Merton’s Sociology 215-216 Course

For many years, Robert K. Merton taught a famous, year-long graduate course at Columbia called The Analysis of Social Structures. His lectures have been recalled for their dazzling intellectual effects by those who took the course, but none of these former students has described what Merton actually said in specific lectures. I do this now, using my extensive lecture notes from 1952–53 when I took it for credit, and from later years when I sat in on the course. The core of the course at that time was Merton’s Paradigm for Functional Analysis in Sociology. Each concept in the paradigm—subjective dispositions, objective consequences, functional requirements, structural constraints, etc.—was elaborated in its relationship to a wide variety of sociological problems in the published theoretical and empirical literature. I also recount how Merton’s relationship to Talcott Parsons appeared to us in the course.     

Women in Academic Sociology, 1925–75

Abstract

The career patterns of two distinguished sociologists, Arnold and Caroline Rose, exemplify male-female differentials in academic career patterns in sociology. Arnold's career was a straight and steep line of progression; Caroline's, despite her record of scholarly productivity, existed on the fringes of academia—night school, correspondence courses, and extension and part-time teaching. Examination of the authors and reviews in the American Journal of Sociology and the American Sociological Review confirms this model of women at the academic margins: over the years, women have written a far greater proportion of the book reviews than of the articles. This pattern parallels that women in academic life generally, although not all of it can be attributed to discriminatory factors. While the participation of women in mainstream academic life has increased in very recent years, these historic patterns indicate the possible need for different formal models of male and female academic careers.     

Considerations on the ‘Replication Problem’ in Sociology

We re-examine the so-called “replication problem” in sociology—a scarcity of published studies dedicated to reproducing findings from prior research. We do this in part by considering the larger epistemological traditions of the natural sciences and humanities. We make three primary arguments: that (1) replication studies are more prevalent than is commonly perceived, (2) calls for and discussions of replication do not attend enough to issues of theory, and (3) we should reconsider as a discipline how we evaluate replications. In developing this third argument, we draw on the concept of episteme, discussing two epistemes that concurrently exist in sociology: the scientific project and the aesthetic object. The former overlaps with approaches to knowledge growth in the natural sciences, the latter with the humanities. We propose that sociology is situated between these extremes, presenting unique challenges for replication research. In particular, nuanced considerations of replications in sociology foreclose any simplistic accounts of a replication problem in the discipline.     

The Conceptual Incoherence of “Culture” in American Sociology

The meaning of the concept “culture” as used in American sociology is incoherent. Despite the advances and maturing of cultural sociology, the central idea of “culture” itself remains conceptually muddled. This article demonstrates this critical point by analyzing the definitions, meanings, and uses of the word “culture” in the field of cultural sociology’s most significant, recent edited volumes, handbooks, readers, companions, annual review chapters, and award-winning books and journal articles. Arguing for the scholarly importance of conceptual coherence, this article calls for more disciplined and cooperative theoretical work to clarify and move toward a more standardized meaning of “culture” in American sociology.     

Sociology of “primitive societies,” evolutionism,and Africa

Sociology of primitive societies has revised its earlier views about kinship, lineage, or lineage mode of production. It attempts now to show that lineage did not pervade African precolonial societies and that other relations, such as capitalist and class relations, were also present. This article seeks to reestablish, contrary to the revisionist view, the centrality of lineage in African precolonial societies to allow for a paradigmatic shift that repudiates evolutionism and brings precolonial societies back to the center of the African debate. Because in such a reoriented debate Africa ceases to be marginalized and on the fringes of other historical experiences, the shift allows, paradoxically, the integration of scholarship on Africa into universal social theory.     

Public Sociology on Twitter: a Space for Public Pedagogy?

Research has examined various elements of Twitter; however, no scholarship has explored how sociologists currently use the platform. This empirically driven paper explores how individuals that self-identify as sociologists on Twitter use the popular micro-blogging social media site. A total of 152,977 tweets from Twitter profiles of 130 sociologists were collected and examined using qualitative media analysis. The potential use of Twitter allows the sociologist to become both the generator and interlocutor of dialogue with publics. We frame our data analysis and discussion around the core theme of expertise - namely, the role that expertise plays in the use of Twitter by sociologists. Our findings indicate that when sociologists used Twitter as sociologists (i.e., drawing upon their stated research expertise) little direct engagement with publics occurred. Thus, while sociologists appear to be using Twitter as a space for public sociology, the use of this interactive platform is mostly limited to the generation of content, a finding consistent with Burawoy’s traditional form of public sociology. Suggestions for future research are noted.     

