Question Description
Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow.Burawoy divides sociology into four distinct types professional, critical, public, and policy distinguished by audience (academic versus nonacademic) and forms of knowledge (instrumental versus reflexive). Many commentators have noted that these central concepts anchoring his discussion are useful but ambiguous. As feminist sociologists who engage in forms of public sociology, we are concerned about the ambiguities of these concepts. In branding professional sociology as instrumental academic research, Burawoy elevates it above all other forms in his typology as the core of the discipline, contrary to his own efforts to challenge this hierarchy of evaluation. Professional sociology, he writes, provides legitimacy, expertise, distinctive problem definitions, relevant bodies of knowledge and techniques for analyzing data. An effective public or policy sociology is not hostile to, but depends upon the professional sociology that lies at the core of our disciplinary field. An implication of his analysis is that good research is only done in the sphere of professional sociology and that this sociology leads the other sociologies: only professionally oriented, disengaged research is conducted with rigour and is capable of yielding methodological and theoretical innovation.Read through a much earlier critique of trends in US sociology that included pleas for critical public engagement, Burawoys professional sociology brings to mind the categories of abstracted empiricism and grand theory that C. Wright Mills so trenchantly critiqued and that most feminist theories and methodologies have sought to overcome. In addition, despite his efforts to provincialize US sociology, Burawoys 2x2 table can be interpreted as a Parsonian-type model that intends to apply to sociology everywhere while most closely reflecting a particular kind of US sociology. This form of US sociology is formalistically professionalized, especially at the more elite research universities as distinct from being professional and results in institutionalized practices that are unnecessarily rigid and exclusionary. Rather than using this model to prescribe what sociology should be, McLaughlin and Turcotte usefully argue that it should be turned into empirical, researchable questions that determine the size and influence of each type of sociology within different disciplinary, institutional, and national contexts. As feminist sociologists, we are also concerned about other problems of interpretation in Burawoys typology. Burawoy characterizes each ideal type as a division of labour that exists, normatively, in reciprocal interdependence. He suggests that most sociologists concentrate their efforts in one type although he grants that they may simultaneously inhabit more than one of the cells or change from one to another over their careers. While allowing for internal complexity of each type (e.g., professional sociology can be reflexive at times, not just instrumental) and for permeable boundaries between the four types, Burawoys model can be interpreted as overly bounded, static, and nonvariable. It does not appear, for example, to adequately account for such multidisciplinary fields as social gerontology or feminist sociology in which the distinctions between professional, critical, policy, and public domains are blurred. In attempting to integrate sociology and legitimate public sociology, Burawoy glosses over the contradictions and tensions between the four types he identifies, particularly vis-a-vis the longstanding methodological feuds between positivism, critical theory, and postpositivism. As feminists aware of sociologys history of exclusions in the production of knowledge, we are wary of hierarchies that Burawoys typology may initiate or reproduce that rest on a narrowly cast US version of professional sociology. In contrast to his concept of professional sociology as an engagement with specific social theories (that are not critical) or with a limited range of methodological approaches to research (that are neither reflexive nor involve publics or policymaking), we suggest looking for a more inclusive definition. A more inclusive definition of professional sociology might, for example, involve particular credentials (a graduate degree in sociology) and the undertaking of specific activities (such as teaching sociology in a university or college and/or engaging in rigorous ethical research and publishing). This definition embraces a diversity of orientations, methods, institutional locations, and public and policy engagements Equally important, however, is the fact that Burawoys identification of four distinct forms of sociology is itself questionable. As Ericson notes, sociology is (or perhaps should be) simultaneously professional, critical, public, and policy relevant. Whether or not sociology does or should take these forms simultaneously, and how such research is undertaken, requires discussion and empirical investigation. As part of this process, we describe below our research to provide examples of the simultaneous undertaking of professional, critical, policy, and public sociology.We also take issue with the Gramscian separation of the distinct spheres of state, economy, and civil society that underlies Burawoys discussion. In sharply dividing the subject matter of the cognate fields of political science, economics, and sociology with their respective attention to the state, market, and civil society his model ignores the growth of interdisciplinary research in which many of us have long engaged. Interestingly, this division also entirely ignores other disciplines, such as anthropology, for which a parallel debate (the call for more public anthropology) predates by several years Burawoys intervention (for example, in Chicago in 1999, the topic of the American Anthropological Association forum was Public Anthropology).As Calhoun argues, rather than reinforcing disciplinary boundaries and social dichotomies, we should be arguing that state and market are social. Burawoys model tends to demonize the state (and policy intervention/state reform) as well as the market, while romanticizing civil society (including giving it a progressive spin). This