Michael Burawoy Research Articles

Public Sociology in Canada: Debates, Research and Historical Context

In “For Public Sociology” and other essays, Michael Burawoy acknowledges that the national sociologies of countries other than the US (e.g. Brazil, Norway, South Africa) differ substantially from the US case. The balance and dynamics among the four types of sociology, the timing and phases of the historical development of the discipline and the challenges that face the discipline, are some of the many ways sociology differs from country to country (2005a: 20-22; 2005c: 382-4, 2005d: 423-4). Canada is a particularly interesting case because of its geographic proximity and close economic and cultural ties to the United States. Canadian sociology has been deeply influenced by American sociology, but has always stood in an uneasy intellectual and political relationship to the US version of the discipline (Hiller 1982; Brym with Fox 1989; Cormier 2004; McLaughlin 2005). A serious discussion of the possibilities and challenges for a public sociology in Canada requires an analysis of the historical and sociological specificity of the Canadian version of the discipline, something we hope to offer here in this introduction as well as in the papers to follow.

Drifting Apart? The Institutional Dynamics Awaiting Public Sociology in Canada

Michael Burawoy offers an innovative call to re-integrate our discipline. Using Canada as an example, I argue that his proposal underestimates the extent of institutional separatism among branches of sociology. Influenced by anti-positivist currents in the humanities over the past two decades, critical sociologists are disconnecting from mainstream empirical research. Simultaneously, the mainstream is moving in a very different direction as it responds to developments in other social sciences, and largely ignores the humanities. I hypothesize that this institutional drift is limiting the possibility of mutual correction between various branches of sociology, a process that is central to Burawoy’s proposal. Possible scenarios for the future of public sociology in Canada are discussed in light of this hypothesis

Rethinking Burawoy: Reflections from Canadian Feminist Sociology

As president of the American Sociological Association in 2004, Michael Burawoy initiated a lively discussion about the sociological terrain in the United States and appealed to his colleagues to engage in more ‘public sociology’ (Burawoy, 2004, 2005a). We applaud Burawoy’s efforts to begin the task of contextualizing US sociology and of renewing the challenge to embrace rather than eschew engagement with various publics. In outlining his version of public sociology, Burawoy has provided complex, thought-provoking if ambiguous conceptualizations that have led to vigorous debate and examination of core terms. In this paper, we aim to contribute to the debate by discussing feminist sociology, particularly in Canada.

Comment: History Never Repeats Itself

Rural SociologyVolume 74, Issue 1 p. 25-29 Comment: History Never Repeats Itself Michael Burawoy, Michael Burawoy Department of Sociology University of California, BerkeleySearch for more papers by this author Michael Burawoy, Michael Burawoy Department of Sociology University of California, BerkeleySearch for more papers by this author First published: 22 October 2009 https://doi.org/10.1526/003601109787524133Citations: 3AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Citing Literature Volume74, Issue1March 2009Pages 25-29 RelatedInformation

The Trajectory of a Labor Sociologist, Michael Burawoy

The Trajectory of a Labor Sociologist, Michael Burawoy

Working in the tracks of state socialism

Michael Burawoy revisits the forgotten world of state socialism by reflecting on his experiences as an industrial worker in Hungary (1983-1988) in the twilight of the Soviet Union (1991), and in its market aftermath (1992-2002). From the standpoint of the shopfloor, he examines the peculiarities of socialist production and how it shaped working-class consciousness, leaving workers unprepared for the catastrophe that befell them during the capitalist transition. More broadly, he grapples with the limitations of his extended case method and with the challenges state socialism posed for Marxism.

Developing a Public Sociology: From Lay Knowledge to Civic Intelligence in Health Impact Assessment

The theme of “Public Sociologies” at the 2004 American Sociological Association (ASA) conference reignited past debates about the direction of sociology, and its relationship to civil society and the public sphere. In his presidential address Michael Burawoy raised two key questions about sociological knowledge: knowledge for whom and knowledge for what? This provoked widespread discussion across sociological and policy communities. This paper reflects on some of these debates through a commissioned piece of social research: a “health impact assessment” undertaken in a former coal mining community in south Wales, UK. In this case study we argue that there are elements of professional, public, and policy sociologies, and we explore the relationships between these, and how they evolved. We go on to use this case study to explore wider debates in the social sciences about “new knowledge spaces” within which contentious public issues are discussed, and the implications of these pluralistic epistemological environments for different forms of expertise. In particular we refer to the debate on “lay knowledge” and “scientific expertise” and propose that a concept of “civic intelligence” provides a mechanism to resolve the tension between these.

