Sociological Practice, Social Change, and Social Problems
Bonnie Berry, Ph.D.
Director
Social Problems Research Group
Gig Harbor, Washington
Sociological practice refers to the application of sociological theory and research to effect social change at some level. The level can be micro, as when (for instance) sociological practice affects individuals in a community agency, or macro, as when practice affects social policy on a societal level. Sociological practice can also produce a better understanding of social phenomenon by yielding, as an intended or unintended byproduct, theoretical elaborations and previously-unknown research findings. Ideally, practice relies upon research and theory. However, practice can create both.
Sociological practice, because it is the usage of sociological expertise to affect social change, is often implemented as a solution to social problems. Of the sociological research that immediately comes to mind as especially pertinent to sociological practice are studies of crime, homelessness, poverty, and rights movements; in other words, social problems stemming from social inequity. As sociologists, we measure the problems and their correlates (the relationship between race and poverty, the extent of homelessness among the mentally ill, the effect of the drug war on prison populations, etc.) and therefore have the knowledge with which to confront those who could do something about those problems (mayors, legislators, community service agencies, etc.). We can and do offer sound remedies, ones that are based on scientific objectivity rather than emotion or personal needs. As scientists, we are relatively immune to personal factors, such as the politician’s need for amassing votes or the victim’s need for encouraging legislation.
August Comte (1912), one of our earliest sociologists, felt that sociologists were best qualified to determine the direction of society. Without meaning to sound flippant, his contention makes sense: Sociologists are the experts on societal matters. As such, and if things were right in the world, sociologists should predominate in shaping social policy. The fact that we do not has nothing to do with our lack of expertise; it has instead to do with more aggressive yet less-informed forces, such as economics, that usurp our role. Smith and Berry (1996) have argued that sociology is wrongfully disrespected as a science, not unlike other so-called "soft" sciences. Similarly, I have argued in my forthcoming book that politics, economics, the media, religion, as well as other social institutions and organizations at times play on social emotions to create a highly dysfunctional society while disallowing science to influence social policy (Berry 1999). That is, regardless of what is known about social phenomena, forces outside of sociology call the shots on social policy and practice, frequently to societal detriment.
Purposes and Perspectives. Narrowing our examination to the science of Sociology, we know that theoretical perspectives color the manner in which sociologists look at social phenomena. Of the many perspectives available, let us consider two that are at opposite ends of the theoretical spectrum from each other in terms of practical applications to social problems.
Some theoretical perspectives, such as the critical approach, may be more praxis-oriented than others. The critical approach, in earlier renditions called conflict theory or Marxist theory, not only hopes to explain social forces that create and sustain social problems (notably economic inequity) but hopes to reduce the problems (poverty, crime, etc.) by reducing the source of the problem (inequity). Simplistically, critical theory views social phenomena in terms of conflict between the propertied and the non-propertied. In the United States and other capitalist societies, we have a small sliver of people with lots of money and resources and many people with a great deal less money and resources. The "haves" have no intention of surrendering their privileges willingly; the "have-nots" possess neither the resources nor the opportunity to obtain such resources. One result of massive differential opportunity is a turning to socially unacceptable means (such as crime) to live fulfill American dreams of wealth and fulfillment (Merton 1968).
In contrast to the critical approach, the structural-functionalist perspective assumes that things are the way they are due to self-correcting social forces. Herbert Spencer (1891), recall, applied Darwin’s theory of evolution to society and derived the notion that strong societal members survive while the weaker and less deserving do not. On a larger scale, the same can be said of entire societies; strong ones survive, weak ones do not and should not. More disconcerting, functionalism justifies social inequities, as demonstrated by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore’s work on the functions of poverty (Davis and Moore 1945; Davis 1949). More recent functionalist work may be less value-laden, more objective in scope; as found in Kai Erickson’s (1962; 1966) analyses on the manner in which deviance invokes boundary definition and boundary maintenance.
A great deal of sociological work does not attempt to address practice issues at all. Consider, for example, Emile Durkheim’s (1897) work on suicide. While it is a seminal piece of sociological research and has great importance in the early studies of sociology, the conclusions basically speak to an explanation of suicide, per social indices such as religion. Durkheim’s work can not or does not go beyond explaining suicide outside the context of religion and a few other indices, nor does it claim to.
Variants of Sociological Practice
Sociological practice can be a job, a university requirement, or a goodwill gesture. Ordinarily, we think of sociological practice as a job in and of itself. Sociologists work in private practices or government-operated agencies, operating as consultants, research designers and analysts, and the like.
Sociological practice is usually considered unaffiliated with strictly academic work, although this assumption is somewhat false. For example, community service is often required by universities as one of many tasks required of university faculty. Community service by faculty usually involves applications of specific sociological know-how to community problems and needs, such as the criminologist who works in rape counseling centers or sponsors prison programs. It is also the case that many university faculty, on their own and without the pressure of university requirements, engage in sociological practice for extra money or strictly on a volunteer basis. As one illustration, faculty may offer expert testimony, not as part of their community service requirement, but as paid employment. Yet other faculty offer their skills and expertise out of a desire to make social contributions.
Good Things and Bad Things about Doing Practice. There are, as with all things, pros and cons to sociological practice, usually as compared to academic work. Compared to strictly academic work, sociological practice may pay better. To the extent that this is true, it is true not because sociological practitioners earn large salaries but because academics get paid so poorly.
