Search

This embedded case study of the Chicago School of Civics and Philanthropy (CSCP) illustrates the development of disciplinary boundaries during a transitional period of professionalization in the social sciences, particularly for the fields of sociology and social work. Drawing on archival data (e.g., reports, scholarly and autobiographical writings, and correspondence) we first document sociological contributions of the community-based school, one of many progressive projects among social settlements and social gospelers of the day. Then using the lens of an intergenerational struggle reflective of the historical social movements of the period, we analyze the circumstances surrounding the 1920 merger of the CSCP with the University of Chicago. Succeeding their early social settlement mentors, Graham Taylor of the Chicago Commons and Jane Addams and Julia Lathrop of Hull House, a second generation of social reformer proteges became a formidable force in this disciplinary differentiation. This case can be read as a micro-level illustration of a much larger macro-level political contest as professional social scientists vied for control of the definition of social science and its applied mission. The "ghosts of sociologies past" still haunt the discipline today offering important lessons for sustaining a science that joins theory with action to solve social problems.

This article aims to demystify some of the realities of graduate education for the next generation of professors in the humanities and social sciences. Its "tell it like it is" orientation is designed to ensure that graduate students have a firm understanding of the institution they are entering, and will hopefully help them avoid any number of missteps. Topics discussed include supervisor/student dynamics, conferences, writing practices, academic reputation and perseverance.

How has sociology evolved over the last 40 years? In this paper, we examine networks built on thousands of sociology-relevant papers to map sociology's position in the wider social sciences and identify changes in the most prominent research fronts in the discipline. We find first that sociology seems to have traded centrality in the field of social sciences for internal cohesion: sociology is central, but not nearly as well bounded as neighboring disciplines such as economics or law. Internally, sociology appears to have moved away from research topics associated with fundamental social processes and toward social-problems research. We end by discussing strategies for extending this work to wider science production networks.

American sociology is a chaotic discipline. There is disagreement on foundational issues that give disciplines coherence. For example, sociologist disagree on the appropriateness of a scientific orientation, the role of activism and ideology in inquiry, the best methodologies to employ, the primacy of micro- versus macro-levels of analysis, the most important topics to study, and many other contentious issues. The recent call for a "public sociology" in which four wings of the discipline--policy (applied), professional (scientific), critical (ideological), and public (civic engagement) sociologies--are to be integrated is less of a remedy for what troubles sociology than an admission that we are a discipline divided (Burawoy, 2005). Among the social sciences, economics is the most coherent, with the other social sciences revealing varying degrees of incoherence or chaos. Sociology is probably the least integrated of the social sciences, although cultural anthropology has increasingly become much like sociology. In this paper, my goal is to offer an explanation for how sociology came to its present state and what, if anything, can be done to integrate the discipline. Let me begin by outlining what makes a discipline coherent.

Although symbolic interaction (Mead, 1934; Blumer, 1969) generally is envisioned as a unique twentieth century product of a democratic society, the roots of this approach to the study of human group life run much deeper. Thus, as a sociological extension of American pragmatist philosophy, the conceptual foundations of what has become known as symbolic interaction can be traced back to classic Greek scholarship (ca. 700-300BCE) as, relatedly, can interactionist methodology (i.e., ethnographic inquiry) and the interactionist quest to articulate basic conceptual features of human association. Further, whereas symbolic interaction is typically viewed as a highly situated or localized approach to the study of human group life, interactionism offers extended potential for transhistorical and transcultural comparative analysis. As well, although much overlooked by those in the social sciences, the classical Greek literature (along with various other interim sources) provides an exceptionally vital set of resources for scholars studying human group life in more sustained comparative-analytic terms. By "resisting the temptation" to assume that newer is better, we may in the process of examining our own intellectual heritage, arrive at a more adequate, pragmatist informed social science with which to approach the future.

