Jeffries Vincent (Editor). Handbook Of Public Sociology
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
202 Chapter 11
NOTES
I owe a good deal of thanks to Vince Jeffries for several reasons. With regard to this
chapter specifically, I wish to thank him for his extensive and thoughtful sugges-
tions for improvement.
1. What follows is a review of the little relevant research from the past 30 years.
For the purposes of this chapter, it suffices to say that there has been remarkably
little change in terms of content and objectives between 1911, the year in which
the first high school sociology courses were offered, and the present. See DeCesare
(2007, 2005b) for an analysis of the content of the courses that existed between
1911 and the late 1970s.
2. I say “supposedly” because Best and Schweingruber (2003) have pointed out
the disconnect between the terminology used in introductory textbooks and the
language that is actually used in sociological journal articles.
3. Thanks to Vince Jeffries for suggesting several items on this list, as well as
some of the topics I mention below that lend themselves to a “public” conversation
among student researchers and the larger student body.
4. See DeCesare (2007, 2004) for a history of the ASA’s involvement in high
school sociology.
5. There is some confusion about the publication date, which is exacerbated by
the fact that the document itself is not dated. Dennick-Brecht put its publication at
1993 in some places in her dissertation, then at 1996 in others (see Dennick-Brecht,
“Schools in Pennsylvania”). The ASA representative and 1989 task force member
whom I contacted could not remember the date that the “Objectives and Standards”
were published.
6. See Andriot (2007) for the only discussion of standards in the high school
sociology course.
7. For the latest example of the ASA’s misplaced emphasis, see Executive Officer
Sally Hillsman’s (2007) pronouncement that the association continues to work on
implementing an AP course in sociology. This, despite the facts that (1) the College
Board rejected the ASA’s original AP course proposal in 2004; (2) more than 60
percent of public high schools in the country do not even offer a regular course in
sociology (DeCesare 2008); (3) the regular courses that do exist are in dismal condi-
tion (DeCesare 2007); and (4) in at least one state, regular sociology courses are in
danger of becoming extinct (Reiling and Kinney 2007).
8. See Howery (2004) for one idea that was put into practice, albeit with no
known results so far.
REFERENCES
Andriot, Angie L. 2007. “A Comparative Analysis of Existing Standards for High
School Sociology Curricula.” Teaching Sociology 35:17–30.
Best, Joel, and David Schweingruber. 2003. “First Words: Do Sociologists Actually
Use the Terms in Introductory Textbooks’ Glossaries?” The American Sociologist
34:97–106.
Presenting Sociology’s Four “Faces” 203
Blau, Judith, and Keri E. I. Smith. 2006. Public Sociologies Reader. Lanham, MD: Row-
man & Littlefield.
Bonacich, Edna. 2005. “Working with the Labor Movement: A Personal Journey in
Organic Public Sociology.” The American Sociologist 36:105–120.
Brady, David. 2004. “Why Public Sociology May Fail.” Social Forces 82:1629–1638.
Burawoy, Michael. 2004. “Public Sociologies: Contradictions, Dilemmas, and Pos-
sibilities.” Social Forces 82:1603–1618.
———. 2005. “For Public Sociology.” American Sociological Review 70:4–28.
Burawoy, Michael, William Gamson, Charlotte Ryan, Stephen Pfohl, Diane
Vaughan, Charles Derber, and Juliet Schor. 2004. “Public Sociologies: A Sympo-
sium from Boston College.” Social Problems 51:103–130.
Bushweller, Kevin. 1999. “Generation of Cheaters.” The American School Board Jour-
nal 186(4):24–30, 32.
Clawson, Dan, Robert Zussman, Joya Misra, Naomi Gerstel, Randall Stokes, Doug-
las L. Anderton, and Michael Burawoy. 2007. Public Sociology: Fifteen Eminent
Sociologists Debate Politics and the Profession in the Twenty-First Century. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
DeCesare, Michael. 2002. “The Lesson to Be Learned: The Past Troubles and Future
Promise of Teaching High School Sociology.” Teaching Sociology 30:302–316.
