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

[Darth.Vegan]

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.

Oh I apologize. You paraphrased and summarized a dead white male instead of thinking for yourself, congrats.

Guess what? No one is objective, not even in the hard sciences. Come back once you've figured that out.

[penpen]

I find this thread interesting and I largely agree with sleepycat. I was having a similar discussion with one of my advisors when I was getting ready to apply to programs. I asked him if I should make it apparent in my personal statement that the main factors in my decision to pursue sociology was my political work and activism. He had no hesitation in saying that adcoms would much rather hear that you are genuinely passionate about social justice/change rather than solely about some abstract theoretical issue in academia.

But I guess the main point of contention here is whether or not such political/ideological affiliations would compromise academic rigor. My own feeling is that there is a false dichotomy here. We would do well to recognize that it is impossible to separate our academic work from our subjective views about the issue we are examining. Our work is shaped by this orientation, right from the beginning with the types of research questions we choose to ask. Therefore, we have two choices; we can either decide to be open and honest about the analytical framework we are working within or we can make false claims to objectivity.

A lot of academics adopt and buy into the idea of "objective" social science without realizing that their work is influenced by social context as well as their own ideological dispositions *cough neoclassical economists* .

About academic rigor, I don't see how dubious work can go far or be influential in academia. And I want to echo what others have said: I don't see how it would that sort of work would be helpful in furthering my agenda.

[lovenhaight]

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.

Are you encountering these people in a graduate program or just in your local coffee shop? The assertion that those who are interested in social justice/public sociology are less careful researchers is quite insulting. To ignore "inconvenient facts" is to be a less effective researcher, so I'd like to assert that in my experience, social justice-oriented researchers are no more likely to fail to adhere to standards of quality than traditional researchers.

Furthermore, I believe that you're doing nothing more than attempting to flex your intellectual muscles and allow your sanctimony to ooze through the keyboard. You've read some Weber? Good for you. You feel better about yourself by pointing out quotes versus paraphrasing? Good for you.

This is a topic that could have incited lively discussion, and instead you chose to use it as a way to question the integrity of people in your own field who have a different research orientation than your own.

Edited February 4, 2012 by lovenhaight

[sleepycat]

Oh I apologize. You paraphrased and summarized a dead white male instead of thinking for yourself, congrats.

Guess what? No one is objective, not even in the hard sciences. Come back once you've figured that out.

Agree with that statement 100%. We all have our own ideologies, whether side we are on, even if we claim to be "scientific".

We all have baggage. It is whether or not we choose to reveal and understand we have baggage is up to you. I think that contemporary scholars like Althasaure (sp sorry XD and sorry to quote a dead white French guy) have shown that we are part of a vast web of ideologies, whether good or bad.

It is true that Weber holds a place in the social sciences that will never be forgotten and honestly we wouldn't be here if he didn't do what he did. But that does not mean he should be held as the rule. All the post-whatever scholars make valid remarks questioning the founding scholars' baggage. The founders of Anthropology who promoted Social-Cultural Evolution have been rightly criticized by even their peers and the post-whatevers and they are not being held today as the rule to base all research off of.

[DustSNK]

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?

Nope. I wish, but no in my oppinion. At least in the USA. Abroad their is much more of an enviornment for this. I'm more of a fan for using the study for actual social change, somthing useful. My hero is Pierre Bourdieu. I say the big wigs in American soc have a sowrd showing contest with the hard sciences, and want to gain more respect from this community. Almost every issue this year of the ASA journal has been filled with a lot of ivory tower articles @__@

[Hege-Money]

This thread turned out better than I expected. I guess one of the central issues is the idea of objectivity, which I believe is quite irrelevant given the high degree of subjectivity that one finds in the methodological approaches, data interpretation, and theoretical frameworks of many of the so called “quantitative-based professional sociologists”. However, I, in no way, wanted to suggest that professional sociology ought to be completely removed from consideration. There is a definite need to engage with the academic community in attempting to improve and expand on previous approaches and paradigms. My critique is of the sociologists who simply believe that the ‘means’ of sociological investigation ought to be the only factors of consideration. I personally believe any sociologist ought to incorporate all four aspects of sociological thinking: professional, critical, public, and policy. This academic, institutionalized form of sociological thinking that overemphasizes ivory tower methodology and public detachment is contrary, in my opinion, to the fundamental essence of sociology as a discipline, an essence that is characterized by a scientific concern for ‘means’ but a humanistic concern for ‘ends’. We, as sociologists, cannot be removed from the society we hope to understand and help. Part of that obligation means incorporating reflexive, critical sociological techniques and accessible, public-oriented forms of sociological engagement.