The Impact of Cross-Race Mentoring for “Ideal” PhD Careers in Sociology

This article reports the results of a study of the impact of two kinds of mentoring, as in individual, instrumental mentoring by white male advisors versus supportive/communal, homophilous (same race/ethnicity) mentoring on the likelihood of minority scholars having an “ideal” or “archetypal” career trajectory when compared to two other control groups. Using unobtrusive data, we test a series of hypotheses concerning the likelihood of attaining selected aspects of an “ideal” career including employment at a research-extensive institution, scholarly publications, tenure, grants, and disciplinary recognition. We find that having a white male instrumental advisor increases the likelihood of having an “ideal” career for participants in the American Sociological Association's (ASA) national pre-doctoral Minority Fellowship Program (MFP) who have the advantage of having access to both types of mentoring when compared to a random group of largely white PhDs.     

Canadian Sociology for Sale? Academic Branding in the ‘Neo-Liberal Age’

Narratives about the influence of neo-liberal forces on post-secondary education are legion within the contemporary literature. Some have recently argued that the promotional tactics used by Canadian sociology departments reflect the broader corporatization of the system, highlighting the vocationalization of the discipline at the hands of market forces. We conduct a mixed-methods analysis of the marketing practises used by English-speaking sociology departments in Canada and find only limited support for this argument. Instead, observed promotional tactics appear to be quite diverse, aimed at multiple stakeholders, and reflecting the complex institutional environment in which sociology departments operate.     

Critical Nexus or Pluralist Discipline? Institutional Ambivalence and the Future of Canadian Sociology

While some scholars believe in a transdisciplinary future for the social sciences and humanities, we argue that sociology would do well to maintain its disciplinary borders, while celebrating the plurality of its intellectual, social, and political content. Although a pluralist position can threaten disciplinary coherence and increase fragmentation, we argue the counterbalance ought to be convergence around shared institutional norms of knowledge production. Establishing these norms is not easy, since there is a great deal of institutional ambivalence at play in the field of sociology. As such, sociology is pushed and pulled between two poles of at least four major continuums of knowledge production, which include the following: (1) interdisciplinary versus discipline‐based research; (2) political versus analytical scholarship; (3) professional versus public/policy sociology; and (4) local/national versus global audiences. Since both sides of these ideal‐typical continuums contain their own pathologies, we propose adopting a balanced position to correct for the shortcomings of each. Rather than imposing one philosophical or theoretical paradigm for the field, we suggest that embracing the "chaos" of our diverse forms of knowledge and centralizing and integrating findings will serve to strengthen our collective efforts in the long term. Alors que certains chercheurs croient en un avenir transdisciplinaire pour les sciences sociales et humaines, nous soutenons qu'il serait préférable pour la sociologie de maintenir ses frontières disciplinaires, tout en célébrant la pluralité de son contenu intellectuel, social, et politique. Bien qu'une telle position pluraliste puisse menacer la cohérence disciplinaire et accroître la fragmentation, nous défendons l'idée que la contre‐balance doit converger vers des normes institutionnelles communes de production de connaissances. La mise en place de ces normes n'est pas chose aisée. Une large quantité d'ambivalence institutionnelle est en jeu dans le domaine de la sociologie. Ainsi nous tendons vers quatre grands continuums de production de connaissances : (1) la recherche interdisciplinaire en opposition à la recherche par discipline ; (2) une érudition politique en opposition à celle analytique ; (3) une sociologie professionnelle contre une sociologie publique / politique ; et (4) un public local / national contre un public mondial. Dans la mesure où deux côtés de ces continuums idéaux‐typiques contiennent leurs pathologies propres, nous proposons d'adopter une position équilibrée pour corriger les lacunes de chacun. Ceci devrait être mieux reflété dans nos systèmes de récompense. Plutôt que d'imposer un paradigme philosophique ou théorique pour un domaine en question, nous suggérons de prendre en considération le «chaos» de nos diverses formes de connaissances, tout en centralisant et en intégrant plus efficacement nos conclusions. Ceci permettra de renforcer nos efforts collectifs sur le long terme.     

