### WPC{ ########2#s#########B#########J########m###
#Z#########|#x###Times New Roman (TT)#Symbol (TT)#########################C##\## #### PC##6Q####P############################################################a##\## #### P[# ##A##P########################################################################## ######################################################2######? ########P############y###############phoenix#############C##\## #### P?##6Q#######P### #Filip: ##Filip#Brent Berry#######################2#################m########1###########Defa ult Paragraph Fo##Default Paragraph Font##################################1###1#########X#P##\## #### P##6Q######X#P########################C##\## #### P##6Q#######P###endnote text##########endnote text############################################;###1#################X#P##\## #### P ##6Q######X#P########################C##\## #### P##6Q#######P###endnote reference#####endnote reference#######################################4###4#########X#P##\## #### P ##6Q######X#P##########################C##\###### P?##6Q#######P###footnote text#########footnote text###########################################;###1#################X#P##\## #### P ##6Q######X#P########################C##\## #### P ##6Q#######P#####2#################################### ##footnote reference####footnote reference######################################4###4#########X#P##\## #### P ##6Q######X#P##########################C##\###### P ##6Q#######P###toc 1#################toc 1#######################################################################X# ###` ###h####p## #x# (##################### #### #`############## #### #V#####################v#### #`####################X####` ###h####p## #x# (##################### ####toc 2#################toc 2#######################################################################X# ###` ###h####p## #x# (##################### #### #`############## #### #V#####################v#### #`####################X####` ###h####p## #x# (##################### ####toc 3#################toc 3#######################################################################X# ###` ###h####p## #x# (##################### #### #`############## #### #V#####################v#### #`####################X####` ###h####p## #x# (##################### # #####2##### #####3## #####Q#########o###
#v### ###toc 4#################toc 4################################################## ####################X# ###` ###h####p## #x# (##################### #### #`############## #### #V#####################v#### #`####################X####` ###h####p## #x# (##################### ####toc 5#################toc 5################################################## ####################X####` ###h####p## #x# (##################### #### #`############## #### #V#####################v#### #`####################X####` ###h####p## #x# (##################### ####toc 6#################toc 6#######################################################################X# ###` ###h####p## #x# (##################### #### # ################## #V#####################v#### # ####################X####` ###h####p## #x# (##################### ####toc 7#################toc 7##################################################
#### ###############################2#### #####5#########S#########q############toc 8#################toc 8######################################################################X# ###` ###h####p## #x# (##################### #### # ################## #V#####################v#### # ####################X####` ###h####p## #x# (##################### ####toc 9#################toc 9#######################################################################X# ###` ###h####p## #x# (##################### #### #`############## #### #V#####################v#### #`####################X####` ###h####p## #x# (##################### ####index 1###############index 1#####################################################################X####` ###h####p## #x# (##################### #### #`############## #### #V#####################v#### #`####################X####` ###h####p## #x# (##################### ####index 2###############index 2#####################################################################X####` ###h####p## #x# (##################### #### #`############## #### #V#####################v#### #`####################X####` ###h####p## #x# (##################### # #####2########################################toa heading###########toa heading#################################################################X# ###` ###h####p## #x# (##################### ### ################ #### #V#####################v### ######################X####` ###h####p## #x# (##################### # ###caption###############caption################################################ #;###1#################X#P##\## #### P##6Q######X#P########################C##\## #### P?##6Q#######P###_Equation Caption#####_Equation Caption#######################################1###1#########X#P##\## #### P##6Q######X#P########################C##\## #### P ##6Q#######P####
###X#X#
###
### # #
###r###############################X####` ###h####p## #x# (##################### ## ### ################### #######X#P##\## #### P ##6Q######X#P###########Sociology 6710: Logic of Social Inquiry##############Week of February 5, 2004 ## ## ### ################## ##L #T####\##
#d# ####################### ### #####C##\## #### P ##6Q#######P###r###*####################
# # ###
##############X####` ###h####p## #x# (##################### #Q ######## ############## ################X#P##\## #### PR##6Q######X#P################## #
# ##
C# #
#### #Q ######## ############### ### ################## # ### ## ## ### ################## ##L #T####\##
#d# ####################### ### #####C##\## #### P ##6Q#######P###*############## #k##\## #### P ##6Q###### #P###########
Filip: ####X#P##\## #### P ##6Q######X#P### Situating Ourselves Intellectually
