Archive for the ‘sociology’ Category
Work in Progress, the blog of ASA’s organizations, occupations, and work section, just launched a new series on the future of organizational sociology. It launched today with a introduction from Liz Gorman and a first post by Howard Aldrich. Liz has an impressive slate of sociologists lined up — in the days to come, you can expect to hear from:
Martin Ruef (Duke)
Harland Prechel (Texas A&M)
Elisabeth Clemens (University of Chicago)
Ezra Zuckerman (MIT Sloan)
Gerald F. Davis (University of Michigan)
Heather Haveman (UC-Berkeley)
Brayden King (Northwestern)
Charles Perrow (Yale)
W. Richard Scott (Stanford)
Mark Suchman (Brown)
Patricia Thornton (Duke)
Marc Ventresca (Oxford)
Elizabeth Gorman (University of Virginia)
Matt Vidal (King’s College London)
Thanks to Liz and OOW for organizing this conversation and here’s hoping it gets the attention it deserves.
Hi, Steve, Fabio here. I recently read about how you are now the chair of the new sociology department at Washington University, St. Louis. It seems that you are getting advice from some excellent sociologists. Still, I wanted to offer a suggestion about how to build your program that I think has some merit but that may not be obvious.
Here it is: build a program that, roughly speaking, is about 2/3 quantitative and 1/3 qualitative. However, don’t use the traditional criteria for “quantitative research,” which means anyone who does regression analysis or, as in economics, people who do research in theoretical statistics. Instead, the quantitative sector of the department should focus on unique and important quantitative types of data that sociologists are, or can be, good at. Roughly speaking, that means network analysis, social simulations, “big data,” and quantitative analysis of text. You might also toss in the experimenter or survey design guru.
Why? No one else is building such a program, but it would have a huge immediate impact on the profession of sociology. You would have an enormous first mover advantage. It also has other benefits. For example, the graduate students would be immediately employable inside and outside academia; the faculty would be able to do some fundraising, though not as much as a demography center; and this sort of critical mass would increase the chance that WUSTL would be the origin of the next big quantitative advance in the social sciences.
The other 1/3 of the program should be filled with mid to late career qualitative scholars. You need this for a few reasons. First, sociology, especially the younger folks, has converged on the view that mixed methods is the way to go. So you will need top notch ethnographers, historical types, and interviewers to make sure that your PhD graduates have a proper view of sociology. Also, graduate students may opt for a qualitative PhD and you will need good faculty to make sure they don’t get lost in the cracks. The most important reason is that older scholars will be able to maintain a distinct identity and forge bonds in a program that is, by design, tilted in one direction.
As a well regarded private school, you might be tempted to mimic your peers and chase the “best people,” which means whoever recently graduated from high status programs with good publications. It’s not a bad idea, but you will directly compete with all the other top 2o programs that claims these graduates. Instead, you might consider a more focused mission that has a very specific, and achievable, intellectual goal. It’s worth a thought.
As many of you know, Washington University decided to reestablish a sociology department after notoriously shutting theirs down some two decades ago. The Chronicle of Higher Ed has reported that the university has chosen the department’s first chair and associate chair — Steven Mazzari, a macroeconomist at Wash U., and Mark Rank, who started in Washington’s sociology department before moving to the School of Social Work in 1989.
This seems like a surprising decision. The Chronicle writes:
Administrators had considered appointing a senior figure in American sociology to be chair, but, “lacking an obvious candidate,” as Mr. Fazzari puts it, they turned to him. Along with several teaching awards, he has six years of experience as chair of the economics department, and has done stints on campus-planning and hiring committees. He was a member of the campus advisory panel formed last year to consider how to revive sociology.
“There is much overlap between the problems addressed by economics and sociology,” he says. “Economics also provides a firm grounding in technical modeling and data analysis that is part of much advanced work in many social sciences, including sociology.”
