Public Sociology and the Democratization of Technology: Drawing on User -led Research to Achieve Mutual Education

In an effort to further advance public sociology and its relationship with technology, this paper looks at a democratic model of collaboration within the technological sciences. We draw on the concept of user- led research to demonstrate how sociologists, scientists and various stakeholders within the public sphere can achieve reciprocal, meaningful and sustained knowledge translation. Furthermore, we argue that by acknowledging participants’ technological needs and reducing unnecessary complexity, the user -led method advances Burawoy’s “dialogue as mutual education” within public sociology.     

Power Mapping: Enhancing Sociological Knowledge by Developing Generalizable Analytical Public Tools

In this article, I argue for and illustrate ‘power mapping’ as a concrete research approach that can benefit specific publics while enhancing professional sociological knowledge and theory. I present power mapping as an example of a more broad approach to public sociology which seeks to harness sociological theory and knowledge in order to create generalizable analytical tools that social movements, policy makers, concerned citizens, voluntary associations, and community organizations can use to develop their own strategic assessments of the sociological contexts in which they act. One of the ironies of the current discussion of public sociology is that it has been conducted in an abstract, hyper-theoretical discourse which is precisely one of the factors that has disconnected so much sociology from general publics. In this article, I instead turn towards presenting a specific concrete research strategy which could engender mutually beneficial research collaboration and dialogue between sociologists and specific publics.     

Knowledge and the practice of sociology

Noting that sociology, like other disciplines, usually discusses itself as if its content—its body of knowledge—were created by a wholly intellectual process, I am adopting in this paper the approach of the sociology of knowledge by emphasizing the existential factors that influence knowledge. I employ the poorly developed concept of occupation, and argue that in the United States academic disciplines like sociology are best analyzed as professions, which areorganized occupations. American professions sustain their present position by the functional differentiation of members into separate administrative, research or scholarship, and practice roles. Practice roles serving lay clients or patrons provide the basic economic support of the profession as a whole. The characteristic practice role of most academic arts and science disciplines is teaching. Using sociology and its special position in the undergraduate curriculum as an example, I suggest that the contingencies of teaching influence what knowledge is used, underlie at least part of the public image of the discipline, and determine some of what becomes part of the published corpus of the discipline's knowledge.     

Researchers Behind Policy Development: Comparing ‘Age-Friendly Cities’ Models in Quebec and Wallonia

Based on a reflexive method, this article explores the roles of researchers behind Age-Friendly Cities and Environments. Referring to Michael Burawoy's division of sociological work (professional, critical, policy and public sociology), it is structured around the international comparison of two empirical case studies: Walloon region (Belgium) and Quebec (a province of Canada). While the first case shows some difficulties faced by a limited policy sociology perspective with little room for research, the latter presents a more developed public sociology approach with larger involvement from research. If both cases started with policy links, the latter presents a special interest for praxis, through knowledge transfer as an ongoing public dialogue. Based on this comparison, the article concludes with a twofold use of praxis: on one side – knowledge in action – a public sociology position offers an original perspective on what AFC/AFE may mean and produce to avoid a limited field of actions focusing only on some stakeholders or advocates for older people. On the other side – action in knowledge – policy and public sociology question professional and critical sociology facing AFC/AFE programmes: is a purely academic knowledge of such a programme epistemologically realistic or should it necessarily be empirically fuelled?     

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.     

Public Ethnography; Ethnography as Public Sociology

Since ethnography is arguably the kind of sociology of most appeal to the lay public, public ethnography, particularly participant observation research, should be a major form of public sociology. Public ethnography differs from academic ethnography when its sites and subjects are relevant to what the lay public wants and needs to know, and when it is written in non technical English. This article spells out the requirements, conditions and processes involved in making relevant ethnography acceptable to the lay public and thus turning it into public ethnography.     

No Path to Paradise: Deconstructing the Promise of Public Sociology

This essay treats Burawoy’s advocacy for public sociology as a social problems claim. Using a social constructionist approach, I examine the rhetorical strategies Burawoy uses to construct the discipline in a way that makes public sociology seem not only relevant, but integral to what sociologists do. Sociology’s history, ethos and practitioners are framed in ways that make its commitment to the civil sphere appear as a “natural” direction for the discipline. Certain features of the discipline are foregrounded. Motives and desires are imputed. Villains are constructed and the paths to progress are outlined. By examining the framing strategies Burawoy uses to present his vision, the promise of public sociology is called into question. I do not argue that public sociology is without value. Rather, I unpack the claims its advocates make and question whether public sociology can deliver on its promise of a better sociology or a better society.     

