Search News


Browse Archives

News

Waiting for the Call

August 13, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

SAN FRANCISCO – For sociologists who want to see social science influence public policy, these should be heady times. The president of the United States is someone who isn’t afraid of being called an intellectual and who worked at and lived near a top university for years. His late mother was an anthropologist. He likes to talk to experts.

But the mood in many sessions here at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association was one of just a bit of hurt and disappointment. With a few exceptions, sociologists aren’t getting called by the White House -- and if many imagined that calls from Washington in the last administration might land them in Guantanamo Bay, this time around, they want to be called.

Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, a professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, described watching the news in December, as the economy was in a free fall and Barack Obama, as president-elect, was naming people to key positions in his administration. From the social sciences, he said, it was “the same old cast of characters,” and that means economists.

Obama’s election had brought “a sense of possibility,” but “as a sociologist I was pissed off,” he said.

"I have economist envy on a good day and worse things on a bad day,” he said.

Based on his frustrations, he circulated an e-mail to fellow sociologists that led to discussion here of a proposal to create a “council of social science advisers” as a new federal board to conduct research and provide perspectives that are missing from policy circles. The ASA's Council discussed the idea Wednesday and "affirmed the general principle behind the proposal and authorized the ASA executive office to explore the feasibility of this or other initiatives to broaden social science input into U.S. Policy development," according to an association spokesman.

As sociologists here noted, there is a already a Council of Economic Advisers. And there is the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, a group that could theoretically include social scientists, but the only one on the council now is, you guessed it, an economist (and he may be on the board as much for being president of Yale University as for his economics work).

Jerry Jacobs, a professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, said “on the one hand, the president can ask anyone for advice" -- criminologists, public health experts and others. "It's not that the president is short of advice, but there is a lack of legitimized and organized social science at the highest levels of policy formation.”

“Even in a tremendously sympathetic administration,” Jacobs said, “it is hard to ignore” that within the social sciences, economists have the access. “For me, the agenda [of pushing for a new social science council in the White House] “is figuring out what we need to do to get ourselves a seat at the table.”

Sociologists speaking here stressed that their concern was not ego or a desire to work in Washington, but a sense that key issues related to the economy, health care, education and other subjects would benefit from some of their ideas to balance out those of the economists.

Maggie Anderson of the University of Delaware said that many kinds of information aren’t getting attention “when the discourse is so controlled by economists.”

For example, she said, most of the public discussion of the economy takes place “as if the economy were race, class and gender neutral.” While men and white men are facing economic difficulties, Anderson said that the experience of women -- as being vulnerable to job loss, as facing life without health insurance, as shouldering burdens for caring for low-income children, and so forth -- is not getting enough attention. Sociologists know how to do research to point out the different impacts of economic policy on different groups and why group differences matter, she said.

Women are more likely than men to hold subprime mortgages and to be at risk of losing homes, she said, but you wouldn’t know this from listening to the talk about housing in Washington.

One audience member said that she noticed her economist colleagues getting named to this or that federal panel and that they were very smart people who in many respects shared her politics. “But their supply and demand curves don’t deal with these questions," she added.

While there was a consensus in the audience about the need for sociology’s ideas to get more attention, there were some concerns about pushing the idea of a new federal panel. Some doubted it would ever happen. One sociologist mentioned that while she would like such a panel in an Obama administration, she might not approve of the sociologists who would end up there during a conservative administration.

Others said that it was more important to focus on getting the right social science ideas in play politically than to worry about who is presenting them. Peter Dreier of Occidental College said, “I don't care if there are more economists running the major policy instruments, but I'd like it to be economists I agree with.” He added that “there are a lot of sociologists I wouldn't want in the administration.”

He suggested that the sociology association think more about working from outside government, befitting the discipline’s historic role as social critic. So one project might be to compile an annual resource on the state of the country, from a sociological perspective, pointing out social inequalities, pressing social problems, and so forth, with lots of statistics, evidence and perspective. This resource could be used by politicians, reporters and others, he said, and could provide sociology’s public voice on issues -- without any pressure to conform to politics.

Many in the audience -- include those in favor of pushing the council idea -- embraced that idea.