[giacomo]

This thread turned out better than I expected.

*ho-hum*

you're welcome.

[Darth.Vegan]

This thread turned out better than I expected. I guess one of the central issues is the idea of objectivity, which I believe is quite irrelevant given the high degree of subjectivity that one finds in the methodological approaches, data interpretation, and theoretical frameworks of many of the so called “quantitative-based professional sociologists”. However, I, in no way, wanted to suggest that professional sociology ought to be completely removed from consideration. There is a definite need to engage with the academic community in attempting to improve and expand on previous approaches and paradigms. My critique is of the sociologists who simply believe that the ‘means’ of sociological investigation ought to be the only factors of consideration. I personally believe any sociologist ought to incorporate all four aspects of sociological thinking: professional, critical, public, and policy. This academic, institutionalized form of sociological thinking that overemphasizes ivory tower methodology and public detachment is contrary, in my opinion, to the fundamental essence of sociology as a discipline, an essence that is characterized by a scientific concern for ‘means’ but a humanistic concern for ‘ends’. We, as sociologists, cannot be removed from the society we hope to understand and help. Part of that obligation means incorporating reflexive, critical sociological techniques and accessible, public-oriented forms of sociological engagement.

Agreed 100%

[DustSNK]

This thread turned out better than I expected. I guess one of the central issues is the idea of objectivity, which I believe is quite irrelevant given the high degree of subjectivity that one finds in the methodological approaches, data interpretation, and theoretical frameworks of many of the so called “quantitative-based professional sociologists”. However, I, in no way, wanted to suggest that professional sociology ought to be completely removed from consideration. There is a definite need to engage with the academic community in attempting to improve and expand on previous approaches and paradigms. My critique is of the sociologists who simply believe that the ‘means’ of sociological investigation ought to be the only factors of consideration. I personally believe any sociologist ought to incorporate all four aspects of sociological thinking: professional, critical, public, and policy. This academic, institutionalized form of sociological thinking that overemphasizes ivory tower methodology and public detachment is contrary, in my opinion, to the fundamental essence of sociology as a discipline, an essence that is characterized by a scientific concern for ‘means’ but a humanistic concern for ‘ends’. We, as sociologists, cannot be removed from the society we hope to understand and help. Part of that obligation means incorporating reflexive, critical sociological techniques and accessible, public-oriented forms of sociological engagement.

I agree. It's good to have a balance, and the recent American brand of Socioogy has a need and purpose. Esp in recent models of network thoery over the last few years. But critical, reflexive, brands of thinking are very much a thing of the past from what I have seen. Which is a shame! That brand is more or less the International model of current soc. I'm from NY, but am applying to all Canadian schools. It is a nice mix up there. You have the accesability (of faculty) and freedom that North American Uni's are prasied for, but have a very solid base of critical-reflexive theorists like our euro cousins, all within a multicultural society.

Edited February 6, 2012 by DustSNK

[DustSNK]

This isn't to say though that it is all dead for critical theorist in America, but there has been a HUGEEEEEEE shift in the feild over the last decade. For instance most all American soc PhD's I've have talk to generally accept cultural sociology as a "fad" that happened in the 90's. One prof. I had when giving me advise on getting into grad school said I would have a better chance getting in if I took geography classes over cross-cultural analysis! Now that's one guy but he has a C.V that is 50 somthing pages (not exagerating) and has seen it all. As you said Hege-money, American soc is getting way way too detached from the actual subject of study. And while this shift may be needed to develop the study in different ways, one has to ask what good will it produce?

