|
Post by postdocsweatshop3 on Jan 27, 2012 21:21:03 GMT -5
Back to the original issue. I'm in a second postdoc & have got about 10 pubs in refereed journals [not ASR, but respectable 2nd tier]. I have taught about 6 semester courses. This year, I have applied to 90 positions and have gotten nothing. I identify with several people who are postdocs and not had a successful search. I feel I am part of a cohort that is getting pushed out for new blood. I am bitter about how things have turned out. I will likely leave the academy when the funding runs out. I do not beguile those who have made it, just am sad I have not gotten a piece of the pie.
|
|
|
Post by superguestevidence on Feb 10, 2012 14:03:03 GMT -5
I find it interesting how quickly people jump to the defense of the status quo here and squashed the conversation about the social structure of our discipline.
I also find it interesting that the argument was reduced to applied vs. abstract/basic sociology. Notably, those talking about the stratification problem in sociology were using concepts from Bourdieu and Latour. And, these folks are characterized as wanting just "applied" work? (hmmm?) Missing the point almost entirely, I think.
I will provide two pieces of evidence:
Val Burris article: "The Caste System in Sociology" ASR
Weakliem, Gauchat, Wright "Stratification in Sociology" American Sociologist.
These empirical studies illustrate that almost all the ideas circulating through our field have connections to the top 20 schools. My questions is simply: do we trust approximately 250 people in top schools to define "what is sociology." My point is, that in other science's, there is greater sensitivity to other forces and organizations.
Sociology is more like an art museum in this sense. Because the elites WITHIN our field, have almost complete control over what is defined as good and it is the arbitrary nature of these distinctions that add to our lack of credibility.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH APPLIED VS. BASIC SCIENCE.
|
|