Jeffries Vincent (Editor). Handbook Of Public Sociology

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

123

A Sociology for Public Sociology:

Some Needed Disciplinary

Changes for Creating

Public Sociology

Herbert J. Gans

Michael Burawoy’s dramatic reinvention of and powerful advocacy for

public sociology at the ASA’s 2004 annual meetings has set off a process to

incorporate public sociology into the current discipline. Although it is too

early to determine what paths that process will take, so far there seems to

be more discourse about public sociology than activity to advance it, or for

that matter, a new outpouring of high quality public sociology. This chapter

argues that such activity—and outpouring—require some serious structural

changes in the discipline and describes several urgent ones, both in the or-

ganization of the discipline and in sociological graduate education.

I emphasize urgent because the active development of public sociology is

essential to the healthy future of the discipline. Although sociology is grow-

ing numerically in a variety of ways, its status in the social sciences and in

American intellectual life has not kept up with that growth. Exciting intel-

lectual work is being done in a number of sociology’s fields, but it does not

show up often enough in the journals that speak for the entire discipline or

in the now existing varieties of public sociology.

Moreover, public sociology is facing formidable competition from other

disciplines. For example, a number of economists are now doing research

on topics once considered solely sociological. Their work, sometimes called

Freakonomics (Levitt and Dubner 2005), frequently offers counter-intuitive

conclusions about taken-for-granted aspects of everyday life and the opera-

tion of major societal institutions. Because the researchers are economists,

they have far easier access to the general public than sociologists.

Likewise, some historians are now writing about periods that have barely

become history and are still part of our disciplinary turf. They appear fre-

quently in the literary and other journals that appeal to the educated general

124 Chapter 7

public and their books are reviewed in the major general book reviews that

almost uniformly ignore sociological writing.

Anthropology represents another emergent source of competition, for

today’s social and cultural anthropologists are doing research in America.

The research is often so similar to that done by sociologists that some of

them have thereafter become sociologists. Furthermore, an increasing num-

ber of freelance journalists, a number of whom have clearly taken courses

in sociology, are writing books and magazine articles on topics and with

methods that verge on the sociological. Perhaps our most ambitious and

well-publicized competitors are the life scientists and evolutionary psy-

chologists who regularly discover new genes to instantly explain complex

social phenomena that sociologists and other social scientists have labored

long and hard to understand.

THE PURPOSES AND VARIETIES OF PUBLIC SOCIOLOGY

For the purposes of this chapter, public sociology will be defined as so-

ciological analysis (or if you will, description, analysis, interpretation, and

evaluation) that is intended, mostly in written form, to reach or actually

reaches one or another audience in what is usually called the general pub-

lic. This kind of public sociology is what most sociologists think of when

they describe and do public sociology. My discussion therefore excludes

what Burawoy (2007) calls organic public sociology, which requires some

very different disciplinary, organizational, and other changes in sociology.

The distinction between intent and actuality is important, for however

much we want to reach that audience, the public sociology created to ap-

pear in print, electronic, and digital mass and “class” media has to be ac-

cepted by those media’s gatekeepers. True, we can write what we consider

important or interesting, but if the gatekeepers do not agree, they may not

open their gates. Then our work cannot become actual public sociology.

Obviously conventional written public sociology (hereafter just called

public sociology) ought to help the discipline grow in quality and repu-

tation, but it must do so by fulfilling what I consider public sociology’s

primary purpose: to help people, in the general public and elsewhere, un-

derstand the society in which they live. In order to achieve that purpose, the

discipline should produce public sociology that the public and we consider

relevant to and useful for as many sectors and strata of society as possible.

Creating a relevant and useful public sociology requires discussion—and

operational definitions—of relevance and usefulness. In a diverse, often

polarized and conflicted society, for whom sociology is and can be relevant

and useful needs discussion as well. Furthermore, that sociology must

include both what people want to know and what we believe they ought

A Sociology for Public Sociology 125

to know as members of society, including even ideas and findings they, or

media gatekeepers, would prefer not to know about.

In pursuing various forms of relevance and usefulness, the discipline also

has to ponder its place in the division of labor, as well as what I hope is the

eventual convergence of the social sciences. Meanwhile, sociology ought to

exploit its distinctiveness and emphasize what it does best.

I suggest that sociology continues to be distinctive in four ways:

(1) Much of its empirical data, quantitative and qualitative, comes from

ordinary people, obtained by going out into “the field” in various ways, but

mainly through fieldwork, interviewing, and survey research.

(2) Sociology continues to venture into areas and subjects the other so-

cial sciences are reluctant or slow to study until we have been there first.

Because we concentrate on ordinary people and still do relatively little data

gathering among elites, we look at society from the bottom up more often

than our sister disciplines.

