Suchergebnisse

Sociologist Joshua Gamson interviews his parents, both sociologists, on parenting, sociology in social movements, and carrying on the family business.

An examination of the sociol'ts' approach to educ through an analysis of papers contributed to a Round Table on the Sociol of Educ, held at the 6th World Congress of Sociol at Evian, Sep 1966. A general scheme for these papers is outlined, in 5 phases: (1) The writer in one of his nonsci'fic roles, eg, as citizen or as educator, manifests awareness of a problem because of a personal or.instit'al identification with the set of values or norms by which the problem is defined. (2) The problem-situation is simplified & generalized as a problem of sociol'al thinking within a given model of the society or other soc system, & some preliminary hyp'al explanations are put forward. (3) The assembly & ordering of data relevant to the problem in order to see whether, or to what extent, or in what conditions, the diff orderings of the data bear out the essayed explanation. (4) The results of the confrontation of the tentative explanatory schemes with the selected data are described & a modified sociol'al explanation given. (5) The sociol'al explanations are decoded & discussed again in terms of the original problem with a possible offering of modified or alternative lines of action. This scheme is then applied to the following papers: A. E. Gollin, on transfer of development values from the US to developing countries through technical educ (see SA 0715/D3247); P. Bourdieu, on educ & SC in France (see SA 2233/D3782); Z. Bauman, on the failure of Polish educ to meet soc demands (see SA 1432/D3531); E. Havighurst & A. Gouveia; W. Cantoni, on Mc monopolization of educ in Latin America. I. Langnas.

"This biographical dictionary brings together 190 men and women past and present, who have made significant contributions in the field of sociology. Each entry includes a short biography, and a detailed analysis of the theories that person contributed to his or her field"--Provided by publisher

The Pacific Sociological Association's New Fields of Employment Committee has compiled a directory of sociologists working in nonacademic settings. The survey data on which this directory is based are used here to explore the varieties of work experienced by applied sociologists in the PSA region. These data raise a number of issues yet to be explored, which have immediate importance for an understanding of the relationship between sociology and nonacademic career paths.

This paper was originally delivered as a British Sociological Association Presidential Address at the end of the Annual Conference at the University of Surrey in April 1990. In the style of Presidential Addresses it was written as a lecture that would cover a range of issues and themes. In revising it for publication I have tried to keep much of the style of the lecture as well as the range of contemporary themes that were covered: training for `practising' sociologists, employment questions, and the role of the British Sociological Association in debates about research training. It is intended to illustrate some of the major concerns of British sociologists at the start of the 1990s.

This paper attempts to clarify or to reposition some of the controversies generated by Burawoy's defense of public sociology and by his vision of the mutually stimulating relationship between the different forms of sociology. Before arguing if, why, and how, sociology should or could be more 'public', it might be useful to reflect upon what it is we think we, as sociologists, know that 'lay people' do not. This paper thus explores the public sociology debate's epistemological core, namely the issue of the relationship between sociologists' and non-sociologists' knowledge of the social world. Four positions regarding the status of sociologists' knowledge versus lay people's knowledge are explored: superiority (sociologists' knowledge of the social world is more accurate, objective and reflexive than lay people's knowledge, thanks to science's methods and norms), homology (when they are made explicit, lay theories about the social world often parallel social scientists' theories), complementarity (lay people's and social scientists' knowledge complement one another. The former's local, embedded knowledge is essential to the latter's general, disembedded knowledge), and circularity (sociologists' knowledge continuously infuses commonsensical knowledge, and scientific knowledge about the social world is itself rooted in common sense knowledge. Each form of knowledge feeds the other). For each of these positions, implications are drawn regarding the terms, possibilities and conditions of a dialogue between sociologists and their publics, especially if we are to take the circularity thesis seriously. Conclusions point to the accountability we face towards the people we study, and to the idea that sociology is always performative, a point that has, to some extent, been obscured by Burawoy's distinctions between professional, critical, policy and public sociologies.