———. 2004. “‘Apathetic, Active, or Antagonistic’: A History of the American So-
ciological Association’s Involvement in High School Sociology.” The American
Sociologist 35:102–123.
———. 2005a. “The High School Sociology Teacher.” Teaching Sociology 33:345–
354.
———. 2005b. “95 Years of Teaching High School Sociology.” Teaching Sociology
33:236–251.
———. 2006. “‘It’s Not Rocket Science!’ High School Sociology Teachers’ Concep-
tions of Sociology.” The American Sociologist 37:51–67.
———. 2007. A Discipline Divided: Sociology in American High Schools. Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books.
———. 2008. “Sociology in U.S. High Schools.” Teaching Sociology 36:254–261.
DeCesare, Michael, and Jeff Lashbrook. 2004. “The Status of High School Sociology:
Some Recommendations.” Footnotes 32:4–5.
Dennick-Brecht, M. Kathryn. 2000. “A Status Report on Introductory Sociology
Courses in Public High Schools in Pennsylvania.” Ed.D. dissertation, Department
of Education, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Dorn, Dean S. 1986. “High School Sociology: A View from California.” Footnotes
14:13–14.
Freire, Paulo. 1993 [1970]. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Edited and translated
by Q. Hoare and G. N. Smith. New York: International Publishers.
Hayes, Edward C. 1923. “The Contribution of Sociology to Secondary Education.”
American Journal of Sociology 28:419–435.
Hillsman, Sally T. 2007. “Advancing the Placement of Sociology.” Footnotes 35:2.
Horowitz, Irving L. 1968. Professing Sociology: Studies in the Life Cycle of Social Science.
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.
204 Chapter 11
Hougham, Victoria. 2005a. “Training High School Sociology Teachers at Associa-
tion Meetings.” Footnotes 33:6.
———. 2005b. “Gaming in Watts: UCLA and Locke Senior High School in Partner-
ship.” Footnotes 33:8.
———. 2005c. “Bringing Sociology into Our High Schools through Student-to-
Student Outreach.” Footnotes 33:4.
———. 2006. “All (High School) Politics Are Local: Devoted Professor Helps En-
hance High School Sociology Courses.” Footnotes 34:4.
Hougham, Victoria, and Gavin W. Hougham. 2005. “Mapping High School Sociol-
ogy: Fairfield University Partners with High Schools.” Footnotes 33:7.
Howery, Carla B. 1985. “Sociology in High School.” Footnotes 13:4.
———. 2004. “ASA High School Outreach Initiative Seeks Members in 12 Key
States.” Footnotes 33:11.
Kraft, James D. 1981. “High School Sociology in Wisconsin: A Troubled Discipline.”
Wisconsin Sociologist 18:65–71.
Lashbrook, Jeff. 2001. “Sociology in High School: A Profile of New York State.”
Teaching Sociology 29:354–359.
Levine, Felice J. 1997. “The K-12 Pipeline in Sociology.” Footnotes 25:2.
Lynd, Robert S. 1939. Knowledge for What? The Place of Social Science in American
Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Meyer, Harold D. 1936. “The Correlation of the Teaching of Sociology in High
Schools and Colleges.” Social Forces 15:221–222.
Nichols, Lawrence T. (ed.). 2007. Public Sociology: The Contemporary Debate. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Pfohl, Stephen. 2004. “Blessings and Curses in the Sociology Classroom.” Social
Problems 51:113–115.
Piker-King, Kathleen. 1982. “How Other Academic Disciplines Approach Teaching
Concerns and the Consequences for Sociology.” Sociological Spectrum 2:73–95.
Reiling, Denise, and David A. Kinney. 2007. “High School Sociology on the Endan-
gered Species List in Michigan.” Footnotes 35(9):1, 6.
Rienerth, Janice, Paul Lindsay, Michael Wise, Trina Seitz, and Julie Dillon. 1998.
“Sociology and High School Teaching.” The American Sociologist 29:64–77.
Short, Alvin P., W. David Watts, and Donald T. Matlock. 1986. “Sociology in the High
School: Perceptions of Those Who Teach It.” Sociological Spectrum 6:211–219.
