An aside from an email exchange with Neil McLaughlin from a few weeks back dealing with some of the issues raised in this post.
Recently, the Department of Sociology at Queen’s University, where I teach the second year required course in “The Development of Social Theory,” has decided to split the second and third year courses into four half-courses: two half courses in “classical social theory” at the second year level and two half courses in “modern social theory” at the third year level. The official logic for this decision appears to be that students don’t like failing and repeating full year courses. However, there is likely more to this than decision than mere administrative rationale. (In comparison, Queen’s requires its undergraduates to take a half course at the second level in “Social Research” and “Social Statistics” and a half-course at the third year level called “Research Methodology.”) The doctoral program requires students to take four full courses, of which one full course is a survey of theoretical issues and another full course is a survey methodological issues.
A few years back, the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Carleton University also re-organized its social theory courses. Previously, students were required to take a full course in classical sociological theory at the second year level and a full course in contemporary sociological theory at the fourth year level. Evidently a similar administrative logic was imposed: a full year course in sociological theory at the fourth year level resulted in too many students failing to graduate on time. Consequently, the fourth year course was re-assigned to the third year level. (In comparison, Carleton requires its undergraduates to take a full course in Sociological Methods [generally introduction to methodology and philosophy of social science in the first semester and introduction to qualitative methods in the second semester] at the second year level and a full course called Studies in Research Design and Data Analysis [everything up to, but not including multiple regression] at the third year level.) The doctoral program requires students to take three full courses, one of which is a pro-seminar with no set content beyond an introduction to doctoral research. There are no requirements for either methods or theory.
Finally, the Department of Sociology in the Faculty of Arts at York University requires its students to take one full course in classical and contemporary social theory [i.e., from Marx to Foucault) at the second year level and one full course in sociological methods (i.e., both qualitative and quantitative). The Graduate Programme in Sociology at York University, in which I am a student, requires students to take six full courses, one of which must be a full course in social theory and one of which must be a full course in methods. (Note: the required social theory and methods courses can be waived on the basis of previous graduate work in the area hence giving prepared students advanced standing.) However, theory is broadly defined in the Graduate Programme in Sociology. The following half courses (there were no full courses) were offered in social theory this past academic year: Selected Topics, Theories of Cosmopolitanism, Values, Norms and Normalisation, and Contemporary Topics in Social Theory (Post-Colonial Theory). The following half courses (there were no full courses) were offered in methods during the past academic year: Qualitative Methods of Research and Selected Topics in Empirical Research (Historical Methods).
I've chosen these three programs because of my familiarity with them. I'd be interested in seeing how more "traditional" sociology departments - such as at Toronto, MacMaster or Western - structure their undergraduate and graduate programs. (M.A. programs have been left out because there seems to be no real purpose to M.A. programs in Canada other than as a means of vetting prior to Ph.D admissions.) Perhaps Barret could report on the structure of sociology at Alberta... [I'd point out, in passing, that I view Alberta, Carleton and York as the central doctoral programs in sociology in English Canada.] What stands out is that with the exception of Carleton, there is no strong core in both theory and methods at the undergraduate level. (However, it should be recognized that the theory courses at Carleton are not taught by full-time social theorists, with the exception of Melanie White.) York’s Ph.D. program, which is usually viewed as a “theoretical” program, offers very little in terms of what we would want to call core issues in sociological theory: there isn’t a course in pre-classical social theory (Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, Smith, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Tocqueville, Nietzsche), classical sociological theory (Marx, Weber, Durkheim), and contemporary sociological theory (structural-functionalism, ethnomethodology, critical theory, structuralism, post-structuralism, and contemporary variants of Marxist, Durkheimian or Weberian sociology). [Note: there is normally a course offered in "pre-classical sociological theory," but it wasn't offered this past year due to Brian Singer's sabbatical.] The methods offerings at York are clearly inadequate – although I do take a small amount of pride in being one of the motive forces behind having the historical methods course created and offered. Likewise, it is somewhat surprising that Carleton does not require graduate study in theory or methods and does not regularly offer courses in what is unambiguously one or the other on a regular basis.