Contends that the decision to close the sociology department at Washington University (Missouri) is best understood in a historical context of the administrative traditions of the institution. Traces the history of the department, concentrating on individual members of the department and the conflicts that arose through the years. (RW)

Provides a personal account of the history and politics of the sociology department at Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. Discusses classes offered throughout the Vietnam War years, concentrating on the more radical course offerings. Describes the professors who taught these courses. Maintains that the closing of the department is the result of a conservative administration. (RW)

Traces the history of the sociology department at Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, from its position as a top department in the 1950s and 1960s to its decline in the 1970s, and termination in the 1990s. Criticizes the administration for allowing the department's prominence to decline. Maintains that the closure will hurt all social science disciplines at the university. (RW)

This article critically examines recent arguments by Andrew Abbott, Jensen Sass, and Tariq Modood proposing a normative sociology, one that not only adopts an evaluative stance towards the phenomena it investigates, but also makes explicit and seeks to justify the values on which its evaluations rely. I argue that, while these proposals are to be welcomed in some respects, they fail to address two key issues: On what reasonable basis can it be assumed that there are single correct answers to value questions?; and What distinctive intellectual authority can sociologists claim to be able to discover those answers? I also point out that these recent advocates for a normative sociology pay insufficient attention to the opposing position, a commitment to 'value-neutrality', as proposed most notably by Max Weber. I argue that, while this is frequently ignored or dismissed out of hand, it represents a much more coherent and cogent view, even if its advocates have rarely fully lived up to its demands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The greatest conceptual challenge that moral panic studies has struggled with over the past half century is the problem of disproportion. Since the field's inception, moral panics have been conceptualized as disproportionately conservative overreactions to ostensibly insignificant problems. It did not take long for critics, many of whom were working in moral panic studies or related fields of inquiry, to point out that disproportion is construed in a normative rather than empirical manner, and to supplement the conventional focus on conservative overreactions by drawing attention to either conservatively conditioned underreactions (missing panics) or socially progressive overreactions that are cultivated on the political left rather than the right (good moral panics). This article explains how the dynamics of disproportionate social reactions are more complicated than conventional moral panic scholars and their critics alike have recognized. By theorizing the nuances involved in disproportionate social reactions, the article develops a provisional framework to encourage theoretical and conceptual investigations into different kinds of moral boundary violations. The focus of analysis is on the problem of disproportion as it appears in moral panic studies, but scholars working with a broader range of realist, materialist, and/or critical perspectives will recognize and identify with the normative challenges posed by the problem of disproportion in their respective areas of inquiry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Black Sociology has reemerged as a vital scientific endeavor to understand the social conditions of Black people. One approach to Black Sociology identifies five principles that are rooted in the Atlanta Sociological Laboratory (ASL) at Atlanta University. Another approach permits scholars to use any Black scholar from the Black intellectual tradition and apply it to sociological phenomena. While both approaches provide generative analytical lenses, they do not engage one another leaving the utility of Black sociology bifurcated, without clear theoretical and methodological boundaries. Reviewing 20 ASL publications, I articulate seven principles that define Black sociology as the scientific analysis of systems of oppression and social power developed at ASL. To do this, I add a validity principle, a Black sociological standpoint, and a practitioner principle that clearly defines Black Sociology's intellectual boundaries as a scientific/intellectual movement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Charles Thorpe argues sociology lacks a "language of society as a whole." He holds that positivist sociologists de-legitimated holistic theories or broad normatively oriented "social theories," leaving the discipline without discursive means to critically assess and deliberate its overall directions and those of society. Thorpe does not address holistic theory directly or explain how it differs analytically from standard "sociological theory." My intent is to clarify these matters by extending facets of his argument to illuminate the interdependence between holistic theorizing and empirical-historical social science, which is necessary to create the type of "reflexive sociology" that Thorpe argues would make sociology more cosmopolitan and capable of addressing the turbulent sociopolitical conditions in the interregnum after neoliberalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This