The American Sociologist

, 40:249 | Cite as

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

Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Public sociology Feminist methodology Evaluation practices 

References

  1. American Sociological Association. (2003). How does your department compare? A peer analysis from the AY 2000–2001 survey of baccalaureate and graduate programs in sociology. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. Retrieved July 29, 2009 (http://www.asanet.org/galleries/Research/DeptRpt2001_Sect3.pdf).
  2. American Sociological Association. (2004). An invitation to public sociology. Washington: American Sociological Association.Google Scholar
  3. American Sociological Association. (2008). Community Action Research Initiative (CARI Grants): The Sydney S. Spivack Program in applied social research and social policy. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. Retrieved July 25, 2009 (http://www.asanet.org/cs/root/leftnav/funding/funding_overview).
  4. Beck, U. (2005). How not to become a museum piece. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 335–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Best, J. (2001). Giving it away: the ironies of sociology’s place in academia. The American Sociologist, 21(1), 107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blau, J., & Smith, K. E. I. (eds). (2006). Public sociologies reader. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  7. Brady, D. (2004). Why public sociology may fail. Social Forces, 82(4), 1629–1638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braithwaite, J. (2005). For public social science. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 345–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burawoy, M. (2004). Public sociologies: contradictions, dilemmas, and possibilities. Social Forces, 82(4), 1603–1618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burawoy, M. (2005a). 2004 American Sociological Association presidential address: for public sociology. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(2), 259–2594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burawoy, M. (2005b). Response: public sociology: populist fad or path to renewal? The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 417–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burawoy, M. (2006). Introduction: A public sociology for human rights. In J. Blau, E. Keri & I. Smith (Eds.), Public sociologies reader (pp. 1–18). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  13. Burawoy, M., Gamson, W., Ryan, C., Pfol, S., Vaughan, D., Derber, C., et al. (2004). Public sociologies: A symposium from Boston College. Social Problems, 51(1), 103–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Calhoun, C. (2005). The promise of public sociology. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 355–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cancian, F. (1992). Feminist science: methods that challenge inequality. Gender & Society, 6(4), 623–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cornell University. (2006). Department of development sociology. Retrieved on July 25, 2009 (http://devsoc.cals.cornell.edu/).
  17. Deegan, M. (1988). Jane Addams and the men of the Chicago School, 1892–1918. New Brunswick: Transaction, Inc.Google Scholar
  18. Downey, D. J., Wagner, W. E., III, Hohm, C. F., & Dodson, C. J. (2008). The status of sociology in the academy: where we are, why we’re there, and how to change it. The American Sociologist, 39(2–3), 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Etzioni, A. (2005). Bookmarks for public sociologists. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 373–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hale, C. R. (2008). Introduction. In C. R. Hale (Ed.), Engaging contradictions: Theory, politics, and methods of activist scholarship (pp. 1–28). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hand, C. M., & Judkins, B. (1999). Disciplinary schisms: subspecialty ‘drift’ and the fragmentation of sociology. The American Sociologist, 30(1), 18–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Inglis, C. (2005). Comments on Michael Burawoy’s ASA presidential address. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 383–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kalleberg, R. (2005). What is ‘Public Sociology’? Why and how should it be made stronger? The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 387–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lal, J. (2008). On the domestication of American public sociology: a postcolonial feminist perspective. Critical Sociology, 34(2), 169–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lipsitz, G. (2008). Breaking the chains and steering the ship: How activism can help change teaching and scholarship. In C. R. Hale (Ed.), Engaging contradictions: Theory, politics, and methods of activist scholarship (pp. 88–111). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  26. McAdam, D. (2007). From relevance to irrelevance: The curious impact of the sixties on public sociology. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Sociology in America: A history (pp. 411–426). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. An ASA Centennial Publication.Google Scholar
  27. McNall, S. G. (2008). Save the world on your own time: or, what’s the matter with sociology? The American Sociologist, 39(2–3), 142–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mendez, J. B. (2008). Globalizing scholar activism: Opportunities and dilemmas through a feminist lens. In C. R. Hale (Ed.), Engaging contradictions: Theory, politics, and methods of activist scholarship (pp. 136–163). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  29. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Nabudere, D. W. (2008). Research, activism, and knowledge production. In C. R. Hale (Ed.), Engaging contradictions: Theory, politics, and methods of activist scholarship (pp. 62–87). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  31. Nielsen, F. (2004). The vacant ‘We’: remarks on public sociology. Social Forces, 82(4), 1619–1627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. North Carolina State University. (2009). Department of Sociology. Retrieved on July 25, 2009 (http://sociology.chass.ncsu.edu/).
  33. Sargent, P., & Hohm, C. F. (2008). Sociology in the academy: a study in contradictions? The American Sociologist, 39(2–3), 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sassen, S. (2005). Digging in the penumbra of master categories. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 401–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scott, J. (2005). Who will speak, and who will listen? Comments on Burawoy and public sociology. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 405–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Singleton, R. A., Jr., Straits, B. C., & Straits, M. M. (1993). Approaches to social research (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  37. Smith, D. E. (2005). Institutional ethnography: A sociology for people. Walnut Creek: AltaMira/Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  38. Sprague, J. (1998). (Re)Making sociology: breaking the bonds of our discipline. Contemporary Sociology, 27(1), 24–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sprague, J. (2005). Feminist methodologies for critical researchers: bridging differences. Walnut Creek: AltaMira/Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  40. Stacey, J. (2004). Marital Suitors Court Social Science Spin-sters: The unwittingly conservative effects of public sociology. Social Problems, 51(10), 131–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Swidler, A., & Arditi, J. (1994). The new sociology of knowledge. Annual Review of Sociology, 20, 305–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tittle, C. R. (2004). The arrogance of public sociology. Social Forces, 82(4), 1639–1643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. University of California-Berkeley. (2009). Department of Sociology. Retrieved on July 25, 2009 (http://sociology.berkeley.edu/).
  45. University of Illinois-Chicago. (2009). Department of Sociology. Retrieved on July 25, 2009 http://www2.las.uic.edu/depts/soc/.
  46. University of Massachusetts-Amherst. (2008). Department of Sociology. Retrieved on July 25, 2009 (http://www.umass.edu/sociol/).
  47. University of Minnesota. (2009). Department of sociology. Retrieved on July 25, 2009 (http://www.soc.umn.edu/).
  48. U.S. News and World Report. (2009). Rankings: Sociology. Retrieved July 25, 2009 (http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-sociology-schools/rankings).
  49. Vaughan, D. (2005). On the relevance of ethnography for the production of public sociology and policy. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 411–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York: Free.Google Scholar
  51. Wimberley, R. C. (1998). Applied sociology? Even musicians give concerts. The American Sociologist, 29(4), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of KansasLawrenceUSA
  2. 2.University of Michigan-FlintFlintUSA

Personalised recommendations