########!# A Few Remarks on the Need to Contextualize Discourses about #Sociology## ######## ########In this reaction paper I will deal with the two articles by Andrew Abbott and Joe R. Feagin. Both have stimulated me in thinking about sociology both as a #scientific discipline## and as a social activity or social process in itself. As a #discipline##, sociology appears as a vital field of study, despite Abbott##s concerns about the #four major intellectual challenges## (p. 298) that sociology will likely face in the short and long run. His article ends, however, on a relatively positive note when Abbott discusses the #discipline##s project for the immediate future## (p. 300). In his #SoulSearching in Sociology##, Feagin documents the trials and tribulations of sociology during the last decades. As with Abbott, he tends to picture the future of sociology in optimistic terms by answering in the negative the question of whether sociology is in crisis: #the debate over diversity and democracy [#] is healthy, and would be so in any social science## (p. B6). Once we turn to the other side of the distinction, i.e. to sociology as #social process##, the two articles appear in a different light. Aiming at a more precise use of the terms, they should read: #Reflections on the Future of American Sociology## and #SoulSearching in American Sociology##. I think it is important to keep in mind that both articles discuss the past trajectories and future perspectives of a historically situated phenomenon !# American Sociology !# and not simply of sociology as a #disembodied entity##. It was in fact Abbott##s article that drew my attention to this conflation of sociology and American sociology when he referred to what might be called #European sociology##. I was somewhat struck by Abbott##s observation that soon American sociologists will not longer be able to ignore #European sociology##. Not the affirmation as such is what I found surprising but the reasons given to support it: ####X####` ###h####p## #x# (##################### #^##L #T####\##
#d# ###################### #V##################"#The commitment of European governments to financing social research; ######### ######"#Increasing frequency of European sociology that is written in English; ###############"#The #powerful databases## of European social data. ## #^##L #T####\##
#d# ###################### ##L #T####\##
#d# ####################### ### It may be that I tend to be somewhat Europebiased, but the above statements suggest a quite noticeable #sociological ethnocentrism##. In other words, it seems that only sociology written in English that is well funded and based on large amounts of data deserves attention on the part of American sociologists. Put differently, it seems that Europeans might take the lead in sociology, but only because they are getting closer to the #American #standards of #good sociology.## Is this really so? Obviously, the answer depends on who answers the question. The point that I am trying to raise is that in the same way in which nowadays it is largely considered unacceptable to study #foreign cultures## through the standards of Western culture !# any given (national) sociology can hardly claim to be the undisputed standard of good scholarship. Italian sociology could offer valuable insights in the same way as Kenyan sociology or Japanese sociology. In this way, I would like to advocate a cosmopolitan view of sociology, organized along thematic lines that crosscut the (more or less artificial) boundaries of national sociological communities. Just as a brief example, Duncan##s population, organization, environment and technology (POET) model is quite similar to an approach developed in Romanian sociology a few decades earlier.
############ #k##\##
#### P ##6Q###### #P###
Heather
####X#P##\##
#### P ##6Q######X#P###SITUATING OURSELVES INTELLECTUALLY:
What do we have from this grouping of readings? What can I use to draw them together? In the spirit of situating myself intellectually, I will outline my understanding of each reading and then how it has affected my own thinking and future research: Mustafa Emirbayer provides an assessment of the difference between substantialism and relationalism in our social thinking. From my understanding, substantialism is assessment of the interactions between assumed static entities. For example, individuals are seen as static, and with predetermined values and ideas, and are brought into an interaction and we then study the interaction and transactions that occur between them. In contrast, relationalism understands that there is no fundamental existence of the actors without the interaction, and that people will change and process within the interaction, and as a result of it. People exist in relation to one another, and in relation to the social processes that we participate in. #######This is how I see my social world !# where actors are all participating in, recreating, and being created by the world they are a part of. No one and nothing exists in separation from any other part of the social system. Andrew Abbott suggests another methods overhaul for our sociology. For Abbott we have to #wallow in the endless multiplexity of data## and give up our search for causes, and effects in distinct separateness from other variables and effects. Nothing is concrete, separate, or divisible any longer. For Abbott, we need to rebuild social theory !# and every great social theorist has been a #datahead##. Therefore, great theory involves both the assessment of previous theory on the subject, but also a thorough examination of the data involved. #######This is how I picture myself in the future. I have envisioned being a theorist of a particular subject area. Of being able to assess the empirical data, have a large clear overview of the existing theory on the topic and developing my own ideas about the subject matter. I have also come to view variables as not being distinct from one another, and part of an ongoing interaction with those around them. Feagin discusses the internal debate within the ASA that supports more empirical research and subsequently ignores the qualitative research written by sociologists by not publishing their material. Feagin recommends that the sociologists in the ASA practice what they preach by emphasizing diversity (even among their own board members) and democratic decision making in their own associations. #######I did not know about the informal boycotts by sociologist of the ASR !