Abstract
This essay explores the question of why sociology departments, compared to other university departments, are often viewed negatively by higher-level administrators (deans, provosts, chancellors and presidents). We are asked to consider, as sociologists, how departments are ranked and evaluated by administrators. The characteristics of any good university department are identified (e.g., grants, support from alumni, publications, quality of teaching, national rankings, student enrollments); and, the characteristics of dynamic and healthy departments are outlined (e.g., student learning is primary; there is a commitment to the goals of the larger organization; leadership is provided by the unit to solve all-university problems; there is a focus on learning; faculty are productive; there are strong communication links across the organization). The question is posed and then systemically answered as to how sociology departments compare in terms of these standards. It is suggested that a major factor in terms of how and why sociology departments are negatively evaluated is the fact that sociology uses narratives of power and explanations of organizational behavior that are inherently oppositional, i.e., there is an “us” and “them” mentally that sometimes develops. Other reasons for organizational marginalization are identified such as the “canon wars” and their lingering effects, and the fact that the sociological enterprise has been diluted by the teaching of “sociology” in many other campus units, such as composition programs. Finally, questions are raised about how sociology, as an intellectual enterprise, differs from other disciplines in terms of pedagogy, the sequencing of courses, “grand” theory, and forms of apprenticeship. It is recommended that sociologists act positively to help the organizations within which they work to identify common problems and solve them. It is argued that sociology can and should “own” the area of civic engagement as a means of making a positive and distinctive contribution. Sociological “stories” grounded in the reality of everyday life are compelling. It is suggested that sociologists need to deepen connections with their communities and to offer real solutions to real problems.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
There is a rich scholarship dealing with the scholarship of administration in higher education. See, for example, the publications of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education and the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
These attributes provide a summary of those offered by me, as well as, Provost Eduardo Ochoa, Sonoma State; Sarah Blackstone, Dean of Humanities and Fine Arts at California State University, Chico; Jim Houpis, Dean of Natural Sciences at California State University, Chico; Melvin Oliver, Dean of the Division of Social Sciences, UCSB; Roberta Lessor, Dean of the College of Arts and Letters, Chapman University; and George Bridges, President of Whitman College. Any liberties taken with the summary are mine alone.
See, for example, Gallop (1985).
References
Becker, H. (1964). The other side: Perspectives in deviance. Glencoe, IL: Free.
Becker, H. (1995). Making the grade: The academic side of college life. Rutgers, NJ: Transaction.
Blackstone, S., Houpis, J., & Ochoa, E. (2007). Looking at sociology from across the fence: What makes a department a good department? Session at the Pacific Sociological Association.
Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Bridges, G., Lessor, R., McNall, S., & Oliver, M. (2007). Sociology’s status in the academy: Perspectives of administrators who are sociologists. Session at the Pacific Sociological Association.
Derrida, J. (1968). The language of the self: The function of language in psychoanalysis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Derrida, J. (1977). Écrits: A selection. In A. Sheridan (Ed.) Trans. New York: Norton.
Derrida, J. (1998). Of grammology. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press Translated by Gayatri Chakravarty Spivak.
Donadio, R. (2007). Revisiting the canon wars. New York Times Sunday Book Review, 16 September, pp. 16–17.
Drummond, C. (2007). Geoscience departments: Developing pathways to strong programs for the future. Department of Geology, Purdue University, Home Page of the Department, pp. 1–3.
Foucault, M. (1972). Archeology of knowledge. New York: Pantheon Translated by Alan Sheridan.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Pantheon Translated by Alan Sheridan.
Foucault, M. (1978). History of sexuality, vol. 1. New York: Pantheon Translated by Robert Hurley.
Galbraith, J., Downey, D., & Kates, A. (2007). Designing dynamic organizations. New York: American Management Association.
Gallop, J. (1985). Reading Lacan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. New York: International Translated and edited by Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith.
Hairston, M. (1992). Diversity, ideology, and the teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication, 43, 179–193.
Merton, R. (1965). On the shoulders of giants: A Shandian postscript. New York: Free.
Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. London: Oxford University Press.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. London: Oxford University Press.
Office of the President (2000). Donor preferences. Davis: University of California.
Snow, D. (1998). The value of sociology. Sociological Perspectives, 42, 1–22.
Struemer, J. (2006). Work-related learning. New York: Springer.
Tilly, C. (2006). Why?. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Walvoord, B., Carey, A., Pool, K., Smith, H., Soled, S., Way, P., & Zorn, D. (2000). Academic departments: How they work, how they change. New York: Jossey Bass.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McNall, S.G. Save the World on Your Own Time: Or, What’s the Matter with Sociology?. Am Soc 39, 142–154 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-008-9034-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-008-9034-1