Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 12:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert C Bulman <rcb@uclink.berkeley.edu>
To: Sociology Graduate Students -- International <socgrad@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: Re: Areas of interest/prestige
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A32.3.96.970620124014.10370A-100000@rastro.Colorado.EDU>
Message-ID: <Pine.ULT.3.93.970620115310.3021A-100000@uclink.berkeley.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

The question of prestige among the sociological sub-fields is a very
interesting one to explore on this group.  I have a feeling that the
rank-order of fields will vary widely from one department to the next.
For instance, I was shocked to see Alan rank theory last on his prestige
scale!  Also, while there are lots of job postings looking for
criminologists, I'm not sure that this means it's more prestigious.  At
Berkeley, I would place theory at the top and criminology at the bottom!
Of course, Berkeley is not representative of the field.  Still, there
should be some agreement as to what is most valued in our field (ignoring
the ideal that no field of study should be more or less valued than
another).  

Also, I am always disheartened when "methods" (quantitative or
qualitative) is treated as a sub-field in and of itself.  Methods are
tools we use to answer our sociological questions, which (for me) should
be inspired by theory, empirical anomalies, previous academic work, social
problems, etc.  We should choose an appropriate method based upon the
question asked, not the intrinsic merits of the method.  Similarly, we
should look for candidates (and be evaluated as candidates) on the basis
of our work as a whole, not in part.  The same can be said for theory.  I
would hope that our work as sociologists (and not just the "theorists"
among us) is informed by and contributes to sociological theory.  


Robert Bulman