in organizations like MSS can play in public engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article outlines how sociologists can and do engage a range of general, nonacademic public audiences, organizations, and interests. It begins with a discussion and critique of the notion of public sociology that emerged from Michael Burawoy’s 2004 American Sociological Association (ASA) presidency and draws upon recent commentaries and classical theories to formulate a more pluralist vision of sociology’s publics. The article concludes by arguing that embracing a multidimensional vision of the relationships between sociology and its publics not only provides a foundation for better public engagement, but also can help renew and revitalize of sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In his presidential address, Douglas Hartmann refines existing theoretical approaches to provide a more precise framework of public sociology. In this response piece, I consider several of his key points and elaborate on their implications for contemporary society. Specifically, I address whether distinctions between types of sociology remain essential and consider the challenges associated with doing public sociology in an increasingly fractured public sphere. I conclude with a call for sociologists to think through these issues in more detail to heighten our influence on the social spheres we research and discuss. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This reflection offers considerations of a career in policy sociology. The author reflects on the role of the policy sociologist and the research produced for policy. Three examples of sociological practice focus on the sociologist as offering actionable evidence for nongovernmental organizations, as evaluator of prison and substance abuse treatment programs, and as watchdog for government accountability. Thoughts are offered on training for a career in policy sociology, as well as caution to remain reflexive and critically aware of bias sources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This review article assesses recent developments and perspectives in the history of sociology as evidenced in two recently published conference volumes emanating from the ISA Research Committee on History of Sociology. Both these volumes address questions arising from recent debates in the discipline about the nature and role of sociology in the public domain. The article argues that history of sociology is ‘coming of age’ in the richness of topics, and varieties of methodological approaches and perspectives used in attempts more firmly to ground the sociological enterprise in its changing cultural and geographic contexts. The article also raises critical questions about the role of the history of sociology in contributing to a sharpened understanding of the complex and contradictory role of sociology in relation to its publics, and to the meaning of globalization in social science, both in theory and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On the 50th anniversary of the ISSA and IRSS, one of the most influential scholars linking the sociology of sport to policy and social change, Peter Donnelly, considers the prospects for a nexus meshing public intellectualism with the doing of research. Noted in considering the trajectory of the field was an early absence of the sociologist as partisan and the staking of positions that make clear “whose side we are on.” While the critical turn in the sociology of sport has grounded its calling more clearly, challenges remain for the field to be taken seriously, and a key to advancing this is to quicken the pace for sociological knowledge about sport to “filter down” to public knowledge and play a role in influencing policy changes that can help make sport a more equitable and humane place. In considering the future of the field, Donnelly notes the inherently practical value underlying sociological knowledge and calls for sociologists of sport to engage Piketty’s call for public engagement in a way that can make a difference in how people experience sport. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

What are the implications for global public sociology and labor studies when more than a score of Foxconn workers jump to their death and when a wave of protests, riots and strikes occur in their wake? This article documents the formation of a cross-border sociological intervention project and illustrates how sociological research fueled regional campaigns that gradually developed into a global campaign. This experience confirms the premise that ‘social science’ should never be separated from ‘politics.’ The authors also shed light on how social and economic injustice was creatively challenged by combining the strengths of workers, researchers and transnational movement activists. The study uses both quantitative (semi-structured questionnaires) and qualitative (in-depth interviews and participation observation) methods to gain insights concerning the experiences, world views and collective agency of Chinese workers who are struggling to make sense of the global production regime they inhabit and to contest the forces that shape their working and social lives. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this article, the author surveys his own career to illustrate some of the dilemmas of research, especially when it assumes a critical and public face. He shows how his work on Palestinian refugees, their socioeconomic rights, their right of return and their camps evolved toward complex forms of traditional and organic public sociology. The article concludes with reflections on one of the major dilemmas researchers face: conducting public research without losing its critical edge, even toward the deprived groups it seeks to protect. The moral of the story: good scientists are not always popular. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Public sociology implies not simply a general orientation to social research but also a methodology that connects the sociologist to a ‘public.’ This is the case, with some provisos, for the method of sociological intervention, invented by Alain Touraine, that I have pursued in studies of racism, anti-Semitism and terrorism, as well as of anti-nuclear and labor movements. The approach has led to complicated relations with the media and with politics. In this article I give a series of examples of such engagement and the dilemmas it creates for the sociologist who wants to maintain a critical distance. Ultimately, the question and the challenge of public sociology boil down to how one can intervene in social life and, at the same time, remain a social scientist. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

An interview with Portuguese sociologist José Madureira Pinto is presented. Particular focus is given to his work on sociological research at the Gabinete de Investigações Sociais, as well as his career as a teacher at the Universidade do Porto in Porto, Portugal. Topics discussed include the influence of Portuguese professor Armando Castro in his work, the evolution of the studies of sociology in Portugal, and the concept of public sociology.

