VIEWPOINT
We argue that the public's generally unfavorable
perception of sociology is due in large part to the way in which sociology
is presented in introductory courses, that the course as now taught does
not attract the right people into the field, that it ill prepares those
who do go on professionally, and that these difficulties could be
eliminated if sociology would develop its introductory course and
curriculum along the lines followed by more established scientific
disciplines.
The Undergraduate Curriculum
in Sociology
An immodest proposal
G. EDWARD STEPHAN
Western Washington University
DOUGLAS S. MASSEY
University of Pennsylvania
his article begins and ends with
the view that sociology is a science, and that as such it should share
certain traits in common with other sciences, particularly in its methods
of research and in its presentation of knowledge. It is illustrative of
one of the points we wish to make that many sociologists will find this
statement to be provocative, that many do in fact believe that sociology
should not be a science, or at least that is should be different from
other sciences. We do not set out here to resolve such a debate. Rather,
we concern ourselves in this paper with certain consequences that follow
if sociology can be assumed to be a science.
In the past two decades sociology professionals have shown
a tendency to move toward a more scientific orientation. Witness the
increased use of quantitative methods and concepts, the greater
appreciation of higher mathematics, and the closer integration between
theory and research. These changes are self-evident in the content of the
major sociological journals, in
[423]
the graduate curricula of leading universities, and in the direction of
recent trends in research. One area of sociology that has not kept pace
with the move towards a more scientific stanceand one place where
sociology differs greatly from other scientific fieldsis in the area
of undergraduate training. In this article we consider some of the
problems associated with the way most students are introduced to
sociology. Then, after surveying the way other scientific disciplines
introduce themselves to interested students, we propose a reformulation of
the sociology curriculum intended to augment and strengthen its status as
a true science of society.
SOCIOLOGY AS SCIENCE:
THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION
The social upheavals and turbulence of the 1960s and early
1970s in the nation generally and more particularly on its campuses was
accompanied by an unprecedented surge in enrollments in sociology and in
governmental support for its research. In the early and mid-1960s, Ph.D.s
in the field were in short supply relative to the demand. With the
subsequent boom in sociology doctorates and the later bust in
undergraduate enrollments, the field is now faced with a painful
situation. While the number of sociologists is increasing, the potential
market for their services is shrinking. Many talented young PhDs simply
find themselves surplus to the current employment structure of the
discipline.
Of course this condition is not unique to sociology. With
the absolute decline in births since 1957drastically since
1961college enrollments are expected to decline for some time to
come, and nearly all fields will be affected. But sociology does approach
the unique in the degree to which it has experienced the pleasures and
pains of the last two decades in higher education. We had more of a boom
during the boom years, and the bust is and will be more painful for us.
While some of the amplitude in our fortunes is surely due to external
factors (relative amounts of social change going on outside the academy,
field-specific employment opportunities, and so on), at least some of the
[424]
explanations, or blame, must be in the way we present ourselves to our
potential students and to the nation at large.
It may, or course, be simply due to the nature of the
field. As many figures in the history of social thought have pointed out,
people don't begin to look at social structure, or to ask sociological
questions until there is disorder or rapid change in society. People don't
tend to question or analyze the routine, the obvious. But is that all
there is to it? If it takes an external disturbance which arouses the
public to sustain a field of scientific study, then why are there so many
other fields, such as many of the so-called natural sciences, which, in
the academic world, at least, seem relatively more stable than sociology?
True, the launching of Sputnik in the late 1950s spurred an interest in
physics, True, ecological concerns spurred some interest in chemistry and
especially biology in the late 1960s. Even so, the level of enrollments
and funding in these and many other areas has remained relatively steady.
What is different about sociology? Why do our fortunes fluctuate so wildly
and painfully?
