Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 20:41:50 -0400
From: Thomas F Brown <tombrown@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Subject: Re: tracking
To: socgrad@csf.colorado.edu
Message-id: <97Jun22.204150edt.774-1@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

>I actually agree with Ivy, because I don't think Tom is casting a very wide
>net for what is "acceptable" evidence--which to me is a very clear example of
>how sociology "tracks" many women students, students of color etc.  As long
>as something is shown to exist elsewhere, the impacts of it within the disci-
>pline seem to be merely the larger effects, rather than having a specifc
>existence IN the discipline.  Look at how difficult it has been to have "real"
>sociology accept as "factual" narrative analysis, discourse theory, even the
>case studies base of rural sociology.  As long as you only accept the evidence
>that fits the definitions you begin with, you are certain to not find what
>you don't want to.....

The problem is that the evidence presented so far does not prove the argument,
not that it is somehow "unacceptable". Sexism in sociology departments is 
consistent with the hypothesis that gender tracking into specialties does 
exist in sociology departments. I agree with this. There is no disagreement 
on how we define evidence, at least not so far, and no disagreement on how 
we interpret that evidence.

The problem is that the same evidence is also consistent with the alternative
hypothesis--that women self-select into women's disciplines because they are 
truly interested in that discipline, or because they know they have added 
incentive on the demand side. Women who self-select experience sexism
too, therefore the mere existence of sexism doesn't tell us whether
someone was pushed or whether they went of their own accord.

When evidence supports two competing hypotheses, then it is not sufficient
to answer the question. Further, no one has offered an explanation of any
causal mechanism showing how general problems with sexism in sociology
departments leads to disciplinary tracking.

The disagreement here is not over differing takes on sexist incidents, it's 
about how we define tracking. I am defining it as some type of institutionalized
practice or structure that pushes certain groups of people into particular
specialties while at the same time constraining their entrance into 
alternative specialties. We need to keep the existence of constraint
in the definition in order to distinguish between self-selectors and
trackees in our measurement model. Without the existence of constraint
in a case, we don't know whether that person self-selected, followed
demand, or succumbed to tracking pressures.

I argue that the existence of sexism in Beth's examples is in itself not 
evidence of disciplinary tracking for the reasons explained above. I can
see how Ivy and Beth (and you) could construe such sexism as a "push factor", 
and I could go along with that conception. The problem is that such sexism 
by itself doesn't push anyone into any specific specialty--the most you can 
say with this evidence is that the types of sexism Beth described may push 
women towards working with other women. 

But that doesn't tell us anything about *which* specialties constitute 
"women's tracks". It doesn't tell us anything about disciplinary specialties
at all. If the female professor is in theory at one school, then theory will 
be the women's track. But at the next school the women's track might be
military sociology, because that's what the female professor there does.

The strongest argument anyone has made along this line is the path dependence
model that Beth implied--women work in women's disciplines because that's
where the women are and women prefer to work with other women. The problem
here is that her model doesn't distinguish between women who prefer to work 
in women's disciplines because they are truly interested in that discipline 
and those who are tracked into that discipline because of sexism. 

So while the model is plausible, it's conceptually weak in making that 
distinction. Consequently, it doesn't tell us who was tracked and who 
self-selected. All it tells us is that the women's discipline is the 
women's discipline because that's where some critical mass of women 
wound up for some reason at some time in the past. That's interesting 
enough in it's own right, and it may help answer some other research 
question, but it doesn't help much with this question about tracking 
unless we make some conceptual modifications.

>Further, Tom, I do find your argumentative style to be equally guilty of a
>lack of consideration, if not dierectly ad hominum--"this is so far over the
>Top?" 

That comment was my reaction to a blatantly sexist and racist remark. How
much consideration do you think such remarks deserve? You won't find 
sexist and racist assertions in my posts to this list, Ivy's straw men 
not withstanding. 

>Judgementalism has many forms, and you are most
>certainly demonstrating one form of it, including in your response to Ivy
>despite the fact that that appears to be what you are criticizing her response
>for.....  Meredith Redlin, UKy

The difference between Ivy and me is that I don't stoop to straw men 
and sexist ad hominem attacks. Ivy does.

When someone publically mischaracterizes my arguments into such 
offensive and insulting straw men the way Ivy did, then you can expect 
me to go on record to point out that I did not say what I was accused
of saying. If that's being "judgmental", then I am guilty. I thought
I restrained myself admirably considering the degree of provocation. 


PS: This meta discourse on rhetorical style is of course irrelevant 
to the issue.