Dreier’s other ideas were more controversial. He recounted how, during the Great Depression, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once met with a group of labor leaders and ended the meeting not by inviting them to join his administration, but by urging them to organize a movement, saying “I agree with you 100 percent. Now go out there and make me do it.”

Said Dreier: “Just gathering the facts doesn’t always work.”

He then asked audience members how many of them have sent an e-mail to a member of Congress, attended a rally or engaged in other political activism to draw attention to societal inequities, the need for health care reform and other topics. About a third of the audience members had, but Dreier said that “if more of us don’t do this, we’re not going to get health care reform.”

Jacobs of Penn responded by saying that while he also valued the role of active political participation, it was important to remember their roles as scholars, and that their discipline -- based on research -- has unique things to offer.

“We need to be doing research” and getting it attention, Jacobs said. The reason a council or some other structure is needed, he said, is “that the political climate changed and we weren’t able to take advantage of that.”

Asserting a role for sociology, he said: “The right economists are still not as good as the right sociologists.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Waiting for the Call

  • Can sociologists predict the impacts of actions?
  • Posted by Brian Mulligan , Open Learning Coordinator at Institute of Technology Sligo on August 13, 2009 at 7:45am EDT
  • Said Dreier: “Just gathering the facts doesn’t always work.”

    Well it would be a good start. Then some sort of a model that would allow us to predict the impact of decisions would be even better. Despite the fact that 'social science' has the word science included, it seems that economists like Robert Frank and scientists like Daniel Kahneman are making progress in delving into the human condition and giving us the tools to predict the impact of public decisions on human well being.

  • Is it a wonder why sociology majors are declining
  • Posted by Social Scientist on August 13, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • "

    While there was a consensus in the audience about the need for sociology’s ideas to get more attention, there were some concerns about pushing the idea of a new federal panel. Some doubted it would ever happen. One sociologist mentioned that while she would like such a panel in an Obama administration, she might not approve of the sociologists who would end up there during a conservative administration.

    Others said that it was more important to focus on getting the right social science ideas in play politically than to worry about who is presenting them. Peter Dreier of Occidental College said, “I don't care if there are more economists running the major policy instruments, but I'd like it to be economists I agree with.” He added that “there are a lot of sociologists I wouldn't want in the administration.”

    It is alarming how political this stance is. Furthermore it is alarming that leading social scientists long to have a say in Washington, DC - is that really the purpose of what they do? And how about intellectual exchange and discourse and respect for others ... how about a sociological study on why the fabric of democracy is tearing? When these folks want to be only in an Administration that holds certain ideas ... so they can impose them on me?

    Someone might usefully remind them that there is no breathing entity called the "economy" and that if they want to paint the economics profession by what a bunch of political lackeys calling themselves economists is DC are doing, they are practicing poor social science. What a disgrace.

  • studying the politicians' educations
  • Posted by David M. Fahey , History at Miami University on August 13, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • Perhaps a sociologist might study the educations of politicians: Congress, Cabinet, Supreme Court, governors, POTUS. Suspect that are more undergraduate degrees in history, political science, English literature than in sociology (and more in miscellaneous business administration fields than in economics). Advanced degrees can be a surprise. Which recent Speaker earned a Ph.D. in colonial African history? And languages? Which governor was appointed ambassador to the PRC because (in part) he spoke Mandarin?

  • Sociologists
  • Posted by Pamela on August 13, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • I believe that Daniel Patrick “Pat” Moynihan (March 16, 1927 – March 26, 2003) counseled against the Great Society policies that displaced family obligations with government entitlement programs. He foresaw 30 year old grandmothers raising their grandchildren.

  • Appliying solutions using sociology
  • Posted by Sam Ladner on August 13, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • This story is very concerning. When The Economist does a cover story on the declining legitimacy of economics, why aren't sociologists getting more legitimacy?

    I would argue because we have a deep-seated antipathy to anything "applied." Witness, for example, the new influence wielded by anthropologists. In the private sector and particularly in international development, anthropologists are considered experts worth listening to.

    Sociology should develop, nurture, and celebrate "applied sociology." I work as such a sociologist (mostly because, I confess, there are so few jobs in academe). I enjoy my work. I have influence. I design solutions through intersectionality-based research (though I do not call it that for most people; it sounds odd to them).

