American sociology in chaos: Differentiation without integration

Abstract

American sociology is a chaotic discipline. There is disagreement on foundational issues that give disciplines coherence. For example, sociologist disagree on the appropriateness of a scientific orientation, the role of activism and ideology in inquiry, the best methodologies to employ, the primacy of micro-versus macro-levels of analysis, the most important topics to study, and many other contentious issues. The recent call for a "public sociology" in which four wings of the discipline--policy (applied), professional (scientific), critical (ideological), and public (civic engagement) sociologies--are to be integrated is less of a remedy for what troubles sociology than an admission that we are a discipline divided (Burawoy, 2005). Among the social sciences, economics is the most coherent, with the other social sciences revealing varying degrees of incoherence or chaos. Sociology is probably the least integrated of the social sciences, although cultural anthropology has increasingly become much like sociology. In this paper, my goal is to offer an explanation for how sociology came to it present state and what, if anything, can be done to integrate the discipline. Let me begin by outlining what makes a discipline coherent. What Makes an Academic Discipline Coherent?Ultimately, a discipline becomes integrated when there is relatively centralized control over the material, organizational, and symbolic resources necessary for intellectual work (Turner, 1989;Fuchs and Turner, 1986; Whitley, 1984). Conversely, when there is little control over the distribution of resources, a discipline will display low levels of integration or coordination of work to address agreed upon problems with accepted methodologies.Material resources are always necessary to conduct intellectual activities; and in the context of an academic discipline, these can be various. Money in the form of research grants and budgetary allocations, student bodies seeking knowledge and paying fees or tuitions, clients looking for expertise to solve particular applied problems, and physical Jonathan H. Turner is Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Riverside. He is primarily a theorist, and his substantive interests include the history and structure of American sociology. He can be reached at jonathan.turner@ucr.edu. Turner15

What Is Sociology’s Contribution Beyond the Humanities and Other Social Sciences?

“…Put simply, sociology is replete with intellectual differentiation, yet suffers from a dearth of intellectual integration (Coleman 1990;Stinchcombe 1994;Steinmetz and Chae 2002;Turner and Kim 2003;Turner 2006;Healy 2007). The unfortunate result of this is that, according to Turner (2006: 26), "sociology has trouble specifying clearly what its subject matter is; it has no clear conception of the proper mode of theorizing, [and] with no theory in the discipline accepted as the best explanation of phenomena for the present, it has little consensus over how to conduct research …."…”

“…The unfortunate result of this is that, according to Turner (2006: 26), "sociology has trouble specifying clearly what its subject matter is; it has no clear conception of the proper mode of theorizing, [and] with no theory in the discipline accepted as the best explanation of phenomena for the present, it has little consensus over how to conduct research …." Furthermore, given Turner's (2006) depiction of a coherent discipline, i.e., a discipline that displays 1) consensus over epistemology; 2) a common view of the nature of the reality to be studied; 3) agreed upon research problems and methods; 4) established theories as the best explanation of phenomena; 5) accepted and cumulative bodies of knowledge; and 6) control over professionals' access to research funds and journal outlets for scholarly work, one wonders whether sociology will ever become integrated.…”

“…But, some would cavil; arguing that our research agendas and theoretical insights on these elements would be more elegant and forceful if sociology was organized around a singular theoretical paradigm. Unfortunately, some say, sociology suffers from too much intellectual differentiation and specialty-specific theories (Stinchcombe 1994;Steinmetz and Chae 2002;Turner and Kim 2003;Turner 2006). Though these scholars contend that the dearth of theoretical integration in sociology leads to a discipline divided (Buroway 2005), it may also be viewed as a key ingredient for the uninterrupted current of illuminating, perceptive, and ironic observations.…”

The Methodological Divide of Sociology - Evidence From Two Decades of Journal Publications

“…One result of these demarcations is that Sociology is a low-consensus discipline torn between rival camps. These camps align themselves epistemologically either to the natural sciences or the humanities (Leahey and Moody 2014;Puddephatt and Mclaughlin 2015;Turner 2006;Varga 2011). …”

“…For instance, journals might focus on educational outcomes and prefer submissions relying on the use of particular quantitative methods. The interlinkage between schools of thought and publication outlets increases the tension between different paradigms, further lowering the chances for consensus formation and successive generation of knowledge within Sociology (Boyns and Fletcher 2005;Burawoy 2005;Collins 1989;Collins 1994;Payne et al 2004;Smelser 2015;Turner 2006;Turner 2016 for an overview on this discussion). This process renders Sociology to be a deeply entrenched discipline, unable to provide the means to sustain the discourse among the different schools of thought.…”