Public sociology? Between heroic immersion and critical distance: Personal reflections on academic engagement with political life

This article attempts to disrupt some of the ways in which engaged social science at times is forced to choose between the technocratic workings of the state and the political world of civil society. In disrupting the common sense distinction between `critical distance' and `heroic immersion' in the everyday life of the city, the piece tries to reframe an understanding of what the `public sociology' powerfully advocated by Michael Burawoy, when chair of the American Sociological Association, might achieve. Rather than conceptualize the ways in which particular knowledges enter into the public realm, we might alternatively think through the manner in which these forms of knowledge themselves constitute publics, congregate audiences around particular forms of expertise that need to be drawn on pragmatically and instrumentally in attempts both to achieve the good society and to link the academy to the civil realm. To do so we might also need to refigure the relation between the sentimental and the rational in the operating of state bureaucracy and the powerful economization of everyday life that sets precedent for the more influential forms of public engagement.

The Turn to Public Sociology: The Case of US Labour Studies

THE TURN TO PUBLIC SOCIOLOGY: THE CASE OF U.S. LABOR STUDIES. 1 Michael Burawoy I N the US, 1974 marked the beginning of a great transformation. In labor studies it was the year of the publication of Harry Braverman’s Labor and Monopoly Capital, and the launching of a Marxist research program focused on the labor process. Braverman turned away from all subjectivist views of work to proclaim his famous deskilling hypothesis, namely the history of monopoly capitalism was the history of the degradation of work. True or false, it was a decisive break with narrowly conceived industrial sociology and timeless organization theory. 1974 also marked a major recession in the US economy and the onset of an economic and then a political assault on labor that would throw Braverman’s claims into relief. More broadly, this birth of neoliberalism, capitalism’s third wave of marketization, would deeply affect both the labor movement and the focus of academic research. It is the changing relationship among economic and political context, labor movement and labor studies that preoccupies this paper. The rupture with professional sociology marked by Labor and Monopoly Capital, and the research program it inaugurated, was followed by a transition, some 20 years later, from the study of the labor process to an engagement with the labor movement. This transition to public sociology has been one of the more exciting developments in an otherwise heavily professionalized discipline and a generally bleak labor scene. Yet the shift of focus from structure to agency, from process to movement, from a critical- professional sociology to a critical-public sociology of labor occurred in the very period of the labor movement’s greatest decline -- the percentage of the labor force unionized in the private sector fell precipitously from 23.6% in 1974 to 7.4% by 2006. 2 Why should sociologists devote themselves to a labor movement that was fast becoming extinct? Sociologists, after all, have always been interested in movements in ascendance not in decline! The paradox begins to unravel if one recognizes how the labor movement was itself responding to the challenge of third-wave marketization. The 1973-1974 recession spelled the demise of class compromise and hegemonic production politics that had arisen in the post-war period. Capital, aided and abetted by the state, was making an unrelenting assault on union organization through the 1980s. Confronting their own demise, labor leaders set about rethinking strategic options, with the result that a large fraction of the labor movement turned from business unionism to social movement unionism, from servicing existing members to organizing new members, from catering to Paper to be presented at the TASA/SAANZ Conference, Auckland, December 4-7, 2007. All unionization figures are taken from Hirsch (forthcoming) and the data appendix that accompanies that paper. See http://www.unionstats.com/

Open the social sciences: To whom and for what?, by Michael Burawoy

This text tries to demonstrate that Portuguese sociology has been built on a set of virtuous relations between four poles of sociological activity: the theoretical problematisation pole, the observational research pole, the reflexivity pole and the professionalisation pole. It is suggested that this specific dynamic was favoured by a series of political-institutional and organisational conditions (the dominance of a critical/applied rationalism in university training, the active role of the Portuguese Sociological Association in the promotion of a creative interaction between academics and field professionals, the political engagement of Portuguese sociologists, the relatively successful opening-up of the labour market to professionally trained sociologists, etc.) The text is, of course, punctuated with comments largely concordant, but sometimes critical on Michael Burawoy's theses about the evolution and specificity of Portuguese sociology and the need to re-invent public sociology and reformulate the scientific agenda of the discipline.

Public Sociology and the Sociological Imagination: Revisiting Burawoy's Sociology Types

Reflecting on Michael Burawoy's classification of sociology into professional, critical, policy, and public types, and the adoption of the latter as the theme of the ASA's 99th Annual Meeting, in this paper I argue that the drive toward public sociologies of new global realities may prove hazardous in the absence of a parallel emphasis on the development of reflexive private sociologies. This requires critical reconsideration of our basic definitions of society and sociology in order to develop theoretical frameworks that meet the challenges of understanding and practicing the dialectics of public and private social processes devoid of rigid pre-determinist frameworks. Proposing an alternative reconsideration of Burawoy's sociology types away from a formal logical framework and in favor of the part-whole dialectic, I argue that even though personal troubles can best be understood in relation to broader public issues, the latter themselves can most effectively be recognized, understood, and practically addressed through the actions of specific agencies who champion the need for broader socio-historical knowledge and change as deeply personal exercises in self-knowledge and self-transformation. As C. Wright Mills emphasized, what sparks the sociological imagination is the intersection of history and biography.