    Consider applying sociology instead of wondering why we have so little influence.

  • Not Theory but Praxis
  • Posted by phd_angel at University of Chicago on August 13, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • No, no, no... wrong approach. This is not discipline specific. Real participation in power has little to do with theories or soft lobbies, but on what sections of social life a professional group tends to concentrate.

    Although economists get their Nobels from the university, their prime stages are Wall Street, corporate planning, and investment banks. In other countries, sociologists are actively engaged in party politics and social movements (- e.g., ex-President Fernando Cardoso of Brazil). But in the U.S., sociologists seem entrenched in academic life.

    Once sociologists get their hands dirty in old money and politics, then they will be invited to power positions...

  • The plural of anecdote is not data
  • Posted by Social Scientist on August 13, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • "Although economists get their Nobels from the university, their prime stages are Wall Street, corporate planning, and investment banks."

    Does this qualify as good social science? Check out the data on where economists are "employed" and then report back. In any case, if it is the case that being in business means you get to wield political power ... that is corporatism at its worst. Are there sociologists out there writing and researching on the problems with such a system? I don't know any - and those I do know incorrectly characterize this as "capitalism."

  • Policy needs to sociological research
  • Posted by Barbara Risman , Professor and Head, Sociology Department at University of Illinois at Chicago on August 13, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  •  

    The American people deserve a government that draws upon the best social science available when developing social policy. In countries all over the world, legislation and policy are more rational, effective, and efficient when informed by careful social scientific data and analysis.

     

    Social Science research of all sort- including but not limited to economics- should be front and center in the debate about how to solve today’s challenges, from the economic crisis, immigration reform, and health care delivery to racial gaps in school outcomes and declining middle class incomes. .

     

    While President Obama has emphasized the importance of basing government policy on good science, he has thus far only called upon economics to sit at the cabinet-level policy table today. Without a council that institutionalizes independent social science analysis, it’s all too easy for everything but economics, and market solutions to social problems, to disappear in the midst of policy debates. The Obama administration needs a diverse group of social scientists to bring their fields’ research and evidence-based information to social policy.

     

    America can’t rely exclusively on the market to remedy every problem. The “economy” isn’t simply an abstract market, it includes women and men working, earning, and spending, worrying about sending their children to college, having enough money to marry or get sick, or to care for their aging parents. The economy includes the struggle of working parents to balance their time between the workplace and their children’s needs. How to solve economic problems involves understanding people and groups as well as money, how emotional stress affects decision-making, when and how unemployed husbands become effective homemakers as opposed to deadbeat dads, and even how fear of failing effects the willingness to take the risk to marry and promise a lifetime commitment.

     

    One other thing I know is that the United States produces some of the best social scientists in the world. It’s time for us, and our responsibility, to bring that expertise to the policy table.

    For a longer statement which i've published elsewhere on this topic , go to a podcast on the Context website http://contexts.org/podcast/ .

    Barbara J. Risman, University of Illinois at Chicago

    .

  • Then step up to the plate
  • Posted by tiredofthewhining at Canadian university on August 13, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Let me get this straight...social scientists who have been sitting back waiting to be asked for their profound advice by the president and his advisers are pissed off that no one has come calling? And this economists' fault. What have social scientists (broad, sweeping generality) done to show they've got something to offer? You are so busy talking jargon to each other and can't be bothered with media requests yet you wonder why Washington doesn't have a clue that you have something to offer. If you want to have influence, step up to the plate and speak up. Send a letter or white paper or issue analysis to the White House or one of its preferred think tanks. If you aren't willing to call attention to what you have to offer, it's no one's fault but your own.

  • the issue is ideas, not disicplines
  • Posted by Donald Tomaskovic-Devey , Professor and Chair at UMass-Amherst on August 13, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • The intro to this article quoting me on economist-envy and the talk about economists in this thread are distractions. The issue is what set of ideas, what vision of how social life is organized are represented when policy is developed. The social and physical health of children and adults, the basis for satisfying community and work lives, the threats of global firm, racial, gender and class biases in formulating policy solutions, these are the point. The mechanism, whether a Council of Social Science Advisors, or the players - sociologists vs economists vs anthropologists vs whoever, are clearly secondary to enriching civic agenda setting to include the people of the nation.

