The Culture "Problem"

[rocinante]

I'm indeed too lazy.
Are you too lazy to check the threads to see that I had already posted it?

[social psycher]

Interesting discussion. At my SLAC, we're debating what to put in the job ad for next year's cycle. I think one point worth considering is that at non R1 schools, there is a significant lag in what is "hot" in the discipline and what courses are taught at the undergrad level. Just to be clear, I think this lag is a problem. I've argued for a culture person to my older colleagues, and so far they aren't buying it.

But at many teaching schools, decisions about what kind of person to hire are mostly practical. i.e. Fred just retired and he taught theory, let's get a person who can teach theory.

[YUP]

I agree with what social psycher just said. I applied for a "culture" position last year only to find out that the search committee had no idea what "culture" actually meant for contemporary sociologists (at a SLAC). The search committee's understanding was that the person they would hire would study "cultures" outside of the U.S. (classic anthropological view) and be able to take their students on field trips to other countries. Like what others have already said, it's good idea to pair "culture" up with something less ambiguous. Remember that when you are being interviewed (and even when people are reviewing your application), people are often trying to figure you out. I'm guessing most people are much like myself and they try to box people into categories (e.g., what type of sociologist is she/he?). It's ideal if the categories that they try to box you in match up with the categories they think they are looking for. Based on my experience, these "culture" positions often list something else the search committee wants (e.g., race, gender, methods, theory).