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.     

Institutional Barriers to Doing Public Sociology: Experiences of Feminists in the Academy

In recent years, the discipline of sociology has seen an increased discussion of public sociology, but the discussion has focused on whether or not it is a good idea for sociologists to become more engaged with their various publics. A different question motivates this research: What are the institutional arrangements that make doing public sociology difficult, and thus less likely? Following Dorothy Smith, we start from the perspective of frontline actors and ask them about their experiences. We combine data from two sources: individual interviews with a sample of 50 academic feminists, a group that has theoretical motivation to be interested in public sociology and group interviews with 15 feminists engaged in some form of public sociology. These informants tell us about two related institutional barriers to doing public sociology: the culture of professional sociology and the standards we use for evaluating scholarship. The impact of these disciplinary barriers probably varies by institution type and career stage but there is reason to suspect they generate costs not just for individuals but for the discipline. Taking steps to break down these barriers would ameliorate concerns some have raised about public sociology.     

Going Public: Networking Globally and Locally*

Abstract Rural sociologists figure prominently in the move towards public sociology. The paper takes up Michael Burawoy's call for public sociology and discusses what rural sociologists have to offer to publics and how we stand to gain as a discipline in working with publics. The paper argues that rural sociologists' ability to adopt a cosmopolitan view while negotiating the complexities of global/local processes provides a useful theoretical stance for doing public sociology. Methodologically, both feminist methods and various approaches to networks can guide us as we do public sociology. Then, the paper provides two examples of recent efforts to do public sociology with a women's community group in Sri Lanka in response to the tsunami and with the Pennsylvania Women's Agricultural Network to illustrate the possibilities and limitations of working with networks. In conclusion, the paper addresses opportunities for doing public sociology, the challenges we face as we go public, and future work that is needed to develop theoretically and methodologically strong public rural sociology.     

Igniting Constructionist Imaginations: Social Constructionism’s Absence and Potential Contribution to Public Sociology

Why have social constructionists remained absent from debates over public sociology? I argue that constructionist scholarship would be particularly amenable to Michael Burawoy’s notion of ‘organic’ public sociology, given the ability of constructionist scholars to orient awareness contexts in order to help engender constructionist imaginations. This approach requires that constructionists take on a different view of the role of the analyst. I also discuss some of the problems Canadian academics have had engaging with the media in their efforts to engage in ‘traditional’ public sociology, as well as what a constructionist public sociology may look like practice. I conclude by addressing potential challenges to a constructionist public sociology within Canada, including reference to sociology’s disciplinary coherence and how we can approach—and what we mean by—‘publics’.     

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.     

African studies at a crossroads: producing theory across the disciplines in South Africa

African studies in South Africa is currently at a crossroads – of making choices in the process of establishing itself institutionally and reconstituting itself as a discursive and epistemological field, including an interrogation of its histories and a decolonisation of its scholarly legacies. But being at a crossroads does not imply being at a loss; on the contrary, for African studies it means realising its potential of being a hub of critical thinking and a catalyst in the transformation of the humanities and the social sciences in the country and, possibly, internationally. Proceeding from this assumption, I will ask: what are the conditions of possibility for the emergence of African studies in South Africa as a space of transdisciplinary debate, one that is driven by a commitment to socially relevant issues and within which critical standpoints to be voiced by public intellectuals can crystallise? Some approaches critical for the development of such a field are present in South African scholarship, but – as it often happens in hierarchical academic structures – they are scattered across different disciplines or areas of expertise. Further, one of the main problems of African studies scholarship internationally – lying at the core of power inequalities of scholarship in Africa and the West – is the artificial split between “theory” and “(empirical) material” and the question of who is expected to produce what. This article starts with a discussion of the recent debates provoked by a restructuring of African studies and related disciplines at the University of Cape Town. To understand the resonance of these debates, beyond the context of one university and country, they will be placed, firstly, in the international context of African studies and, secondly, in the national context of debating the function and place of the humanities and the social sciences in South Africa. Both contexts highlight the importance of producing critical theory (instead of applying theory produced in the West). Hence, the following three subsections of this article will examine works by South African scholars that, produced within various disciplines (history, sociology and cultural studies), interrelate the insights of these disciplines and, in so doing, initiate new theoretical approaches. Using its crossroads position, African studies in South Africa can become a “laboratory” in which new critical approaches can be interrelated and debated. Opened up to dialogue with African studies in Africa and worldwide, it can become a theoretically invigorating space, nationally and internationally.     

