Search

This article presents the authors' response to David Schweingruber's comments on their paper about sociology's disciplinary core being reflected in introductory sociology textbooks. In his comment, Schweingruber argues that introductory textbooks do not adequately reflect the disciplinary core because the authors of such texts employ terms that extend beyond disciplinary boundaries. Moreover, he offers evidence purporting to show that the terms included in introductory texts do not appear frequently in the recently published articles of the discipline's most prominent journals. But near the end of his commentary, he appears to cast aside both of these positions in favor of a belief that the core is to be found not in the concepts used in the discipline but in a particular way of thinking, one essentially defined by the indefinable. The authors explain that their contention has been consistent: the discipline fails to possess a core body of knowledge commonly recognized by all who study it that serves as the foundation upon which cumulative work will be based. The authors stress that in defense of their position, they draw on Schweingruber's own statements to illustrate four plausible errors. They added that while Schweingruber appears to use their article as a springboard to present his own analysis, they contend that he brings them no closer to identifying the discipline's intellectual core.

Sociology is often portrayed as an errant discipline, driving forward without any apparent direction or purpose. We contend that these perceptions about the central tenets of our discipline derive from a lack of standardization of core material, which reduces the social value of sociology as a scientific field and erodes its credibility as a discipline. Insofar as common conceptual knowledge exists in the field of sociology, one ought to find evidence of it in the introductory textbook. To this end, our study examines 35 introductory sociology textbooks published in the 1940s (n=16) and the 1990s (n=19) in search of common concepts that represent cumulative core disciplinary knowledge. While our findings reveal uniformity in the structure of the textbooks' major chapter headings within their respective decades, our analysis of concepts--the language used to introduce disciplinary content--reveals that the vast majority are referenced by only one text, with fewer than three percent of all concepts shared in common. Moreover, neither the number of concepts introduced only once nor the variability in the total number of concepts referenced declined across the two decades. In sum, while introductory sociology textbooks are structured in similar ways, we find little commonality in the concepts used by texts' authors to frame the discipline, either within the two cross-sections or between them. (Contains 5 tables.)

Beginning at the introductory level, the authors believe students ought to experience a common framework for approaching a general understanding of social life. At a minimum, this requires going back to the discipline's history--back to the journals and books that provide the foundational context for the discipline's framework and, therefore, its core. In this article, the authors discuss the outcome of their independent studies that the discipline has not adequately presented a common framework that resembles a core, particularly at the introductory level. They offer three suggestions for future discussions about sociology's core as taught to introductory students. First, they suggest embedding this discussion of the core into discussions about assessment in the major. Second, more empirical studies should occur that examine the core of their subfields. Third, it would be useful to engage their students in this discussion. They conclude that it is now necessary for sociologists to grapple effectively with the core material that structures the discipline's existence, thereby integrating this framework throughout a general understanding of social life.

Presents a strategy for the curricular design and assessment of one multidisciplinary program goal: understanding human behavior. Discusses how to assess a desired outcome based on four specific areas: (1) organizational context; (2) articulation of a learning model; (3) program design and implementation; and (4) outcomes assessment. (Author/KDR)