Sat, 22 Oct 1994 14:00:28 -0700 for Date: Sat, 22 Oct 94 16:58 EDT From: "Pamela Paxton" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Sociological Forum Here's my contribution to the 'Whats wrong with Sociology' discussion.. I agreed with many of the points presented by Molotch. We do write atrociously and with too many citations. I also agreed with his claims that Sociologists 'eat' each other when they so freely take issue with each other rather than celebrating what is good with someone else's work. This comes from the discipline's diversity and lack of core. I have to disagree with Lisa, however, when she contends that our factionalization is giving us the ability to look at sociological problems from a myriad of perspectives. This would only be true if sociologists bothered to understand each others perspective. Instead, I feel that sociologists tend to cling to their own perspective and ignore what other areas are saying about the same problems. This is partly a function of time - it is difficult to learn all the different perspectives when you are supposed to be publishing all day long. It pays off in the short run to get a perspective and stick to it. As for listening to/being listened to by other disciplines, I also have to disagree. Outside of a few areas in sociology such as organizational studies and political sociology I think we aren't communicating with other disciplines enough. We tend to simply claim their perspective is wrong and leave it at that. That is not communication. I thought both Molotch and Davis were both on target when they discuss the fear of saying anything of importance or taking a stand. Molotch couches it in terms of difficult writing but Davis puts it more clearly - we are afraid of content because content can get you into trouble. It made me think a bit about the Murray book. Granted, he is saying some pretty controversial things. But he is SAYING them. He's out on a limb - and he's getting alot of attention for it. If we buy Molotch's arguement that we are all shy, then it makes a bit of sense that we might be afraid to ever have anyone call us on anything we say. We have to learn to say SOMETHING though! I sense that Davis stepped on some people's toes. Was it his quantitative push? Between him and Molotch, I personally thought he was the only one to come up with concrete suggestions. I was left with a 'what can we do?' feeling when finishing Molotch. There was more of a plan of action in Davis' suggestions. Of course we may not agree with them BUT at least he put his suggestions out there. He wasn't 'shy' about his position. Unfortunately... neither of the articles was directed toward graduate students. Most of the suggestions were for people in a slightly better position. My question to all of us is, what can WE do about some of these problems? We are all obviously constrained in our choices. How can we still move along, publish, get jobs, etc. and not help to perpetuate the very things we complain about? Without giving it much thought, I think our first option is to demand better writing of ourselves (and of others once we get in a position to do so). If we make an effort to avoid journalese, to form writing groups, etc., we'll be taking a step. (I've been in a writing group for awhile - it only takes up a few hours a week) We can also read more on problems and solutions to those problems. Awareness may be the first step. Reading "making it count" by Stanley Lieberson made me reevaluate some research I was doing and attempt to do it a different way. Does anyone else have suggestions for what we can do RIGHT NOW to solve some of the above mentioned problems? I eagerly await them. Pam Paxton PS. Has anyone else on the list read Lieberson's 'Making it Count?' It is the best critique of quantitative methods I've read. It gives concrete solutions to the problems as well. I think that even 'non-quantoids' would like the book because it also discusses problems with the way we THINK about social phenomenon. Hubert Blalock's 'basic dilemmas in the social sciences' is another great one. He spends a chapter on the problems with our intellectual climate (more like the stuff we read in soc. forum) while Lieberson does not discuss those issues.