|
Post by well on Jan 27, 2012 0:25:48 GMT -5
How sure are you really that the reason that sociology suffers the self-inflicted wound of irrelevance in the policy world is because the discipline places too damn much value (i.e. prestige, pay, jobs!) on historical and cultural analysis thereby, presumably, drawing away the talent that would otherwise redound to your preferred Really Important Research Area (RIRA)? I'm not so confident that obscure historical and cultural subjects are the bogeyman you seek for the lack of interest in what sounds like terribly small bore applied stuff (I kid!). Apply away, that's great (actually great), but if you think that there is a prima facie order of disciplinary prestige in your hypothetical, well get thee to a sociology journal (e.g., especially, ASR). Just to be clear: 1) disciplinary diversity is our strength (I take your argument to imply that it is in fact our weakness, all this frivolous crap); 2) I think it's fine if we are locked out of the halls of power -- all the better to hurl our analytical engines against the walls and our sappers built of theory and critique to undermine the foundations of the sedimented contingencies that pass as common sense; and 3) if the only way to save sociology from wandering off into the desert of irrelevance is to internalize the view that "policymakers" have the real line on what kind of research is valuable, well my choice is obvious, but I admit the corollary to that is get tenure while the getting's good! Isn't it interesting how we read things like we want to read them? I never said anything about "frivolous crap" or "disciplinary diversity." In fact, I would say that it is the status quo that lacks disciplinary diversity. I never argue for applied and policy issues to overcome and dominate the discipline. My point is precisely that it is undeniable that applied and policy studies are seen as being "less" than what passes as mainstream sociology these days. So if anything I am arguing for more diversity, a more equal footing for applied and policy issues. Also, I never said the wounds were entirely self inflicted. But it seems to me that the gatekeepers of what is sociology do a hell of a job of insulating the discipline from the outside world. And, of course, as superguest mentions, it is not about subjecting our knowledge to the validation of policy makers. I think my perspective is a bit different from superguest's because I am certainly a lot more Bourdiean than Latourean. But the diagnosis is similar.
|
|
|
Post by whatevs on Jan 27, 2012 10:02:55 GMT -5
Look, for all of you who want to make a difference in the world, there is already a field for that, and that field is public policy.
For better or worse, sociology is less applied, and a pure sociology department is generally academic research oriented, rather than social action. Yet sociology is eminently compatible with work to influence public policy, and there is an easy home for you called a public policy department. Sometimes a public administration department, sometimes political science. There you will have exposure, be called upon to write targeted reports, and likely have former students who end up in strategic government positions. Trust me, these departments have plenty of people who trained in economics, psychology, government, law and political science. There are even sociologists.
If you want to do that kind of work, you can certainly start to go to those conferences, publish in policy journals in grad school and find a job in a policy-oriented school. There are also more jobs over there, as the master's in policy degrees are professional programs, targeted at practitioners. They don't pay in as much as the MBA students, but those master's programs are a revenue stream. You should also know that their journals run the gamut from very theoretical to very applied, so it is not like you are becoming a practitioner, unless you want that.
The thing about economists and psychologists and political scientists is that their programs all realize that they are versatile, and graduate students have many examples of economists in policy schools, psychologists in the social work department, political scientists who went into government, human development people in local nonprofits.
I do not know why there is not more recognition of the versatility of sociology in our PhD programs, because we are eminently versatile, given that we study many social processes from many angles. Perhaps there is simply a feeling from certain senior professors that those are "the trades" and that those jobs are lower prestige? Certain people might even talk about oh, someone who got a first job at MIT in a different department as "settling".
Personally, I find this viewpoint ridiculous, have no such qualms, and would never advise students to limit their options by only applying to pure sociology jobs. But given the lack of awareness of those people who are happy and productive in other departments, or the mild disapproval from certain people in top schools, students do not usually realize that the option is there. There is also less awareness of these options from professors who have not had those long established connections, whereas in economics, policy or psychology, one would have cohort members, colleagues, or students in other departments to network with.
So, the option is out there, and you can do it. The one thing to consider is that you probably would find it hard to go back to a pure sociology department, which is too bad.
Because your advisors are unlikely to have direct experience with the hiring criteria in other departments, you will have to do some extra work. That can mean inviting strategic people onto your committee from other departments, taking policy classes, asking to TA or teach outside of sociology, and the like. This can take a while, but once you talk to people and figure out what you need, it is not really that much extra work to put that into action.
Oh, and we can probably say the same thing about management and business schools, but the person above was on about public policy, so I focused on that.
|
|
|
Post by superguest4 on Jan 27, 2012 10:54:48 GMT -5
Really, I think you missed the point and complexity of the arguments made by "not obvious" and myself.
Nuance is difficult, even for the abstract and academic minded I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by whatevs on Jan 27, 2012 11:32:22 GMT -5
All I'm saying is that if you want to influence public policy and society, it is easier for you to change departments than to change the entire field of sociology. Hello, certain structural positions are better located than others? Entrenched positions and interests prevent change?
You are also engaging in this debate, after all, on the sociology jobs website, so don't be surprised by a related but pragmatic answer. I happened to get a job outside of sociology, and that is what I want people to know is possible. To me, that seems to be the more helpful answer than a social movement in sociology.
