Drifting Apart? The Institutional Dynamics Awaiting Public Sociology in Canada

Davies, Scott

doi:10.29173/cjs6311

Cited by 17 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In some cases, the sociology departments explicitly advocate for a social justice mission and orientation. For example, Brock University has committed fully to an epistemological divorce (see Davies 2009;Turner 2005) by embracing critical sociology exclusively, including an "M. A. in Critical Sociology." Their website opens with the following statement: "The Department of Sociology at Brock University is committed to a critical, social justice approach."…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As McLaughlin (2004: 81) argued, "Canadian sociology is very much the radical and critical sociology that many internal critics of mainstream sociology in the United States desire." Davies (2009) contends that a basic split between "critical" and "mainstream" sociology has intensified over the years, leading to a divided discipline. Creese, McLaren, and Pulkingham (2009: 618) argue further that Burawoy's description of public sociology offers insufficient attention to feminist perspectives, or the manner in which "the vibrant and transformative traditions aligned with feminist sociology… provide a different model of professional critical sociology that engages with diverse publics and social policies."…”

Section: Explaining Epistemological Diversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Epistemological Diversity of Canadian Socology

Michalski

2016

Can. J. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current paper presents the results of a national survey of 190 full-time members of Canadian sociology departments to examine the state of the discipline in 2014-15. The paper focuses on the extent of epistemological diversity in an effort to answer two key questions. First, what intellectual perspectives prevail among Canadian sociologists and, along these lines, does any particular perspective hold greater prominence? Second, what might explain the variation in the epistemological stances most commonly endorsed? The evidence reveals a preponderance of critical and feminist scholars, which can be explained in large measure by considering the social locations of sociological practitioners. The results of a logistic regression model confirm that gender, generation, geography, and disciplinary genre are significant predictors of critical and critical-feminist orientations. A discussion of qualitative responses fleshes out the dominant themes that Canadian scholars expressed in their survey responses.Résumé. Le présent article présente les résultats d'une enquête nationale menée auprès de 190 membres à temps plein de départements de sociologie canadiens afin d'examiner l'état de la discipline en 2014-2015. L'article met l'accent sur l'étendue de la diversité épistémologique dans un effort pour répondre à deux questions clés. Premièrement, quelles perspectives intellectuelles prévalentelles chez les sociologues canadiens et, en ce sens, une perspective particulière occupe-t-elle une place plus proéminente? Deuxièmement, qu'est-ce qui pourrait expliquer la variation dans les positions épistémologiques les plus couramment adoptées? L'analyse révèle une prépondérance des chercheurs critiques et féministes, ce qui peut s'expliquer en grande partie en tenant en considération les positions sociales des sociologues. Les résultats d'un modèle de régression logistique confirment que le genre, la génération, la position géographique et la catégorie disciplinaire sont des prédicteurs significatifs des orientations critiques et critique-féministes. Une discussion des réponses the epiStemologiCal diverSity of Canadian SoCiology Joseph H. Michalski teaches in the Department of Sociology, King's University College at Western University. His interests include the development of sociological theory and the sociology of knowledge, as well as comparative studies of domestic violence, terrorism, conflict management, and crime-related issues. He also conducts research on the issues of poverty, precarious work, and social inequality.jmichal2@uwo.ca

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Explaining Epistemological Diversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Epistemological Diversity of Canadian Socology

Michalski

2016

Can. J. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This places the theory in a double bind. If the latter is the proper definition it would not mark a divide between reflexive and instrumental knowledge, but instead reiterate the classical contrast between "mainstream" and "critical" sociology (Davies 2009). In fact, the goal of what is known as "critical sociology" is to bring critical perspectives to bear upon power relations and forms of life in modern society, not to question the foundations of professional sociology (Calhoun 2005).…”

Section: Burawoy's Theory Of Disciplinary Organisationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Disciplinary Practices As Social Manoeuvers: A Field Theory Alternative To Michael Burawoy’s Typology Of Knowledge

