Politics of sociology

[captiv8ed]

I was talking to a sociologist and he was filling me in on some of the issues. He said that there are two groups: the sort of hard, Marxian, political and economic types and the softer gender, family, and religious types. He said that there is contention between the two and sometimes it is harder for the softer fields to be taken seriously. HE also said that when he first started, the softer side was a lot more fun to hang out with because the others were often debating and trying to outwit each other.

ANyway, I found it a really interesting analysis of the field. I know that a lot of people LOVE debate and thrive in that kind of environment so I don't think it means one is bad and the other good, just what works for an individual. It does suck that the gender and cultural models are not as respected though.

Have other people seen these divides? Do you agree with his assessment?

[graddamn]

I am decidedly on the quantitative side of research and when I talk to ANY sociologist in my department, I am instantly identified as such. I think there is definitely a divide between quantitative and qualitative work, but I don't think I would make this a substantive issue. Most of my research deals with family and culture and lying (I could blather on about my thesis, but anyway).

In my experience, ethnographers are so much fun to hang out with. They also have great taste in music and beer (my former prof. just opened a bar). So yeah, I think people on the "softer side" of sociology are the best.

[jacib]

I am decidedly on the quantitative side of research and when I talk to ANY sociologist in my department, I am instantly identified as such. I think there is definitely a divide between quantitative and qualitative work, but I don't think I would make this a substantive issue. Most of my research deals with family and culture and lying (I could blather on about my thesis, but anyway).

In my experience, ethnographers are so much fun to hang out with. They also have great taste in music and beer (my former prof. just opened a bar). So yeah, I think people on the "softer side" of sociology are the best.

It's also a permeable divide. My father is in Sociology of Health and Illness, and I think most of his work has been on the qualitative side of the coin. He definitely started doing straight ethnography (in Deviance) and though I don't think he has done an ethnography for a years, most of his work is still qualitative. That said, he has done some work that is strongly quantitative, and even his qualitative work still has some quantitative elements. I doubt people see one set of his articles as more serious than another set. That said, it sounds like you, Captiv8d, were talking more about subfields than methodologies. Graddamn is an interesting case because he is using a "hard" methodology in a "soft" field. Where does Health & Illness fit on the hard/soft continuum? Deviance/Criminology? Where does Historical fit (probably soft)? Comparative? By Marxian, do you mean like ideologically Marxist, or people who see Sociology as Marx would, like big picture, not small ethnography things? Actually, though I'm saying there's a lot of back and forth, I guess actually generally there's not. My father was telling me that he was chair for ten years instead of five because of internal disputes... I forget what the dividing lines were exactly but my old man as chair was definitely some kind of pragmatic compromise. I should ask him about this.

As corollary, professors' salaries are often determined by supply and demand... that is, if there are tons of people in a field, it pays lower (think English), whereas if there is extra demand for a set of skills, and especially if that demand comes from the private sector, pay is higher (think Economics). Therefore, it is natural to assume that if political and economic sociologists (as well as demographers) have an easier time getting work in the private sector, then they probably have at least slightly higher pay in the Academy. This is based on deduction and not any empirical evidence within Sociology itself. If true, the next logical step would be to ask: higher pay-->more serious?

Also, just to be clear, qualitative is not just ethnography.

[captiv8ed]

Yes the professor was speaking more of subfields than methodologies.

And yep, probably higher pay results in more respect.

I can't speak to the nuances of it. I go to a school that doesn't even have departments so I have not even witnessed any of it on an undergraduate level.

[focused]

He said that there are two groups: the sort of hard, Marxian, political and economic types and the softer gender, family, and religious types. He said that there is contention between the two and sometimes it is harder for the softer fields to be taken seriously.

It seems the contentions are typically between quantitative ("hard") and qualitative ("soft"). Any arbitrary judgment about a particular substantive subfield being "harder" or "softer" seems curious to me, especially since gender and family were mentioned as softer. There is a ton of quantitative, including lab, research in those subfields. Why would one consider those soft fields?