book examines changes in the "content and status of sociology" in the United States in the present and recent past. The author understands the present as an era in which relatively organized capitalism has "given way to the disorganization, "de-civilizing," and "wilding" of post-modern post-normalcy. Sociology in the previous period was oriented toward reinforcing the sense of normalcy both epistemologically and substantively. A "normal science" of repetition, teleological modernization, and value-free science resonated with the experience of "social normalcy." In the more recent period, crises have proliferated throughout social space, with implications for sociology, undoing its metaphysical foundations and throwing into question all the disciplinary divisions upon which normal science had been organized. In response, sociology has seen the emergence of two new variants: a hyper-normalized sociology that doubles down on "statistical prowess" and "the application of quantitative techniques to novel domains"; and a post-normal sociology that rejects positivism and value-freedom and that is aligned with particular social movements and identities. This post-normal sociology, Thorpe argues, complements rather than contradicts corporate neoliberalism and works together with hyper-normal sociology in marginalizing critical sociology. In response, I argue that Thorpe mischaracterizes academic freedom and understates its importance, underestimates the heterogeneity within US sociology today, and overstates the historical unprecedentedness of the present condition of "postnormal" polycrisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While there is ample recognition that intellectual work is - to some degree - relational and cooperative, most narratives of production focus on how intellectual supporters aid the author and the crafting of a work. In this contribution, I adopt a perspective centered on intellectual work as "dialogue and draft" among triads - the author, the work in progress, and the supporter - with a particular attention to the relationship that intellectual supporters develop with the work and the author. Through an archival analysis of personal correspondence that covers the years 2005–2021, drafts, and interventions, I tell a story of A Joyfully Serious Man as an ongoing project that shifted shape at critical junctures and in which not only the object and the author, but also the supporter were transformed. In the concluding remarks, I offer some potential questions for advancing the historical and sociological study of how intellectual self-concepts change in the context of asymmetric, yet very intimate, relations with work carried out by others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article develops an integrative perspective on the nexus between power and sociological research methods. By reflecting upon two of the most widely used methodological approaches in sociology – standardized survey research and qualitative interview research – we develop a comprehensive heuristic framework for examining the ways in which the use of sociological methods affects and intersects any social scientific practice: (1) the power effects that societies and institutional settings exert on methods and the use of methods, (2) power in the use and implementation of methods, and (3) the power effects that methods and the use of methods exert on societies and institutional settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following reflections by Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann, this paper is concerned with the changing meaning of the profession as a sociological category for analyzing modern society. Professions are practical academic occupational groups oriented to certain social values, to which a special significance for society was attributed in the social sciences for a long time, thus marking a connection between professions' research and theory of society. This paper now describes that the causal relationship between profession and society is limited to a historically relatively early period. In the transition to modern society, this close network of relationships begins to dissolve, and now professions operate in the context of some function systems of society whose task is the professional assistance of single clients, such as in the fields of health, law, and pastoral care. However, the professions' highlighted position in the knowledge and action structure of single function systems seems to dissolve more and more today so that one can ask whether we can speak here already of an end of the social form profession. This would correspond with the observation that actually the professions no longer appear at all in the newer theories of society and therefore their function as an important mechanism of social structure formation is no longer attributed to them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unmasking is a rhetorical device that involves exposing another's true motives. But in effect, it often entails imputing motives and imposing a caricature of the mask behind which one allegedly hides—hence its reputation as a hyperbolic style. Despite these dangers, unmasking plays a central role in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's methodology, as well as those of Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx. In this article, I identify three concepts necessary for the style's emergence: the pre-social individual, hypocrisy and autonomy. These concepts are not unique to modernity. As such, I show how their evolution from antiquity to modernity makes unmasking