Reframing the public sociology debate: Towards collaborative and decolonial praxis

Abstract

This article presents a critical analysis of Michael Burawoy's model of public sociology, discussing several of its epistemic and methodological limitations. First, the author focuses on the ambiguity of Burawoy's proposal, problematizing the absence of a clear delimitation of the concept of 'public sociology'. Second, the author links the academic success of the category of public sociology to the global division of sociological labour, emphasizing the 'geopolitics of knowledge' involved in Burawoy's work and calling for the decolonization of social science. Then, the author expounds his concerns regarding the hierarchy of the different types of sociology proposed by Burawoy, who privileges professional sociology over other types of sociological praxis. Reflecting upon these elements will provide a good opportunity to observe how our discipline works, advancing also suggestions for its transformation. Along these lines, in the last section of the article the author elaborates on the need to go beyond a dissemination model of public sociology -the unidirectional diffusion of 'expert knowledge' to extra-academic audiences -and towards a more collaborative understanding of knowledge production.

Decolonization and qualitative epistemology: Toward reconciliation in the academy

“…Renewed efforts to decolonize universities from within, for instance, conflate Indigenous with racial equity and discrimination under a broad banner of DC (Daigle, 2019; Keele University, 2019; Ontario College of Art and Design University, 2016). Similarly, even the most vocal commitments to reform within the public-facing camps of social scientific and humanistic disciplines perpetuate a unidirectional diffusion of “expert knowledge,” failing to recognize more collaborative forms of knowledge production needed to truly become effect DC (Lozano, 2017). DC’s meaning—and therefore its power—as a genuine mechanism for social transformation thus risks being diluted by a deluge of scholarship and institutional reform uncritically applying it without respect for Indigenous land, issues, or identities.…”

“…In other words, given the influence academia wields over public discourse and policymaking (Becker, 2000), how Indigenous knowledge is structured and shared in academic institutions matters for how Indigenous communities at large function and their constituents' well-being. This is particularly true given Lozano's (2017) critical examination of public sociology, articulating the understated need for more decolonial praxis for sociology and a more collaborative model that prioritizes knowledge co-construction above knowledge dissemination. Within this fold, discourse as the organization of language is an important way through which dominance and inequality are perpetuated (Van Dijk, 1993), sensitizing us to how Indigenous self-determination in academia, such as putting the research and teaching capabilities and content within their own hands, is a potential gateway to broader forms of self-determination (Kemmis and McTaggart, 2003;Simpson, 2018;Wilson, 2008).…”

In Medias Res: Using Sociology to Uncover the Harm of Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality in Colombia. Reflections on Public Sociology as a Graduate Student1

“…Despite its richness, the literature on public and publicly engaged sociology is still lacking in graduate student perspectives. This is somewhat ironic given that a theme woven through the literature is a call for public sociology's development and ideas on how to advance different kinds of publicly engaged sociology (e.g., Arribas Lozano 2018; Calhoun 2005; Cooky 2017; Hartmann 2017; Smith 2016, 2022; among others) including reports from the professional association on this very topic (ASA 2005, 2016). Most perspectives recognize that changes throughout the discipline would be required to advance public sociology, but few consider graduate students as practitioners of these activities, usually assigning us the role of one of the publics of public sociology.…”

Navigating the Perilous Waters of Partisan Scholarship: Participatory Action Research (PAR) with the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF)

“…The clarion call for public sociology has revived interest in PAR (Brook and Darlington, 2013: 237; Burawoy, 2005: 23), a long-standing research tradition that dates back well beyond the recent emergence of calls for ‘co-produced knowledge’ and the ‘impact agenda’ (Wakeford and Sanchez Rodriguez, 2018). Although the public sociologist is cast as a partisan who defends society against market tyranny and state despotism (Burawoy, 2005: 24), there is often a reluctance on the part of sociologists to openly ‘choose sides’, with the result of undermining, or even erasing, the transformative (emancipatory) potential of public sociology (Arribas Lozano, 2018: 96). By choosing sides, PAR moves social inquiry from the expert domain of professional sociology to the public domain of people’s lives.…”