[Roll Right]

Here the distinctions I've found in my 5 years of studying it:

1. Huge divide between the conflict theorists (Marxist in origin) and the functionalists (Durkheimian). While these are both marco-perspectives, there is another camp- the micro-theorists who tend to be hated by both macro-parties. The micros seem to dislike the macros as well, as they believe in socially constructed reality, while the macro theorists argue that society is a reality unto itself. I love micro, and I love macro (I disagree with a lot of the functionalist tenants). I'm a conflict guy with a lot of love for phenomenology and ethnomethodology.

2. Quant/qualitative divide: This is almost like the micro-macro fight. Macro scholars love the numbers, and some of the qualitative scholars try to be macro in orientation but usually get heckled, cause anything qualitative is almost never statistically generalizable to any larger pop (or that's the opinion of the macro quant folks). The qualitative folks argue against the quants by citing cases that defy statistical certainties...such is the nature of qualitative work. Its funny, both sides argue against each other, yet both sides are needed for a full picture.

3. In terms of softer and harder sociologists...well I can't really tell you one way or the other. I know a lot of family, gender, religion folks who are very chill and just like philosophizing. They save the science for their research. Great people to talk to. I kind of see myself as one of them, although I'm moving in a quantitative direction with my research. I think there are those who master all techniques. The hardest sociologists I know are the functionalists. Very scientific, deterministic approach to the science, using quantitative techniques to discuss the structure of society and how society exerts its power on the individual. Conflict folks seem to be a bit more laid back in my experience. But that's just what I've seen.

In short: sociologists don't agree with each other. There are those who want to argue things, and those who just don't care...they're simply interested in how stuff works.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Roll Right

[hoobers]

The divide is fundamentally a methodological and epistemological one. It is between positivist epistemologies, which are largely statistical on the macro end and experimental on the micro end, and non-positivist (including marxist, feminist, postmodern, etc) epistemologies, which are historical or "theoretical" (e.g., non-empirical) on the macro end and ethnographic or interview-based on the micro end. These are unevenly distributed throughout the subfields of sociology, but this division looks very different depending on where in the discipline you are looking. For one thing, this is because the most quantitatively sophisticated people are rarely found outside the top-25 depts. This is in part because the discipline is far more quantitative at the top of the prestige hierarchy, though there are highly prestigious solidly qualitative departments as well--think Berkeley or Northwestern (though both of these have been hiring more quant profs too). But this is also because, as Mocha mentions above, quantitative PhDs are far more employable outside of the academy, and so non-academic jobs siphon off a lot of the quantitative sociologists who cannot get top-prestige academic posts. For another thing, the subfields of the discipline are less defined at the top than they are at the bottom. Unlike the lower-ranked departments, most of the top departments do not hire professors by subfield, and many top-dept professors change subfields or publish across multiple subfields (this could be because they simply have more time and resources to do so). Furthermore, some subfields are low-prestige throughout the discipline, and are rarely found in top departments at all (e.g., criminology, and also increasingly anything hardcore postmodern and feminist); others are small and largely high-prestige (economic sociology, social network analysis) and are rarely found on the bottom. So, the balance between subfields looks quite different at the top and at the bottom. As to which subfield has more interesting people--this question is additionally too much of a matter of taste for me to judge.

Edited January 26, 2010 by hoobers

[2010Applicant]

So if I look at the division along the lines of 'quantitative vs qualitative' and 'positivist vs. theory', how would you categorize each of the top schools (Harvard, Princeton, Chicago, Northwestern etc)? I know that being quantitative works for all of them, but perhaps they have various degrees of acceptance towards the qualitative?

BTW, I want to ask: how is economic sociology usually regarded? Quantitative? Qualitative? Or quite even? THANKS!!!