We believe that a major part of the explanation lies in a
description of the problems itself. Sociology is in or out of fashion
largely because it isin the minds of most students and the
publiclittle more than a reflection of what is fashionable. If it is
fashionable to be concerned with the civil rights of minorities, deviant
lifestyles, increasing crime rates, or urban problems, then sociology
flourishes. If it becomes fashionable to show a lack of concern for social
issues and to concentrate rather on making one's way in the world, then
sociology is believed to have nothing to contribute. In short, the
general perception of both students and the public seems to be that
sociology contains no sustaining corpus of knowledge essential to society
in between crises, no body of information to which specialists should be
expected to contribute routinely regardless of changing fashion, external
conditions, or the mood of the country.
The reasons for this general perception must surely be very
complex. One reason might be the immediate practical utility of various
fields compared with sociology. We are living better through the
application of scientific principles from physics and chemistry. Thanks
to science and technology our nation does to
[425]
a large extent feed the world, and modern medicine has altered other
aspects of the human condition. But all of the "beneficial" sciences grew
into their current position through the dedicated, plodding contributions
of thousands of individuals who could not have known the ultimate
applications of their workcould Gregor Mendel have imagined the mass
production of insulin made possible by gene-splicing techniques? It seems
rather that the work itself commanded their attention at the time. Even
today, what is the practical benefit of cataloging millions of stars in
distant galaxies compared, say, to obtaining more detailed information
about the cities within which we work and live? Utility alone cannot
account for the degree of public support for certain of these "hard"
sciences and the relative lack of it for sociology. Even among the social
and behavioral sciences it is hard to see how utility alone can account
for the prestige accorded to economics, for example, or the support given
to experimental ("rat") psychology relative to other branches of that
discipline.
We suggest that, in addition to its proven or potential
utility, a field is accorded support based on the public's perception of
the degree of separation of that field from common sense. Aside from any
possible benefits, we accord status and continued support to those
activities which we cannot understand and which we cannot do ourselves. It
is a truism from the history of social thought: whether we look at
science, art, religion, or industry, we reward specialists who contribute
something we cannot provide ourselves.
How is sociology specialized? We address this question not
from the point of view of practicing specialists, but from the point of
view of students and the educated public in general. In other words, we
address the question in the context of the introductory course, which is all most people ever see of our field. Surely most would agree that, from such a perspective, sociology is specialized principally in its vocabulary and perhaps to some degree in its
point of view.
The subject matter of any introductory textbook is
experienced more or less directly by everyone in their everyday lives:
in
[426]
family, work, education, deviance, adolescence, religion, voluntary
association, formal organizations, and cities. It used to be that some of
the "juicier" parts of the course were not so familiar (sexuality, certain
patterns of deviance, and so on), but even these topics are now common
fare on any daytime talk show. The only claim to specialization at the
introductory level seems to be the peculiar jargon of sociology, as
evidneced in the degree to which introductory examinations concern
themselves with identifying, defining, and exemplifying concepts. Many of
the concepts themselves are expressed by ordinary words: their
specialization is often only a matter of restricting the word to a
peculiar definition (e.g., "status" or "norm") or even simply to a
particular foreign language (verstehen, anomie ). Other
disciplines, of
course, employ specialized vocabularies: "isopropylbutanol" or
"eigenvalue" are not a part of most people's everyday language. But
neither are the referents of those words part of most people's everyday
direct experience. You have to be taught to experience the things to which
such words are applied. The peculiar words become essential when you have
learned to look at very specific things in a very specific waywhen
you have become specialized and separated from the general public to some
degree.
We believe that most of sociology's introductory level
jargon is not of this sort. Rather than being a language born of
specialized knowledge of the unfamiliar, sociology's jargon is for the
most part a way of describing familiar things in exotic words; and, as
these words ("charisma," "dissonance") become popularized through
journalism and talk shows, even the words cease to be peculiar or
specialized. The boundary that distinguishes sociology from the general
public becomes increasingly blurred at the verbal level. The only level at
which most professional sociologists sense itthe statistical
methodological levelis unknown at the introductory, or in many cases
the undergraduate, level and hence remains unknown (and therefore unreal)
to the public at large. It is small wonder that sociology is held in such
low esteem compared to other scientific disciplines.
