New Wave of American Sociology? Discussion on Praxis and Academic Traditionalism

[Hege-Money]

While the hegemonic control of conventional academic pedagogy remains very much intact, I wonder whether there will soon be a new wave of American sociology that rejects the traditional institutionalism of sociological study in favor of a praxis-oriented approach to sociological activism. Sure, there are certainly some scholars attempting to further this aspect within the sociological tradition, but I wonder whether our generation is in the process of ushering in radical institutional reform.

Questions for Discussion:

What do you think is the role of sociology in present and future society?

How do you foresee sociology – as a discipline – developing?

And why do you choose to pursue a career in sociology within this context?

[giacomo]

*hiccups*

let me get into a grad program first.

[Hege-Money]

*hiccups*

let me get into a grad program first.

you're feeding into the myth of institutionalism..

[giacomo]

you're feeding into the myth of institutionalism..

yes, perhaps. but i gotta feed myself before being able to feed into any ism, don't i.

[Hege-Money]

yes, perhaps. but i gotta feed myself before being able to feed into any ism, don't i.

i'll grant you that. survival is definitely a worthy preoccupation.

[giacomo]

i'll grant you that. survival is definitely a worthy preoccupation.

thank you, bro.

*continues obsessively refreshing threads*

[sleepycat]

I see myself as contributing a praxis-based research methodology based in Paulo Freire's theory of dialogue.

With the university under question, I think that the disciplines will start to take on more applied/activist undertones which will be both the result and cause of the fading boundaries between disciplines. Again I see myself contributing to this as I am borderline transdisciplinary and see the way to promote innovation in thought through the breaching of the boundaries of the traditional academy, which both Friere and Lefebvre discuss in their works.

Only with this applied/activist undertone in place can academia can justify its primary goal of education and critical thinking to the masses, although there will always be haters.

I think that our generation (late X, Early Y (so far)) really is the generation that is embracing the postmodern, post-what have you, postions that were started by the Boomer's parents. Boomers enjoyed some of the excesses of modernist thought, but as we see with the Occupy movement, we are getting the short end of the stick and we are pissed off. I think our generation can and will hopefully embrace our revolutionary ideas for the betterment of society. I want to be apart of this movement badly and i think i will be part of the change in American sociology.

I feel I have more to say, but I said what I generally think.

[Hege-Money]

I see myself as contributing a praxis-based research methodology based in Paulo Freire's theory of dialogue.

With the university under question, I think that the disciplines will start to take on more applied/activist undertones which will be both the result and cause of the fading boundaries between disciplines. Again I see myself contributing to this as I am borderline transdisciplinary and see the way to promote innovation in thought through the breaching of the boundaries of the traditional academy, which both Friere and Lefebvre discuss in their works.

Only with this applied/activist undertone in place can academia can justify its primary goal of education and critical thinking to the masses, although there will always be haters.

I think that our generation (late X, Early Y (so far)) really is the generation that is embracing the postmodern, post-what have you, postions that were started by the Boomer's parents. Boomers enjoyed some of the excesses of modernist thought, but as we see with the Occupy movement, we are getting the short end of the stick and we are pissed off. I think our generation can and will hopefully embrace our revolutionary ideas for the betterment of society. I want to be apart of this movement badly and i think i will be part of the change in American sociology.

I feel I have more to say, but I said what I generally think.

Thank you. I fundamentally agree with you, and I hope with the post-modern deconstruction of disciplinary lines and the politicization of academic study, there will be an increased emphasis on the praxis rather than on conventional, ivory tower methodology.

[sleepycat]

Thank you. I fundamentally agree with you, and I hope with the post-modern deconstruction of disciplinary lines and the politicization of academic study, there will be an increased emphasis on the praxis rather than on conventional, ivory tower methodology.

Like my professor said, everything is political.

[Palito]

The "public sociology" movement does seem to be gaining more and more footing in highly emulated universities and young, burgeoning minds alike. I think this points to a movement toward a generalized shift in the discipline's pedagogy.

In my experience, many of the students most dedicated to a morally directed application of sociological knowledge are not careful thinkers/researchers. As a citizen, I see a great need for rigorous research to guide public policy. As an academic, I wonder if such a paradigm shift will negatively affect intellectual integrity?

