Sociology & generative theory

[onefixedstar]

We've been having a great many discussions lately in class about whether it is reasonable to believe that sociologists can make predictions, and whether it is necessary for us to do so in order to be classified (as so many long to be) as a science. The general consensus within our little group seems to be that we shouldn't be trying to make predictions; we're still divided on the issue of whether sociology should be considered a science. The refusal to make predictions is mostly based on issues around the complexity and reflexivity of the social world. One of the professors made a comment that I rather liked (change-the-world optimist that I am): he suggested that even if we were able to generate laws, it would be impossible to record them in a book as the laws of physics can be recorded (see above comment about reflexivity) and that the best place for sociological laws to reside (the only place they can reside) is in the minds of an informed public. Of course, this leads to all sorts of questions about the role of sociology and how you go about creating an informed public and who we are to decide what information an "informed" public should have. All things to contemplate in later days when I have more time.

We also talked a bit today about blogging research (an activity that one of the professors accurately noted is particularly among graduate students because we have no lives outside of our research) as a tangential comment on the potential helpfulness of research biographies that lay out in the open all of the mistakes and gory details and selective editing that go into creating a research report/journal article/monograph. I was sufficiently inspired by it all (and by comments in last night's class from people who do blog their research) that I thought I might try blogging some of the substantive issues I'm studying in addition to my usual political rants and personal trivia. Those who aren't interested in such things should feel free to ignore these entries, of course. Next substantive topic: genes, memes, and agency.



On the fun side, my cohort met for coffee after class and decided that we'd keep meeting on a biweekly basis following the end of this class to read articles and discuss various academic issues that seem important to us at that moment. I'm looking forward to that, though I'm not entirely confident that it will last.

Incidentally, I just ran this through the spell check and I'm highly amused to note that 'blog' is not in its dictionary. :)

Comments

[semiotic-trader.livejournal.com]

Next substantive topic: genes, memes, and agency.

Is that like when a survey goes around the web asking a bunch of people whether it's better to be a biological human or just a computer program?

"Mr. Anderson..."

:)

Seriously, though, I'd totally be interested in hearing what you work on. Someone asked me the other day what it is your thesis is about, and I had to honestly say I didn't know...

Thesis, dread thesis

[onefixedstar.livejournal.com]

Okay, the 1-minute summary of my thesis topic goes like this:

There is currently some debate in the literature about whether online-only communities can exist. Some say (mostly Internet researchers) say yes, others (mostly community researchers) say no. I argue that among the reasons for their difference in opinion are differences in how they define community. Thus, my thesis is an attempt to examine historical definitions from the community studies literature and current definitions used by the two sides and from this figure out where the disjuncture is. And develop my own conclusions along the way, of course. No primary research here--just a lot of lit review and a little bit of theorizing. Hopefully it will be finished today.