(3) Sociology remains a skilled debunker of conventional wisdoms as

well as an investigative reporter and analyst of social injustices. It also looks

a little harder at what is taken for granted and unexamined in everyday life,

by major institutions, and by the various sectors and strata of society.

(4) Sociology remains philosophically more adventurous than most of

the other social sciences. As a result, it is sometimes more able to be de-

tached and distanced than they, and it has not refrained from using relativ-

ism, relationism, reflexivity, constructionism, and other not always popular

ways of looking at the social world.

Eye-Opening Public Sociology

Most existing public sociology is already completed empirical or theo-

retical inquiry which is summarized, synthesized, and rewritten for the

various sectors of the non-sociological public. This is generally described as

popularization. Sometimes, though not yet often enough, public sociology

offers a sociological take on topics and issues of current interest or concern,

although someday I hope sociological columnists and others will be able to

supply that sociological take whenever the discipline has something useful

and relevant to add to the general discussion.

However, I would like to suggest the need for another public sociol-

ogy, which I choose to call eye-opening: original, insightful, and attention-

attracting empirical and theoretical research on topics useful and relevant

to all parts of the general public we can reach, written in English they can

understand. In fact, if public sociology is to flourish, sociologists must

regularly produce eye-opening studies that enable the general public to

understand their society and others in new ways. Sterling examples include

the Lynds’ Middletown, Riesman’s The Lonely Crowd, Liebow’s Tally’s Corner,

126 Chapter 7

Hochschild’s Second Shift, and Wilson’s The Truly Disadvantaged, but a much

longer list of past and present ones can easily be assembled.

Eye-opening public sociology is in reality just a catchy label for original

basic research—the best of the research we conduct and report as a disci-

pline to an audience of peers and students. It becomes public sociology

when it concentrates on topics relevant to the general public and when

it is written in their English rather than the technical variety I think of as

sociologese.

In that case, the gatekeepers of public sociology will not only become in-

terested in the authors of such works, but if the discipline produces enough

of them, the gatekeepers’ view of the discipline and other actual and poten-

tial public sociologists will be enhanced.

Topic-Driven and Theory-Driven Basic Research

However, basic research comes in two varieties. One is topic-driven, and

if the topics concern or should concern the general public, it is a candidate

for eye-opening public sociology. Actually, in order to attract the general

public, the topics should include topical ones, that is, those on a subject or

issue of the day, provided the researchers can proceed more speedily than

academics do normally.

The second variety of basic research, which most sociologists conduct

most of the time, endeavors to develop concepts and to formulate or test

theories in the discipline; consequently, I think of it as theory-driven. Of

course, theory-driven research also investigates topics but these are fre-

quently different from, or differently formulated than, those engaging the

general public.

Topic-driven research differs from theory-driven research in other ways.

It is not generally considered normal science or a candidate for paradigm

change (Kuhn 1962) and it does not seek to contribute to “the literature,”

the disciplinary warehouse of research. Consequently, topic-driven research

eschews conceptual discussions, theoretical explorations, and literature re-

views, as well as the footnotes and bibliographies that show how much we

stand on each others’ shoulders.

I do not mean to denigrate theory-driven research, for neither topic-

driven research nor public sociology could exist without it. The general

public will not pay much attention to debates about structure and agency

and discussions of cultural and narrative turns, but these often play an indi-

rect or even direct role in topic-driven research. Theory-driven sociology is

therefore one of the raw materials needed to produce public sociology.

Moreover, as long as the producers of public sociology are academics,

their topic-driven studies must also satisfy enough of the occupational cri-

teria of theory-driven work to enable them to find jobs and obtain tenure.

A Sociology for Public Sociology 127

Besides, many sociologists do both topic and theory-driven work, and the

best of the former is generally also a contribution to the latter.

SOME DANGERS OF PUBLIC SOCIOLOGY

Despite its promises, public sociology may also bring with it some dangers

for the discipline. One is writing it to publicize or show off the discipline

or the work of its authors. Another is producing work that sociologizes

common sense or already known ideas and findings, thus reviving old ste-

reotypes of sociology as restatements of the obvious.

A further danger is that public sociology becomes a new, and inferior

track within the discipline (Collins 2007:103) and thus subject to the

deadly effects of the academic transformation of new ideas (Hays 2007). A

related danger is pandering to the audiences of public sociology by equat-

ing popularity with quality (Smith-Lovin 2007:131–132). Conversely, the

best public sociology is apt to be controversial, and we lack some of the

skills needed for dealing with controversy.

These and other possible ways by which public sociology could hurt the

discipline suggests we step carefully in venturing into new venues. More

important, such venturing should be preceded or at least accompanied by

changes in the structure and infrastructure of the discipline, especially its

incentive systems and training programs.