There’s more to be said, especially about what appears to be an un-easy alliance between “positivists” and “post-modernists” to destroy any pretense to a unified investigation into the theoretical core of the discipline…
7 Comments
Very nice post Craig. ‘pre-classical’ sociology? I love the idea! This isn’t officially being offered at UAlberta Sociology, although there certainly are opportunities to read texts produced earlier than the nineteenth century if an individual student wishes.
I do fear, however, that folks like Dr. McLaughlin will object outright, arguing in effect that such features would necessarily detract from the real core institutional business of sociology (modern empiricism). Such a focus on early social thought, he might argue (and has in the past), would require that non-sociology PhDs teach and work in sociology departments, only spreading further “fragmentation” (at least in the short term while programs such as you suggest get off the ground and are able to be taught by qualified sociologists, and not others such as phds from english, history, philosophy, cultural politics, etc…). This fear of outsiders in sociology will limit what we are able to do, at least in the short term, especially if we are all ‘on board’ and actually care about the health of the discipline! Dr. McLaughlin certainly does not propose a “don’t worry be happy” attitude. In fact, he argues that we ought to face up to the very crisis that ideas such as yours bring about in an already ailing discipline that is spread thin on a number of fronts (military connotation intended). If we wish to push the debate forward, hiring from outside the discipline is ruled out in advance. So, my question for you Craig is how do we get there from here, so to speak?
At McMaster, undergraduates are required to take a year long introduction to sociology class at the 2nd year – what it covers varies by instructor. It could involve a) a fair amount of pre-classical sociology, but concentrating on Marx/Weber/Durheim/Simmel to Parsons and Mead or b) a class evenly split between classics (Marx/Weber/Durkheim/Simmel) and modern sociological theory – Goffman, Merton, Collins, Bourdieu, with some Du Bois and contemporary feminists, with a small introduction to pre-classics.
Each approach has its strengths and weaknesses, as any approach does.
At the 3rd year, students have to take a geographically defined required theory class (American, European or Canadian). I do not find this geographic approach compellingly justified, especially today, under globalization, but that is how things are organized, at least for now….
I don’t have the details on the tip of keyboard, but undergraduate students take a significant amount of methods, ranging from qualitative, historical and quantitative.
There are 2 methods requirements at the PhD level (one has to be stats, and then students choose from qualitative and historical), and a theory requirement. The content of the theory differs by instructor, and include a range of options.
I guess I wonder about criteria and evidence for various claims.
Sounds boringly empirical, but there you go.
What evidence is there that Carleton, York and Alberta are the central PhD sociology departments, other than a preference for the kind of theory done there?
Toronto, Western, UBC, Calgary, McMaster, McGill and Waterloo, for example, are just defined as non-central, using what criteria?
Publishing records and citation patterns of faculty?
Hiring patterns of PhD students?
I would also be curious to see how positivism is defined in all this?
And, perhaps more generally, how do we know that “fear of outsiders” is stronger in sociology than it is, say, in political science, economics, history, English departments, or philosophy? Available evidence suggests otherwise…
How likely is it that we will see English departments and philosophy department become open to sociology PhDs?
I have documented that there is a HIGH rate of hiring from outside in sociology.
No one has challenged this, empirically.
If someone does, then we can have a more serious discussion of the issue than the constant and silly claiming that sociologist have a fear off outsiders when the opposite is empirically documented, in relative terms, which is the only terms which make any sense in “relationally” as some people like to say.
I personally think it would be a terrible shame if pre-20th century social thought becomes further marginalized in Canadian universities.
It will likely happen this way , and most likely because of forces outlined in various account of higher education such as Cote and Allahar’s Ivory Tower Blues, for example.
There is certainly a tension between mass research universities, and lots of various teaching options for programs, opportunities for young faculty and the intellectual needs for students and society as a whole.