# well, you learn something new everyday. Now, why was this article thrown in here? To let us know that the pie in the sky wishing and emphasis on relational sociology, or on using methods that move away from the traditional regression analyses will not be accepted by the ASR? That we have a choice between being published in mainstream journals? Or being an #outsider## within our own discipline? Hmmm#.what route are we going to take? Do we feel rebellious now? Now, for eradicating bad assumptions or theories !# my interpretation of Tilly##s #eradicating pernicious postulates##. This chapter of Charles Tilly##s work challenges us to acknowledge the various levels of analysis that exist when studying social history, and at what level we are attempting to make generalizations and assess patterns. How widespread will our theories intend to be? This is a very interesting and inspiring chapter, encouraging the analysis and comparison of small groups before we attempt to make widespread generalizations for
all of society. This microhistorical analysis is important, and often #total history## theories that generalize across time and space are impossible. When we do choose our units of analysis to begin our small scale comparative studies we should be careful in our decision on the unit of analysis. For example, #society##, or #nation## are not always definitive or homogenous units of analysis. They are often fluid categories, that consist of varying values, people, situations and are not static or definable. #######Therefore, Tilly encourages me not to have any notions of developing total history theories. We will not find the overarching theory and pattern that applies to all people, at all times, in all societies and contexts. We are better off applying our skills to small scale, comparative studies to develop ourselves further before attempting more complex, and widespread generalizations (which may never be applicable anyhow). IN SUM: My assessment of the research field, and my role in it has changed throughout this course, and my past two years at UofT. I sometimes wonder why they bothered to teach me about variables, causeeffect relationships, regression and other quantitative techniques at Western with such fervour. Perhaps we have to learn about #what not to do## before we can learn what we can do. I have learned that there is more to sociological research and theorizing that I had previously thought. There are many ways of doing research, and ways of theorizing. My learning about sociology is not complete and never will be. Perhaps this is how professors feel when they have exhausted a subject area, published widely, and yet have new things to study or postulate. Surprisingly I am not pessimistic about my new findings as I once thought I would be midway through this course. Rather, I am inspired and optimistic about the years to come. We have not been left with torn down assumptions, but have been shown the path to new methods, to new ways of thinking about theories and research !# and left an opening to discover with the creation of new methods as Abbott suggests.
#### #k##\##
#### P ##6Q###### #P###
Amanda
####X#P##\## #### P ##6Q######X#P### Abbott, A. (2000) #Reflections on the Future of Sociology##. Feagin, J. (1999) #SoulSearching in Sociology: Is the Discipline in Crisis? ## Tilly, C. (1984) Chapter 4 in #Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons.###############footnote reference########X#P##\## #### P ##6Q######X#P#################### #####X#0########### ################### #################### #####################X#0#1###################### ######### # #### ############# ###W###############################footnote text################X#P##\## #### P ##6Q######X#P##################################footnote reference########X#P##\## #### P##6Q######X#P########################C##\## #### P ##6Q#######P######USUK#### ##)###################footnote reference#)##############C##\## #### P ##6Q#######P######UKUS#### This reaction paper does not address Tilly##s chapter because although I read it over, I was uncertain about the message he was trying to deliver. Perhaps if I had read the preceding chapters then his work would have not been as confusing to me. Consequently, I do not feel that I can adequately respond to him in this reaction paper but perhaps we can clarify his arguments further in class.###USUK### #####X#P##\## #### P ##6Q######X#P######UKUS###W#### # Emirbayer, M. (1997) #Manifesto for a Relational Sociology##. #######When I looked at our syllabus and saw another title containing the word ##crisis##, I was a bit apprehensive about reading an article that may rant on and on about how our discipline is going to the down the tubes. Surprisingly, I found this article to be very informative because it familiarized me with some of the larger issues and debates within the discipline. Although Feagin discusses these issues in relation to the American sociological landscape, they are, or will most likely be, relevant here in Canada since some departments have already started modeling their programs after those of the larger U.S. universities. It is likely that some of us will end up teaching in the U.S. and so it is important that we pay close attention to what is taking place in that context. This article was written five years ago and I am curious to know the outcome of the author##s concerns. #######Feagin also speaks about quantitative and qualitative sociologists as though they are still in two different camps, if not on two different planets. I am wondering if this division has realistically remained as apparent as he makes it out to be. I realize that it is important to use a triangulation of approaches in my research and so understanding and incorporating both quantitative and qualitative methods