possible; in so doing, I also explain why the ancient and Christian moral frameworks preclude it. More precisely, I will demonstrate how Rousseau constructs his social theory—the very same one that Claude Lévi-Strauss regards as the "foundation" of the social sciences—from these concepts, and thus gives birth to the unmasking style. Peter Baehr's claim that Rousseau fired "the opening salvo in the unmasking war" is therefore substantiated. While I do not intend to argue that unmasking is part of the basic foundation of the social sciences, this article should at least permit us to consider its pervasiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The decline of interest among sociologists in the works of Talcott Parsons over the last several decades has been driven in substantial respects by a belief that he was personally conservative in his political views and that his theoretical formulations were rigidly tied to a conservative view of social order. The present paper reviews Parsons' major political involvements through the course of his career from his student days through the last decade of his life. The review demonstrates that Parsons was a typical academic liberal of his time and that his liberalism was expressed especially in several major applied essays. In the 1930s, he was an early and active opponent of Nazism. During World War II, he taught professionals to administer occupied territories and nations effectively. After the war, he advocated for government support of the social sciences, citing the important contributions they had made to the war effort. In the 1950s, he wrote a famous critical analysis of the Joseph McCarthy movement in American politics. In the 1960s, he contributed supportive essays to the Civil Rights movement. Later in the decade and in the 1970s, he contributed to the protection of academic freedoms while also proposing accommodations to the demands of the student movement for more "relevant" teaching and greater participation in university governance. Throughout his career, he taught and worked closely with students of various political views and sought to protect their rights of freedom of political expression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This contribution to consideration of "Talcott Parsons and Politics" explores the kind of optimism of sociology's "incurable theorist" that is evident in his mature view of the USA as the world's "New Lead" society. Statements related to optimism can be identified in his extensive writings and this article focuses upon its expression when as an "early career academic" in the late 1920s and 1930s he laid the foundations for his life-long work in sociology. Parsons' sociology developed as the USA's twentieth century contribution unfolded. His "moderate optimism" about the viability of the American experiment shares deeply and intimately in his claim that sociology had finally emerged as an analytical social science oriented by the theory of social action. His mature work considers the "societal community" to be the peculiar focus for sociology's special scientific attention. The USA has taken on this "New Lead" role at the same time that the societal community itself has emerged from within American experience. The discussion here is as much a personal memoire of the author, revisiting efforts to understand how the earliest stages of Parsons's sociology were maintained by him over a long career. Parsons sociological scholarship exhibited American characteristics. As sociology's "incurable theorist" he sought understanding of his own (American) situation, and its context, past and present, seeking to promote a social science that contributed positively to global society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discourse and ideology are interrelated concepts in social sciences and the humanities and are even occasionally employed interchangeably. This paper sheds light on their relationship in academic discourse and examines the role of sociology as a scientific field in its conceptualization. Using bibliometric analysis, we examined 15,716 academic publications mentioning "discourse" or "ideology" in their title and written in English by American and British scholars between 1966 and 2015. The investigation focused on the two terms' conceptual environment, areas of usage, journals, and the organizations to which the authors were affiliated. First, we conclude that although some sociology researchers have attempted to create a sociological definition for the concept of discourse, sociologists are not its most active users. The same is true for ideology. These concepts have established niches in other disciplines (political science and history for "ideology," and educational science and linguistics for "discourse"). Second, throughout the years, the field of discourse studies has become more diversified and fragmented than that of ideology. Third, the leading organizations in both fields are prestigious American and British universities, which indicates that discourse and ideology are elements of the intellectual elites' language. Fourth, the concept of discourse was more frequently applied than that of ideology in the years 2010–2015, and we expect that it will remain popular among scholars in the next decade. As for ideology, we believe that new social challenges could foster the rediscovery of this concept in the near future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Times of societal turbulence are painful for social theories tending towards optimistic accounts of the world. In the current sociological mainstream, so-called World Society Theory (WST), proposed by John W. Meyer and his colleagues, is one of the most contested examples. We discuss WST core conceptual assumptions with special emphasis on the concept of "Otherhood", which receives limited attention in literature but is central for the "promise" of World Society Theory in times of multiple crises, associated with ongoing global pandemic and its expected consequences. Analyzing recent debates, we outline directions for World Society Theory further development. We argue that important contributions to WST scholarship may come from another "grand theory", Integralism, elaborated by Pitirim Sorokin in middle twentieth century, which remains ignored in discussions about WST. Integralism, including its central concept of "Altruism", may be helpful in comprehending ontological grounds of "Otherhood", which may go beyond pure social construction. Integralism also allows expanding the analysis of causes, content, mechanisms and global macro-historical dynamics of "Otherhood", stimulating its more nuanced comprehension, including theoretical and empirical distinction between its various types. Integration of Pitirim Sorokin ideas in debates about WST is important for its further elaboration, including its optimistic and, thus, highly valuable "promise" for the global world and related implications for the practical role that social science can play in global development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper discusses the form of the essay as a writing and thinking style in Sociology. By resuming some relevant German sociological writings (esp. Simmel, Weber and Elias), we explore how they are essays profoundly influenced the first Brazilian (pre) sociological writings. At the beginning of the institutionalization of Social Sciences in Brazil, we find essayists (esp. Buarque de Holanda, Freye and Prado) who wrote essential texts on the nation formation and Brazilian ethos. Its non-systematic, literary style and historical arguments join them together in what would be later called as the "Brazilian Essayism." After these first writings, although a scientific wave flooded Brazilian Sociology, the discipline have always referred (positively or negatively) to these seminal works. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article highlights the history of sociology in Belgium. Topics include the conflict between the sociologists and the Catholic theologians; the history of colonialism in the nation, the relations between these elements of sociology and various international organizations in the twentieth century; and the relationship between sociology and the nation-state and the need of the revival of the social sciences courses in the university system that would allow gradual political development in the nation.

The problem of sociology, from its origin, is to build and maintain significant correlations between sociological thinking and autonomy from other sciences. What characterized the evolution of sociology was not so much the object of study, but rather the need to make it autonomous. This debate has developed especially in Europe and the United States, while in the countries of Latin America actions have been taken to ensure that sociology develops and assumes a meaningful role in the academic context. This article aims to explain a) the phases that have characterized the development of sociology in Latin America; b) the role of Gino Germani in the renewal of sociology in Argentina. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper explains the important role played by Harriet Martineau in the scientization of British politics and consequently in the development of Victorian Social Science. I suggest that there is much we can learn about the scientificity of social knowledge from the relationship between Martineau's deafness, her career as a social investigator and a reporter, and her reflections about the practice of social science. Because Martineau was a pioneer who entered into a field that was not yet institutionalized, her knowledge making practices inevitably reflects the particular dispositions that guided her innovations. Martineau's exposure, early in her career, to the modus operandi of governmental social investigations by royal commissions and her experience with popularizing the products of these investigations via wide public opinion campaigns, coupled with Martineau's specific dispositions as a deaf woman, facilitated her interest in mediating credible knowledge about society and helped her to develop an innovative methodological skill-set as a social investigator, which later on in her career made her a pioneer figure in the field of social science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite long-standing prejudices against doing so, it is time for sociology to reconnect with its roots in biological and evolutionary thinking. Sociology emerged as a discipline when the notion of evolution was actively used in biology, geology, and emerging social sciences. Throughout the nineteenth century, many of the most prominent early European sociologists examined the social universe from an evolutionary perspective; and this perspective was borrowed in much of early American sociology in the last decades of the nineteenth century and in the first decades of the twentieth century. By the end of the second decade of the twentieth Century, however, evolutionary analysis was rapidly disappearing in sociology in the United States, and by the 1930s, it was pretty much dead. And for the remainder of the twentieth century, it was viewed with a great suspicion, especially evolutionary approaches that sought to