U.S. Department of Education. 2001. The 1998 High School Transcript Study Tabula-
tions: Comparative Data on Credits Earned and Demographics for 1998, 1994, 1990,
1987, and 1982 High School Graduates. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-
ing Office.
Vaughan, Diane. 2004. “Public Sociologist by Accident.” Social Problems 51:115–118.
Weber, Marlene. 1978. “Sociology in the Secondary Schools of Wisconsin.” Wiscon-
sin Sociologist 15:6–13.
205
Public sociology is centrally related to the teaching of sociology, given that
it is defined by Burawoy (2005) as reflexive knowledge aimed at extra-
academic audiences. Students taking sociology for the first time are part
of larger extra-academic audiences. Many who become interested in soci-
ology wonder what they might do with it. Burawoy’s (2005) typology of
sociological labor greatly enlarges the spectrum of possibilities for students
happy to see that there are a number of career pathways they could follow
in sociology, across the quadrants of Burawoy’s fourfold table encompass-
ing professional, critical, policy, and public sociologies. This chapter first
describes Burawoy’s four types of sociology and how they relate to the
teaching of sociology. It then considers some relationships, tensions, and
synergies between parts of the typology, how each might influence the oth-
ers, and the implications of such influences for teaching and learning.
In his 2005 presidential address, Burawoy clearly situates professional
sociology as the foundation for everything else, because professional soci-
ology provides the scientific knowledge base. Like other fields, sociology
needs an institutional base, with clear training and career paths. Graduate
education is not financially sustainable on its own in most departments,
so the fiscal viability of sociology in research universities depends on un-
dergraduate majors, minors, and service courses (Abbott 2000). Moreover,
since 70 to 80 percent of advanced degree holders in sociology work in
academia, the majority of career paths involve teaching.
Critical sociology examines “the foundations—both the explicit and
the implicit, both normative and descriptive—of the research programs
of professional sociology. . . . [and it] attempts to make professional
sociology aware of its biases, silences, promoting new research programs
205
12
Teaching and Public Sociology
Caroline Hodges Persell
206 Chapter 12
built on alternative foundations. Critical sociology is the conscience of
professional sociology just as public sociology is the conscience of policy
sociology” (Burawoy 2005:10). Critical sociology does more than simply
challenge or criticize existing arrangements and practices, although it
certainly does that. It also scrutinizes what we know and how we know
it. It asks what is missing from a particular formulation of a question or
problem, whose perspectives are omitted, what other perspectives might
be possible in a given situation, and what are the hidden assumptions in a
statement? It includes issues of major concern to professional sociologists,
such as sampling and representativeness, measurement and measurement
error, design, and inferences about causal relationships, and considers the
difference between explanation and prediction. It anticipates unintended
consequences from planned social action and looks for them. One of
the major contributions of sociological research has been to bring out
the unintended consequences of planned social changes, as in Karen’s
(2005) discussion of the No Child Left Behind legislation. Because of the
likelihood of such unanticipated consequences, both professional and
critical sociology encourage the building of meaningful feedback loops
into social policies.
“Policy sociology is sociology in the service of a goal defined by a cli-
ent.” Its purpose “is to provide solutions to problems that are presented
to us, or to legitimate solutions that have already been reached” (Burawoy
2005:9). Policy sociology is concerned with the application of socio-
logical principles, insights, and empirical research in everyday life, for the
amelioration of social problems, usually in the realm of government (or
some other social institution). Policy sociology can also provide strategic
research sites for understanding better how things work (or don’t work) in
the social world.
Public sociology, the fourth cell in Burawoy’s typology, “brings sociol-
ogy into a conversation with publics” (2005:7). It is one thing to recog-
nize public sociology, but “another thing to make it an integral part of
our discipline” (Burawoy 2005:9). In contrast to policy sociology, public
sociology “strikes up a dialogic relation between sociologist and public in
which the agenda of each is brought to the table, in which each adjusts
to the other” (Burawoy 2005:9). “The approaches of public and policy
sociology are neither mutually exclusive nor even antagonistic” (Burawoy
2005:9).
