>Well, they did try to submit to 7 papers to sociology journals, and they got 0/7 in.
They should have tried submitting an ethnographic survey paper under Alice Goffman's name.
Grievance Studies Hoaxed
-
“there are full-profs who haven't had their hands dirty in data in ages (if ever). The point is moot: you can do a career in "theory" in our discipline.”
Oh my! How terrible!
- Weber, Simmel, Mead, Goffman, Mannheim, Parsons, Merton, Habermas, and all the other influential sociologists who built a career on “theory”
Maybe the problem isn’t “theory.” Maybe the problem is inadequate theorizing.There are other types of data than quantitative data.
Weber did massive empirical studies of world religions and economic history. Simmel had really hard time getting a job is sociology.
Mead was not a sociologoist.
Goffman did a lot of empirical research.
Parsons was involved in a lot of empirical studies.
Merton did seminal empirical studies in sociology of science.
Habermas is not a sociologist. -
“Simmel had really hard time getting a job is sociology.”
Simmel was beloved by students, extremely influential, and supported by Weber. But he couldn’t get a position for one reason and one reason only. That reason starts with a “J” and rhymes with “Sue.”
The others mentioned are not famous because of their empirical work - though perhaps Weber should be more famous for the world religions studies. Those listed are famous because of their theories. And they built their career on theory during their lifetimes.
Don’t project your limited conception of what you think sociology is supposed to be onto the field’s history.
Look at the top 100 most influential books in sociology. They’re almost all “theory” books. They used to call “theory” “sociology.” Now “sociology” is a regression table or an interview and “theory” is what you tack on the front end.
Sure, Habermas isn’t a sociologist according to an anonymous American grad student confident that he’s a Scientist after finishing his methods course. Habermas is not only a sociologist, he’s one of the most influential sociologists of all time - according to citations. Oh wow, empirics!
-
Just got a review decision from a highly respected ASA journal in a central sociology subfield. The article I was asked to review had deep flaws : no definitions, no relevant lit review, very lazy methods, overinflated theoretical claims, the whole argument totally unsubstantiated by data. It really did read like a joke at times, and not in the SJW style.
However, it had one redeeming quality : the tone was confident, the overall structure and writing fitting well the sociological style.
I wrote a 2 page long review and made it clear to the editor this was not worth considering. The other reviewer filled four shor paragraphs and made it R&R, which was uphold by the editor. This is what we get when we favor style over substance, and do not spend enough time and resources on vital gatekeeping work.
-
Oh, not this fight again. Dude, if you want to go on about the empirical shift has ruined the discipline and that theory building should be at the heart of what sociologist should pursue, first try to understand that the field does not even have a unified understanding of what "theory" is in the first place.(http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2008.00324.x). For most empiricist, "theory" means something quite different from a definition invovked by "theorists" who would engage directly with Weber, Habermas, and so on.
-
I think everyone's missing the main point of this exercise.
Grievance studies is the issue! An echo chamber of flowery chest thumpers that will publish anything towing the party line.
Sociology has a lot of these types, they're just better trained scientifically.
-
From
“This shows a lack of respect for the work that we do. People don’t really know what we do. If they did, they should be convinced by it. We are publishing knowledge that is not politicized.”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
-
“And then there are these "other ways of knowing". These are the things that must be kept out of sociology, first and foremost.”
“Other ways of knowing” have been examined since Plato. Again, perhaps the problem isn’t that people are doing something other than standard quant work, the problem is the quality of much of this alternative work.
-
““Other ways of knowing” have been examined since Plato. Again, perhaps the problem isn’t that people are doing something other than standard quant work, the problem is the quality of much of this alternative work.“
Sure maybe you’re right. But that doesn’t mean we have to be accepting of the current s**t quality of this “alternative work.” Just because something has been done well in the past doesn’t mean we have to accept the way it’s done today.
-
“Other ways of knowing” have been examined since Plato. Again, perhaps the problem isn’t that people are doing something other than standard quant work, the problem is the quality of much of this alternative work.
So where is the demarcation in your opinion? Anything goes?
-
I agree. But my point is not complicated: the interpretation of the hoax’s implications among many is this: entire disciplines and histories of thought are pure sophistry and laughable as a whole.
This is different than taking the time to analyze which aspects are absolute crap and which aspects are viable.
It would be like me locating 10 crap quant articles in respected journals (not hard to do, just read past threads of this site) and concluding that the quantitative research is garbage.