incorporate ideas from biology into the field. Despite the revival of stage models of societal evolution and the emergence of new ecological approaches in the 1960s and 1970s, evolutionary ideas from biology were still rejected by most American sociologists though much of the twentieth century. In this paper, we first present the history of this rejection of evolutionary, with the goal of encouraging sociologists today to recognize the distortions and misrepresentations of Darwinian and Spencerian ideas that fueled intellectual prejudices for so many decades. These prejudices only get in the way of sociology in the twenty-first century, where biological ideas have begun to pervade the social sciences. Thus, American sociologists should now take stock and reconsider how much evolutionary and biological analysis can help sociology and, equally if not more important, how an informed evolutionary sociology can influence those in the other social sciences and even those in the biological sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

US-American sociology has largely failed to examine the transformation of mediated communication of the past 20 years. If sociology is to be conceived as a general social science concerned with analyzing and critically scrutinizing past, present, and future conditions of collective human existence, this failure, and the ignorance it engenders, is detrimental. This ignorance, we argue, may be traced back to the weak self-identity, institutionalization and position of media sociology in the discipline. Our argument here is threefold: 1) There was an opportunity structure for specialization, that is, a venerable research tradition in media sociology since the first half of the twentieth century. This tradition links back to classics in sociology and peaked at a time (1970s and 1980s) when the discipline differentiated institutionally and many new sections emerged in the American Sociological Association. 2) Despite this tradition, media sociology has not become established in sociology in the United States until recently. 3) Lastly, we locate reasons for non-establishment on three distinct but interconnected levels: the history of ideas in media sociology, institutional/disciplinary history, and disciplinary politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this brief essay, I reflect on the concept of authenticity and its potential convergence with topics of sociological concern. I argue that sociologists should consider the topic of authenticity for two reasons: its problematic role in modern social life and its prominence in contemporary electoral politics. I then provide a brief survey of the concept’s historical development in Western thought and argue that the modern notion of authenticity exists in sharp contrast with its antecedents in classical thought. Where once authenticity was associated with external and transcendent goods, the rise of modernity transformed the concept into an individual and interior phenomenon. Thus, contemporary authenticity is coterminous with the sociological theories of dramaturgy and social performance. Finally, I argue that if sociologists integrate the notion of authenticity into dramaturgical analysis, the apparently perplexing role of authenticity in politics will be rendered more intelligible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How do we conduct ethically sound social research in less- or non-democratic settings? Here, the ‘ethical guidelines,’ or ‘codes of conduct’ outlined by our professional organizations provide some, albeit only insufficient guidance. In such contexts, issues like informed consent or the avoidance of harm to research participants have to be - based on a careful analysis of the situation on the ground - operationalized. What are, considering the particular social and political context in the field, the potential risks for interviewees and the researcher, and what can be done to eliminate or at least mitigate these risks? Reflecting on extensive fieldwork on the role of the prodemocracy movement during the Egyptian Uprising of 2011 in the wake of the so-called ‘Arab Spring,’ this study illustrates how rather abstract ethical considerations can be handled practically in an environment that is characterized by increasing levels of political repression and decreasing civil liberties. It is in such contexts that a failure to carefully consider such ethical questions entails a very real risk of endangering the livelihoods and even lives of research participants. Furthermore, it is shown that these and similar issues are not only of critical importance when designing a research project, but that they might have to be revisited and renegotiated at later stages of the research process - even after the conclusion of the data collection phase. Here, questions of data protection, anonymity of informants, and the associated ‘do no harm’ principle are particularly pertinent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue including the politicization in sociology, the professional discourse in academic fields, and the debate on politics and science.

The article presents a response to a comment on the significant role of evidence as the measure of scientific arguments against sociology. Topics discussed include the liberalism of the scientists on the conservatives' distrust to the scientific community, the correlation between this distrust and liberal activism among sociology researchers, and the political bias among the scientists on the subject matter. The need for the demonstration of the political bias of scientists and the causal relationship is also noted.