Landry

2015

Can. J. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In his call for more public sociology, Michael Burawoy presents a generic framework to describe disciplinary structures in the social sciences. This model is based on a fourfold typology of knowledge which has been criticized by many. However, alternatives have fallen short of providing a convincing articulation of the social organisation and meaning of the intellectual practices the original typology was trying to describe. The debate on public sociology did not bridge differences in analytical beliefs about knowledge production and thus could not be expected to build a consensual disciplinary orientation. The current paper builds on field theory, organizational sociology, and interview data to frame the practices identified by Burawoy as social manoeuvers (i.e. ways of utilizing and legitimating knowledge) within specific social fields. In so doing, the paper provides a framework that is more flexible, more empirically adequate, and congruent with the sociology of science and the sociology of intellectuals and experts.Résumé. Dans son plaidoyer pour la sociologie publique, Michael Burawoy présente un cadre générique pour décrire les structures disciplinaires en sciences sociales. Plusieurs commentateurs ont critiqué la quadripartition typologique du savoir que propose son modèle. Cependant, les tentatives de le remplacer n'ont pas fourni une articulation convaincante du sens et de l'organisation sociale des pratiques intellectuelles abordées par la théorie originale. Le débat sur la sociologie publique n'a pas su concilier les diverses conceptions relatives à la production de connaissance. Par conséquent, il ne put construire une orientation disciplinaire consensuelle. Le présent article s'appuie sur la théorie des champs, la sociologie des organisations ainsi que des entretiens pour avancer une conception des pratiques décrites par Burawoy comme des coups (c.-à-d. des façons de mobiliser et de légitimer la connaissance) dans des champs sociaux spécifiques. 446 © Canadian Journal of SoCiology/CahierS CanadienS de SoCiologie 40(4) 2015 À ce titre, cet article fournit un cadre qui est plus flexible, plus empiriquement adéquat et compatible avec la sociologie des sciences et la sociologie des experts et des intellectuels.

show abstract

“…Since the mid-2000s, Anglo-Canadian sociology has engaged in spirited debates about its history, institutional health, intellectual-philosophical foundations, and contemporary political relevance (Carroll 2013;Creese, McLaren and Pulkingham 2009;Davies 2009;Helmes-Hayes 2016;Hiller 1982;Lachapelle and Burnett 2018;Matthews 2014;McLaughlin 2005;Michalski 2016;Stanbridge 2014;Wilkinson et al 2013). This wideranging introspection notwithstanding, Canadian sociology has only begun to address its relation to Indigenous ideas, scholarship, and politics (Andersen and Denis 2003;Denis 2015;Ramos 2006Ramos , 2008Voyageur 2011;Wilkes et al 2017).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Troubling Presence: Indigeneity in English‐Language Canadian Sociology

Watts

Hooks

McLaughlin

2020

Canadian Review of Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decade Canadian sociology has engaged in spirited debates on the sociology of sociological research, but it has barely begun to address its relation to Indigenous theorizing, scholarship, and politics. How does the discipline deal with the settler colonial history and current realities of Indigenous social lives, and where is the place in our field for Indigenous voices and perspectives? Drawing on Coulthard's politics of recognition and Tuck's damage‐centered research, we present here the first systematic empirical analysis of the place of Indigeneity in the Canadian Review of Sociology and the Canadian Journal of Sociology. We situate the presence of Indigeneity in Canadian sociology journals in the sociopolitical context of the time, and examine how imperialism, statism, and damage are oriented within the two journals. Most importantly, we challenge the silence in the discipline's intellectual frames and research programs with respect to Indigenous theorizing about the social world.

show abstract

Drifting Apart? The Institutional Dynamics Awaiting Public Sociology in Canada

Cited by 17 publications

References 31 publications

The Epistemological Diversity of Canadian Socology

The Epistemological Diversity of Canadian Socology

Disciplinary Practices As Social Manoeuvers: A Field Theory Alternative To Michael Burawoy’s Typology Of Knowledge

A Troubling Presence: Indigeneity in English‐Language Canadian Sociology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About