[graddamn]

I am fairly sure that Princeton is quantitative department while I've heard Northwestern is on the more qualitative side of things. I don't know if the divide for economic sociology is strictly qualitative or quantitative though I have seen a lot quant stuff in that subject area. Again, I think there should be some separation between methods and substance and in turn from theory.

Oh and sorry if I implied ethnographers and qualitative sociologists were the same, well aware that ethnography is its own little subset. I was just noting that the people in it tend to have awesome experiences in the course of their fieldwork.

[Roll Right]

I'm not entirely sure there is a strong divide between empirical and theoretical sociology. You can't explain what you see without a theory to apply. If you're talking about grand theorizing...like in the days of Parsons...well those days are over. Frankly, every sociologist has a theoretical foundation.

[jacib]

Here is my sociologist father's take on these issues (I sent him a few of your guys' comments and my father felt Hoobers was "closest" to accurately describing the situation, in his opinion). My old man works at a 50 top program, at a small department. I just want to remind you that this is my father, and while you may disagree with him, please be on your best internet behavior, because, you know, it's my dad. In real life even. Not that I think anyone would say anything rude, just reminding you. Anyway, these are his $.02, when I asked him this question. The Marxist paragraph was a response mainly to a comment of mine where I said, "Please tell me there aren't that many Marxists left.... but maybe that's wishful thinking because I'm so sick of Marxists..." I know very little about the issues in Sociology (I know all about the issues in my undergraduate field, Religion) so I found it interesting (you know, share the wealth), but I'm sure a lot of you with more grounding know most of this stuff already.

This really requires a long and detailed response but I'll just give some general feedback. There are distinctions and divisions in sociology, in terms of theoretical orientation, methodological strategies in research, variations of speciality sections, commitment to 'harder' and 'softer' versions of science, etc. For example in medical sociology we have some of each: quantitative and qualitative approaches, positivist (harder science orientation) and interpretive analyses, theoretical and more data based scholarship, etc. (in our field we even have some 'applied' sociology, but that's not true in all subfields). In the field of sociology, these are more like parallel play than they are raging debates or turf wars. (There were a lot of quantitative-qualitative debates in the 1960s-1970s but not so much any more, similarly with Marxian vs. standard sociology debates; feminist scholarship has been very influential in some areas since the early 1970s; in the 1990s there was some challenge by post-modernism but it never took hold as much here as it did in Anthropology or English (there are enclaves). Sociologists tend to like data (qualitative, quantitative, historical, ethnographic) and have a variety of epistmologies existing at the same time. It is true that some of the very top journals (say the top 3 or so) general sociology journals tend to publish mostly quantitative articles, there are plenty of other highly respected (and very selective) journals that publish a whole range of methodologically based research. My own publications have come in mostly specialty (medical sociology) journals although I have published a number of articles in more general sociology journals like SOCIAL PROBLEMS which publishes much more interesting stuff for people who do the kind of research I do. I only published my first article in American Journal of Sociology last year (co-authored with two colleagues) and I have had a very successful career publishing in other first rate journals.

I would say my own work tends to be qualitative (sometimes ethnographic, sometimes document based historical) although I have published a few (co-authored) quantitative pieces. I would also say my work tends to be interpretive rather than positivistic. I am a long believer that you chose the method for research based on the questions you want to answer (hence my publishing a few quantitative pieces in my career). I tell my students that I think the big epistemological divide is not between quantitative and qualitative but be inductive and deductive research. My work is almost all inductive, working with broad sociological questions to develop useful concepts and theoretical propositions rather than testing hypotheses or theoretical propositions. Both approaches can be useful, but for reasons more complex than I explain here, I find inductive approaches to be the most useful for my interests.

Of the Sociology Departments you have applied to Berkeley, Northwestern, and Princeton all have produced qualitative and inductive sociologists as well as more quantitatively oriented ones; Columbia has tended to be quantitative but also has some good qualitative researchers, and I think Yale is similar.