Data from the General Social Survey indicate that conservatives’ self-reported trust in scientists has steadily decreased since 1974. In Cofnas et al. (The American Sociologist, 2017), we suggested that this trend may have been partly driven by the increasing tendency of scientific institutions, and the representatives of such institutions, to distort social science for the sake of liberal activism. Larregue (The American Sociologist, 2017) makes three opposing arguments: (1) It is “very hard” to establish the charge of bias, especially since we did “not state what [we] mean by ‘bias.’” (2) We did not establish a causal relationship between scientists’ (alleged) liberal activism and conservatives’ distrust of science, and we ignored activism by conservative scientists. (3) We were wrong to advocate “affirmative action” for conservatives in academia. We address these arguments in turn: (1) Larregue does not engage with our main arguments that liberal bias exists in social science. (2) In recent years, prominent scientific organizations have, with great publicity, intervened in policy debates, always supporting the liberal side without exception. It is not unreasonable to assume that this would diminish conservatives’ trust in these organizations. Contra Larregue, in Cofnas et al. (The American Sociologist, 2017) we explicitly acknowledged that conservative scientists can also be biased. (3) We never advocated “affirmative action” for conservatives, and in fact we object to such a proposal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Max Weber (1864-1920) is considered one of the canonical founders of sociology, while W. E. B. Du Bois (1868-1963), author of The Philadelphia Negro (1899), The Souls of Black Folk (1903), and Black Reconstruction (1935), has only recently been included in the sociological canon. We provide a historical review of what we know of their relationship in order to first ask, what did Du Bois say about Weber, and second, what did Weber say about Du Bois? We then analyze the extant scholarly discourse of published English-language academic journal articles that substantively mention both Weber and Du Bois in order to address a third question: what did other scholars say about their relationship? We provide an analysis of the variation of scholars’ perceptions on the relationship between Du Bois and Weber to illumine the dominant assumptions about founding figures and the origin story of American sociology writ large. We argue that three mechanisms of white group interests configured the marginalization of Du Bois from both mainstream and sub-disciplinary sociological theory: (1) reduction or “knowing that we do no know and not caring to know” (when knowledge is perceived as irrelevant to white group interests), (2) deportation or “not wanting to know” (when knowledge is systematically exiled), and (3) appropriation or “not knowing that we do not know”) (when dominant knowledge usurps or assimilates challenges to that knowledge). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article evaluates four different ways of relating the normative side of sociology to its empirical side. Two such ways are in existence at present. The first is “dualism,” the idea that sociology provides purely scientific results to political or moral projects that are conducted on some independent normative basis. This position is commonly invoked in the idea of “value-free sociology.” The second is “monism,” the ideas that value-freedom is impossible and that sociology is inevitably value-driven, indeed perhaps that it should be openly so driven. This position is commonly invoked in the idea of “the unity of theory and practice.” These existing approaches are complemented by two that do not yet exist in practice. Both are explicitly normative in part. The first of these is a “canonical” approach, like that of the subdiscipline of political theory, in which normative inquiry within sociology would be formally recognized within the discipline and would be organized around a classical canon of normative works. The second would be a “legalist” approach, which would grow out of new genres of writing that aimed at the systematic normative evaluation of bodies of work or literatures, thus working inductively, in contrast to the canonical approach’s deductivism. The article evaluates these four positions according to four criteria: feasibility, coherence, trajectory, and open-mindedness. It concludes that the current positions (dualism and monism) are both embarrassingly weak: typically unconscious and sometimes naïve, in many cases driven by the unacknowledged - and hence uncritical - assumption that one's particular politics are in fact universally desirable. The discipline should try to create an explicit but rigorously argued normative subdiscipline, probably combining both the canonical and legalist positions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data from the General Social Survey suggest that conservatives have become less trustful of scientists since the 1970s. Gauchat argues that this is because conservatives increasingly see scientific findings as threatening to their worldview. However, the General Social Survey data concern trust in scientists, not in science. We suggest that conservatives’ diminishing trust in scientists reflects the fact that scientists in certain fields, particularly social science, have increasingly adopted a liberal-activist stance, seeking to influence public policy in a liberal direction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In economic sociology, relations and relationships have emerged as central yet poorly specified concepts. In this paper, I clarify these terms in a positive critique of the current state of the field. I then consider the ways in which the proposed framework can help analysts to bridge the divide between economics and sociology. Armed with techniques derived from formal network analysis, the new economic sociology offered the first sustained foray into