[427]
THE INTRODUCTORY COURSE
IN OTHER SCIENCES
Since we can hardly propose introducing complex statistical
methods in the introductory course, what can we propose to remedy the
conditions we have described? How can the introductory course be modified
so as to draw both potential contributors into the field and to leave
among others exposed to it the sense that sociology is something worth
contributing to? To answer these questions we asked ourselves a more
general one: What do introductory courses in other fields have in common,
and how do these common characteristics distinguish such courses from
introductory sociology? Our list is far from complete, but it is enough to
suggest an answer to our initial question.
First, the subject matter in other fields is generally
primary; it is historically the earliest to become an
established part of the field and it remains basic to much of the
discipline. Examples are: Newtonian mechanics in physics, the inorganic
compounds and their elements in chemistry, and the description and
understanding of the cell in biology. The most recent work in the field is
generally not part of the student's initial exposure to the field. There
is a certain logic to this; not only are earlier findings the basis of
later questions and more findings, but students find it easier to learn
this earlier subject matter more or less in the order in which the field
itself learned it. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.
Second, in addition to covering relatively early subject
matter, most introductory courses involve relatively simple
material. Though there may be much of it, it is for the most part
uncomplicated. Students learn about relations between variables which can
be described with relatively simple equations. Much of the subject matter
can be pictured in one way or another (graphs, periodic charts, molecular
models, anatomical drawings, and so forth), a particular help when
learning about unfamiliar material.
Third, the subject matter in other introductory courses
tends to be that about which there is the most agreement in the field. It
is consensual. Most physicists, chemists, and biologists
would not dispute the facts or definitions presented in their
[428]
introductory level texts. Most authors would not, or could not, burden
their readers with current disputes among professionals. It is enough that
the student learn what is already known and accepted by those in the
field.
Fourth, much of the material in introductory courses tends
to be quantitative. The level of mathematical sophistication
need not be high, but the precision and nonambiguity characteristic of
quantitative statements seems to lend itself to introductory
presentations. A great deal of time may not be spent arguing over
definitions of "solid," "liquid," and "gas," but the students quickly
learn to plot temperature transitions between these states. They calculate
how many moles of reagents produce how many moles of products and learn to
balance chemical equations. They learn to classify plants by the number of
leaves in a whorl and to predict the distribution of phenotypes in
successive generations.
Finally, much of what is learned by the student in these
courses is do-able by the student. This is the reason why
such courses nearly always involve laboratory demonstrations, but it is
also why homework and examinations are so frequent. There is something for
the student to perform as well as learn. The fact that the material is
simple, unambiguous, and often quantitative makes assignments easier to
give and to grade with relatively high frequency, and the process can be
carried out by preprofessional graduate students and test-scoring
machinery.
THE INTRODUCTORY COURSE
IN SOCIOLOGY
Consider the typical introductory sociology course in light
of these criteria. Publishers, authors, and instructors seem hell bent to
include recent citations on current "relevant" issuesmaterial which
is not primary in either sense of the word employed above. The subject
matter tends to be intentionally complex rather than simple. Texts tend to
dwell more on what we don't know than on what we do. The usual
presentation of alternative definitions and the multiple "-isms" that
label our perspectives are the very opposite of consensual material.
We
[429]
abhor quantitative material except when we push statistical "reasoning" at
the student that most of us lack the elementary mathematical skills to
explain or defend; for example, most sociologist don't understand
calculus, yet they ritually present least-squares results. Homework is
almost unknown in sociology, and most of what is learned is not do-able by
the student in any form. In sum, introductory sociology is nearly the
direct opposite of other introductory science courses: It is generally
recent and superficial rather than primary, complex rather than simple,
controversial rather than consensual, verbal rather than quantitative, and
it remains textbookand lecture-confined rather than being do-able by
the student. These specific characteristics, we believe, are concerned
with, reflective of, and largely responsible for the general condition
described earlier: the public perception of sociology as little more than
unfamiliar jargon used to describe already familiar phenomena.