In an effort to further advance public sociology and its relationship with technology, this paper looks at a democratic model of collaboration within the technological sciences. We draw on the concept of user- led research to demonstrate how sociologists, scientists and various stakeholders within the public sphere can achieve reciprocal, meaningful and sustained knowledge translation. Furthermore, we argue that by acknowledging participants' technological needs and reducing unnecessary complexity, the user -led method advances Burawoy's 'dialogue as mutual education' within public sociology. [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 is the first e-special issue for the journal Sociology and its chosen focus is the article ‘The coming crisis of empirical sociology’ by Savage and Burrows (2007). This article challenged sociologists with a variety of questions about the role, relevance and methodological opportunities for sociological research in the 21st century. On publication it stoked the already charged debates on a public sociology (Burawoy, 2004), the role of publicly funded research (ESRC, 2009) and relevance of sociological research in an age of burgeoning social media (Brewer and Hunter, 2006). This e-special provides a reprise of these debates and explores relevant papers in Sociology, as well as alerting readers to recurring themes and new directions on the topic of methods and social research. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Len Barton is acutely aware of the power of the academy to either enhance critical thinking or to depress it. He is a true academic, never accepting the received wisdom or perspective of any given sociological standpoint, no matter how powerful or fashionable it was at the time. He has encouraged and promoted a unique blend of professional and public sociology of education that has left a profound legacy not only in the United Kingdom but beyond. While the neo-liberal ideology had hegemonic status for most of his professional life, Len chose to engage in a counter-ideological struggle; he created new intellectual spaces in the academy where people could safely dissent from the reigning intellectual orthodoxies. He operated according to the principles of Gramscian thinking by mounting a war of position, in journals, books, teaching, conferences and research, for critical intellectuals. And he encouraged other people to do likewise. This article explores the ways in which Len's work inspired the establishment of the Equality Studies Centre and the School of Social Justice in University College Dublin. It outlines the lessons learned from Len Barton about higher education and its potential as a site for critical analysis and action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public sociology is being debated across the social sciences. This article examines how sociologists can enter concretely into a civic conversation through the research process. We present partial findings from a Canada-wide investigation into how city street video surveillance systems are implemented in various communities. Our aim is to examine some of the challenges of doing public sociology by examining sociological knowledge production and communication with diverse publics. Data gleaned from focused group interviews in the City of Kelowna, British Columbia are presented to explore the challenges of facilitating a civic conversation about public policy on city street video surveillance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, there has been a great deal of collective rumination about social scientists' role in society. In the post-1997 UK context, public policy commitments to ‘evidence-based policy’ and ‘knowledge transfer’ have further stimulated such reflections. More recently, Michael Burawoy's 2004 address to the American Sociological Association, which called for greater engagement with ‘public sociology’ has reverberated throughout the discipline, motivating a series of debates about the purpose of sociological research. To date, most such contributions have been based on personal experience and anecdotal evidence. In contrast, this paper responds directly to Burawoy's suggestion that we should ‘apply sociology to ourselves,’ in order that we ‘become more conscious of the global forces’ driving our research ( Burawoy 2005 : 285). Drawing on an empirical research project designed to explore of the relationship between health inequalities research and policy in Scotland and England, in the period from 1997 until 2007, this paper discusses data from interviews with academic researchers. The findings suggest that the growing pressure to produce ‘policy relevant’ research is diminishing the capacity of academia to provide a space in which innovative and transformative ideas can be developed, and is instead promoting the construction of institutionalized and vehicular (chameleon-like) ideas. Such a claim supports Edward Said's (1994 ) insistence that creative, intellectual spaces within the social sciences are increasingly being squeezed. More specifically, the paper argues we ought to pay far greater attention to how the