Suchergebnisse

In this recent history of British sociology, Andrew Halsey suggests an intriguing connection between political economic régimes in the twentieth century and the development of sociology as an academic discipline, dividing British sociology into four periods, 1900-1950, 1950-1967, 1968-1975, and 1975-2000. In this way, by connecting disciplinary developments with contemporaneous régimes of economic regulation, Halsey begins to outline a sociology of sociology. However, although much of Halsey's book is informative, especially his description of the period from 1950-1967 when he personally entered the discipline, Halsey ultimately fails to develop his sociology of the discipline sufficiently, especially after 1967. Although it does not claim to be comprehensive, this essay attempts to develop Halsey's sociology of the discipline.

This paper is a simple account of my teaching experience1, the aim of which is to answer the question: "How can we successfully teach interactionism, labeling theory, grounded theory and other sociological bases related to qualitative methods with the active participation of students?". Through the examples of sociologists working in the Chicago Tradition, French sociologists working with Pierre Bourdieu, and other examples from American sociology, I show that sociological work is group activity. It is argued in this paper, that to make sociological thinking understandable to students teachers may do well to contextualize key theorists in their narrative/biographical context. The students learn, that sociologists are not magicians or genius individuals who produce attractive theories. Rather, they work in collaboration with other humans to generate knowledge. Moreoever, I demonstrate that sociologists' contributions are often strongly related to and influenced by their broader life context.

This article is part of a special issue on development & deals with the sociol of development. The interest in problems of development was born after WWII & deals with a set of nations & soc systems which are designated by the terms "Third World." Res on development proliferates (10,000 titles in the 1950's). The gathered information helps to understand the many difficulties that development encounters: the gap between the economies of industr & developing countries becomes wider & wider; & will only get worse. The controversy over development policies implies the controversy between disciplines which study development. A. Gunder Frank attacks the sociol of development for becoming more & more underdeveloped; A. Abdel-Malek's work tries to define the "future of soc theory" through a critique of the present situation; R. Bastide's work opposes applied anthrop to the sociol of development & lists its prospective tasks; G. Balandier considers that unavoidable constraints imperatively call for the construction of a new, "dynamic & generative" sociol. He first discusses the diff trends in the sociol of development: criteriology, typology by diff's, theory of the steps of growth (W. W. Rostow, S. N. Eisenstadt), "dynamist," & comparative analyses dealing with modernization, res by "non-conformist" anthrop'ts such as D. Apter, G. Geertz, W. Wertheim...dynamic & generative sociol shows that the problematic of developing countries enriches the problematic of more advanced societies, & vice versa, &, that, in both cases, the society, through the dialectics of continuity & discontinuities, grasps itself as a permanent creation, both given & in becoming. AA Tr by M. Laferriere.