economic territory, but sociological skeptics remain unsatisfied. Two broad rejoinders to this network-analytic approach emerged in the last two decades, but both correctives, nevertheless, leave the divide intact. In the last decade, however, a new paradigm is coalescing under the rubric of “relational economic sociology. While showing promise, it furthers the confusion surrounding the key concepts of “relations” and “relationships.” The proposed framework provides a foundation for constructive dialogue among the different traditions which constitute this new paradigm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ability to comprehend, discuss, and use disciplinary texts is central to graduate education. Although techniques for teaching writing have been well-discussed, and even incorporated into graduate curricula, the same is not true for techniques of scholarly reading, a crucial skill that is largely untaught and which students must learn independently or through shared culture. We argue that more explicit training in reading has potential benefits for graduate student education. Drawing on thirty-six in-depth interviews with students in the social sciences, we focus on the routines of managing academic reading, necessary for accessing information for research. Graduate students develop techniques and schedules that permit them to read rapidly or carefully, to read for different academic purposes, and to make information retrievable through notating. We suggest how graduate programs might incorporate reading education into the curriculum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Christian Smith's paper 'The Incoherence of 'Culture' in American Sociology' is a valuable provocation that can prompt us to reflect on the role of concepts and on the role of agreement on the definition of concepts in scientific research. In this comment paper, I raise questions about Smith's empirical expectation that sociologists should agree on a concept of culture based on debates in the sociology of science. I also suggest that in terms of the future agenda for the sociology of culture, we should distinguish between dialogue and clarification on the one hand, which I agree is needed, and standardization on the other hand, which seems incompatible with open-minded empirical research. Rather than work on agreement on what culture is, we might work on clarifying relevant distinctions among dimensions of culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In his contribution to this issue, Smith argues that sociology's house of culture is built on a foundation of sand. In my brief response to Smith, I dispute the claim that culture is in trouble and question the methods and motives behind Smith's critique. I then indicate the common ground characterizing the work of contemporary culture scholars. Drawing upon my fieldnotes and observations of culture in action, I define culture as a suprasubjective system of signification creating intersubjective senses or ideas that are distinct from the materiality, function, immediacy, or face value of any particular people, objects, words, thoughts, and actions. I argue that this culture concept, which I see as theoretically consistent with the work of most cultural sociologists and sociologists of culture, satisfies many of Smith's requirement that an acceptable culture concept specify culture's location, powers, limits, and relationship to subjectivity, and clearly theorize meaning and its relationship to culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Journals may set themselves one or several of a range of missions, but often a national Sociology Association's journal is concerned to be a vehicle assisting in the shaping of that country's 'national sociology', while maintaining some openness to international sociology. This personalised case study of New Zealand's sociology journal discusses the extent to which this mission has been achieved over the last decade and more generally over the journal's history, and the nitty-gritty of challenges and operational issues involved in carrying this out. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an overview of papers on epistemology and professional practice of sociology with topics such as the role of the journal "New Zealand Sociology" in creating a national sociology in the country, the concept of culture in contemporary sociology and conflict sociology.

Amazon Mechanical Turk, an online marketplace designed for crowdsourcing tasks to other people for compensation, is growing in popularity as a platform for gathering research data within the social sciences. Sociology, compared to some other social sciences, has not been as quick to adopt this form of data collection. Therefore, in this paper I overview the basics of Mechanical Turk research and suggest its pros and cons, both in general and in relation to different sociological data-collection methods and research needs. While Mechanical Turk is currently the most popular crowdsourcing website for research, I present general concepts, patterns, and suggestions that can be applied beyond Mechanical Turk to other crowdsourcing and online research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The nascent discipline of social neuroscience promises to mutually enrich sociology as well as cognitive neuroscience by extending and deepening their respective models of social cognition. Where sociology brings to the table an extensive literature regarding the social contexts and dynamics of cognition, neuroscience models the cellular and computational architectures on which social cognition supervenes. However, there are two deep conceptual issues here that need to be addressed: (i) The extent to which the neurosciences can model the intentional and situational contexts of social cognition. (ii) The appropriate level of neural architecture (molecular, cellular, circuitry, system, behavioral, etc.) at which social cognition is to be mapped. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]