While this perception may have been all too accurate in the
past, it is rapidly becoming less so. At the professional level the field
has been moving toward a scientific rigor far beyond that presented in
most introductory courses. The widening gap between the sociology presented to beginning students and that actually practiced in the discipline has several unfortunate consequences.
First, it contributes to the misperception of sociology as
a discipline of fashionable political causes and social issues. This
misapprehension leaves the field very vulnerable to shifts in the social
climate. As a result, support for sociological research tends to ride a
roller-coaster that is extremely disruptive to the intellectual process.
Being a cumulative endeavor, science functions best under a program of
sustained effort and continuous support, not a boom and bust cycle of
interest and neglect.
Second, the usual introductory curriculum draws precisely
the wrong kind of student into the field, a fact that becomes painfully
obvious to anyone who has ever taught an undergraduate statistics course
in sociology. Given the material covered in most introductory courses, it
is not surprising that Sociology attracts a large number of students
interested in metaphysical debates on issuesnot empirical research.
When these students reach graduate school (or sometimes when they
[430]
reach the required undergraduate "research methods" course) the realities
of sociological analysis, with its heavy statistical and quantitative
emphasis, is a rude shock to many and can be a very painful experience for
both students and faculty alike. The flip side of this problem, of course,
is that most introductory sociology curricula are unlikely to attract
those students best able to succeed as professionals in the field.
Students gifted in mathematics, logic, or quantitative analysis end up in
other fields where their interests and aptitudes seem to be more
productively served.
Third, current undergraduate curricula do a disservice to
those students who wish to go on in the field. In the requirements for
most undergraduate sociology majors, the student gets little indication
that preparation in mathematics, statistics, or computer programming might
be useful for one who aspires to a sociological career. As a result,
students are later forced to "make up for lost time" at the graduate level
by taking crash courses in mathematics and statistics, subjects they could
easily have mastered as undergraduates. Since such training can be very
difficult when added on to the normal graduate regimen, many capable
students fall needlessly by the wayside.
Finally, the survey format of the typical introductory
course legitimizes and institutionalizes the Balkanization of an already
fragmented field, leading naturally to a plethora of narrow,
over-specialized course of dubious scientific merit: the sociology of
this, that, and the other thing. (Who ever heard of the "physics of the
automobile?") What sociology badly needs is integration and coordination,
a function that is provided by the introductory curricula of most
scientific fields.
A NEW SOCIOLOGY CURRICULUM
We propose a way out of this situation. Our proposal does
not merely involve piecemeal tinkering with the existing introductory
course. Rather, we propose a radical restructuring of the sociology
curriculum. We are unable to suggest a method for implementation of our
proposal, but we trust that its merits will lead others to find a way.
[431]
There seems to be no necessity involved in selecting the
particular subject matter currently taught in the introductory course in
other fields. Students could start with almost any branch and work "back,"
"down," "up," or whatever. As noted, all we could find in common was that
the material is primary, simple, consensual, quantitative and do-able. To
what subfield in sociology do these adjectives apply? We suggest
demography.
Scientific work in the field began in the mid-seventeenth
century, prior to any other area of sociology (or social sciences for that
matter.) Population processes (mortality, fertility, ageand
sex-composition, migration, and distribution) are basic to all other
sociological phenomenawithout people there are no societies.
Demography provides a take-off point to all other branches of social
science, as well as from biology to sociology (as Comte argued long ago).
In all these sense demography is primary.
Demography is simple, in the sense described above. Much of
it can be given mathematical and graphical expression. There is more
consensus among demographers, about basis concepts and measurement at
least, than among any other set of specialists within sociology. This
consensus is brought about not only by the simplicity of the basic subject
matter but by the interaction between demographers and those who routinely
gather national and international demographic data. There are debates of
course; but around its basic materials and methods, demography is
consensual.