  • Are we worthy of national attention?
  • Posted by Bob on August 13, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • First, ASA may try to improve the status of the American sociology as a socially relevant discipline. Take a look at our major sociological journals, especialy the ASR. Have you seen an article in any of them in recent years that is readable and that deals with a subject matter worthy of attention by policy makers?

  • Envious
  • Posted by grumpy on August 13, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • Some anthropologists were hoping that his mother's background in their discipline would help bring attention to their expertise. Sadly, that has not happened. Even Paul Farmer has apparently been shunned: http://www.boston.com/news/world/worldly_boston/2009/08/frustrations_rumors_over_usaid.html

  • Where's the Sociological Theory that's needed to make Policy?
  • Posted by TDK , Professor (Ret.) at St. John's University on August 13, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
  • Let’s say that among economists there are liberals and conservatives, broadly Democrats and Republicans, respectively. Depending on who’s in power in Washington, these economists are chosen to propose policies and solutions based on their respective economic theories, e. g., Keynesian vs. Supply-Side. Often, both are wrong, because the theories work only some of the time.

    But, take sociologists. Just what theories do we even have that would allow us to do more than ask policy-makers to think about, to consider, to be interested in certain issues, e. g., that a majority of foreclosures are happening to women? While that’s important to point out, what specifically sociological theory is there that would allow sociologists to formulate a mortgage policy or an immigration policy or a health care policy? Other than Marxist, not much.

    If you disagree, why not try deriving a policy on any major issue (the kind economists deliver on) from your own most favorite theory. See how far you get. And if you do get anywhere, show us your results and send a copy to the President and the 535 members of the Congress.

    Sure, sociologists ask good, interesting, important questions. Based on our theories, however, we certainly don’t know how to deliver answers. Prove me wrong.

  • Envy
  • Posted by James on August 13, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • All Tyranny is based upon Envy.

  • Moynihan
  • Posted by Christoher Riggs on August 13, 2009 at 7:00pm EDT
  • In response to “Pamela”:

    Moynihan (an official in both the LBJ and Nixon administrations) was critical of many aspects of social welfare policy, to be sure. But he also called for government action to reduce poverty because (at least in part) he saw it as harmful to individuals and families. He advocated for a guaranteed income for the poor. And, he excoriated the welfare reform law of 1996, which limited welfare benefits, as “an act of unprecedented social vindictiveness." Whether their merits or flaws, I think it is fair to say that Moynihan’s views on social welfare policy are more complicated than “Pamela” suggests.

  • Posted by RBG on August 14, 2009 at 5:00am EDT
  • Pity the poor sociologists! Perhaps they will understand the chagrin of those in the humanities, who have seldom, if ever, been called by the White House -- a terrible waste of so much expertise and so much wisdom!

  • Hilariously Terrifying
  • Posted by Christopher , Assistant Professor of Economics on August 14, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • I cannot believe the childishness displayed in this article. The quote “The right economists are still not as good as the right sociologists.” is perhaps the most incredibly ridiculous thing I have ever seen in my entire life. Sociologists are very strong in some areas and Economists are very strong in some areas. Why do we feel the need to compete with each other in this way? Isn't our role to inform society with the goal of allowing it to improve itself?

    If Sociologists feel that Economists are wrong in a specific area, then they should publish work that points out the flaws and corrects them. Better yet, walk over to the Economics department and start a conversation that might lead to some cross-disciplinary work. I talk to a Sociologist about my work a few times a semester, just to get her take. I had a Sociologist on my dissertation committee. She was extremely helpful.

    No egos. Just get our best estimates of the effects these policies into the hands of people who can use them. Isn't that why we do research?

  • Christipher
  • Posted by DFS on August 15, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • You're right, of course, and I realize that this will result in your condemnation. To hell with that.

    Sociologists don't wish to publish anything on time towards any relevant, timely subject because they know from experience that their 'research' is based upon only marginally better data than that relied upon by that other great social science, Pyschology.

    We aren't allowed even to attempt to assail their pronouncements from God, after all.

    Let's just do away, finally, with any "science" modifier towards anything not actually scientific.