Complex and difficult issues, especially for younger aspiring faculty (but I would include younger more “traditional” sociology PhDs in the picture here)
But things cannot simply be blamed on horrible positivists, empiricists…
Neil McLaughlin
As a follow-up, it seems to me that the ‘fear of outsiders’ urgency is actually a product of the phenomena of ‘external hiring’, not the contrary. Fear of outsiders is not what constitutes hiring outside of ‘discipline.’
Also: I have no problem with positivism.
Hi Neil – a few comments that don’t do complete justice to your own comment.
(1) The reduction to empiricism/positivism is misleading (but, of course, good Althusserians know that positivism is a variant of empiricism). The situation is much more complex than that. First, I’d point to the Curtis & Weir analysis, especially in relation to the phenomenal growth of criminology, which, for the most part, has not found a secure institutional home (separate program at, say, Ottawa, “interdisciplinary” at Carleton and often a sub-set of another discipline in other universities). Given administrative logic, this has resulted in sociology departments (some, of course, but not all) being forced to respond to enrollment demands on the part of undergraduates. Second, the aspect that has been left out of much of this, in part due to the confusion on the so-called “positivist” side, is the reduction of “theory” (a term I don’t care for!) to “post-modernist cultural studies.” Put in another words, the theoretical project of the discipline is under attack from two directions: the “positivists” who would focus on “science” and “results” and the “postmodernists” who would focus on “subaltern” and “excluded” voices. The net result is that what I call “pre-classical,” classical and contemporary sociological theory is increasingly marginalized – York at the graduate level is an excellent example. I bet that within five years the undergraduate “theory” requirement at Queen’s will allow for “post-colonial theory” in the place of “modern social theory.” As a social theorist, clearly my interest is directed at this particular issue.
(2) I haven’t carefully looked at your evidence, but I bet many of the “outside” hires are of two sorts – (i) from the eighties [i.e., now senior faculty] and (ii) much more recent. The first sort as a response to a lack of qualified faculty within Canada and the second sort as a response to the inability of Canadian sociology to produce graduates in growing areas. Hence, I bet many of the “outsiders” hired in recent years teach variants on “post-modern cultural studies.” Cultural sociology, of course, is very much a legitimate avenue of investigation, but it is not something that is well developed within the discipline – in Canada or the US (Yale notwithstanding).
(3) Your reduction of centrality to “theory” is misplaced – as clearly indicated in this post: much of what falls under the rubric of “theory” at York is clearly anything but! For instance, Kurasawa’s work on cosmopolitanism is certainly interesting, but a course called “Theories of Cosmopolitanism” should not be included as meeting the “theory requirement”! (Even if his course covers Plato, Kant, Hegel, Marx, and more recent thinkers.) Plainly, I have substantive theoretical disagreements with many of the “theory” faculty and students at what I identify as the core institutions. As for centrality, I’d point to overlapping clusters of investigation: cultural sociology (especially the city), sociology of reproduction and health, historical sociology (especially of the Canadian census) and social theory at York; historical sociology (especially of Canada and education), parenthood, media sociology, risk and insurance, science and technology at Carleton; and space, culture, and the city at Alberta. What all three of these have in common is (1) a high degree of integration between empirical and theoretical concerns [i.e., true emperico-theoretical work] and (2) a critical mass of faculty and students working on allied projects (for instance, the group around Curtis and Hunt at Carleton whose work ranges from the history of the vitamin concept to the history of genocide to colonial governmentality in India).
As for the non-centrality of the other programs you identify: I haven’t been overly impressed with the research presented at the annual meeting by students from those programs. I remember one particular paper at a political sociology session by a student from UWO.
To Not Often, I would say, 2 things.
First, I agree that the “discourse” about the “fear of outsiders” comes into being, in the context of large numbers of outside hires.
Very little is discussed about the “fear of outsiders” in economics, even though their boundaries are far more tightly controlled.