There is no denying that demography is quantitative. It is
also perhaps for that reason, more than any other subdiscipline in the
field, immediately do-able by the student using basic census materials
descriptive of the real world. Frequent homework assignments and
examinations are easier in demography than in any sociology course except
perhaps statistics.
Demography thus meets all the above criteria descriptive of
a typical introductory course. But is it an appropriate introduction to
sociology? How does it introduce the student to the remainder
of the curriculum? Well, to begin with, introductory courses in other
disciplines don't introduce the student to the remainder to the curriculum
in the sense of providing a survey of all topics in the field. Rather,
they introduce students
[432]
to a method of approach to scientific problems: data
gathering, classification, analysis, and deduction. So nothing is lost
apparently, by avoiding the survey approach.
But we also believe that demography as an introductory
course would contribute positively toward bringing students into the
subject matter of sociology proper. Having acquired familiarity with a
fairly well-developed social scientific discipline, students could
approach more recent, less well-developed areas with a preference for
tightly defined concepts, a need for well-established measurement
procedures, a very real awareness of the inseparability of theory and
research, and a developed curiosity about cross-national or over-time
generalizations.
The introductory demography course, if it were long enough,
could even be structured around the goal of moving students toward
sociological thinking and courses. For example, it could move from formal
demography (mortality and fertility) toward social demography (migration,
distribution, and composition). It could move on to other areas where
there is a lot of data not normally thought of as demographic but often
treatable with demographic methods (crime data, education data, labor
force, and income distribution data). While moving toward less data-rich
areas, students could also be sensitized to problems of measurement and
sources of error. Finally, with all this behind them, students might begin
to struggle with the more "theoretical" (that is, vague, complex, and
verbal) questions which should perplex our graduate seminars but which,
instead, we currently inflict on our beginning students.
CONCLUSION
The foregoing implies that demography is, or should be,
more than a small specialization within sociology that most students never
experience. Those that do typically encounter it late in their
undergraduate careers or at the graduate level. Indeed, we view demography
as the core area of sociology. It is difficult to think of any area in
sociology which could not profitably employ demographic concepts,
variables, and methods of analysis.
[433]
Ultimately social processes are population processes and thus
fundamentally demographic in nature. In this sense demography represents
the foundation of scientific sociology.
In the end we believe this proposal would benefit sociology
and its practitioners in a number of ways. First, it would provide a more
sensible introduction to the field than the current survey. Second, it
would tend to select for advance work those students most capable of
handling it, discouraging the "I want to help people" enrollee who can't
pass the later statistics requirement because "I just panic over numbers."
Third, it would help orient at least some students toward early
mathematical preparation. Fourth, an early emphasis on demography backed
up by advanced courses in it and other quantitative methods would help
orient students to one of the few potential nonacademic employment markets
for nonPh.D.s in our fieldgovernmental and industrial research.
Fifth, it would familiarize all students who took it with some specialized
knowledge about the world they live in, for example, the consequences,
over the next fifty years, of the baby boom and bust, rather than
entertaining them with surveys and experimental studies of the attitudes
and behaviors of introductory sociology students which they already know
about and will probably never experience again in their adult lives.
Finally, for those who do not go on in sociology, and most don't, it will
leave them with a perception of the field far different than that which
our current students take with them. Sociology will at least appear to be
what it originally set out to be: not a congeries of ungrounded social
philosophy, peculiar jargon, and ideological perspectives on the familiar,
but rather a true science of society.
G. Edward Stephan is Professor of Sociology at
Western Washington University. He teaches the history of social thought,
human ecology, and statistics. While most of his research has been
directed toward testing the size-density law, his recent work has been
concerned with deriving that law and others from the theory of time
minimization.
Douglas S. Massey is Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of
Pennsylvania. His research interests are in human ecology and migration.
[434]
|