Some Considerations after Reading Michael Burawoy's Article: `What is to be Done? Theses on the Degradation of Social Existence in a Globalizing World'

We are returning to the question: should researchers participate in public life and, if so, how? This question does not refer solely to the utility of the social sciences and their possibly emancipatory role but also raises the issue of how sociological knowledge is produced, tested and demonstrated. We need to consider the status of this knowledge and the conditions under which we may speak of `science'. How researchers in social sciences conceive of their relationship with the public and the actors is linked with the way in which we validate our assertions as science. We cannot separate our conceptions of our relation to the public sphere and the theoretical and methodological conceptions of research that provide the basis of our scientific ability to provide rigorous proofs.

On the Domestication of American Public Sociology: A Postcolonial Feminist Perspective

This article engages with the proposal and call for a renewed engagement with civil society by American academic sociology as put forth by Michael Burawoy's 2004 presidential theme for the American Sociological Association. An examination of the history of US academic interdisciplinary scholarship in area-studies programs suggests that the roots of such a knowledge enterprise in the American university are deeply embedded in state and market interests. It is argued that these imbrications of the university in civil society limit the goal of creating a public sociology that can vitalize civil society and foster counter-hegemonic publics. However, greater attention to this history, and to issues of culture, methodology and interdisciplinarity, may assist in the endeavor to foster a critical (counterhegemonic) public sociology.

Much Ado About Nothing?

We can only welcome the discourse that has been initiated in our professional community with the concept of public sociology in the focus. Undoubtedly, Michael Burawoy has indisputable merits in fuelling this international dialogue. I find, however, that his position and conceptual framework is debatable at several points, therefore my review is on the side of those who criticize his ideas. My paper is divided into three parts: in keeping with the idea that the drop mirrors the ocean, I will start with the detailed critique of a single paragraph-the one which makes comments on his table entitled Types of sociological knowledge. It will be argued that by switching his viewpoints and using vaguely defined notions without empirical evidences he often tackles his subject inconsistently. Secondly, I intend to offer an alternative, three-dimensional conceptual model in which the social scientist's prestige, influence and position on the action chain is taken into account as the main analytical aspects of the relationship between her/him and the public. Finally, based on this model, I propose to identify some strategies in order to find a better balance between the public and professional activity of social scientists.

Editor’s Introduction: Public Engagement and Hope

In this issue, we present a set of papers that continue the still fascinating conversation about “public sociology,” particularly in response to the conceptual model articulated by Michael Burawoy around the time of his presidency of the American Sociological Association (2003–2004), but also moving independently in new directions. The initial paper, by Steven Ortiz, provides a first-person account of the experience of communicating sociological research via mass media. Here, the sociologist moves from the well defined role of academic researcher to the unfamiliar position of public figure playing a very different game that involves high-profile risks. Ortiz offers reflections on how sociology departments, as well as graduate training programs, might better meet these challenges. Lina Hu extends the conversation on public sociology into Asia, in her account of an intensive intervention in the People’s Republic of China. The focus here is on nontraditional public education for workers. The relationship of these efforts to Burawoy’s conceptual model is significantly different from those considered in earlier papers in this journal. Gabor Scheiring presents a friendly critique of Burawoy in his reflections on public sociology and the late modern turn, with particular reference to the European experience. Working from the premise that the gap between professional and public sociology can be overcome, and that public sociology has not been suppressed, he offers his own perspective for pursuing the project, based on what he calls a “selfanthropology.” Miklos Hadas likewise engages the Burawoy model and seeks to articulate an alternative strategy that is based on three dimensions of social-scientific work, namely, the prestige of scientists, their influence and their position on what is called the “action chain.” Citing the longstanding engagement of many sociologists in public policy, as evidenced by the research committees of the International Sociological Association, Hadas raises the question of whether Burawoy—with the best of intentions—is applying a battering ram to an already opened door. Am Soc (2007) 38:221–222 DOI 10.1007/s12108-007-9018-6

The Trouble with Burawoy: An Analytic, Synthetic Alternative

As American Sociological Association (ASA) president in 2004, Michael Burawoy argued `for public sociology', sparking impassioned debate focused almost exclusively on the normative issues raised by his prescription for a more public sociology. Nearly absent from the literature is an analytical critique of his underlying model of the structure of sociological practice. The model is flawed in three ways: (1) the core concepts are ambiguous; (2) the model provides little leverage for understanding the institutional context of sociology as a discipline; and (3) comparative understanding of sociologies in different countries or between public engagement in distinct academic disciplines is not facilitated. In this article, we propose a synthetic means of relating academics, disciplines, audiences and institutional environments that forms the basis for movement toward an empirical agenda on public academics more generally.

