Search

The term 'pure sociology' reflects some of the most important disciplinary concerns that have helped shape the intellectual development of sociology in the United States, particularly in the effort to establish disciplinary boundaries and achieve academic legitimacy. To flesh out the thesis, the current paper recounts briefly the early discussions associated with pure sociology before examining the various usages in the U.S. since the establishment of the discipline. While selected classical theorists employed the concept in framing their discussions, pure sociology represents a distinctively American idiom. The etymological history coincides with the institutionalization of sociology in U.S. universities, while informing key debates about the nature of sociological analysis throughout the past 120 years. Drawing upon an electronic search of multiple databases, a content analysis highlights the prevalence of the different meanings that mainly U.S. social scientists have attached to the concept. The paper then traces the varying trajectories of the many different usages over time, concluding with a discussion of the ascendance of Donald Black's theoretical paradigm that has appropriated the term with considerable success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Submitting articles to journals has become a difficult and time-consuming process, as has reviewing and re-reviewing articles that too often get the dreaded R&R letter. The underlying problem here is as old as the discipline, particularly in American sociology. Very different criteria are used in producing scholarship and reviewing its merits for publication; and current ways of editing journals aggravate this fundamental problem. The Big Divide in sociology is between a discipline that seeks to be a science and one that does not; and there is no easy reconciliation among those on either side of this divide. In this paper, the effects of this divide on journal publishing are reviewed in terms of the consequences of the Big Divide for the discipline. A simple but radical proposal is offered at the end for how sociologists can be put out over their misery in having to deal with the consequences of this Big Divide in their departments, in professional meetings, and most importantly, in publishing their intellectual products in journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Article publication in the field of sociology has proliferated. Data are presented on change in the number of sociology journals over time, the patterns of publication productivity by faculty in differently ranked sociology programs, and the patterns of article output by faculty of different age cohorts located in top-, middle-, and bottom-ranked sociology departments in the United States. Data are inconsistent with findings from the sociology of science, which elaborate a pattern of generally low productivity, and which describe sharp differences in publication by the age and organizational location in which academics work. The reasons for proliferation, attributable to historic shifts that have affected the terms of academic work in the late 20th century, are discussed. Proliferation of publication is not unique to sociology, but neither are its effects on fields monolithic. Comparisons and contrasts to other fields are made throughout the discussion. The proliferation of publication poses significant implications for the status of sociology and sociologists. While increased output may be associated with the advancement of science and scholarship in some disciplines, it is both a consequence and cause of demise in others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides some history of sociology by focusing on the origins of the Bogardus Social Distance Scale. The scale was developed by Emory Bogardus in 1924 and is still widely used in measuring prejudice. It has been translated into several languages, and used in many countries in measuring attitudes toward a variety of groups. The authors use primary and secondary data, including an interview with one of Bogardus’s colleagues, Thomas Lasswell, and the Bogardus archive at the University of Southern California. American racial and ethnic conflict, and the increasing scientific emphasis in sociology help explain the genesis of the scale. The personal biography of Bogardus is examined along with trends in sociology during his training at the University of Chicago and developments throughout American society. This study shows how the social environment of Bogardus influenced his personal life circumstances that help account for his creation of the scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents a study that examined the processes of individual self-justification and collective legitimation among sociologists in the U.S. Sociologists tend to have high expectations for achieving positions of professional leadership and they also tend to have high expectations for professional immortality as individuals. It would be very surprising if academicians' attitudes toward themselves were unaffected by the system of competition for rank, tenure and salaries not fixed by an established scale. Given this system, academic persons are periodically required to participate in the ritual of justification, the filing of the annual report to the administration, wherein they must, if they expect to receive their just due in the distribution of scarce rewards, communicate the wonders they have wrought. Another source of academic persons' attitudes towards themselves may reside in the fact that there has been, historically, a close relationship between the upper classes and the academic profession. Social psychological theory also suggests predictions regarding the attitudes of academic persons towards their works. Professors have been prime candidates for status inconsistency, even though they are less poverty stricken and less genteel than heretofore.

This article presents the author's claim of the dissatisfaction with the university among students in the U.S. In the more than forty years that I have been associated with universities, as a student, a faculty member, and an administrator, there has never been a time when students have been as concerned as they are now with the university, its purposes, and their role in the university's structure and functioning. I do not wish to imply that students have always been content with the university earlier periods, there have always been students who were energetic in voicing their discontent and in offering solutions to university problems, but never before have so many students been so forceful in expressing their views and never before have their questions been as fundamental. The questions they raise not only go to the heart of the university's traditional involvement with teaching, research, and public service but bear directly on the governance and purpose of the university. I also do not wish to imply that students are only concerned with the nature and function of the university and their relationships with it. Their dissatisfaction with the university fits into larger concerns about the problems of our society and the world.