into my dissertation work (i.e. timeseries analysis and ethnographic methods) is something that I hope to accomplish. Feagin##s article gave me a lot of food for thought. It also made me realize how useful it would be to read the #Chronicle of Higher Education #on a regular basis so that when I go on my own job talks, I will be informed not only about my research area but also about the broader issues in the field at #######Andrew large. Abbott##s article did sound like a repeat of some of the other articles we have read thus far claiming that our discipline is going down the wrong path yet again. He asks whether sociology will survive as a discipline. Even if criminology, social work and ethnic studies start to infringe on our intellectual territory, I still believe that sociology will thrive because there is enough intellectual pie to go around. On a similar note, European and North American researchers should be reading one another##s work because this will broaden our horizons and make us betterinformed scholars. Monolingualism is an insufficient excuse for ignoring research written in foreign languages. If European sociology begins to take the lead, as Abbott predicts, then Americans researchers should acknowledge this and start running the race to catch up. #######Emirbayer suggests that sociologists should be moving away from
substantialist approaches and into the direction of conceiving the social world as unfolding relations and processes without any absolute static units such as individual or society. He argues that this relational perspective has important theoretical and empirical implications for understanding social phenomena. To prove his point, he provides the reader with numerous examples to illustrate both the advantages and shortcomings of this perspective. Although he acknowledges the limitations of a relational (transactional) approach, he ultimately promotes it over the ##selfaction## and ##interaction## thinking of substantialism. Thinking about the transactional context rather than variables as the unit of analysis was a bit of stretch for me. It makes sense that in suspending variables outside of the specific space and time from which they were plucked, substantialist researchers using quantitative methods would be opening the door to many problems. Therefore he contends that it is necessary to analyze elements alongside others that are related in the same field of mutual determination. #######Although I found this article interesting, I felt that Emirbayer neglected to demonstrate how we could carry out empirical research using a relational perspective. Perhaps it is not his role to tell me how using an interaction approach should influence my theoretical framework or research design. Nevertheless, this is what I was looking for after he had so concisely laid out his manifesto.
#### #k##\##
#### P ##6Q###### #P###Ye
####X#P##\## #### P ##6Q######X#P### This week##s readings present us with a broad picture of the field of sociology from different perspectives. Throughout this course we have come across for many times such questions as what is sociology all about and what is the position of sociology in the academic world and the real world. This will be a constant question for us as we grow intellectually with the development of this discipline.
#Reflections on the future of sociology##, by Andrew Abbott
Abbott discusses the future of sociology from two perspectivessocial structure and intellectual. I agree with him that North American sociology will become more and more tied up with the European sociology. In fact, although the #sociological cultures## are different from continent to continent, most of the #pillar## subfields of sociology are all the same. This is also true with sociology in Asia. However, this is not to say that I would go with the term #internationalization##. Indeed, we can talk about the #internationalization## of sociology in Canada and the U. S., but we have not come to the point where European and Asian sociology mingle with North American sociology. They can talk about the same issue with similar arguments (such as the protection of migrant workers## human rights in receiving countries, be it Mexican workers working in the strawberry fields in California or Indonesian nannies working in the households in HongKong or Taiwan). Human nature is the same across the world, but the actual political, cultural, social and economic environments make it impossible and difficult to completely eliminate the regional distinctions of the field.
#Soulsearching in sociology: Is the discipline in crisis?## by Joe Feagin
Feagin argues in this paper that #one reason why sociology does not currently have more social impact is its over emphasis on advanced statistical methods and a neutrality toward society##s marked inequalities##(1999:B5). I do not agree with this argument. First, in my view, number matters. Statistical analysis gives us the confidence when we build theories, because our hypothesis is tested with evidences; this is just like longitudinal ethnographical studies give us confidence that we do know a lot about what we are discussing. On the other hand, it is also true that it is easier for researchers to fall into the trap of ignoring the social context and societal relevance when dealing with quantitative methods than with qualitative methods. This is what we should be constantly aware of down the roaddon##t be overwhelmed by the huge data set. Second, sociologists have always been at the front to take a critical or skeptical view of the world. #Social inequalities## is one of the strength subfields in our own department at U of T. It is just our moral and practical concerns that constantly lead us to question the various forms of social inequalities at different corner of our society. On the other hand, we cannot simply say that #being critical is all our job##. In my view, being critical is only one half of our job. The other half is being neutral (not to inequalities of course) and to explore what we do not know with a neutral and open mind.