What About a Sociology of Ethnicity in France? A Foucaldian Reading of Racial Violence

In 1995, the publication of “Theories of ethnicity” by Philippe Poutignat and Jocelyne Streiff-Fenart pointed out the new interest of French sociology for this theme. Since that time, the number of research about ethnicity has been gradually increasing. Yet, certain questions remain unsettled. In France, sociology of ethnicity does not constitute a full-fledged field. In parallel, ethnicity works are still inspired by Anglo-Saxon research. Eventually, contrary to what happened in the United States, sociologists did not draw on the Foucaldian library to nourish close and relevant fields such as subaltern or postcolonial studies. On the basis of a research regarding the immigration policy and the racial violence perpetrated against North African migrants in France during the 1970s, this article adopts a critical perspective with the aim to restore the failed dialogue in France between the Foucaldian analysis of State racism and the study of ethnicity.     

The Use of the Conceptual Category of Race in American Sociology, 1937–99

We examine how mainstream sociology has used race as an explanatory factor by examining papers in the American Sociological Review between 1937 and 1999. We find a dramatic increase in the likelihood that sociologists will take race into account, and we suggest that methodological innovations are largely responsible for creating an environment in which it is taken for granted that analysts in many fields will control for race. This pattern of usage may reinforce an implicit conception of racial differences that we call broad but shallow, in that race is expected to matter almost everywhere, but its effect can be neutralized by the addition of a control.     

Learning from Experience: Integrating Students’ Everyday Lives into the Urban Community College Sociology Classroom

Over 40 percent of today’s college students are enrolled at community colleges. While the institutions of community colleges have been gaining national attention given this growing statistic, we do not engage in large scale conversations about teaching practices that best benefit our local populations. This paper looks at the risks and rewards of incorporating students’ everyday life experiences into the classroom in an introduction to sociology course. This course is developed in an urban setting giving students tools both to see the world as sociologists and to critically analyze persistent inequalities in society. These goals are accomplished through challenging classroom conversations and culminate in a project where students collect data through their lived experience and analyze it as sociologists. While this style of teaching provides unique and often unexpected challenges, it creates a strong active learning environment in the classroom, confronts important social problems, and holds potential for consciousness raising and social change in the local community.     

Justice and Tyranny: Bringing “Rural” Back into the Sociology of Food and Agriculture

In the current polarizing political climate, what constitutes just has become increasingly questioned and debated in the public arena. Tyrants seem everywhere to shape people's understanding of who belongs in communities and nation-states and, therefore, who should be given a voice and what should be valued. This paper unpacks the mechanisms of tyranny and the pursuit of justice in the global agri-food system. The first section discusses justice and tyranny as sociological concepts and practice, followed by the second section that examins two types of tyrannies in the globalized agri-food system: neoliberal capitalism and community. I argue that neoliberal capitalism and community are the logics for organizing social relations and the sites of enacting tyrannies and justice. Third, I argue that in the tension between capitalism and community in achieving justice, rural becomes critical both theoretically and empirically for understanding the current transformations and the future challenges for transforming agri-food systems. Finally, the paper concludes with possible contributions of rural sociological imaginations to shaping the discourse of justice and explore the process of justice.     

Doing Sociology in the Age of ‘Evidence-Based Research’: Scientific Epistemology versus Political Dominance

Social science history from its beginnings has witnessed periods of confrontation between – generally speaking – qualitative and quantitative paradigms, even talking of ‘war’, ‘wrestlers’ and ‘warriors’. And, again from the very beginnings, our discipline has been forced to relate with funding agencies. Sometimes, the two paths – the scientific one and the financial one – cross: we may think at the role of the private foundations in financing a certain type of investigation, notably surveys against case studies or qualitative research. Nowadays, we see an increased attention by federal agencies and private foundations on a particular sector of research, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), focusing on techniques seen intrinsically superior from the methodological and epistemological point of view. This article will analyze the recent increase of the randomized controlled trials as the new “gold standard” for social research; the call for the “experimenting society” (Campbell American Psychologist, 24(4), 409–429, 1969), willing to import the randomized controlled trials approach into the field of social policy and planning, is not new, if we think that yet in 1963 Campbell and Stanley wrote that “a wave of enthusiasm for experimentation dominated the field of education in the Thorndike era, perhaps reaching its apex in the 1920s” (Campbell and Stanley 1963/1966: 2). Many problems of validity with RCTs soon came to be recognized – even by Campbell, who stated that he has “held off advocating an experimenting society until they can be solved” (Campbell Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 291–298, 1994: 294). In the following years a different set of evaluation strategies were developed, but today there’s a new effort to re-introduce the experimental approach in the academic arena. What is the difference? As we will see, the scientifically-based research is now established and codified by law, funding is linked to a particular way of doing research, and the consequences on scientists work are yet to be explored.