Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:29:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: Eric Grodsky <egrodsky@ssc.wisc.edu>
Reply-To: Eric Grodsky <egrodsky@ssc.wisc.edu>
To: TR Young <TR.Young@uvm.edu>
Cc: Sociology Graduate Students -- International <socgrad@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: Re: On the Sociology of Prestige, Rank, and Place
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970624073750.0e6f6b5c@pop.uvm.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.95.970624085700.24197A-100000@elaine.ssc.wisc.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, TR Young wrote:

> B.  Within sociology, the opposite appears to be true; high
>         status regimes are those which have the least practical
>         application.
..
..
..
>         Theory has highest standing inside sociology, in terms of honor,
>         knee and approbation since it deals with the largest possible
>         questions of why, who, how, where and when.  One leaves
>         data when one enters into this rarified field; imagination,
>         inspiration and insight yeild more elegant and more general
>         statements than data ever could.
> 

All I really get from this is that you consider yourself a theorist.
Don't forget: when you leave the data the 'rarified' air up there might
get a little too thin for clear, self-critical thought.  In my opinion,
those statements which are so "elegant and... general" that data could not
support them are best left to those not in the business of science: a
business most would associate with empiricism.

Back on the original topic, I know of no research on the relative prestige
of different branches of sociology.  In response to the thread about the
prestige of sociologists outside of the discipline, the prestige score
offered by Nakao and Treas (1994) is 61 for sociologist, and 74 for
professors (including professors of sociology).  The focus of their study
was not on sociology per se, but on occupational prestige and the
socioeconomic index for the employed civilian population in the U.S.  For
a point of reference, physicians have a prestige of 86, mechanical
engineers 64, receptionists 39.

Bottom line, in my opinion, is that the prestige of different branches of
sociology does not have the reliability of occupational prestige in the
general population.  But for those of you keeping score, the department here offers
more resources (in space, money, and faculty) to demographers,
stratification researchers, environmental sociologists and other
researchers using quantitative methods than to those who choose not to use
quantitative techniques in their work.  I think, however, to equate the
ability to command resources directly with prestige would be a mistake.

Eric Grodsky
University of Wisconsin- Madison