There are still a smattering of Marxists in sociology but not an overwhelming number of doctrinaire Marxists. All sociologists see Marx as a 'father' of the concerns about social inequality but very few believe his view, unfettered, still applies today. But one of sociology's central concerns is with social inequality (e.g. social class, social mobility, poverty, power, etc.) so there are clearly concerns that align with marxian questions but not necessarily marxian assumptions or conclusions. In many areas, including medical sociology, the impact of feminist sociological scholarship has been strong and I believe very beneficial to the expansion of sociological understandings.

These distinctions will become clearer if you enter the field of sociology and locate the intellectual place where you are comfortable and how you want to situate your own work. Different departments will have somewhat different emphases but you've only applied to strong departments so I think there should be enough resources for you to find your way.

That's about all for now. I hope this is useful.

love,dad

[Roll Right]

I think thats a great summary of the topic. Although Im surprised that he sees inductive and deductive as the major divide. I really only hear about quantitative versus qualitative. Thats interesting that he says differently. I hadnt realized there was such a huge divide.

In terms of Marxist perspectives, well your dad said it well. There arent really any true Marxists in a sociological sense anymore. Thats more of a political and social ideology, not a scientific perspective. I mean, Marx didnt write as a sociologist, and its only been since the 1960s that Marxist thought has been added to the cannon. Marx gave birth to conflict theory, which has its own sub-sections now (including neo-marxist thought, the critical school and so on..). Im glad post-modernism didnt catch on. While I love it and borrow from it constantly, its not a recipe for good science. A lot of its teachings are pretty trite when considering sociological interests.

Medical sociology is a field I know little about. Id like to hear more about it!

[2010Applicant]

Thanks jacib. Your dad had given us very useful insights.

I'm probably less familiar with sociology than most of the members here since I didn't major in sociology and my university didn't even have a sociology or anthropology department. I am very interested in sociology though. Just by looking at the course offering, I'm very much drawn to Northeastern University's department since it seems to focus quite a bit on capitalism and political economy, which is what I'm interested in. Can your dad (or anyone else here) offer any opinion regarding Northeastern and its characteristics? I know it isn't one of the more well known, but with some luck I may gain some insights. Thanks!

[maximus82]

Thanks jacib. Your dad had given us very useful insights.

I'm probably less familiar with sociology than most of the members here since I didn't major in sociology and my university didn't even have a sociology or anthropology department. I am very interested in sociology though. Just by looking at the course offering, I'm very much drawn to Northeastern University's department since it seems to focus quite a bit on capitalism and political economy, which is what I'm interested in. Can your dad (or anyone else here) offer any opinion regarding Northeastern and its characteristics? I know it isn't one of the more well known, but with some luck I may gain some insights. Thanks!

I was thinking about applying to Northeastern last year, but never did. I guess if you find faculty that you like, you should apply there. One of the things I liked about Northeastern is that because it is in Boston, you can work with professors outside of the university (for example Harvard, etc). It's not very common, but I has happened.

[Roll Right]

Hell Boston is amazing! That city alone is enough to seal the deal!

[DivineSociologist]

Here is my sociologist father's take on these issues (I sent him a few of your guys' comments and my father felt Hoobers was "closest" to accurately describing the situation, in his opinion). My old man works at a 50 top program, at a small department. I just want to remind you that this is my father, and while you may disagree with him, please be on your best internet behavior, because, you know, it's my dad. In real life even. Not that I think anyone would say anything rude, just reminding you. Anyway, these are his $.02, when I asked him this question. The Marxist paragraph was a response mainly to a comment of mine where I said, "Please tell me there aren't that many Marxists left.... but maybe that's wishful thinking because I'm so sick of Marxists..." I know very little about the issues in Sociology (I know all about the issues in my undergraduate field, Religion) so I found it interesting (you know, share the wealth), but I'm sure a lot of you with more grounding know most of this stuff already.

