Received: from jhuml2.hcf.jhu.edu (jhuml2.hcf.jhu.edu [128.220.2.87]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.6/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with ESMTP id GAA12609 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 06:37:08 -0600 (MDT) Received: from jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu by jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu (PMDF V5.0-7 #13870) id <01IKG0JKJIW095N04Q@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu> for socgrad@csf.colorado.edu; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 08:36:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu by jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu (PMDF V5.0-7 #13870) id <01IKG0J8XPFO95MSKJ@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu> for socgrad@csf.colorado.edu; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 08:36:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu by jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu id <2210-7>; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 08:36:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 08:36:07 -0400 From: Thomas F Brown Subject: Re: Areas of interest/prestige To: socgrad@csf.colorado.edu Message-id: <97Jun24.083624edt.2210-7@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: >Many of my grad school >colleagues in English, comp lit, and American studies work on ostensibly >"sociological" projects but often as not their "theorizing" consists of >undisciplined interpretative philosophizing and textual commentary. You just described most of the discourse in the tracking thread. Clearly sociologists can be just as guilty of this. Conceptual rigor is a skill possessed by individuals rather than by disciplines. >I wonder if I can start a fight by saying that "real" theory is grounded >in data of some kind, otherwise it's "mere" philosophy Depends what you mean by grounded. Some theory is useful not because it explains things, but because it tells us where to look and what to look for. That may overlap with philosophy, but it's not necessarily the same approach. >I, for one, am quite content to work in a discipline that gets no >respect from *certain* quarters and I'd start to worry if all of the >sudden we were being held up as a model in those *certain* quarters! Good one.