Response to Neil McLaughlin's "Canada's Impossible Science"

Abstract

The sky is falling once again on Canadian, or rather Anglo Canadian, sociology according to McLaughlin (Canadian Journal of Sociology 20 (1), 2005). (2) McLaughlin raises a number of issues that will, hopefully, generate the debates and discussions be hopes that his article will encourage (p. 27). McLaughlin does, however, admit that his polemical argument is not based on full necessary to evaluate the case he is making (p. 24). Consequently, in the interest of ensuring that future debates are based on sound empirical evidence I want to correct the depiction of Sociology at the University of Alberta presented in the article. The correction is necessary to forestall the development of myths about the past and present nature of sociology at the University of Alberta. Furthermore, the correction bears on the central issues of what McLaughlin thinks a distinct Anglo-Canadian, or even a national, sociology might look like. McLaughlin stated that the Sociology department at the University of Alberta used to have a mainstream empirical American but now has a large cultural studies/literary feel to its theoretical orientation (p. 15). McLaughlin quotes Ogmundson's (2002) opinion that the department's former strength has been decimated. These judgements are inaccurate and misleading. Ten years ago the underwent an external review and the major conclusion drawn by the external Canadian sociological experts was that the must cease to try to be things to all people and to concentrate on its strengths if it was to have any significant impact nationally and internationally. The review team saw the level of ambition for the Department as far below its potential. The was urged to develop greater programme specialization or concentration and move away from the egalitarian anonymity that produced a situation of undistinguished mediocrity. In other words the late lamented mainstream empirical orientation did not produce a distinctive intellectual profile but rather the very grab bag discipline (p. 32) that McLaughlin sees as a possible future for Canadian sociology. In addition, and somewhat ironically, the tended to produce researchers whose was primarily to US rather than to Canadian associations, something that McLaughlin both deplores (p. 13) but, later seems to encourage (p. 28-29). In response to the external review the Department, under the guidance of the Chair, Derek Sayer, underwent a re-structuring that produced the decision to concentrate on three areas of strategic strengths--namely, Social Structure/Social Policy, Criminology, and Social Theory/Cultural Studies. Our Strategic Plan defines an area of strength as a field in which we have (1) a critical mass of faculty, (2) a good balance of senior and junior faculty, ensuring future continuity, and (3) a track record of sustained excellence in research and publication. In addition to the focus on these areas of and as a critical part of the Social Structure/Social Policy area, we continued to maintain, and in recent years increase the scope and profile, of the Population Research Laboratory (PRL). (3) The prominence of the PRL makes it very difficult to speak of the decimation of the empirical strength of the Department, particularly in the light of the fact that we have delivered, in conjunction with the of Sociology at the University of Calgary, the SSHRC funded and PRL sponsored Data Training Schools this year and we will do so again in 2006. McLaughlin's portrayal of a presumed change in theoretical is also off base. In addition to the reputation for quantitative strength, which was and remains well deserved, the has always had a very strong contingent of internationally recognized theorists. In a footnote (p. 15, fn. 13) McLaughlin suggests currently critical theory lacks empirical grounding which would come as a surprise to many theorists, in all three areas of both in this and internationally. …