Urban Ethnography's “Saloon Problem” and Its Challenge to Public Sociology

This essay assesses the legacy of urban ethnography's (UE) early engagement with the “saloon problem.” Early sociologists (1880–1915) intervened in the national debate on alcohol on the basis of their long–term, in–depth understanding of the urban poor. Ethnographers highlighted the role of the saloon as a haven for maintaining social ties while socializing immigrants to American norms. Instead of prohibition or temperance, sociologists advocated replacing the saloon's positive functions with more democratic institutions, especially an egalitarian domestic sphere. This position was shared by both academic and settlement house sociologists whose saloon investigations offer a coherent sociological research paradigm that antedates the Chicago School. The activism of early sociologists exemplifies the characteristics of Michael Burawoy's recent call for public sociology. Yet the early sociologists failed to redeem the saloon amongst Progressives, who increasingly rallied around the National Anti–Saloon League and constitutional Prohibition. By only investigating alcohol in its public manifestations, sociologists failed to challenge the way the social problem was framed and may even have contributed to the stigmatization of the saloon. This voyeuristic opportunism has plagued the American tradition of urban ethnography, the ineffective legacy of which poses a challenge to a contemporary revival of public sociology.

Going Public: Networking Globally and Locally*

Abstract Rural sociologists figure prominently in the move towards public sociology. The paper takes up Michael Burawoy's call for public sociology and discusses what rural sociologists have to offer to publics and how we stand to gain as a discipline in working with publics. The paper argues that rural sociologists' ability to adopt a cosmopolitan view while negotiating the complexities of global/local processes provides a useful theoretical stance for doing public sociology. Methodologically, both feminist methods and various approaches to networks can guide us as we do public sociology. Then, the paper provides two examples of recent efforts to do public sociology with a women's community group in Sri Lanka in response to the tsunami and with the Pennsylvania Women's Agricultural Network to illustrate the possibilities and limitations of working with networks. In conclusion, the paper addresses opportunities for doing public sociology, the challenges we face as we go public, and future work that is needed to develop theoretically and methodologically strong public rural sociology.

Sociology as Public Discourse and Professional Practice: A Critique of Michael Burawoy

In this article I discuss Burawoy's (2005) argument for public sociology in the context of the sociologist as both citizen and as social scientist; that is, as simultaneously a member of any ‘society’ being researched and as researcher claiming validity for the knowledge produced by research. I shall suggest that the relation between citizenship and social science necessarily places a limit on sociological claims to knowledge in terms both of what can be claimed and of the legitimacy of any claims, but that this need not be damaging to sociology as an expert practice producing distinctive and significant forms of knowledge about the social world. Burawoy's claims on behalf of public sociology take their force from the idea of the sociologist as citizen, but they go beyond this limit in a way that would not only undermine the legitimacy of sociology as professional practice, but also, I shall argue, that of public sociology itself. Ultimately, Burawoy argues for a partisan profession that actively promotes human values that he believes to be embodied in the sociological standpoint. In contrast, I shall argue that political neutrality is central to the corporate organization of sociology, not because social inquiry can, or should be, value-neutral, but because corporate political neutrality creates the space for dialogue and is the condition for any sociology to have a voice.

The Politics of Method and Its Agentic, Performative, and Ontological Others

The Politics of Method in the Human Sciences is an extraordinary book. It is extraordinary for the sheer amount of intellectual ground covered in the individual chapters and for its significance. By historicizing and provincializing each human science in turn, The Politics of Method opens the door to a true reflexivity, which is the necessary condition for what Michael Burawoy (2005: 511) calls ‘‘critical’’ consciousness in his conclusion to the volume. But The Politics of Method is also extraordinary for the theoretical ambition of its editor, who seeks to subsume the entire epistemological trajectory of the postwar American human sciences under a single interpretation. This was no small task: the book is over 600 pages long, and, like many edited volumes, it is also very eclectic—full of tensions, divergent perspectives, and (sometimes) somewhat contradictory substantive claims.1 Like the pieces of a kaleidoscope, each chapter has a unique character yet combines with the other chapters in multiple and intersecting ways to form different images and configurations, all of which offer a particular perspective on what is sociologically important about the epistemology of the human sciences. Ultimately, what we may call the ‘‘Steinmetz thesis’’—the argument that positivism has found a fertile ground in the postwar American social sciences (with the notable exception of anthropology) for reasons that have to do with the particular mode of regulation of the American economy—is just one plausible way, among many, to articulate a very disparate set of case studies. The strength of George Steinmetz’s thesis is to offer a unitary perspective for this volume. Its weakness, however, is to gloss over the real differ-