  • To Get Attention, Engage
  • Posted by Dan , Sociology at member ASA on August 15, 2009 at 4:45pm EDT
  • How many presentations at ASA said something other than "society is a place where some categories of people get the short end of the stick"? Some, for sure, but an outsider could easily walk away with the impression that that was all we do. I was struck by comments I heard in the lobby from a well-regarded non-sociologist scholar: "do you have to be a liberal to be a sociologist?" and "how many different ways can they show that straight white males with resources have advantages? -- we know THAT, now what?"

    It's embarrassing to hear my colleagues whining that people in power are not listening to them and that the economists get all the attention. Engage! Learn some economics so you can talk with them -- the naive demonization of economics in our field is shameful. They are borrowing from us all the time, but as a sociologist, if you use too many tools or concepts from economics (or biology or neuroscience or cognitive science or physics or even psychology) you run the risk of being accused of treason. I think that's data.

  • Way to go, Dan
  • Posted by DFS on August 16, 2009 at 5:00pm EDT
  • I hope you haven't been outcast. Academia needs people like you.

  • Dan is on target
  • Posted by Ezra Gilgh on August 17, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • Dan highlights one of the problems--not the only one, mind you, but a major problem. Too many sociologists are insular, parochial, almost obsessive in working the same line over and over. It is clear that economists have been eating sociologists' breakfast, lunch, and dinner (e.g., advances by so-called behavioral economists), while few sociologists are willing to engage that work and learn from it. As Dan's non-sociologist colleague pointed out, far too many sociologists seem to have gotten trapped in a closed circuit of "identity politics," where they repeat the same basic points over and over. But my own experience with sociologist colleagues also suggests to me that far too many sociologists are mathophobes, and that leaves them with little ability to use modeling. Too many seem to think that descriptive regression analysis is modeling! More sociologists should be learning from economists, but they should also be learning from engineers (my profession)! Otherwise, the discipline will continue to be ignored.

  • Why aren't sociologists involved in design and innovation?
  • Posted by Sam Ladner on August 27, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • I'm pleased to see more sociologists find this kind of childishness for what it is: whining. But I'd also encourage all of us to take a look at the application of sociology (and anthropology) that does NOT follow economics or econometrics.

    Design is a field that requires gathering insights and being empathetic to the final user of the...fill in the blank. Whether it be an office chair, a house, a web site, a telephone, or yes a social policy, the design process is inherently empathetic.

    Sociologists are exactly the right people for this kind of work. Forget about being a "mathophobe." I honestly believe that quantitative techniques are the root of economists current unpopularity. No, leverage your strength in detail, in "thick description," in verstehen.

    Designing sociologists are those who don't just stop with "if we do it this way, so-and-so will get the short end of the stick." Instead, they work directly with others to design solutions to that potential problem.

    Why do we collectively reject such applications of our knowledge? Writing in a dusty old journal won't help average people.

  • Engagement and Resourcefulness
  • Posted by Colin , Sociology PhD Student at New School University on September 28, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • I believe Dan is correct in his assessment of insular Sociologist. Further, I think a significant portion of current Sociology PhD students recognize this, and they're reaching out, across disciplines to gather the tools the need to make their points clear and effective.

    I think this advice also applies to Sociologist's engagement with society in general. The love affair with government positions exhibited in this article is, for me, a little upsetting. Perhaps it stems from a 'keeping up this the Johnsons' jealousy of economists in the White House. But it should be remembered that their appointments likely have less to do with the 'rigor' or 'seriousness' of their discipline and, instead, with its ease of use in government. It can make a very useful tool to justify any number of policy agendas or political goals. Economics has no clean history (neither does sociology) and should not be envied; it simply has the ring of 'science-y-ness' that confuses critics into accepting its findings.

    The rising sociologists should drop their obsession with status games. Among all the social sciences, sociologists may be best equipped to foment change within society, giving them a much wider palettte to work with. We must broaden our focus, beyond the cambers of the ruling elite. If we have made clear that straight white men have the advantages, why do we insist on going to their house to create social change? We cannot continue to delude ourselves into thinking that band-aids will stop the bleeding. Deep social change is in order and that does not begin around an oak table deep within the halls of entrenched power.