SOME NEEDED CHANGES IN THE DISCIPLINE

I will discuss only a few such changes, for the discipline in general and for

graduate education. Needless to say, public sociology requires funding, and

we need to justify receiving it. Although individual sociologists can produce

brief work in public sociology on their own time, funding skillful practitio-

ners of public sociology to do additional work would be desirable.

More urgently, public agencies and foundations are needed to pay for

the eye-opening topic-driven research that I believe will result in the most

desirable and effective public sociology. Research support is especially nec-

essary because empirical studies that will most interest the general public

are likely to be labor-intensive. Ethnographic and depth-interview research

is more likely to get past the gatekeepers of public sociology than quantita-

tive work, notable exceptions notwithstanding.

Public agencies and foundations that fund sociology are often concerned

with social problems, public policy, and other topical issues that lend

themselves to presentation as public sociology. Some even encourage re-

search reports that can be turned into trade books, magazine articles, and

128 Chapter 7

documentaries. Many funders would probably be supportive if grantees

were eager to report their findings to the general public, especially if they

can come up with eye-opening work.

Since funding decisions are generally made by or with the help of peer

reviewers, review panels will have to include more public sociologists or

reviewers sympathetic to public sociology. Presumably some funders will

ask applicants to demonstrate that their public sociology will pass muster

with the relevant gatekeepers.

In an ideal world, sufficient funding would enable the best of the current

and new public sociologists to spend all their time researching and writing.

This is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future, if ever; consequently,

public sociologists have to continue to earn their living in the academy

or elsewhere. However, as academics, new recruits cannot even become

prolific public sociologists unless and until they are eligible for the same

promotions, tenure appointments, and other rights, privileges, and rewards

as theory-driven basic researchers doing normal science and contributing to

the disciplinary literature.

At this writing, the number of people who produce public sociology often

enough to be called public sociologists is small, and while some who are na-

tionally visible may be respected in the discipline, others are wrongly dispar-

aged as “journalists.”

In sociology as in the other social sciences, people who

consider themselves scientists first and foremost are often critical of colleagues

who seek to communicate their science to the general public, if only because

it has to be reframed and simplified to appeal to such an audience. When

sociologists who are hostile to public sociology control the academic power

structure, in sociology as in other social science disciplines, scholars whose

work is looked down on as journalism are not likely to obtain tenure.

A vicious circle operates here; the disparagement and discrimination that

accompany public sociology are likely to end once there are more public

sociologists, the general public has smiled favorably on their work, and the

status and prestige of sociology have risen. However, few sociologists will

want to put their career at risk until the stigmatizing of public sociology

shows signs of declining.

Obviously, the incentive structure has to be changed, and university

administrations can be helpful here. Many universities like the publicity

and visibility they gain from faculty members whose work shows up in the

mass media or is favorably reviewed in the book reviews that are read by

the intellectual and political elite. Some university administrators know

or believe that publicly visible faculty attract more and better students,

heighten enthusiasm from trustees and legislators, and increase outside

funding. But administrations must be willing to confront scholarly opposi-

tion to publicly visible new faculty. Some time will pass before theory- and

topic-driven basic researchers, not to mention other public sociologists,

will recognize their common interests.

A Sociology for Public Sociology 129

Inside the Discipline

Incentive structure changes are needed inside the discipline as well.

Because they benefit from name recognition, public sociologists probably

have a good chance of becoming ASA and section presidents. Whether

public sociologists have as much influence in the committees and networks

that run ASA and its sections—or even want to have it—remains to be seen.

In any case, the ASA and other sociological organizations must display their

enthusiasm and support for public sociology. However, their interests are

not too different from those of university administrations and most are

likely to be supportive. The ASA is already very supportive, for example,

through press conferences and other ways of assisting both public sociolo-

gists and some of their gatekeepers.

Probably the fastest way to alter sociology’s incentive structure is to in-

crease the number of publications, including websites, that will publish

public sociology. Individuals and groups, including academic departments

can set up their own websites and establish public sociology blogs and

list serves, but for now, careers are still advanced mainly by publication in

print. In addition, the audience for public sociology remains too small to

consider constructing commercial websites.

The ASA has made a modest start with Contexts but if audiences can

be found, eventually there need to be other magazines. Moreover, these

should not have to depend on ASA, or be limited by its peer review and

other requirements. Meanwhile, I think even the mainstream academic

journals could be more hospitable to public sociology. Some section,

regional, and other sociology journals already have back-of-the-book sec-

tions for essays and other kinds of writing that do not have to follow the

standard research report format and could therefore interest some mem-

bers of the general public.

The most innovative and lively publishers of public sociology will prob-

ably have to be independent of disciplinary and traditional scholarly aus-

pices. If and when money is to be made or status gained from new public

sociology magazines and websites, commercial firms and non-profit agen-

cies may come to the fore, although in the long run, I hope that general

magazines like The New Yorker, Harper’s Magazine, The New York Review of

Books and their digital equivalents will regularly publish the work of public

sociologists.