I can imagine various reasons they might have taken this approach. Luring a top senior person in to build a department from scratch has to be a challenge. Still, Washington has a lot of resources and is a highly respected university (outside of sociology, where it has no presence). And there are some definite downsides to launching the department without a highly visible sociologist at the helm. I’m curious what the back story is here but, having no inside information, will leave it to you to speculate.
The IGM panel of economic experts got some recent buzz because 63% of their experts — 81%, when weighted by confidence — disagree with the Piketty-inspired argument that r > g is driving recent wealth inequality in the U.S.
I always enjoy reading these surveys. The panel includes 50 or so top academic economists, from a variety of subfields and political orientations, and asks them whether they agree or disagree with a policy-relevant economic statement. Respondents answer on a Likert scale, and indicate their degree of certainty as well as their level of agreement. Sometimes they add a short comment.
The results usually aren’t incredibly surprising. Not really shocking that 100% of economists agree that
Letting car services such as Uber or Lyft compete with taxi firms on equal footing regarding genuine safety and insurance requirements, but without restrictions on prices or routes, raises consumer welfare.
They’re a little more nervous about selling kidneys (45% favor, but nearly 30% find themselves “uncertain” — the highest proportion for any recent question besides whether ending net neutrality is a good thing). The most interesting ones are those where there’s disagreement (Have the last decade of airline mergers improved things for travelers?) or that counter the stereotype (54% disagree that giving holiday presents — rather than cash — is inefficient. Okay, counters it a little).
Anyway, this got me wondering. What if sociology had a similar panel? I mean, aside from the fact that no one would care. I can think of empirical findings we’d have broad confidence in that much of the public wouldn’t buy — for example, that there’s lots of hiring discrimination against African-Americans. But are there policy prescriptions we’d agree on — ones that are grounded in the discipline, as opposed coming solely from our left-leaning tendencies, though of course the two are hard to separate — that would tell us, Yep, sociologists WOULD say that.
EDITED TO ADD: Yes, I know that Piketty does not actually argue r > g is the cause of recent inequality growth in the US, which is what the question asks. But if they can headline the poll “Piketty on Inequality,” it seems fair to call the statement “Piketty-inspired.”
This week, I’d like to focus on the sociology of race. We’ll discuss Shiao et al.’s Sociological Theory article The Genomic Challenge to the Social Construction of Race, which is the subject of a symposium. After you read the article and symposium, you might enjoy the Scatterplot discussion.
In this first post, I’d like to discuss the definitional problems associated with the concept “race.” The underlying concept is that people differ in some systematic way that goes beyond learned traits (like language). One aspect of the “person in the street” view of race is that it reflects common ancestry, which produces correlated physical and social traits. When thinking about this approach to race, most sociologists adopt the constructivist view which says that: (a) the way we group people together reflects our historical moment, not a genuine grouping of people with shared traits and (b) the only physical differences between people are superficial.
One thing to note about the constructivist approach to race is that the first claim is very easy to defend and the other is very challenging. The classifications used by the “person on the street” are essentially fleeting social conventions. For example, Americans used the “one drop rule” to classify people, but it makes little sense because putting more weight on Black ancestors than White ancestors is arbitrary. Furthermore, ethnic classifications vary by place and even year to year. The ethnic classifications used in social practice flunk the basic tests of reliability and validity that one would want from any measurement of the social world.
The second claim is that there are no meaningful differences between people in general. This claim is much harder to make. This is not an assessment of truth of the claim, but the evidence needed to make is of a tall order. Namely, to make the strong constructivist argument, you would need (a) a definition of which traits matter, (b) a systematic measurement of those traits from a very large sample of people, (c) criteria for clustering people based on data, and (d) a clear test that all (or even most) reasonable clustering methods show a single group of people. As you can see, you need *a lot* of evidence to make that work.
That is where Shiao et al get into the game. They never dispute the first claim, but suggest that the second claim is indefensible – there is evidence of non-random clustering of people using genomic data. This is very important because it disentangles two important issues – race as social category and race as intra-group similarity. It’s like saying the Average Joe may be mistaken about air, earth, water, and fire, but real scientists can see that there are elements out there and you can do real science with them.