I am writing
this on the bus between Ann Arbor and East Lansing, Michigan. I gave a lecture
at the Museum of Anthropology at the University of Michigan on Friday. This was
a great experience. The lecture (the “Jeffrey Parsons Lecture”) is run by the
archaeology grad students - they are the ones who invited me, and my schedule
was set to maximize my interaction with students. Normally when one visits a
program, one has individual meetings with the faculty, and then maybe a lunch
with a bunch of students. Well, I had lunch with some faculty, but meetings and
events all day with grad students (including breakfast and dinner, not to
forget Friday afternoon beers, called “007” at Michigan for some reason I can’t
recall).
This is a
great group of students. They are smart and competent and each one I talked to
is doing good research. And they are solid empirical scientists who don't have
much use for high-level social theory. But several expressed a concern about
whether they would be expected to talk the social-theory talk when interviewing
for jobs or otherwise interacting with outsiders. Has social theory so infected
the discipline that everyone needs to deal with it (regardless of whether it
helps their research or not)? That is an excellent question, one without a
short, easy answer. So here are some thoughts on the question.
(1) You Don't Need High-Level Social Theory
This is a
scientific or scholarly statement, not one based on the sociology of the
profession. I offer several claims, each of which requires consultation of
published literature. That is, I will not spell out the intellectual argument
in detail here; see the cited sources. Most of the empirical research in the
social sciences proceeds just fine without consideration of high-level social
theory. I support this claim in my urban theory paper (Smith 2011). Check out that paper, and read Robert K. Merton and
some of the other sources. I am not just expressing my own opinion here;
rather, this is the dominant epistemological view in the social sciences
outside of anthropology and archaeology.
Here are
some examples of empirical social science research that uses middle-range
theory and has little or nothing to say about high-level social theory. All of
these examples are relevant to archaeology. Or, I should clarify, they are
relevant to the archaeological study of urbanism and state societies; there are
probably equivalent works for archaeologists working on other issues. I am NOT
talking about the idiosyncratic definition Lewis Binford gave the term
“middle-range theory,” but about the standard social-science definition,
explained at length in my urban theory paper. Try some of these works:
- (Sampson 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012)
- (Tilly 1992, 1998, 2001, 2005, 2008)
- (Gerring 2007, 2012; Gerring et al. 2011)
In case it is not clear, please note that
I am using the phrase “social theory” to refer to high-level philosophical
notions about the social world. This is
not theory about the nuts and bolts of how the social world works; the latter
kind of theory is more often discussed in relation to causal mechanisms (see myprior posts on mechanisms, or see some of the sources in my urban theory
paper). I am not saying that “theory” in general is not important, but rather
that one particular kind of theory—popular in postmodern, poststructuralist,
postcolonial, postprocessualist, and other post circles—is not important for
empirical social science. If you haven’t read Abend, you should read his very
important paper on the different meanings of the term “theory” in sociology
(and, by extension, in anthropology and archaeology): (Abend 2008). You can see my post about Abend, but that is no excuse
for not reading the original paper.
(2)
But Social Theory is Important to Many Influential Archaeologists
This was one of the concerns of students
at Michigan. Would they have to throw in some nominal social theory text to get
their articles published, to get grants, and to get a job? My initial reaction is
to answer in the negative. But one of the students told me of a young
archaeologist working in his region who added a bunch of social-theory jargon
at the start of an article just so that it would get accepted at a journal. (I
know the paper in question, in fact it is sitting toward the bottom of my “to
read” stack, and I have AVOIDED reading it because of the social theory, which
seemed to me irrelevant to the basic paper.) I don’t know if the extraneous
theory was necessary or not for the paper in question.
I found recently that archaeological
proposals to Wenner-Gren that lack high-level social theory are less likely to
get funded than those that include it. I don’t know the statistics, but my
service on the W-G review panel for two years suggests that this is what
students are being told by their advisors. Most complex-societies proposals I
read had a bunch of high-level social theory that was not linked to the
research design. I rated this as either a negative or a neutral attribute of
proposals. That is, if the high-level theory substituted for middle-range
theory, methods, and research design (such that the theory was unrelated to the
research activities), I rated a proposal lower; if the high-level theory seemed
to relate somehow to the research design and didn’t get in the way of the
research, I did not rate the proposal lower.
Wenner-Gren nicely sent the reviews of
those same proposals by other reviewers (all anonymous). I was shocked when
proposals with fancy theory and highly deficient research design and analytical
methods were praised (and rated highly) by some of the other reviewers. Similarly,
proposals with a great topic and excellent research design but no social theory
were rated down by those reviewers. I almost resigned from the committee. There
were some outstanding proposals to Wenner-Gren that lacked gratuitous social
theory and were not funded. It looks like you DO need to toss around gratuitous
social theory to get an archaeology grant from Wenner-Gren (please note that I
am NOT talking about any policies or regular practices at W-G; all I can claim
is that the particular group of archaeological reviewers over a two-year period
seemed to adhere to this perspective). So I wasn’t too surprised last week when one of
the Michigan students told me that they all applied to NSF for dissertation
support but rarely to W-G.
