Reflections on Public Sociology: Public Relations, Disciplinary Identity, and the Strong Program in Professional Sociology

Public sociology is an attempt to redress the issues of public engagement and disciplinary identity that have beset the discipline over the past several decades. While public sociology seeks to rectify the public invisibility of sociology, this paper investigates the limitations of it program. Several points of critique are offered. First, public sociology's affiliations with Marxism serve to potentially entrench existing divisions within the discipline. Second, public sociology's advancement of an agenda geared toward a "sociology for publics" instead of a "sociology of publics" imposes limitations on the development of a public interface. Third, the lack of a methodological agenda for public sociology raises concerns of how sociology can compete within a contested climate of public opinion. Fourth, issues of disciplinary coherence are not necessarily resolved by public sociology, and are potentially exacerbated by the invocation of public sociology as a new disciplinary identity. Fifth, the incoherence of professional sociology is obviated, and a misleading affiliation is made between scientific knowledge and the hegemonic structure of the profession. Finally, the idealism of public sociology's putative defense of civil society is explored as a utopian gesture akin to that of Habermas' attempt to revive the public sphere. The development of a strong program in professional sociology is briefly offered as a means to repair the disciplinary problems that are illustrated by emergence of the project of public sociology.     

Why sociology does not need to be saved: Analytic reflections on public sociologies

After reviewing the debate about public sociologies in the American Sociological Association over the past few years, we offer a response to calls for “saving sociology” from the Burawoy approach as well as an analytic critique of the former ASA president's “For Public Sociology” address. While being sympathetic to the basic idea of public sociologies, we argue that the “reflexive” and “critical” categories of sociology, as Burawoy has conceptualized them, are too ambiguous and value-laden to allow for empirical investigation of the different major orientations of sociological research and the ways the discipline can address non-academic audiences. Debates about the future of sociology should be undertaken with empirical evidence, and we need a theoretical approach that can allow us to compare both disciplines and nations as well as taking into account the institutional context of the universities in which we operate. Research into the conditions under which professional, critical, policy, and public sociologies could work together for the larger disciplinary and societal good is called for instead of overheated rhetoric both for and against public sociologies.     

Some thoughts on graduate education in sociology

Examining the question of graduate education in sociology raises issues about the way we perceive our discipline and its future. Multiple theoretical perspectives and applied vs. basic interests need not fractionate the discipline if we orient ourselves to those skills which comprise the essence of sociological work; and the idea of a disciplinary core will be more easily operationalized if we construct graduate curricula with these skills in mind. How we practice our discipline will be a far more significant determinant of both its future and the content of graduate training than our normative pronouncements about what ought to be. His recent publications, both with Les Whitbeck, include “Knowledge Use as Knowledge Creation” inKnowledge (1986), and “Sources of Knowledge for Practice” in theJournal of Applied Behavioral Science (forthcoming).     

A Canadian rejoinder: Sociology north and south of the border

In response to the recent The American Sociologist special issue on Canadian sociology, this rejoinder dialogues with some of the perspectives offered there on the discipline north of the border with an eye towards lessons that American sociologists might learn from the Canadian experience. My reflections build on a larger analytic piece entitled “Canada’s Impossible Science: The Historical and Institutional Origins of the Coming Crisis of Anglo-Canadian Sociology” to be published soon in The Canadian Journal Sociology. Particular attention is paid to the different institutional arrangements of higher education in Canada and the United States, Anglo-Canadian reliance on the particularly English “weakness as strength” strategy for sociology, tensions between the cultural values of populism, egalitarianism, and excellence, and the trade-offs between professional and public intellectual work. A critique is offered of the “origin myth” of Canadian sociology as a particularly vibrant “critical sociology,” with discussion of Dorothy Smith's influence on sociology in Canada. His research interests are in sociological theory, the sociology of culture, and the study of intellectuals from the perspective of the sociology of organisations and professions. He is studying Edward Said as a “global public intellectual” as part of a Canadian government-funded interdisciplinary grant on “Globalization and Autonomy” at McMaster University. He is also working “Canadian professors as public intellectuals,” a project also funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada.     

American sociology in chaos: Differentiation without integration

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 microversus 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 it present state and what, if anything, can be done to integrate the discipline. Let me begin by outlining what makes a discipline coherent. Jonathan H.Turner is Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Riverside. He is primarily a theorist, and his substantive interests include the history and structure of American sociology. He can be reached at jonathan.turner@ucr.edu.     