NEEDED CHANGES IN GRADUATE TRAINING

In addition to making room for public sociology in the discipline, changes

will have to take place in the graduate training of sociologists. Perhaps such

changes could even come first, especially on the part of departments that

130 Chapter 7

are prepared to pioneer. The most selective graduate schools are obvious

candidates, particularly those located in or near major media centers, but

nothing should stop small but ambitious graduate departments from tak-

ing the first step.

A logical possibility is to establish separate tracks in the curriculum for

public sociology, and even for my suggested bifurcation of basic research

into theory- and topic-driven tracks. The prime question, which is prob-

ably best answered by various curriculum experiments, is to determine how

separate the tracks should be.

I would argue for partial tracks, if only because sociologists in training

cannot yet decide in which tracks they will make their careers, especially

not until independent career lines in various tracks are established. More-

over, good arguments can be made for cooperation and overlap between

the tracks so that students can work in more than one and the tracks can

enrich each other.

In any case, for the moment, the first step is the development of a

handful of separate courses and the recruitment of faculty who will teach

methodological courses and dissertation seminars that emphasize public

sociology as well as topic-driven basic research. Where qualitative meth-

ods instruction is not yet available, training and practice in ethnographic

research and qualitative interviewing will have to be offered. Quantitative

researchers will have to learn how to conduct and present their research to

audiences with little knowledge or patience for numerology.

Presumably substantive courses in particular fields, say the family or

inequality, would be much the same whether students had theory- or topic-

driven interests, although the papers and dissertations they would write are

likely to be different. Large departments can even be imagined as some-

times teaching both theory- and topic-driven courses in the same subjects,

if only to explore the similarities and differences between the two tracks.

Perhaps the prime need is for faculty and students who want sociology to

be topical, relevant, and useful, and can work on making it so.

If I were developing a curriculum for topic-driven basic research, I would

recommend a joint course with a Graduate School of Journalism. Journal-

ists are trained both to be topical and to write in jargon-free English, and

sociologists—even those whose research interests are theory driven—can

benefit from the journalists’ focus on topicality. Conversely, journalists

could benefit from the sociological expertise in systematic research, even if

most will never have the time or the sufficiently sophisticated audience to

do much systematic research for their news stories.

Bringing sociology and journalism students together has another virtue;

both are being trained to study society but in very different ways and for

different audiences. Journalists are trained to look for novelty and outliers;

sociology puts more emphasis on recurring patterns and the typical. Mutual

A Sociology for Public Sociology 131

familiarity with this division of labor should be beneficial to students in

both disciplines. In addition, bringing the two disciplines together might

reduce their exchange of distrust and disparagement.

I would also establish an introductory workshop and even an advanced

one in the sociology of American society which uses daily newspapers,

news magazines, and their internet equivalents as basic texts. These sources

not only focus attention on topical subjects but they provide information

about various parts of society that all sociologists ought to be familiar with.

The news media are also fruitful sources of ideas for new studies—and they

always offer opportunities for sociologists to extend journalistic research

and to debunk incomplete or inaccurate news reports.

Such courses would be essential for students ready to undertake public

sociology and topic-driven research but at least one such course should be

required for all students. It is particularly necessary for students who so

concentrate on the professional literature that they never read or view news

of any kind, thus becoming incapacitated to understand the society they are

being trained to study.

Since most other social sciences are now developing “public” tracks

equivalent to public sociology, eventually a joint social science course in

how to research and write for the general public ought to be created and

taught widely.

More immediately, every department that seeks to train public sociolo-

gists must offer a writing course which will equip its students to speak

to and write for the educated general public, and eventually even for less

educated ones as well. Actually, I would require such a course for every so-

ciology student, and include a section on code switching so that students

can learn to write both for their scholarly peers and for the general public.

Public sociologists in training would also be helped by a book-writing

course, or at least a dissertation seminar that helps them either to write

their dissertation as a book, or trains them to convert it quickly and with

a minimum of effort to one that will attract at least some non-academic

readers.

Nonetheless, for the foreseeable future the prime audience for public

sociologists will continue to be the young educated public, that is, under-

graduates. Most will not only be more receptive to public sociology than

to the academic discipline but they will probably also pay more attention

to topic-driven rather than theory-driven courses. Thus, courses that teach

them about their society and what sociological analysis can add to their

understanding of it will be more attractive than courses that teach them

concepts and theories to prepare them for graduate work in sociology.

Consequently, sociologists who want to spend their careers teaching un-

dergraduates rather than doing research should be trained primarily as pub-

lic sociologists. Indeed, if they are sure they do not want to do research or