process of seeking research funding shapes academic research and mediates the interplay between research and policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article commemorates the fiftieth anniversary of The Sociological Imagination by recalling, renewing and updating C. Wright Mills' pledge to expand a politically aware, self-reflective and publicly accessible intellectual culture between aestheticism and scientism. We begin by sketching how Mills' 'bifocal' vision of the translation between the close-up perspective on personal milieus and the longer view of social structures contrasts with recent calls for a public sociology which would sustain its professional legitimacy while reviving its critical conscience. To illustrate this point, we argue that his project can be reframed in a way that 'provincializes' the universalizing claims and scientific aspirations of much of North American sociology by exposing its imperial unconscious in pre- and post-war movements toward the professionalization and scientization of knowledge. Here our focus turns to the prospects for a 'sociology of empire' to trace imperial forms which are symptomatically manifested both in the discipline's assumptions about historical progress and in Mills' critique of these assumptions. Finally, with an example from the history of British colonialism in Egypt, we show how, despite its blindspots, Mills' vision of the sociological imagination implicitly projects an alternative 'sociological map' with distinct vantage points that can account for the changing cultural tasks of our time, especially concerning how collectives of human and non-human agents are unequally mediated within networks of power. We conclude by revisiting Mills' distinctive approach to 'the craft of sociology', considered more as a prayer than a profession, and undertaken more as a personal and political calling than as career. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Journals and research networks are awash with advice about how best to promote children and young people's participation, with young people's involvement in the doing of research often presented as a specific expression of this wider good. Most of this discussion, however, is concerned with methods, the practicalities of securing research involvement and, more recently, with research training. At the same time, wider debates about the uses of sociological research have unfolded at an abstract level, framed in terms of 'knowledge for what' and 'knowledge for whom' with little focus on research practice, including who is carrying it out. In this article, I examine the 'young researcher' to do two things: embed discussions about young People's research participation in long-standing epistemological and political debates about the role of research; and add to the broader sociological debate by foregrounding the question of who carries out research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I have written a strictly autobiographical essay about the half dozen areas or fields in which I have done sociological research during my career. One reason for writing the essay is to encourage students to become what I call a "multi," there being too few in sociology, as in other disciplines in which most researchers do their work in one field. I hope the essay demonstrates that working in many fields can make for a satisfying and productive career. Research across areas also encourages comparative work, and if enough young people become multi-field researchers, sociologists might then develop more interdisciplinary skills, which is even now desirable and may one day be necessary for all the social sciences. My essay also describes how and why I became interested in my six fields and how I moved between them during my career. The rest of the paper describes my major studies and other activities in my fields as well as the institutional and other contexts that I believe have affected my work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Michael Burawoy offers an innovative call to reintegrate our discipline. Using Canada as an example, I argue that his proposal underestimates the extent of institutional separatism among branches of sociology. Influenced by antipositivist currents in the humanities over the past two decades, critical sociologists are disconnecting from mainstream empirical research. Simultaneously, the mainstream is moving in a very different direction as it responds to developments in other social sciences, and largely ignores the humanities. I hypothesize that this institutional drift limits the possibility of mutual correction between various branches of sociology, a process that is central to Burawoy's proposal. Possible scenarios for the future of public sociology in Canada are discussed in light of this hypothesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we take up the debate about public sociologies by drawing on critical feminist sociology in Canada. While we applaud Burawoy's efforts to contextualize US sociology and to embrace engagement with various publics, we discuss four limitations of his model. First, it does not adequately