Public Sociology or Partisan Sociology? The Curious Case of Whiteness Studies

This paper identifies the common themes in 245-plus refereed articles on whiteness studies that were published in academic journals after 1992 in an attempt to assess the implications of whiteness studies for the discipline of sociology. Of special interest is the relationship between whiteness studies and Michael Burawoy’s call for public sociology. I argue that the emerging field of whiteness studies identifies itself as a public sociology that is infused by the moral vision of critical sociology. Nevertheless, the field does not accept professional sociology as Burawoy defined it. The ontological, epistemological, and soteriological foundations of whiteness studies encourage the field to pander to one segment of the public—the marginalized—and condemn another segment of the public—“privileged whites,” thus rendering impossible a democratic dialogue on one of the most basic social issues of our time. Conflating Western epistemology with whiteness encourages a misreading of American social scientific work on race relations, thus opening the door to a so-called hermeneutics of suspicion. The result is not an innocuous “pop” sociology, but a partisan sociology, whose implications should caution sociologists against an uncritical embracing of public sociology.     

Social gerontology as public sociology in action

Burawoy (2005) argues that sociology needs to re-establish a public sociology oriented toward society’s problems and the practice of its unique knowledge if it is to again be taken seriously by the public, policymakers, and others. Yet, it is unclear how best to achieve these goals. We argue that the relatively young field of social gerontology provides a useful model of successful public sociology in action. As a multidisciplinary field engaged in basic and applied research and practice, social gerontology’s major aim is to improve the lives of older people and to ameliorate problems associated with age and aging. Thus social gerontology has routinely reached beyond the academy to engage with its publics. We review the field’s historical and theoretical development and present four examples of public sociology in action. Several factors have contributed to social gerontology's success in achieving the goals of public sociology: (1) Working in multidisciplinary teams which promote collaboration and respect for diverse perspectives. (2) Its ability to advocate “professionally” for its publics without favoring one group at the expense of another. (3) The unique affinity of its theories and practices with its disciplinary values. (4) The constructive effects of its ongoing questioning of values and ethics. Working in a multidisciplinary field with multiple publics, social gerontologists have been able to blend professional, critical, policy, and public sociologies to a considerable degree while contributing toward improvements in well-being.     

A social world of sociology in Japan

This article discusses the characteristics, problems, and future direction of sociology in Japan. The core problem of the discipline is the disparity between theories and empirical studies. That is, sociologists in Japan are not yet accustomed to the practice of integrating both conceptual inquiry and empirical methods—which has resulted in futile research that is unable to influence social policies. This article explores this problem by surveying historical and institutional circumstances that have surrounded sociologists since the founding of the discipline. The issues discussed include: the birth of the discipline, the rule of the academy by prominent universities, the system of funding, and the practice of recruitment. By suggesting problems that should be dealt with by today’s sociologists, the article indicates the road that sociologists must follow to rise above their “TV commentator” image and take on more influential social roles as professional experts.     

Parallel play in medical anthropology and medical sociology

In recent years, the disciplinary emphasis in the social sciences has been challenged, but barriers remain to multidisciplinary discourse. Scholars may examine similar problems or even use the same concepts, and neglect or overlook the work in sister disciplines. Developmental psychologists have identified a stage in child development called parallel play, characterized by children playing side-by-side but not interacting with one another. This article employs parallel play as a metaphor to describe the relationship between medical anthropology and medical sociology. Using recent Medical Anthropology Quarterly articles on “medicalization” and “the experience of illness” as illustrations, this article analyzes the causes and consequences of this disciplinary parallelism and suggests a rationale and mechanism of moving beyond this stage.     