#Big structures, large processes, huge comparisons##, by Charles Tilly
This paper distinguishes among four types of analyses at four historical levels: (1) worldhistorical: variation from network to network; (2) worldsystemic: the operation of particular networks; (3) macrohistorical: variation among structures and processes within particular networks; and (4) microhistorical: clusters of experience that people within particular networks treated as having common properties. Here comes number again. Tilly argues that comparative studies of big structures and large processes yield more intellectual return when investigators examine relatively small numbers of instances. I agree with him that with small numbers, researchers will have to pay more attention to the historical circumstances and particular characteristics of the cases at hand for effective comparison. However, I cannot fully agree with his argument that large numbers give an illusory sense of security. I also think that the following methodology that he advocates does not hold all the timeto stick with careful comparisons of small numbers until we have a very clear idea what we need from large numbers and how to make the comparisons valid. In fact, sometimes small number of cases may give us a very skewed view of the picture if they happen to be not representative of the whole population.
#Manifesto for a relational sociology##, by M. Emirbayer
I like this paper very much. I am a big advocate of the view that sociologists should depict social reality in dynamic, continuous and processual terms. I like the #transactional# approach because it sees relations between terms or units as dynamic in nature, unfolding and ongoing processes rather than static ties among inert entities. As Emirbayer discusses in this paper, the transactional approach is applicable to all the central concepts in sociological analysis, such as power, equality, freedom, agency, and so on. Here I would like to take one of my own research papers as an example. In that paper, I discussed the organizational homogeneity and heterogeneity. It is commonly assumed that conformity to government regulations and professional standards will generate firm homogeneity. However, by looking at this conformity process as a dynamic and ongoing process, I made a set of hypotheses that there is much variance in this process, which in turn generates firm heterogeneity. Organizations find leeway and strategically get around government regulations. In my view, this investigation not only tells us why organizations differ from each other, but also what are the practical implications for public policy making and law enforcement. Of course, just as discussed in Emirbayer##s paper, there are many challenges encountered by relational theorists and researchers, such as boundary specification, network dynamics, causality, normative implications, and so on. However, by going through these challenges, the relational approach in the field of sociology will grow and yield exciting research results and build freshout theories.
############ #k##\##
#### P ##6Q###### #P###
Jennifer
####X#P##\## #### P ##6Q######X#P### ########The articles by Abbott and Feagin follow in the path of many of the readings in this class, proclaiming that sociologists need to change their ways in order to resolve the current crisis which sociology is undergoing. In this case, Abbott##s solution is to develop methodologies for dealing with the overwhelming amount of data and historical data that we now have access to. He also argues that we need a new great thinker who can provide us with a vision of where the discipline should go. The focus on crisis should not be taken to mean that Abbott##s article was depressing. On the contrary, his conviction that there is room yet for sociology to grow, that there is something new under the sun"#new data, new theories, and new visions"#is rather inspiring for someone just entering the discipline. The scale of the change he seeks, however, is a little daunting. Feagin##s goals are somewhat less lofty than Abbott##s. Feagin seeks only more thoughtful quantitative sociology, greater acceptance for qualitative and theoretical work, and more democracy within the discipline. He indicates that he would like to see a more inclusive discipline that marginalizes fewer people, which does not seem like an unreasonable demand to make of a discipline largely built on the study of inequality. If Abbott##s comments on the growing reliance of many sociologists on government funding and the apparent preference of many government agencies for large, quantitatively analyzed surveys are accepted, it does not seem as though there will be a swing back towards a more balanced approach anytime soon in North America, but it should still be possible to acknowledge the work of people who choose other paths. Abbott##s and Feagin##s goals are not contradictory: it should be possible to develop new theories and methods and give more credit to those people who are being excluded from the mainstream because they choose unpopular methods rather than because they do poor sociology. However, they are not the only ones calling for change, and not everyone##s ideas of the proper direction for change are so compatible. Overall, there seems to be very little agreement on what we should be doing; the only consistent point is that we cannot keep doing what we have been doing. Something needs to change. I think, on the whole, that it is preferable for a discipline to experi...