How Public Are We? Coverage of Sociology by the Associated Press

Abstract

The recent and prolific attention to public sociology has involved a great deal of theoretical debate about its merits, flaws, and potential future within the discipline. Despite the loud call for becoming more public, existing research on the discipline lacks both an empirical understanding of where we are as well as a methodological rubric to guide future inquiry. This project explores one outlet for public sociology-the press-as a starting point for this line of research. Through an investigation of Associated Press stories featuring sociology and sociologists, we seek to provide a baseline for consideration of public sociology efforts by describing the current state of how our discipline and its members are portrayed in the press. Further, based on our findings we provide some insights for future research.

Understanding our potential research publics: Exploring boundary disputes in recruitment to a sociological study

“…These disciplines more usually provide explanations for 'phenomena such as social interaction, structural inequality, occupational trajectories, and cultural trends' instead of sociologists (Siebel and Smith, 2009: 291). Where sociologists' views are reported in the news media, framing is mixed, both reflecting broad acceptance of key sociological arguments but also attempts to discredit the discipline by trivialising it (Siebel and Smith, 2009). Instead there is a preference for an 'individualism frame' (after Dorfman et al, 2005;Eisinga et al, 1999), which is intrinsically at odds with a sociological perspective: … the news media tend to highlight stories where people are singularly responsible for, and individually overcome, their circumstances.…”

“…… This cycle presents a challenge to the theoretical underpinning of our discipline, which posits that nearly every aspect of an individual's life is guided by broader social phenomena that can't be overcome by force of will. (Siebel and Smith, 2009: 297) Yet while our understanding of the difficulties of engaging with media publics is slowly increasing, our lack of understanding of why (non-media) publics may be unwilling to engage with sociological perspectives (Scott, 2005) persists. Besides exploration of how gatekeepers may challenge the ideological underpinnings of sociological research, or 'deal make' for access (McAreavey and Das, 2013), there has been little discussion of how our wider research publics might perceive approaches to participate in sociological research.…”

Insider/Outsider

“…It is at this point that a liberal education devoted to learning, writing, and speaking is so important. Too often, mass media creates ambiguity and dissension (Siebel and Smith 2009). Social scientists need be at the front of these issues and use the mass media to provide a systematic, critical perspective on a wide range of issues.…”

“…Sociologists must contend with the fact that in general, the typical American assumes that his or her common sense notions are adequate in explaining social reality (Mesny 2009; Siebel and Smith 2009). This “common sense” worldview is so prevalent that it extends into all reaches of American society to include even novelists who tend to portray sociologists as one-dimensional characters who are socially inept, prone to arcane language, and do research that is too vague, technical, or void of the human element (Bjorklund 2002; Darden 1992).…”

“…This “common sense” worldview is so prevalent that it extends into all reaches of American society to include even novelists who tend to portray sociologists as one-dimensional characters who are socially inept, prone to arcane language, and do research that is too vague, technical, or void of the human element (Bjorklund 2002; Darden 1992). Likewise, reporters are ill prepared to understand sociological research, much less write articles that accurately describe what we do or discovered (Siebel and Smith 2009). It is no wonder then that the lay public and politicians have a dim view of who we are or what we do.…”