[sleepycat]

What do you mean by "not careful thinkers/researchers?" Do you mean less scientifically rigorous? Explain.

[Palito]

Precisely. I don't mean to say that this is necessarily true for all commited to this particular shift in orientation to, and application of sociological research, but that there has been a noticiable correlation in individuals I have encountered, or otherwise interacted with. I am suggesting that a driving concern for social justice, as a higher moral purpose, motivates research for those individuals I have observed, and that the desire to serve this end gives them incentive to look over inconvenient facts.

[allhandsonthebadone]

In my experience, many of the students most dedicated to a morally directed application of sociological knowledge are not careful thinkers/researchers. As a citizen, I see a great need for rigorous research to guide public policy. As an academic, I wonder if such a paradigm shift will negatively affect intellectual integrity?

This is the more intersting question. In my opinion it depends on the discipline of the academic researcher. Much like someone who goes into medicine with the hope to cure cancer or AIDS; someone who aims to get into sociology with the hope to cure social ills may wish they can find cause of the illness but will certainly do no one any favors by manipulating or fabricating information and hoping via the social capital of academia it will come true.

I aim for my sociological studies to be applied in public policy and social mobilization strategies. However, putting ideology and personal wishes before science will lead to false information when applied would undermine the goals had in the first place.

As for the original question I don't see how institutionalism and praxis-oriented approaches are diametrically opposed. I don't feel you have demonstrated how the institutional structure of current academia itself is inherently stifling to the real world application of sociological work. I can see how overriding ideologies can get in the way but these are exogenous of the institutional structure itself.

Personally as long as I (or anyone else) have the tools to pursue their sociological studies I am good. This is the only grand vision I have. I don't see how institutionalism standing alone gets in the way. I get a chance to work and learn from some of the greatest minds in the discipline, I get access to more resources to better my sociology, and I get paid for it and improve my resume. Works for me.

Edited February 3, 2012 by allhandsonthebadone

[Darth.Vegan]

Precisely. I don't mean to say that this is necessarily true for all commited to this particular shift in orientation to, and application of sociological research, but that there has been a noticiable correlation in individuals I have encountered, or otherwise interacted with. I am suggesting that a driving concern for social justice, as a higher moral purpose, motivates research for those individuals I have observed, and that the desire to serve this end gives them incentive to look over inconvenient facts.

Nonsense. The facts speak for themselves, there's no need to look over any of them to prove a point.

[allhandsonthebadone]

Nonsense. The facts speak for themselves, there's no need to look over any of them to prove a point.

We are bound by language though. We have to communicate the facts. These are colored by the words we use (or don't use in the case of omission) This is true for the hard sciences and especially the social sciences. There can certainly be instances where those who let their desire for activism and/or ideological adherency trump up some facts and omit others in the hope that their cultural capital as academics can help their activist aims to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Fortunately we have peer review to stop shoddy work from going too far.

Edited February 3, 2012 by allhandsonthebadone

[sleepycat]

Couldn't we also say that those who believe that sociology should be intensely rigorose are also bound by ideology as well? Sure, I am bound by ideology too. That doesn't mean that I can go and overlook facts though. Both sides of the debate produce shoddy work and to claim that one side does not is nonsense.

Look, I think the bigger question is how does the field move forward? Do we stick what we have been doing or do we change it up? Everyone here is implicated in this debate regardless of wanting to be in it or not.

[Darth.Vegan]

Interestingly enough, in my research I often go out of my way to obtain view points far outside of my own.

Edited February 3, 2012 by xdarthveganx

[allhandsonthebadone]

Couldn't we also say that those who believe that sociology should be intensely rigorose are also bound by ideology as well? Sure, I am bound by ideology too. That doesn't mean that I can go and overlook facts though. Both sides of the debate produce shoddy work and to claim that one side does not is nonsense.

Look, I think the bigger question is how does the field move forward? Do we stick what we have been doing or do we change it up? Everyone here is implicated in this debate regardless of wanting to be in it or not.

I never said that everyone with an activist bent falls into that pitfall but it's certainly conceivable that some do. An all or nothing dichotomy was never proposed.

[sleepycat]

I never said that everyone with an activist bent falls into that pitfall but it's certainly conceivable that some do. An all or nothing dichotomy was never proposed.