What about the job market? If a young
professional were lucky enough to get a job interview at a place like the
University of Chicago or Berkeley, they would certainly have to be able to talk
the talk of high-level social theory. I interviewed at Chicago once, years ago,
and this is probably one reason I didn’t get a job offer. But if you are
interviewing at a mid-range department, there might be an archaeologist on
staff who is into social theory. And if you are interviewing at a small anthropology
department (or any size program, for that matter), you may very well have to
deal with sociocultural anthropologists who might favor an archaeologist who is
into such things. I recall hearing about a job search for an archaeologist
where the sociocultural anthropologists almost hijacked the search by promoting
a lower-ranked candidate over the top-ranked candidate of the search committee,
just because the lower-ranked candidate was into social theory and could talk
at length with the sociocultural types.
(3)
So What is a Graduate Student to do?
Option 1: Ignore social theory, do your
research, and accept the consequences. This is fully logical from a scientific
standpoint, but dangerous from the point of view of the composition of the
profession and its procedures and logistics. As a full professor I can afford
to be cavalier about fads like social theory, but this is not a good choice for
graduate students and new PhDs.
"Luke, join with me and together we will spread social theory across the galaxy! |
Option 2: Read and learn about social
theory. Maybe you will like it and be seduced to the dark side of the force
(well, I hope not). Or maybe you will find some of it to be useful for your
concerns. Or maybe it will seem interesting on a philosophical level, but
irrelevant on a practical level (this is my view). Regardless of your views of the
matter, it is probably a good idea to figure out exactly how social theory is
useful or not useful for your specific research. Evaluate published works
related to your research in their use of social theory. Be prepared to talk
about the specific ways that you think social theory is or is not useful for
your purposes. “Maybe it is fine for those other folks, but for my research,
here is the situation.”
If you really don’t think you need
social theory, that it is not useful for the kind of scholarship you do, then
familiarize yourself with the various critiques that are available. Don’t take
my word in an ephemeral thing like a blog (although please do follow out
sources I list here and in other posts). Start with my urban theory article.
Look for several kinds of things: (1) There are the works showing that social
theory is just not needed for social science research (see the above and
sources cited in some of my earlier posts; see one of my comments to this post.). If Robert Sampson can make it to
the top of the sociology and criminology fields, be elected to the National
Academy of Sciences, secure an endowed chair at Harvard, and do some of the
best urban research around, all without high-level social theory, then you too
can be successful without it (but I doubt he ever had to justify his empirical
stance to postmodern colleagues early in his career). Read and digest the
relevant works and make sure you can make a good argument from your own
theoretical and topical standpoint.
(2) There are the more fundamental
epistemological and ontological critiques of the kinds of research that rely on
high-level social theory (approaches like interpretive studies, those positing
a high degree of relativism, or those that denigrate science and objectivity). I list a few such critiques in a comment to a prior post.
(3) Pay attention to the empirical
adequacy of arguments. Many (but not all) of the works that use or tout
high-level social theory are empirically deficient in terms of how claims are
supported with data, and how theory is used in conjunction with methods and
data. Social-science methods texts like those cited above by John Gerring (and
there are others) are useful for this.See my prior post on making arguments. I don’t know the causality here (do
people with sloppy methods go for social theory? Or does social theory lead to
sloppy methods? Or are both generated by a separate underlying causal
mechanism?). There seems to be a correlation here, but not a fully determinate
relationship.
Sorry to go on at such length. I want to
thank the students at Michigan, not only for showing me a good time and good
discussion, but also for showing me a program full of excellent students
following a vigorous scientific social approach to archaeology.
Abend, Gabriel
2008 The Meaning of "Theory". Sociological Theory 26:173-199.
Gerring, John
2007 Case
Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge University Press, New
York.
2012 Social Science Methodology:
A Unified Framework. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, New York.
2011 An Institutional Theory of Direct and
Indirect Rule. World Politics
63(3):377-433.
Sampson, Robert J.
2009 Racial Stratification and the Durable Tangle
of Neighborhood Inequality. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 621:260-280.
2010 Eliding the Theory/Research and Basic/Applied Divides:
Implications of Merton's 'Middle Range'.
In Robert K. Merton: Sociology of Science
and Sociology as Science, edited by Craig Calhoun, pp. 63-78. Columbia
University Press, New York.
2011 Neighborhood Effects, Causal Mechanisms and the Social Structure
of the City. In Analytical Sociology and Social Mechanisms, edited by Pierre
Demeulenaere, pp. 227-249. Cambridge Universitiy Press, New York.
2012 Great American City:
Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Tilly, Charles
1992 Coercion,
Capital, and European States, AD 990-1990. Blackwell, Oxford.
1998 Durable Inequality.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
2001 Relational Origins of Inequality. Anthropological Theory 1(3):355-372.
2005 Historical Perspectives on Inequality. In The Blackwell Companion
to Social Inequalities, edited by Mary Romero and Eric Margolis, pp. 15-30.
Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA.
2008 Explaining Social Processes.
Paradigm Publishers, Boulder, CO.
3 comments:
My recollection is that it's the 007 club because it's the instructor code of a member of the faculty -- the number that would be appended to the course code of an independent study with him.
So that is the code for Professor Bond? (And there really is an archaeologist named James Bond, but he does not teach at Michigan).
It's the instructor code for KVF, not James Bond. It's a cool code to have, though.
Post a Comment