Many have denounced the heralded coming of age of a universal sociology as corresponding largely to the hegemony of one scholarly tradition: that of Western Europe and the United States. Canada has been an important scene upon which this debate has unfolded. In this country, the lament that the internationalization of sociology has been, unwittingly, another name for its Americanization has a long history. The mounting challenge posed by globalization and the progressive evolution of social sciences toward a more unified and normalized (in the Kuhnian sense) scientific field have recently fuelled worries and alarms. Is Canadian sociology developing in relative isolation or, to the contrary, is it increasingly engaging on the international academic scene? Based on two sets of quantitative data, concerned respectively with doctoral education and citation practices, this article revisits the question of the internationalization of Canadian sociology by looking at three sectors which are usually identified as essential to the indigenization of disciplines: doctoral training of the professoriat (who conducts the research), objects of study (on what topics are scholars working), and theoretical approaches (how do scholars proceed in their research). By returning to the three basic questions of who, what, and how from a quantitative perspective, this article provides a general understanding of the internationalizing trends that are affecting the discipline.

Public sociology is all too often presented as the polar opposite of the detached, purely objective observation of society (Clawson et al., 2007). Such a portrayal is misleading, for it tends to give credence to the idea that academic sociology is torn between two extremes, the political and the empirical poles. In this article I will not contest this divide from within. I shall not, for instance, claim that sociology is inherently politicised, each epistemology necessarily proposing a different ontology (Blau and Smith, 2006). Considering the problem differently, and referring to a historical period spanning from the late 19th century to about 1980 (Fournier, 1986; Warren, 2003), I propose a three-faceted portrait of sociology. In my view, the discipline is structured around not two but three fundamental axes or dimensions: professional, descriptive, and political, embodying three essential aims. In turn, these constitute the respective roles it can play in academia and society depending on the specific publics it seeks to address. In his much debated ASA 2004 presidential speech, Burawoy (2005a) has claimed that public sociology should be defined by its audience, whether academic (professional, critical) or extra-academic (policy and public). Without directly challenging this view, I intend in this paper to illustrate how the scholar’s individual positioning offers a slightly different perception of public sociology than the discipline’s external dynamics.

Is Canadian sociology facing a crisis? Depending on one's point of view and temperament, one can always provide arguments for comfort or alarm. Although we recognize that some debates are difficult, if not impossible to settle, we are also convinced that most questions framed in terms of "crisis" are unfalsifiable and particularly ill-suited for constructive analysis, and can easily lead to tavernlike discussions and grandiose pronouncements. McLaughlin's recent discussions of Canadian sociology's future (McLaughlin, 2004(McLaughlin, , 2005(McLaughlin, , 2006) and the debate they have fuelled provide an illustration of such artificial polemics created by an inadequate formulation of the question and insufficient methodologies to provide an answer.McLaughlin emphasizes the institutional weakness of the Canadian sociological tradition. This institutional weakness would be a reflection of Canadian sociology's historical connections to the kind of social sciences practiced in the United-Kingdom and consequently explains its meagre appeal to the American scientific field (McLaughlin, 2004 and. Assuming that British sociology is a "weakly institutionalized discipline" and that Canadian sociology is excessively embedded within this British tradition, it should surprise no one that McLaughlin concludes that "this has hurt the development of a strong sociological perspective in Canada" (McLaughlin, 2004: 89). Combined with two other major factors -the "flatness' or non-hierarchical nature of the Canadian education system and the left-wing orientation of Canadian sociology (McLaughlin, 2004) -the "British flavour" pervading Canadian universities has not only hampered the development of a "distinct and

Le présent article s’intéresse aux travaux des sociologues catholiques québécois dans les années 1950 et 1960. Dans la première partie, nous insistons sur le caractère ancillaire de la sociologie par rapport à l’institution religieuse. Dans la deuxième partie, nous nous penchons sur les enquêtes lancées à l’occasion de la mise sur pied des « Grandes Missions » régionales. Enfin, dans la dernière partie, nous entendons relever certains motifs de résistances et d’indifférence croissante du clergé envers la sociologie religieuse. Ce faisant, nous espérons offrir une lorgnette différente pour appréhender l’essor des sciences sociales au Québec.

Mainmise (1970-1978) a représenté dans les années 1970 un lieu important de définition pour la jeunesse québécoise. La revue se voulait une sorte d’almanach du village global dans les pages duquel le lecteur trouvait des renseignements sur une variété de sujets, dont l’incontournable trilogie du rock, de la sexualité et de la drogue. Cependant, plutôt que de s’intéresser au contenu idéologique de la revue, le présent article cherche à comprendre le contexte d’apparition de Mainmise et ses conditions de production. Dans un premier temps, il s’agit de retracer les origines de cette publication contre-culturelle montréalaise dans des expériences de publication alternatives antérieures d’ici et d’ailleurs (dont Georgia Straight, Logos, Le Voyage) afin de saisir à quel point Mainmise s’insérait dans un important réseau nord-américain. Dans un deuxième temps, cet article s’attache à décrire les défis (souvent financiers) que les collaborateurs de Mainmise devaient relever pour assurer la continuité de leur projet.In the 1970s, Mainmise (1970-1978) was an important forum for self-identification for Quebec’s young people. The periodical sought to be a sort of almanac of the global village in which readers would find information about a variety of topics, including the inescapable trilogy of rock music, sex, and drugs. However, rather than interrogate the periodical’s ideological content, this paper attempts to explain the context in which Mainmise appeared and its conditions of production. First, it traces the origins of this Montreal counter-culture publication back to previous alternative publishing experiences in Quebec and elsewhere (including Georgia Straight, Logos, and Le Voyage) in order to understand the extent to which Mainmise was part of an important North American network. Second, this paper describes the challenges (often financial) that Mainmise’s collaborators had to overcome in order to ensure the survival of their project