This really requires a long and detailed response but I'll just give some general feedback. There are distinctions and divisions in sociology, in terms of theoretical orientation, methodological strategies in research, variations of speciality sections, commitment to 'harder' and 'softer' versions of science, etc. For example in medical sociology we have some of each: quantitative and qualitative approaches, positivist (harder science orientation) and interpretive analyses, theoretical and more data based scholarship, etc. (in our field we even have some 'applied' sociology, but that's not true in all subfields). In the field of sociology, these are more like parallel play than they are raging debates or turf wars. (There were a lot of quantitative-qualitative debates in the 1960s-1970s but not so much any more, similarly with Marxian vs. standard sociology debates; feminist scholarship has been very influential in some areas since the early 1970s; in the 1990s there was some challenge by post-modernism but it never took hold as much here as it did in Anthropology or English (there are enclaves). Sociologists tend to like data (qualitative, quantitative, historical, ethnographic) and have a variety of epistmologies existing at the same time. It is true that some of the very top journals (say the top 3 or so) general sociology journals tend to publish mostly quantitative articles, there are plenty of other highly respected (and very selective) journals that publish a whole range of methodologically based research. My own publications have come in mostly specialty (medical sociology) journals although I have published a number of articles in more general sociology journals like SOCIAL PROBLEMS which publishes much more interesting stuff for people who do the kind of research I do. I only published my first article in American Journal of Sociology last year (co-authored with two colleagues) and I have had a very successful career publishing in other first rate journals.

I would say my own work tends to be qualitative (sometimes ethnographic, sometimes document based historical) although I have published a few (co-authored) quantitative pieces. I would also say my work tends to be interpretive rather than positivistic. I am a long believer that you chose the method for research based on the questions you want to answer (hence my publishing a few quantitative pieces in my career). I tell my students that I think the big epistemological divide is not between quantitative and qualitative but be inductive and deductive research. My work is almost all inductive, working with broad sociological questions to develop useful concepts and theoretical propositions rather than testing hypotheses or theoretical propositions. Both approaches can be useful, but for reasons more complex than I explain here, I find inductive approaches to be the most useful for my interests.

Of the Sociology Departments you have applied to Berkeley, Northwestern, and Princeton all have produced qualitative and inductive sociologists as well as more quantitatively oriented ones; Columbia has tended to be quantitative but also has some good qualitative researchers, and I think Yale is similar.

There are still a smattering of Marxists in sociology but not an overwhelming number of doctrinaire Marxists. All sociologists see Marx as a 'father' of the concerns about social inequality but very few believe his view, unfettered, still applies today. But one of sociology's central concerns is with social inequality (e.g. social class, social mobility, poverty, power, etc.) so there are clearly concerns that align with marxian questions but not necessarily marxian assumptions or conclusions. In many areas, including medical sociology, the impact of feminist sociological scholarship has been strong and I believe very beneficial to the expansion of sociological understandings.

These distinctions will become clearer if you enter the field of sociology and locate the intellectual place where you are comfortable and how you want to situate your own work. Different departments will have somewhat different emphases but you've only applied to strong departments so I think there should be enough resources for you to find your way.

That's about all for now. I hope this is useful.

love,dad

Please tell your father "Thank You" for his insight! I found his knowledge to be delightful!

For those who want to read more details on inductive vs. deductive research, here is an interesting powerpoint found online: http://www.drburney.net/INDUCTIVE%20&%20DEDUCTIVE%20RESEARCH%20APPROACH%2006032008.pdf

[Ambigiousbuthopeful]

I  wonder if we can revive this threadand  take the discussion forward. I have a background in sociology but I am very new to American sociology. Along what lines is sociology internally divided? As you see it, what are the dominant methodological, epistemological and theoretical strands? And only if you feel like sharing - where do you locate yourself/what are you drawn towards?