Search

This article presents Robert A. Stebbins' reaction to several comments on his paper which appeared in a previous issue of The American Sociologist, which provided an account of professional and amateur sociology in the U.S. Stebbins states that he wishes only to offer a single clarification of a poorly communicated passage that caught Althauser's attention. It concerns the four conditions that encourage the emergence and persistence of an avocational interest in science. According to Stebbins, when he wrote the passage, he had Kuhn's concept of normal science in mind. Amateurism takes root in those sciences or areas of sciences that lack a dominant paradigm as the exclusive grade to scholarly research. These fields are in a preparadigm stage of development in which several schools of thought compete. Why then, is there no amateur sociology? Among the answers to this question, according to Stebbins, are that sociologists lack a tradition of amateurism, a vision that amateurs could help professionals with some of their research interests, and a willingness to organize nonprofessional assistance on any basis other than temporary. The same conclusions could likely be reached for other sciences.

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. Amateur sociology was the parent professional, the child Park was a professional writer, an amateur sociologist. He did join the sociological fraternity, to that extent he became professional. Sumner wrote a book it got adopted by sociologists. Sumner accepted the adoption very unwillingly, and made no change in his writing or thinking. At present, sociology has a professional structure, and can control what is published as sociology, but the commenter is grateful that people cannot control what is written on sociological matters or in the sociological mood. The commenter cites that unless sociologists get much more bureaucratized, it will always be possible for people to be writers of sociology. At present, sociology has a professional structure, and can control what is published as sociology. There is no virtue in being amateur. Researchers, professional or not should not try to publish their reports in the regular journals. In this way new lines of thought and research will reach the widest audience of interested readers.

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. Stebbins' account of professional and amateur sociology unearths a set of boxes nesting in one another that according to the commenter, contain issues going to the foundations of current social science, conceptually and institutionally. The most encompassing issue is embedded in Stebbins' assertion throughout that the discipline and profession of sociology exists, has definable and agreed aims, and is thereby a special stream in science as well as within social science. He presumes that there is some accurate version of sociology into which laypeople can and should be indoctrinated. The commenter relates that many institutional structures support this version of the division of scientific labor, a version based more on professionalism and careerism than on ideas about the unity of science. Skepticism, is missing from this account of sociology. The proposal mostly takes up issues of craft, unrelated however to the research questions for which the particular tactic of volunteer sociologists would be more useful than another.

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 Paul Kay in a previous issue of The American Sociologist which addressed the growing number of unemployed and underemployed doctor of philosophy degree holders in the U.S. According to the commenter, he sees little evidence of a burgeoning enthusiasm for nonacademic employment among sociologists. Nor he sees any substantial evidence that the scholarly emphasis of most doctor of philosophy programs in sociology is giving way to practical training and applied programs. To be sure, a number of sociologists have counseled such a shift, but their ranks are relatively small. With respect to the likelihood of any massive proportionate increase in nonacademic job opportunities for sociologists, the commenter explains that he comes to pretty much the same point that Kay makes for anthropologists. The estimates suggest that possibly one out of every five sociologists is employed in a nonacademic setting, and that this ratio has not varied much over the past quarter century. According to the commenter, this is not to say however that the number of nonacademic positions for sociologists will not continue to increase as it has for the past twenty-odd years.

This article presents a commentary on a paper by Paul Kay in a previous issue of The American Sociologist which addressed the growing number of unemployed and underemployed doctor of philosophy degree holders in the U.S. Kay implies that traditional training for academic employment is not ideological but rational in character. The commenters disagree with this idea. According to them, it is important to raise this issue because, in spite of very modest changes in employment patterns the vast majority of social scientists, even throughout the lean 1970s, did hold academic jobs. Training for research in graduate school regularly takes precedence over training for teaching, and yet most college faculty rarely if ever publish the fruits of their scholarship, while presumably all teach. Their lack of fit between training and work experience will increase as more and more doctor of philosophy degree holders bump down within academe from sociology to non-sociology departments, and/or from research to teaching institutions where they may find some rewards for competent teaching, but weak institutional and even interpersonal support for their research interests. However, according to the commenters, this is certainly not to say that training for critical analysis and scholarship ought to be abandoned, but rather that graduate education should include attention to the shifting realities of academic employment.

This article is a note from the new editor of the journal "Sociological Forum," for the first issue processed in the Albany office in New York. The issue is similar to the issues from offices in Ithaca and Stony Brook. Two reasons for this continuity are that the papers in editorial process at Stony Brook were sent to Albany in the editorial office transition and that editors are at the mercy of the authors who submit manuscripts. The plea made to authors by editor Stephen Cole was that if one had a manuscript ready for submission, one should first think of the "Sociological Forum."

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.