[RefurbedScientist]

Hege-money said, "My critique is of the sociologists who simply believe that the ‘means’ of sociological investigation ought to be the only factors of consideration." And the "fundamental essence" of sociology "is characterized by a scientific concern for ‘means’ but a humanistic concern for ‘ends’."

I agree with this provocation (although I would hesitate to use the phrase "fundamental essence", but that's a minor tangent for later). I think we have focused so far on a conversation about how political ends can corrupt scientific means (methods, theory, paradigms, etc.). While I think this is an important and necessary conversation, why don't we think constructively about the end product of our research and how we can better connect that to the social problems we study? In other words, let's assume for a moment that the institutionalized discipline of sociology is sufficiently objective (recognizing that no social practice is free from its context) and the research we produce, taken as a whole body of scientific literature, is a fair approximation of social reality. Okay, great. Now what?

I think this is where we fall short when talking about praxis. In professional sociology, the product of our research is a publication. Really good work is cited by future publications. Some ideas are gradually accepted into the disciplinary canon. But the process of proliferation seems to stop here. Sure, some sociologists maintain strong ties to public policy. Some sociologists teach undergraduate courses to the future leaders of non-profits, policy, activism and advocacy, etc. Nontheless, the norm is for academics to stand outside of the social struggles we study, acting occasionally as commentators or pundits. I think the challenge is, when we produce politically relevent work, to connect our findings in a useful way to the relevant parties. In this sense, the end product of research is not just a publication. For example, if I research on cyberbullying, I could publish my findings (signalling scientific accreditation), then collaborate with educators to develop a sound intervention program, then work with filmmakers to document the program and reach a wider audience, then work with activists to build a campaign around the program, then work with law makers to institutionalize and replicate the program, then work with international NGOs to tailor the program to other cultures, and throughout this whole process reflect critically using (perhaps more esoteric) social theory. Research should be a living thing, not simply a product.

I don't see this sort of "sociologist as subject of change" shift as jeapordizing scientific objectivity, so long as we observe the very same scientific standards we generally already do. For example, with grounded theory (simplified here for argument's sake), the researcher obersves, collects observable data, analyzes data, creates a theory, and tests the theory for accuracy and successive levels of scalability. The logical next step would be to act on the findings and theory. So long as this process is not reversed (i.e. desire to act on a social problem, developing a theory marred by bias, finding data to support theory), then I think we have a degree of objectivity and the possibility for action. There are other questions of comparative advantage (whereby an activist is plain better as some parts of this process than an academic) and funding (as it is now, we're paid to publish and teach, not to change the world). But this is the status quo, perhaps not the ideal.

Now, as to the question of institutional and professional academic sociology and its role in political/social change: I think scholars in non-profit instutions (universities), who are not beholden to private interest, and whose work is accredited through peer review are in a much better position to drive this sort of praxis than a) private individuals not accountable to a professional field of peers and b] think tanks beholden to funders, directed by a revolving door of corporate execs. and politicians, and not accountable to peer review.

Anecdotally, a good exampe of this comes from Gianpaulo Baiocchi at Brown (who has come up in another thread). Baiocchi's research has included the practice of "participatory budgeting" in a city in Brazil, where citizens come together and determine public budgets collectively, rather than through political authorities. Apparently participatory budgeting was successful in this case, and the idea has been spreading. Now, in my home town of Providence, RI (where Brown is), Baiocchi, some city council members, and a coalition of community organizations are working together to initiate participatory budgeting in our city. I was a community organizer for one of these orgs during this period. The cool thing was that Baiocchi was mostly playing a support role in the process, which was really driven by the community. I just found it rare for a faculty member from an Ivy league school to sit in an open community meeting and take his turn offering insight from his research to a crowd that would otherwise not be flipping through AJS or going to academic conferences. In my opinion, this is a good model for how sociologists can participate in action without a) imposing top-down pressure on the development or trajectory of political action and b] jeapordizing the scientific quality of one's own sociological research. Baiocchi didn't find that participatory budgeting worked in Brazil because he wanted it to work in Providence. Rather, he observed it work in Brazil, analyzed the process systematically, understood it more-or-less objectively (please assume the usual epistemological qualifications here), and shared that understanding with another community wanting to replicate the action.

OK-- long post. Good convo. Let's keep it going.