The isolation of crime,law, and deviance from the core of sociology

The study of crime, law, and deviance is considered to be an isolated subarea of sociology that draws upon but does not contribute to the core of the discipline. Subareas, the specific and substantive topics of sociology, may be expected to make less obvious and direct contributions to the core than do theory, methodology, social organization, and social psychology as the major areas of sociology. And within subareas, studies that are readily applied may be considered less integrated and contributory to the discipline than the more “pure” or basic science subareas. This analysis examines the relationships between areas, subareas, and the core of sociology; the subject matter of sociological subareas; the actual versus perceptual isolation of crime, law, and deviance studies from the core; and the meaning of contribution. Measurement of contribution is limited to a survey ofSociological Abstracts, theCumulative Index of Sociology Journals, and the 1993 program for the American Sociological Association annual meetings. Comparing area and subarea publications and conference sessions suggests that, contrary to expectations, crime, law, and deviance research constitutes a significant portion of the available knowledge base. The perceived isolation of crime, law, and deviance from sociology may be explained by professional bias against applied studies of stigmatized populations. An earlier draft of this paper was presented at the 1992 American Sociological Association Annual Meetings.     

The growth of the sociology graduate program at Kent State University

The initial growth of the graduate program in sociology at Kent State University was dominated by the interests, academic training and career goals of particular people who participated in it. Moreover, in 1939, when the program was initiated, its growth closely mirrored the principal concerns of the discipline. Today the program is responsive less to the discipline or particular faculty, and more to political, economic and demographic factors. As a state-funded institution, this university and graduate program are more likely to react to state needs and those of its other public, the students. Her interests include professional socialization and organizational change, particular in the field of health care. His most recent work is research on “belief in a just world” and in the social psychological aspects of gender roles.     

2004 American Sociological Association Presidential address: for public sociology*

Responding to the growing gap between the sociological ethos and the world we study, the challenge of public sociology is to engage multiple publics in multiple ways. These public sociologies should not be left out in the cold, but brought into the framework of our discipline. In this way we make public sociology a visible and legitimate enterprise, and, thereby, invigorate the discipline as a whole. Accordingly, if we map out the division of sociological labor, we discover antagonistic interdependence among four types of knowledge: professional, critical, policy, and public. In the best of all worlds the flourishing of each type of sociology is a condition for the flourishing of all, but they can just as easily assume pathological forms or become victims of exclusion and subordination. This field of power beckons us to explore the relations among the four types of sociology as they vary historically and nationally, and as they provide the template for divergent individual careers. Finally, comparing disciplines points to the umbilical chord that connects sociology to the world of publics, underlining sociology's particular investment in the defense of civil society, itself beleaguered by the encroachment of markets and states.     

Struggling with human exemptionalism: The rise,decline and revitalization of environmental sociology

The emergence of environmental sociology in the 1970s, the decline of interest it experienced in the the early 1980s, and its revitalization since the late 1980s are described and linked to trends in societal interest in environmental problems. We suggest that the status of the field has been heavily dependent upon societal attention to environmental problems, in part due to the larger discipline’s ingrained assumption that the welfare of modern societies is no longer linked to the physical environment. We also suggest that growing recognition of the reality of global environmental change (GEC) poses a fundamental challenge to this “human exemptionalism paradigm,” and thus offers an opportunity for strengthening sociological interest in the environment. Understanding the causes and consequences of GEC calls for examination of societal-environmental interactions, the fundamental subject matter of environmental sociology. Unfortunately, early sociological work has largely ignored such interactions in favor of analyses of the “social construction” of GEC, Consequently, limitations of a social constructivist approach to GEC (and to environmental problems in general) are discussed, and a more inclusive research agenda is recommended. Revision of a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Miami Beach, August 1993.     

Classical theory,postmodernism, and the sociology liberal arts curriculum

This article presents classical theory as a modernist endeavor to apprehend the phenomenon of “unity of disunity.” It presents the three ways that classical theory comes to grips with the problem of wholes and parts: the holism of Durkheim, the dialectical materialism of Marx, and the pluralism of Weber. It argues that postmodernism liquidates, rather than solves, the unity of disunity problem by treating “wholes” as mere appearances. The article contends that postmodernism needs to be taken more seriously than it has been by sociologists but that, ultimately, the challenge presented by postmodernism validates the relevancy of classical theory. The article concludes that the postmodernist influence has diminished sociology’s relevance to real-world problems and, as a result, made the discipline less relevant for undergraduates. It calls for a revitalized sociology of sociology with the capacity to think through the trap formed by neoconservatism on the one side and the micro politics of postmodernism on the other.     

