What Do Public Sociologists Do? A Critique of Burawoy

Abstract

Michael Burawoy certainly seems to have the requisite organizational and marketing savvy to be a successful ‘public sociologist.’ Preaching from a few well-chosen pulpits, the ASA Presidency first among them, he has almost singlehandedly created a multinational cottage industry busily debating his ideas about the future of our discipline. The responses have been as varied as they have been numerous. While many have been quite critical, the criticisms have originated from a bewildering range of often entirely opposite positions on the ideological-philosophical spectrum, as well as from every imaginable position in between. Burawoy himself takes this multiplicity of position-takings to be evidence for the plausibility of his own ideas about different kinds of sociology and the possibility of a fruitful, collaborative division of labour between them (Burawoy 2007: 246). But we suspect it is more likely simply an expression of the depth and the breadth of our discord concerning the basic question of what we want with our discipline .

CCTV Surveillance and the Civic Conversation: A Study in Public Sociology

“…First, identifying and engaging thick and thin publics who are receptive to the ways that sociologists frame research problems can be challenging. Second, the concept of reflexive instrumentalism is undermined by the multiplicity of rationalities at work in the agendas of real-life publics (also see Butler 2009;Goldberg and van den Berg 2009;Acker 2005;Ryan 2005;Brady 2004).…”

What Is the Social Responsibility of Social Scientists to Influence National Security Affairs?

“…However, much of it is irrelevant to my interest in the issue of influencing policies of national security rather than, for example, social policies. So, too, the critic regarding his distinction between the traditional and organic work of public sociologists and the division of labor between the categories of sociology (Goldberg & van den Berg, 2009). For the purpose of this article, suffice it to draw on his call to put a premium on the engagement in dialogue with publics rather than with policy makers or academic audiences.…”

Performing Trustworthiness: The ‘Credibility Work’ of Prominent Sociologists

“…Some critics focus on the inherent trustworthiness of sociological accounts, which they argue become untrustworthy if we are too close to civil society (Goldberg and Van den Berg, 2009; Hammersley, 2017; Nielsen, 2004; Tittle, 2004). But more importantly here, critics claim that even robust public sociology will be credibility-damaging because public sociologists display left-wing values that may not be shared by their audiences (Goldberg and Van den Berg, 2009; Tittle, 2004; Turner, 2005), and because they blur the distinction between knowledge and advocacy (Goldberg and Van den Berg, 2009; Hammersley, 2017; Tittle, 2004). As Turner (2005: 30) puts it: if sociologists simply throw their ideological hats into the ring, spouting off their own moral judgments, their credibility will be lost; and political counterattack will be easy.…”