Okay, I guess i just interpreted the statement wrong.

[Palito]

I recently read Weber's essay on Science as a Vocation. Two points strike me as esspecially relevant to this discussion.

First, Weber discusses at length his view of politicizing the academic stage. While he doesn't suggest that social scientists should try to be a-political, he does argue, very much in agreement with allhandsonthebadone's point, that introducing political concerns to scientific research is highly undesirable. Our moral convictions may very well influence what facts we search out, which ones we pass over or forget, or simply how we interpret them. To be totally forthright, I'm a bit conflicted on where to draw the line between producing knowledge and informing practice. But I'm entertaining the question precisely because it is inconvenient.

Second, Weber argues that science cannot prove its own worth. In fact this question is not seriously entertained because arguments attempting to justify it as "good', or those decrying it as "evil" base themselves in non-scientific modes thinking and persuasion. He considers this question in the realm of leadership, which is driven by charisma. Ultimately, citing Tolstoi, Weber asks us to consider that there is no logical way to ensure that your life is valuable, one must resort to the principles that they hold.

And facts do not speak for themselves. If you think that, you must not see all of the insane discourses going on in the world.

[Darth.Vegan]

I find it enlightening you felt the need to quote a dead white male to make a point instead of simply explaining your position.

[sleepycat]

I think this then poses a few questions: What is extent of Weber's legacy in in these complicated times when his time is way different then ours? What type of baggage does Weber have? Why do we hold Weber's ideas as rule?

I didn't mean to imply that facts just speak for themselves. Facts are flexible in their interpretation, but a negative correlation can't be turned into a positive one even if there is an applied/activist bent in the goal of the research.

I notice this really has become modern vs. post-whatever and frankly it isn't going to be solved here, it is still hashed out in the academy and no doubt will not be solved by the time we are all emeritus professors. I guess the only way we are going to know the future is to experience it.

[allhandsonthebadone]

One of the major inspirations I have for entering the field of sociology is the hope that my studies can provide a bit of an instructional manual for stigmatized groups to use for upward social mobility. So I do have rather "activist" aims. First and foremost though I am a social SCIENTIST. Not only is it my duty as a traditional academic to report society as it really is (or the closest approximation that our methods can allow) but also its a duty for those groups I hope to empower. Having them base their destigmatization strategies based on wishful thinking does them no favors.

It certainly isn't an either or proposition. They can overlap and you can have both.

[sleepycat]

One of the major inspirations I have for entering the field of sociology is the hope that my studies can provide a bit of an instructional manual for stigmatized groups to use for upward social mobility. So I do have rather "activist" aims. First and foremost though I am a social SCIENTIST. Not only is it my duty as a traditional academic to report society as it really is (or the closest approximation that our methods can allow) but also its a duty for those groups I hope to empower. Having them base their destigmatization strategies based on wishful thinking does them no favors.

It certainly isn't an either or proposition. They can overlap and you can have both.

I think I'm somewhere similar.

I would say that I am an activist scholar. I work in the academy looking for the answers that others can use to promote social justice. Although that doesn't mean things can be overlooked to further my own agenda.

I think that our generation will have something to do with the shift in American sociology, so it will be interesting to see how the future pans out.

[Palito]

I find it enlightening you felt the need to quote a dead white male to make a point instead of simply explaining your position.

I'm curious to know how this has enlightened you, exactly.

Moreover, I find it hilarious that 1) you believe I quoted Weber, when I very clearly summarized his work (you may want to master the distinction as you move on to graduate studies); 2) somehow you've arrived at the conclusion that referencing seminal sociological works is innappropriate to the discussion when the practice of referencing other authors is a basic part of the culture within which we are all seeking to carve out places; and 3) you take wrote off Weber for being a dead, white male. I understand that this group has dominated others for much of history, but does that invalidate this particular individual's contributions?

Really, my point is that everything has unintended consequences, and I often wonder it the economy of incentives presented to many of us as we pursue the vocation of science, as it undergoes the changes we all seem to agree are occuring, will affect, in a generalized way and, by all means to varying degrees, our intellectual integrity to some extent. What I am gathering from Allhands and sleepycat is that others are also contemplating where the line lies, and how they can mantain intellectual integrity while also serving what they believe to be a moral imperative.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Palito