Another positive aspect to practice is that the direct results of practice are often more quickly-realized and more visible than the work conducted in academic settings. (However, this observation must be tempered with experiences that many of us have with teaching: Teaching can bring immediately-gratifying reactions from students. Many of us experience a profound sense of usefulness when the light bulb comes on over students’ heads — when they come to understand, for the first time, a complex social phenomenon. Depending on where one works, this experience may be rare, however.) Let us compare expert witnessing to academic teaching and research, for instance. The sociologist who serves as an expert witness knows within a few hours, weeks, or months anyway the outcome of the civil or criminal case for which she or he provided testimony. The sociologist who serves as consultant for any number of private and public agencies also may know fairly readily the impact she or he has had on policies and practices of those agencies.
A negative side to sociological practice, compared to academic work, is the lesser prestige traditionally associated with practice versus university teaching. Although I offer two caveats to this observation. One caveat is that academic work does not attract the prestige that it once did. A second caveat is that practice is often considered more "real world" than academic work and, therefore, is more respected by some segments of the public. As academics, we are often unfairly charged with being in an "ivory tower" and out of touch with the "real world."
Some practitioners have to scrounge for funds, while some work in large organizations that house people specifically set to the task of scrounging for funds. Even within this dichotomy, there is variation. Individual practitioners who have set out on their own and formed an organization (research, consulting, etc.), and do not have the secure backdrop of a large and well-established organization, must scrounge. Large governmental (city, county, state or federal) agencies not uncommonly have personnel specifically delegated to do the scrounging, often in the form of grant-writing. Then there are organizations like the Rand Corporation, that require scrounging for funds as part of the job of their researchers.
Professional rewards and punishments can be a strong determinant of the quality and quantity of sociological practice. Years ago, I had written a couple of articles about how sociologists, as university faculty, are pressured to publish — to the point that sometimes we knowingly violate methodological principles to ensure that an article is published (1991; 1994). My first assumption (and one that I will stick with) is that academic work, more than practice, allows for more freedom to conduct research as one sees fit. Academic freedom is not total, however, since we are pressured to obtain external grants on topics that we may recognize as foolhardy, we are pressured to apply methodologies that we know are incorrect for the purpose, and we are pressured to come to conclusions palatable to our funders. But it seems that non-academic work is similarly fraught with pressures to do poor research. A colleague who is employed as a senior-level researcher for the Immigration and Naturalization Service was recently instructed to not let "evaluator purism" get in the way of a "quick and dirty project." She had been requested to come up with an evaluation design, in the absence of a program objective. By contrast, another colleague, President of a highly successful research organization, does not experience these particular kinds of pressures: She merely (!) must engage in intensive hard work for her money, but she is not asked to compromise her research principles.
Personal Experiences. As an advocate of animal rights and former sponsor of programs at a women’s correctional facility, I have engaged in and continue to do unpaid sociological practice. In my case, I have confronted my own sometimes painful emotional involvement as the downside to practice, juxtaposed to a need to effect social change. It is frustrating to bang one’s head against walls of intolerance, whether those walls be the refusal to view non-humans as having feelings or whether those walls be societal "needs" to punish people even though the punishment ensures repeat offenses and graver harm. Other practitioners have different concerns than mine. In the case of my colleague who is the successful research corporation president, she focuses on the relationship between her research corporation and the people who pay her to provide expert testimony, research findings, and depositions. In my other above-mentioned colleague’s case, she must differentiate between the revulsion of the task (working at the Immigration and Naturalization Service) set against her need for employment.
Conclusion
In my wanderings on the topic of sociological practice, I suppose it comes down to a choice, to do sociological practice versus purely academic work for one’s livelihood. Some sociologist-practitioners with whom I’ve spoken on the subject cite their reason for going into practice instead of university work as an inability or lack of desire to teach. Some academic sociologists with whom I’ve spoken on the subject state that they refuse to do what other people (funders) tell them to do. Of course, neither type of work is superior to the other and both make noteworthy impacts on society.
Dear reader, I trust that my musings have provided a little insight on the topic of sociological practice. Practice, as much as purely academic work in the great field of sociology, constitutes an endeavor that can not be matched insofar as social change. Whether we teach or consult, we change things in large and small ways.
Bibliography
Berry, Bonnie. 1991. "An Account of a Professional Ethics Violation in Sociology." The American Sociologist. Vol. 22, No. 3 and 4: 101-106.
Berry, Bonnie. 1994. "The Relationship Between Infringements on the Freedom to Research and Teach and Poor Sociological Practice." The American Sociologist. Vol. 25, No. 3: 53-64.
Berry, Bonnie. 1999. Social Rage: Emotion and Cultural Conflict. New York, New York: Garland.
Compte, August. 1912, 4thEdition. Systeme de Politique Positive. Paris: Cres. (See also Lewis A.Coser. 1977. Masters of Sociological Thought. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, pp. 3-41.)
Davis, Kingsley and Wilbert E. Moore. 1945. "Some Principles of Stratification." American Sociological Review. Vol. 10: 242-249.
Davis. Kingsley. 1949. Human Society. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Durkheim, Emile. 1897. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. New York, NY: Free Press.
Erikson, Kai T. 1962. "Notes on the Sociology of Deviance." Social Problems. Vol. 9.
Erikson, Kai T. 1966. Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance. New York, NY: Wiley.
Merton, Robert K. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York, NY: Free Press.
Smith, Earl and Bonnie Berry. 1996. "Problems Real and Imposed in the Discipline of Sociology." Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology Vol. 24, No. 1: 77-84.
Spencer, Herbert. 1891. The Study of Sociology. New York, NY: Appleton.