“Public sociology is often an avenue for the marginalized, locked out
of the policy arena and ostracized in the academy” (Burawoy 2005:14). It
may well be about efforts to change “official” practices. As such, it is of-
ten rooted in non-governmental organizations and may even be distinct
from any institutional setting. For some examples, see Willie, Ridini, and
Willard 2008.
206 Chapter 12
Teaching and Public Sociology 207
ANALYZING TEACHING IN TERMS OF THE FOUR TYPES
How do these four types illuminate the teaching of sociology, in terms of
cognitive practices and potential pitfalls (see Burawoy 2005:16 and table
3)? Teaching sociology is a form of public sociology because teachers are
bringing sociology into dialogue with new publics. But they may also have
professional audiences (e.g., graduate students) and peers if they publish
about teaching. We consider below what some sociologists say about their
teaching in each quadrant and how they involve students.
Professional Sociology
Professional sociology is related to where teaching occurs, what is taught,
and to norms of accountability. Although teaching generally occurs within
the academy, the home space of professional sociology, its arena is broad-
ening to include high schools (see chapter 11 by Michael DeCesare in this
volume), community colleges, four-year colleges, comprehensive regional
universities, as well as research universities. Teaching and learning may also
occur in labor unions or communities, or through digital media including
public television, web learning, and podcasts.
Teaching always involves decisions about what to teach. Do we teach
primarily or only “professional” sociology, or do we also teach public,
policy, and critical sociology? In what proportions? Studies of teachers,
syllabi, and an ASA task force have all identified the importance of teach-
ing key theoretical and empirical sociological knowledge and scientific
norms (Grauerholz and Gibson 2006; McKinney, Howery, Strand, Kain,
and Berheide 2004; Wagenaar 2004). Another study of peer-designated
leaders in professional sociology revealed that the most important un-
derstanding they wanted students to gain was a sense of what is distinc-
tive about a sociological perspective on social phenomena, compared to
psychological, economic, political, anthropological, or linguistic perspec-
tives. They see this as the power of social factors—contexts, relationships
(particularly power relationships), structures, patterns, institutions, val-
ues, attitudes, and practices—for explaining social behavior over and be-
yond individual personalities, temperaments, and traits (Persell, Pfeiffer,
and Syed 2007).
Leaders also wanted students to understand the difference between
opinions, on the one hand, and views based on systematic principles and
empirical research that observe publicly discussed standards. They want stu-
dents to understand that “science is a method not a subject matter” (as Cora
Marrett said at a Science Policy Breakfast at the American Sociological As-
sociation annual meeting, August 12, 2007) and want them to be exposed
to research. Indeed, the leaders interviewed placed somewhat greater stress
208 Chapter 12
on research and getting students involved in research than did sociology
teachers more generally (Persell, Pfeiffer, and Syed forthcoming).
Professional sociology includes numerous research programs dealing
with inequality, whether based on social class, race, gender, sexual orienta-
tion, age, disability, or some other characteristic, and leaders saw the cen-
trality of inequality in power and resources as another key understanding
they wanted students to gain. Moreover, they often stressed the importance
of incorporating data on these issues into courses (Persell, Pfeiffer, and
Syed forthcoming).
Another important understanding concerned the concept of the social
construction of reality, including things that economists posit as “natural
laws” or deities, such as the “market” or market forces. This perspective
asks students to constantly question definitions that appear to be rooted
in nature, such as gender, race, and deviance, and explicate their socially
constructed features (evident, for example, in the way definitions vary by
time and place).
Professional sociology affects more than the place and content of teach-
ing. It also offers standards for professional practice and accountability. A
major example is the way “Professional sociology is accountable to peer
review” (Burawoy 2005:16). One of the big debates in teaching currently is
how to make it more accountable to peers. There are greater calls for profes-
sional practices in teaching, not only in sociology but in many academic
subjects. Since teaching is often done away from the scrutiny of fellow pro-
fessionals and since the principle “publics” for teaching are students who
can assess only certain aspects (e.g., helpfulness, punctuality, enthusiasm,
organization, responsiveness, and so forth), students may not be in the best
position to assess the degree to which a course or a program represents vari-
ous issues, approaches, or knowledge in a field. Also, while students may
be able to say whether or not they like particular methods of teaching, they
may not always be able to assess the effectiveness of various methods, at
least in the short term.