reflect the practice of feminist research that is interdisciplinary and simultaneously professional, critical, policy, and public sociology. Second, it does not take into account feminist methodology as an integrative form of sociology. Third, it does not sufficiently provincialize US sociology nor address how American "professional" sociology can operate as a threat rather than a standard-bearer in Canada. Fourth, it requires more concrete examples of public sociology and how it is undertaken in specific situations. We briefly discuss our research to illustrate "organic" public sociology in the Canadian context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the debate surrounding Michael Burawoy's plea for public sociology, it is all too often presented as the opposite of the detached, purely objective observation of society. But sociology is not torn between these two poles: the political and the scientific/empirical. Rather, the discipline is structured around three fundamental axes or dimensions: professional, descriptive, and political, embodying three essential aims which, in turn, constitute the respective roles sociology can play in academia and society depending on the specific publics the discipline seeks to address. Acting as professionals, sociologists try to attain prestige by accumulating social or symbolic capital among their colleagues. If they serve science for science's sake, they find their reward in the advancement of knowledge. If they adopt an activist political stance, they measure the value of their work on a different scale. This paper focuses specifically on French-language sociology in Quebec from the late 19th century to 1970 and argues that the dilemma of juggling these three axes, aims, and roles is one which has deeply influenced not only the discipline as a whole but the generations of Quebec sociologists who have attempted to balance these dimensions in their scholarship. There were three basic schools or approaches during this period, each embedded in the social conditions of its time. Sociologists' public engagement depended on specific historical conditions much more than it did on personal preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper clarifies and repositions some of the controversies generated by Burawoy's defense of public sociology and his vision of the mutually stimulating relationship between the different forms of sociology. Before arguing if, why, and how, sociology should or could be more "public," it is useful to reflect upon what we think we, as sociologists, know that "lay people" do not. This paper thus explores the public sociology debate's epistemological core, the issue of the relationship between sociologists' and non-sociologists' knowledge of the social world. Four positions regarding the status of sociologists' knowledge versus lay people's knowledge are explored: superiority (sociologists' knowledge of the social world is more accurate, objective, and reflexive than lay people's knowledge, thanks to science's methods and norms); homology (explicit lay theories about the social world often parallel social scientists' theories); complementarity (lay people's and social scientists' knowledge complement one another; the former's local, embedded knowledge is essential to the latter's general, disembedded knowledge); and circularity (sociologists' knowledge continuously infuses commonsensical knowledge, and scientific knowledge about the social world is itself rooted in common sense knowledge; each form of knowledge feeds the other). For each of these positions, implications are drawn regarding the terms, possibilities, and conditions of a dialogue between sociologists and their publics, especially if we take the circularity thesis seriously. Conclusions point to the accountability we face towards the people we study, and to the idea that sociology is always performative, a point that has, to some extent, been obscured by Burawoy's distinctions between professional, critical, policy, and public sociologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, I argue for and illustrate ‘power mapping’ as a concrete research approach that can benefit specific publics while enhancing professional sociological knowledge and theory. I present power mapping as an example of a more broad approach to public sociology which seeks to harness sociological theory and knowledge in order to create generalizable analytical tools that social movements, policy makers, concerned citizens, voluntary associations, and community organizations can use to develop their own strategic assessments of the sociological contexts in which they act. One of the ironies of the current discussion of public sociology is that it has been conducted in an abstract, hyper-theoretical discourse which is precisely one of the factors that has disconnected so much sociology from general publics. In this article, I instead turn towards presenting a specific concrete research strategy which could engender mutually beneficial research collaboration and dialogue between sociologists and specific publics. [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]