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.     

How other academic disciplines approach teaching concerns and the consequences for sociology

Sociology is not the only academic discipline currently interested in teaching concerns. As teaching advocates consider future courses of action, knowledge of what other disciplines are doing provides possible departure points for sociology. This paper presents and discusses other disciplines' concerns and activities in teaching compared with sociology's activities and speculates about the implications of these various concerns and activities.     

Neither proscience nor antiscience: Metasociology as dialogue

This paper defends metasociology against the attacks of a particular brand of metasociological critique done in the name of scientific progress. The proponents of scientific progress often argue that metasociology does not contribute anything of substantial value to the progress of sociology as a science. In contrast, we argue that this view of metasociology is not terribly well informed. We suggest that metasociology should be thought of as a dialogue with other nearby disciplines and with contemporary political and moral conversations about the social world. One job of metasociology is to expose the assumptions of sociologists so as to make them more aware of where they stand in relation to other contemporary dialogues. We also argue that for metasociology to be taken seriously as dialogue, we must give up certain pretensions. The social grounds for metasociology as dialogue rest on epistemic relativism and, more importantly, on judgmental relativism.     

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.     

Masculinities Through a Cross‐Disciplinary Lens: Lessons from Sociology and Psychology

There are considerable (and growing) bodies of literature within sociology and psychology addressing the various ways in which masculinities are socially constructed and interactional, yet rarely are the two disciplines presented together. In this paper, we provide a selective integrated review of the literatures within psychology and sociology focusing on the social construction of masculinities. Rather than providing an exhaustive overview, this review places selected key sociological and psychological frameworks and empirical findings on masculinities in dialogue, providing insight into areas where scholars of masculinities may benefit from considering cross‐disciplinary incorporation of key findings within their scholarship.     

Mandating dialogue? International perspectives on differences between theory and practice

This paper replicates an Australian study (Lane, 2018) into how public relations practitioners understand dialogue in practice. The original study found practitioners believed they were carrying out dialogue legally required by government, but what they were doing was no more than two-way communication. It also found practitioners’ operating environments meant they could never actually undertake dialogue, even if mandated to do so. These empirically-based insights revealed the existence of gaps between theory and practice in dialogue in public relations. The study was repeated in Austria to determine if these findings were consistent internationally, and to consider what this might mean for the place of dialogue in public relations. Examples of so-called mandated ‘dialogue’ provided by Austrian public relations practitioners in semi-structured interviews were analyzed using Kent and Taylor’s (2002) five principles of dialogue. This analysis showed that despite the Austrian practitioners’ familiarity with the work of Habermas on dialogue, the mandated communication they carried out was not dialogue. The Austrian experience also showed that the nature of the underlying context of mandated communication—the need to achieve agreement between parties in varying levels of conflict; and conducting communication within boundaries of time and non-negotiable pre-existing decisions—meant dialogue could never occur. Comparing the two studies demonstrated high levels of similarity between the countries’ results, which we hope can provide the starting point for the development of a longitudinal and international perspective. This paper concludes that the place of dialogue in the theory and practice of public relations is dependent on the education of practitioners in its implementation; and a re-thinking of the role of the aspirational in situations where it can never be attained.     

CONTESTING OUR EVERYDAY WORK LIVES: The Retention of Minority and Working-Class Sociology Undergraduates

Efforts to improve retention and graduation among minority students have been commonplace in higher education, but few such efforts have been undertaken in sociology. In this presidential address, I document that in sociology, as in other disciplines, disproportionate numbers of African American and Latino/a students do not graduate. I examine sociological research on the barriers to success that face students of color in predominantly white colleges, and on what can be done to help overcome these barriers. An example of a successful program to increase the graduation rates of minority and working-class students in sociology is discussed, and the sociological discipline is challenged to use its knowledge and insights to help improve opportunities for minority and working-class students in sociology.