Interviews with peer-recognized leaders in the field of sociology reveal
that some feel a tension between what might be seen as a professional re-
sponsibility for teaching introductory sociology students something about
the field of sociology, its history, major theories, and how it differs from
other social and behavioral sciences, and, on the other hand, teaching
students about society and/or social problems, which students might find
more immediately engaging and useful (Persell, Pfeiffer, and Syed 2007).
Some articulated this as a tension between seeing introductory courses as
gateways and background for the major, in contrast to seeing them as a
chance to recruit new students into sociology. Many sociology electives
(e.g., social problems, family, education, inequality, gender, race, and oth-
ers) serve dual purposes as gateways to a major and as “service” courses
Teaching and Public Sociology 209
for students who will never be majors. Such service enrollments are often
important for the fiscal accounting increasingly imposed on academic
departments. Moreover, even among majors, usually only a few are plan-
ning to study sociology in graduate school. Nevertheless, the “professional
sociologist” in many teachers seems to think that even if few students go to
graduate school, they should be prepared for the theory, methods, and sub-
stance they will encounter. This dilemma raises the question of who is our
public in teaching sociology? To whom are we accountable? Our answers
shape the learning goals and content of courses and curricula.
The pathology of professional sociology can become evident in teaching
if instructors are so embedded within the subject that they are not able to
explain clearly why a problem is important or how it connects to issues
beyond the walls of academic sociology. When instructors can help learners
connect the concepts, theories, and methods of sociology to their everyday
lives, students are better able to understand and remember what they are
learning. Probably all of us have had the experience of taking a course in a
subject we thought would be fascinating, and then finding that the instruc-
tor spent all his/her time dissecting minute debates between scholars in the
field, without ever connecting to larger issues. Professional sociology bases
its legitimacy on adherence to scientific norms (according to Burawoy 2005:
table 3), but that may be an inadequate basis for its legitimacy in teaching.
Critical Sociology
In relation to reflexive critical sociology, teaching faces additional dilem-
mas, including concern for sociology’s identity and public image (Boyns
and Fletcher 2005), a tension between moral and scientific passions (Brint
2005), and the possibility that exposing ideological biases will limit its
influence on publics (Turner 2005). Leaders placed critical thinking very
high on their list of what students should understand, although they were
not too explicit about what they meant by it and how it relates to criti-
cal sociology (Persell, Pfeiffer, and Syed 2007). Some of what the leaders
mentioned includes the use of comparative and international examples and
analyses particularly at the societal level, to show how things vary. Oth-
ers mentioned the importance of students learning to question scientific
knowledge and methods. However, if we use critical sociology to challenge
the foundational basis of sociological knowledge, students may not take
sociology seriously or believe the empirical findings that are reasonably
reliable and valid. Critical sociology suggests that the legitimacy of sociol-
ogy may be undermined if it fails to offer moral visions that go beyond
scientific norms.
However, if we venture too far into normative truths, we make it difficult
for students to identify the difference between normative and empirical
210 Chapter 12
statements. If we offer a moral vision, they may reject it and simply choose
an alternative moral vision. It may seem easier, more comfortable, and more
defensible for many of us to say that learning sociology is like becoming fa-
miliar with the culture and mores of another society, and that we want them
to learn this new way of thinking. On the other hand, if we neglect the moral
visions of sociologists and the motivation to improve the world that brought
many into the field, we risk giving students a desiccated version of sociol-
ogy when they could have a juicy full meal. Reflecting on teaching, Burawoy
notes that it is “as if graduate school is organized to winnow away at the
moral commitments that inspired the interest in sociology in the first place”
(Burawoy 2005:14). He seems to be suggesting that if there were some space
for students’ moral commitments to exist within sociology, fewer students
might be lost along the path to a Ph.D., with the further implication that
sociology would be less likely to lose those with moral commitments. There
are times, however, as Brint noted, when there is a conflict between what we
learn and what we want to believe, leading to tension between our moral
and scientific passions (2005:46). Neither Burawoy nor Brint discusses how
to deal with such tensions.