The challenge of training in applied sociology

This paper adds to the current dialogue in our discipline regarding the challenge of expanding nonacademic employment opportunities for sociologists and training our students for such employment. The argument is made that this challenge should be seen as an opportunity for us to demonstrate the relevance of our knowledge and expertise to society and to advance the intellectual development of our discipline. Moreover, the achievement of these benefits does not require sacrificing the distinctive intellectual core of sociology as a humanistic liberal arts discipline. To help bridge the gap between academic and nonacademic cultures, several interrelated strategies are suggested that address issues of marketing and public relations, as well as curriculum revision. The internship, as a key feature of “applied” programs, is crucial in terms of both training students and facilitating our contacts with potential employers. where he developed the department’s internship program, and has done consultation with religious and social service organizations. where he helped develop the Master’s program in applied sociology, and has done extensive consultation with business organizations regarding their needs for sociological skills and expertise. which is jointly sponsored by the College of Business and Management and the Department of Sociology, and which conducts studies in organizational design, entrepreneurship, and strategic management at the University of Maryland in College Park. has done extensive consultation and research with business organizations and the military on personnel and family issues. in Jacksonville and utilizes sociological concepts in courses on organizational management and design. a member of the ASA Ad Hoc Committee on Under- and Un-employment. where he recently completed a term as Head of the Department and a leave of absence to the staff of the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress.     

“It’s not rocket science!“: High school sociology teachers’ conceptions of sociology

Since academic sociology’s birth in this country, sociologists have not been shy about publicly praising and ridiculing the discipline. Though sociologists have been the primary participants in the seemingly endless debates about sociology’s proper subject matter, methods, and purpose, there is another group that has also struggled over the past 95 years to formulate a conception of the discipline—high school sociology teachers. At this point, we know virtually nothing about what the thousands of high school teachers who offer sociology each year, actually think about the discipline. This paper uses questionnaire and interview data collected from high school sociology teachers to examine their thoughts on four topics: (1) sociology’s strengths, (2) its weaknesses, (3) whether high school students are capable of understanding the discipline, and (4) appropriate course objectives. The results indicate that high school teachers view sociology quite differently from academic sociologists, and that their conceptions are based primarily on “textbook sociology.” I conclude by discussing the far-reaching implications of teachers’ current thinking about the discipline. I wish to thank Larry nichols for offering helpful comments on an earliar draft of this paper.     

Rational choice and the sociology of age: Heuristic models

Rational choice is contrasted with the sociology of age as two broad frameworks to aid the search for conceptual models to integrate our fragmented discipline. Some suggestive differences and convergences between them point to the desirability of a more dynamic emphasis in rational choice theory, and to consideration of the philosophical and moral assumptions underlying the “purpose” of action in the sociology of age. Senior Social Scientist at the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health. This article is adapted from the panel discussion, “The Place of Rational Choice in Sociology,” organized by Guillermina Jasso for the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in Los Angeles, August 6, 1994.     

General education,participant observation,and reflexive sociology

Based on the author's case study of and experience teaching in an experimental general education college which was later closed by administrators, this article addresses the question of the meaning of the discipline of sociology in a general education curriculum. The author, reflecting upon insights gained through his participant observation in the experimental college, proposes that all sociologists look to the new sociology of knowledge and its reflexive methodology to help in the presentation of sociology as a humanistic discipline contributing to general education. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Pacific Sociological Association meetings, San Diego, California, March 1976. An even earlier draft was presented to a “Sociology Colloquium and Pot-Luck Dinner,” at the University of Hawaii, May 1975. I would like to thank the students who also presented reports at the colloquium: Branden Johnson, Vivien Lee, and Eric Yamamoto; and the colleagues who made helpful suggestions and warnings: David Chandler, Libby O. Ruch, Edmund Volkart, and Eldon Wegner.     

Caroline Bartlett Crane and the history of sociology: Salvation, sanitation, and the social gospel

This article investigates the relationship between Progressive era (1890–1920) social reform and the origins of American sociology with a view of the vital contributions of women in these endeavors. I observe the efforts of the first generation of sociologists to legitimate and delineate the field in the “social construction” of the discipline of sociology, as they attempted to combine Christianity, the social gospel, and socialism into a new and unique ideology. In this article I examine the archival material of Progressive era reformer, Caroline Bartlett Crane (1858–1935), a Unitarian minister and student in the sociology department of the University of Chicago in 1896, to address the relationship between theology, sociology, and social reform from a woman’s perspective.