Some relatively marginalized voices complain about economist’s “fear of outsiders”, but this is not discussed widely in the discipline.
In sociology, in contrast, where the boundaries are far looser, many people claim we have a fear of outsiders, when in fact we are extremely open.
My department has a very high % of outside PhDs, last time i counted – and I counted, and compared it to a national and American average.
My problem, or one problem, is the “fear of outsiders” discourse tends towards a crude psychoanalysis of one’s opponents in a disciplinary struggle that is related to people’s different views on the optimal level of “openness” or “cohesiveness” (both positive values, as opposed to a “open” versus “closed” frame, which resolves the question in advance!).
In any case, I agree with your general point here, if I understand it correctly, and would be interested in hearing more about your views on positivism….
To Craig, I would say the following:
1) “Scientific” approaches to sociology, have theories too, they just look at theory differently from other possible ways (historical political theory oriented approaches, post-structural or post-modern, symbolic interactionism, or ethnomethodology).
There is a tension, no question, between middle range theories in American style sociology, and a history of ideas or political theory, or intellectual history approach. I am far more in the middle on this, than you might think. And so I see some of where you are coming from, in this. But I really would not throw out scientific sociologists are being without theory, at least not so quickly…
2) I think you are simply wrong that the sociology of culture is undeveloped in the US outside of Yale. In the US, the sociology of culture is a massive and growing area. There is a strong network of scholars doing that now at Toronto, and people here at McMaster….
But certainly in the US, the area is massive, and producing lots of terrific work…. we may just disagree over what is terrific.. :)
I also think there are lots of different areas that are growing (organizational studies, professions, network approaches) that we have not kept up with, in producing PhDs. So I think your point here is both partly inaccurate, and partly leaves unexplained specific decisions and strategic orientations of the discipline. I would also not say that just because something is growing, we should keep up. Criminology, being an example, at least for me.
Also for me, I would, for the most part, let English departments do cultural studies, and if you can convince more philosophers, philosophy departments. A difference of opinion, here, where reasonable people can disagree….
3) I think your approach of laying out clusters of faculty researchers/grad students working on research programs is an appropriate and useful way of thinking about some of these issues. Thanks for that. Very helpful way of thinking about that.
It is just that you really can’t say anything about how the three sets of clusters you have identified shape up to other possible clusters, without looking at them closely. Your impression of various grad student presentations at the Congress is not the greatest evidence ( we all form impressions from these things, but major claims have to rely on evidence of at least a somewhat more systematic nature). And it seems possible that your dismissal of the claims of the more scientific oriented wing of the discipline, as above, perhaps is shaping your view of the student presentations in ways that others might disagree with. You might see positivism, where others might see the building of a cumulative theory driven agenda based on solid empirical evidence.
Now, i can’t speak to the specific talks you are thinking about, and we could always improve the quality of presentations at the Congress, from both faculty and students.
I think things have been improved.
I was impressed by the “Using Bourdieu” as well as “Reflexivity” series of presentations at last meeting. Some good papers, and a real attempt to interact with each other’s ideas, as opposed to everyone just presenting their own research in panels of friends.
Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful post. Thanks to both of you.
One final point on this Craig, in relation to an earlier post of yours in another context about diversity in American sociology.
If you google the ASA theory section web-site, you will find a few years back, (when Michele Lamont was chair of the section), there is an exchange there about the tension between hiring theorists who primarily focus on theory versus hiring theorists with a research agenda in another area of the disciple but who also teach and write theory. In a certain sense, this is a tension between middle range theory versus the kinds of theory you are talking about. Even though I probably am sympathetic to Michele’s point in this exchange, maybe even more so in the Canadian context, the issues are complex and I can understand some of the concerns that you and others might have about this tendency. In some ways, the tension between middle range theory and autonomous theoretical work is far more the issue than the positivism and post-positivism question…
And all this has to be linked to the real institutional pressures regarding undergraduate teaching, something that plays out differently north of the border….
Neil McLaughlin
Post a Comment