While often seen as primarily concerned with critiquing existing poli-
cies, formulations, or practices, critical sociology can also offer positive
alternatives, according to some scholars. Building on Sorokin’s thinking,
Jeffries (2005) suggests considering notions of the good, something that is
very consistent with Burawoy’s view that critical sociology “supply moral
visions” to both the profession of sociology and society (2005:16). The “as-
sessment of values is fundamental in evaluating what problems should be
studied . . . and in justifying their relative importance” (Jeffries 2005:72).
Sorokin suggests that sociological analysis could utilize “ideas from reli-
gious traditions pertaining to topics such as human nature, the characteris-
tics of goodness and of perfection, the ends of human existence, and moral
and ethical precepts” (Jeffries 2005:73), since they are especially relevant
to the sociocultural level and to individual personality. As an example,
Sorokin notes the importance of the sociological problem of solidarity
and antagonism when he writes, had we the knowledge “to increase the
familistic and eliminate the antagonistic from interpersonal and intergroup
relationships” we might have been able to reduce or eliminate war, crime,
coercion, compulsion, and misery. Such a statement seems to assume that
crime, coercion, compulsion, and misery do not occur in families, an as-
sumption that is seriously challenged by numerous conflict and feminist re-
searchers studying the family. Similarly, when Sorokin suggested that “love
is the heart and soul of ethical goodness itself and of all great religions”
(Sorokin 1954a:79, cited in Jeffries 2005:75), is he failing to consider how
often love is subverted or corrupted in many religious institutions and
families, and how difficult it has been to realize in human practices?
Teaching and Public Sociology 211
Nevertheless, starting with values can lead to a focus on “the goodness
of individuals, defined in terms of virtue and benevolent love . . . [and on]
social solidarity, the manifestation of goodness in interaction.” This raises
two general theoretical and research problems: “how culture and society
influence individual goodness, and how individual goodness influences
culture and society” (Jeffries 1999, 2005:76). Sorokin’s and Jeffries’s points
raise the question of whether there is agreement on “the good,” but I think
they might be pleased to see that question being debated. I wonder what
they would think of Barrington Moore Jr.’s comment in Reflections on the
Causes of Human Misery and upon Certain Proposals to Eliminate Them on
how people might be more likely to agree on their conceptions of misery,
but might disagree more in their conceptions of happiness. We might also
wonder if happiness is equivalent to “the good.” How do we reconcile
conditional, contingent, and contextual scientific thinking with normative
and moral thinking? Can normative thinking get beyond either/or binaries
and into more contextualized and nuanced ways of responding to the social
world? Is it possible to suspend judgment while we try to find out what is
actually happening? What about the human potential for evil as well as
for good? How do societies and individuals protect against that? Who is
involved in the definitions of good and evil, and their implementation in
practice? To what degree should sociology be involved in such philosophi-
cal questions? If constructive critical sociology discussed these and similar
questions it might help instructors bring notions of the good into their
classrooms.
The pathology of critical sociology can certainly surface in teaching if
classrooms or departments become dogmatic in their moral or norma-
tive beliefs and practices. A monochromatic climate will stifle inquiry and
debate, make students who don’t share the “party line” feel unwelcome
and drive them away. An additional drawback is that such an atmosphere,
lacking sufficient challenges, is unlikely to sharpen and strengthen the
quality of arguments and evidence offered to support the dominant posi-
tion. I remember a student who was very outspoken in an introduction to
sociology class when we were discussing the American Dream and social
mobility. Not only did he believe that the system was open to anyone who
worked hard, he was also convinced that there were no longer differences
between men and women in terms of their occupations and earnings. In
his group research project he investigated that topic and was very surprised
to find that while younger men and women were becoming more similar
with respect to occupations, their earnings were far from equal. He and
the other students also became more sensitive to how men and women
were distributed by particular occupations within the broader category of
“professional and managerial workers.” The data clearly did not confirm his
worldview. Perhaps because they found the data themselves and because he