[Edited to add: Since posting this, lists of various sorts have come in from Indiana, Notre Dame, Michigan, Stanford, UIC, and Chicago…thanks to all who have sent them, and more are welcome!]
I need to update the core reading list for our comprehensive exam in organizations. In my department, the nature of these lists vary from field to field. Some subfields provide a well-defined reading list, some are pretty student-driven, and some (including orgs) have a core list which students supplement with additional readings in their areas of interest.
Only a few sociology departments (Arizona, Maryland, Toronto) post standard lists for qualifying exam areas. A few more post past exam questions (Wisconsin), sometimes with a few reading lists (Texas). And not all these places offer organizations comps, of course. I am not finding any equivalent lists from business schools. Organizations syllabi are, of course, easier to find, but aren’t quite the same.
If you’ve given or taken a comprehensive exam in organizations in the last five years (or a closely related area, like “work and organizations”), I’d love to see a copy of the reading list to help update ours. I will keep these private, but if I receive several, can post some summary information here on what sorts of material people are including. You can email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. Comments on what should be included or excluded or general reading list advice are also welcome below.
— Beth Popp Berman (@epopppp) July 15, 2015
On Twitter, Elizabeth noted that the typical economics assistant professor makes 50% more than the typical sociologist. Rather than twist our hands and foam at the mouth, I’d like to start a more constructive conversation about how sociology might increase its paycheck.
To start, you have to understand how academic salaries are set. It goes like this: every year, your college gets a big chunk of money and part of that chunk goes to faculty salaries. Roughly speaking, the faculty salary chunk has a few major chunks – one for part timers/adjuncts; grad students; professional school faculty; and all other faculty. Within each segment, people get “around” the same amount. I am not saying that older faculty aren’t paid more. Rather, most older faculty make what younger people make plus a third, at most. At some schools, full profs make only a tiny bit more than associates or assistants. What you don’t see is senior faculty making double or triple what entry level professors make. The only exception are faculty of world class reputation (e.g., Nobel prize winners).
So how does one improve the overall economic standing of your academic discipline? How does one not get paid the same salary that the rest of the university is getting paid? One strategy is to move to a professional schools. For example, economists in business schools usually make more than those in arts and sciences. But that begs the question – why do they get paid more? Why aren’t MD’s paid what arts and sciences biologists get paid?
Answer: provide actual value to outsiders. If you can do this, you will increase the value of your discipline in two ways. First, outsiders will compete for professors in your area. Second, outsiders will pay academics and increase their salaries through grants, donations, and sponsored research. They will provide an independent pool of income in addition to what your college gives you and it won’t be taken by competing groups (e.g., the Spanish Department).
I think sociology has a lot to offer – we have invented a fair number of things that the wider world uses like focus groups and network analysis. Also, sociologists were pioneers in survey analysis. But nobody seems to know that. So here are some suggestions:
- Change our public image from “critical” to “we know social behavior.” Note: that doesn’t mean we stop being critical, it’s about packaging.
- Emphasize our advantage: we are the cool jack of all trades social science.
- For the BA degree, create a track for applied (e.g., ethnography at work or big data).
- At the PhD level, celebrate and encourage students who go to the private sector. That ethnographer who is now working in tech? Invite them for a talk!
- At the faculty level, create “pathways” between high level policy and private jobs. For example, in economics, economists who work at the Fed frequently find their ways back to top econ programs.
- Break out of the arts and sciences. The pool of income is highly constrained. ASU, for example, has had some success in being a stand alone social science school of sociology.
I think sociology is great, but it is not wise to take things for granted. We should innovate where we can and try to create a new niche for ourselves.
A few semesters ago, one of my social theory students asked me in class how I racially identified myself. I explained that my father was from South America (Colombia) but could trace (most) of his line back to Spain while my mother was almost certainly some mix of Indian and maybe some Spanish from Costa Rica. When I asked my aunt about this, she was a bit surprised. I asked where my grandmother’s ancestors where from and she said Guanacaste, which according to wiki has a population of people with Chorotega and Spanish background. The wiki also points out that Guanacaste’s population includes people from the African Diaspora. She ceded my point.
So I told my student that I’m “toasty brown.” This was the teachable moment. Racial groups are social things, which means that to be a member of the group you need to (a) consider yourself part of the group and (b) have other people affirm that membership. If we use the standard US classification, then I don’t fit in anywhere. I don’t consider myself white, or Black, and certainly not Asian. On a technical level, one might consider me some sort of European and Indian mix, but it would be very misleading to present myself as a tribal member. So that makes me just “kind of brown.”
On bureaucratic forms, I check off “non-white Hispanic” when possible but that’s not always an option. I don’t think that “mixed race” is appropriate since that seems to indicate a person who has parents from two of the “major” census groups (White, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American). But often I am at a loss since the “Hispanic” question assumes that the “Big Four” accounts for nearly everyone in the next question. Ie, all Hispanic self-identifiers are Black, White, Asian or Native American. There seems to be little appreciation that there is a mestizo identity and that is different than White or Black. A recent Pew survey highlights this issues. According to a recent press release, about one third of American Latinos do not consider themselves in the Big Four. Most just prefer “Hispanic” (20%) and others consider themselves to be “mixed race” (13%). The bottom line is that in American culture, mestizaje is still under the radar. It will be interesting to see how that changes as Latinos become a larger portion of the population.
Alex Stewart and Howard Aldrich have published a thought-provoking piece about anthropologists and ethnography in management research. In “Collaboration Between Management and Anthropology Researchers: Obstacles and Opportunities” in Academy of Management Perspectives, the authors discuss several ethnographies and the institutional environment of the business school.
While anthropologists are employed at corporations, the authors claim that anthropologists are underrepresented among management researchers:
“To document the limited business school market, we examined the doctoral disciplines of faculty in “top” business schools. We found 751 tenure track faculty members in management in the 44 schools that are listed in the “top 25” by at least one of Business Week, The Economist, Financial Times, or U.S. News. Of these faculty members, about 60% obtained their doctorate in management; 16 % did so in psychology; 10 % in economics; and 7 % in sociology; but only 0.1% — one person — in anthropology.” (174)
The authors posit 8 barriers to the inclusion of anthropologists:
“To explore the possible reasons for anthropology’s surprisingly small impact, we draw on recent writings on applied anthropology and the emerging fields of business anthropology and practicing anthropology. Scholars in these fields work on the boundary between management and anthropology and experience the benefits and challenges of an anthropological approach. On the basis of these readings, we identify eight properties of anthropological scholarship that might limit anthropology’s integration into management scholarship. These are: (1) expertise about the remote and exotic, (2) sympathy for the remote and the less powerful, (3) ethnography as a primary data source, (4) challenges of fieldwork access, (5) lengthy fieldwork duration, (6) a tendency to solo authorship, (7) complex, contextualized findings, and (8) a higher value placed on monographs than on journal articles.” (175)