If you want to hold forth about where the discipline is going on an anonymous board, that is your right, but I propose that this is not as useful to the job seeker as pragmatic advice, and perhaps the wrong venue for your activism.
|
|
|
Post by Not top 20 on Jan 27, 2012 13:30:40 GMT -5
On a totally different note, I really appreciate seeing who gets placed where because it dispels this myth that those in top 20 R1 departments are getting all of the jobs. People are producing great work at a variety of different institutions and they are getting jobs. I'm from a top 10 department and there were several candidates on the job market this year who have not gotten anything yet. This is not to say that there isn't an advantage to being at a top 10. However, I like the fact that people from a wide range of schools are getting jobs!
|
|
|
Post by theser on Jan 27, 2012 13:35:23 GMT -5
Really, I think you missed the point and complexity of the arguments made by "not obvious" and myself. Nuance is difficult, even for the abstract and academic minded I suppose. I like the nuance and complexity of your "I went to see X give a talk and let me tell you they are just not that bright" metric. That's nuanced! And using your nuanced metric to righteously slam named individuals while you enjoy the cover of anonymity, well, that's classy superguest4!! The gripe that there is just no prestige in sociology for "applied" research seems bogus to me. Look at recent issues of our top journals. They are dealing overwhelmingly with issues that are quite relevant to contemporary social and political debates. Inequality for example. Sociological research into inequality is not policy relevant? It has no applications? Really? Or race. Immigration. Urban stuff. Etc. My counter-argument would be that the barrier is not internal to the discipline but in the institutional and other links that get sociologists jobs in policy positions or get their ideas taken seriously. A huge part of the success of economics must be its development of institutional linkages, no? (This is a real question, I don't know enough about the rise of economics to be sure, it's my hunch though.) If by "applied" you mean takes what we already know very well and adapts it to a particular problem (I don't assume that you do mean that, but this is one way to parse the term), well yes there are tons of venues for that kind of work, but why should journals which ought to reflect new arguments and developments publish work that fills in interesting but pedestrian blanks. It's like a theory journal publishing stuff of the "Foucault is amazing, and look his work helps us to understand X!" variety. I think that is a totally legitimate modality of writing and argumentation, but it is not super innovative. Is the argument really that if you write a highly original/high quality piece of sociological analysis with strong policy implications that you just won't get any respect? I just don't see the strong discount to stuff with policy or other applications that you claim. What are the metrics for your exclusion?
|
|
|
Post by seriously on Jan 27, 2012 14:43:12 GMT -5
On a totally different note, I really appreciate seeing who gets placed where because it dispels this myth that those in top 20 R1 departments are getting all of the jobs. People are producing great work at a variety of different institutions and they are getting jobs. I'm from a top 10 department and there were several candidates on the job market this year who have not gotten anything yet. This is not to say that there isn't an advantage to being at a top 10. However, I like the fact that people from a wide range of schools are getting jobs! I have no idea what list you are looking at but all of those jobs except three went to individuals who got a PhD at top 25 schools. Only 1 went to someone from a school outside of the top 35.
|
|
|
Post by factcheck on Jan 27, 2012 15:18:01 GMT -5
last time i checked, ncsu wasn't a top 35 program...
|
|
|
Post by seriously on Jan 27, 2012 15:28:13 GMT -5
last time i checked, ncsu wasn't a top 35 program... Ok cool. Not a single R1 job on the most current list has gone to an NCSU graduate though.
|
|
ohh
Full Member
Posts: 224
|
Post by ohh on Jan 27, 2012 15:46:58 GMT -5
NCSU has a good reputation though. There are qualitative factors in the decisions as well.
|
|
anon
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by anon on Jan 27, 2012 15:56:25 GMT -5
I think the disagreement is that one poster is using the list of all hires (where NC State is represented) and another is using the list of R1 hires in this thread (where NC State is absent).
If you look at R1 hires, then yes, there is always a disproportionate representation of top 20 places. That's always true though.
|
|
|
Post by ElDuderino on Jan 27, 2012 17:05:28 GMT -5
This discussion is getting dangerously close to discussing individuals and their qualifications. Please thread carefully before you continue to reference the "name names here" thread.
|
|
|
Post by hmm on Jan 27, 2012 17:20:11 GMT -5
To be honest, I don't see any such references. It looks to me as though the discussion has little to do with qualifications at all, but rather the recreation of status in R1 hiring. I completely agree that posts attacking individuals should be removed aggressively I just don't see anything here or anything close to it.
|
|
|
Post by people on Jan 27, 2012 17:23:03 GMT -5
I think the duderino just means that discussion of specific individuals is off limits. Some of the recent comments get very close to mentioning or discussing specific individuals, identifiable because of their institutional affiliation. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by factcheck on Jan 27, 2012 17:30:16 GMT -5
i intended no disrespect or challenge to the qualifications of the hires from NCSU. I was pointing out that the ranking of their program was not in the range that was claimed. but, after reading the thread, and as the other poster pointed out, i misread and thought they meant all jobs.
|
|