ignores both the multisited institutional locations of sociological research and the complex interplay between fields of power, agency, and social change. Feminist theorizing shows that civil society is a complex concept that consists of both the public and the private spheres structured as male-dominated, with the private often disappearing in discourse on civil society. Burawoys focus on civil society can be interpreted as reinvoking the public and private dichotomy of Western societies that has been the subject of so much feminist critique, especially in its argument that family and community life (sites of civil society) cannot be understood as separate from political and economic spheres. Significant feminist theory and research have made a concerted effort to argue for a reconceptualization of these spheres acknowledging their interpenetration, rather than isolation from one another.Where we are in fundamental agreement with Burawoy is in locating the central questions for assessing the state of sociology in the US, Canada, and elsewhere by asking sociology for whom? and sociology for what? These questions require reflexivity that positions social theories, research methodologies, and indeed researchers within contexts of power and social location. Burawoy designates critical and public sociology as inherently reflexive in contrast to professional and policy sociology. Defining reflexivity, however, is no simple task. According to Burawoy (2004:1606), reflexive knowledge is communicative action that aspires to a dialogic character, although mutuality and reciprocity are often difficult to achieve in practice. Reflexivity involves value discussion concerning the ethical goals for which research may be mobilized and stimulates public discussions about the possible meanings of the good society.Recent feminist epistemological debates have been particularly fruitful in contributing to and expanding upon critical theorys understanding of reflexivity. Critical feminist sociological debates, informed especially by engagement with extra-academic communities concerned about social justice for socially marginalized groups, have helped to shape our research.Q.Which of the following about Burawoys hypotheses does the not criticize?a)The separation of state, economy and civil society in Burawoys discussionsb)Burawoys concept of professional sociologyc)The fact that Burawoy designates critical and public sociology as inherently reflexive in contrast to professional and policy sociologyd)Burawoys concern for social justice for socially marginalized groupsCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow.Burawoy divides sociology into four distinct types professional, critical, public, and policy distinguished by audience (academic versus nonacademic) and forms of knowledge (instrumental versus reflexive). Many commentators have noted that these central concepts anchoring his discussion are useful but ambiguous. As feminist sociologists who engage in forms of public sociology, we are concerned about the ambiguities of these concepts. In branding professional sociology as instrumental academic research, Burawoy elevates it above all other forms in his typology as the core of the discipline, contrary to his own efforts to challenge this hierarchy of evaluation. Professional sociology, he writes, provides legitimacy, expertise, distinctive problem definitions, relevant bodies of knowledge and techniques for analyzing data. An effective public or policy sociology is not hostile to, but depends upon the professional sociology that lies at the core of our disciplinary field. An implication of his analysis is that good research is only done in the sphere of professional sociology and that this sociology leads the other sociologies: only professionally oriented, disengaged research is conducted with rigour and is capable of yielding methodological and theoretical innovation.Read through a much earlier critique of trends in US sociology that included pleas for critical public engagement, Burawoys professional sociology brings to mind the categories of abstracted empiricism and grand theory that C. Wright Mills so trenchantly critiqued and that most feminist theories and methodologies have sought to overcome. In addition, despite his efforts to provincialize US sociology, Burawoys 2x2 table can be interpreted as a Parsonian-type model that intends to apply to sociology everywhere while most closely reflecting a particular kind of US sociology. This form of US sociology is formalistically professionalized, especially at the more elite research universities as distinct from being professional and results in institutionalized practices that are unnecessarily rigid and exclusionary. Rather than using this model to prescribe what sociology should be, McLaughlin and Turcotte usefully argue that it should be turned into empirical, researchable questions that determine the size and influence of each type of sociology within different disciplinary, institutional, and national contexts. As feminist sociologists, we are also concerned about other problems of interpretation in Burawoys typology. Burawoy characterizes each ideal type as a division of labour that exists, normatively, in reciprocal interdependence. He suggests that most sociologists concentrate their efforts in one type although he grants that they may simultaneously inhabit more than one of the cells or change from one to another over their careers. While allowing for internal complexity of each type (e.g., professional sociology can be reflexive at times, not just instrumental) and for permeable boundaries between the four types, Burawoys model can be interpreted as overly bounded, static, and nonvariable. It does not appear, for example, to adequately account for such multidisciplinary fields as social gerontology or feminist sociology in which the distinctions between professional, critical, policy, and public domains are blurred. In attempting to integrate sociology and legitimate public sociology, Burawoy glosses over the contradictions and tensions between the four types he identifies, particularly vis-a-vis the longstanding methodological feuds between positivism, critical theory, and postpositivism. As feminists aware of sociologys history of exclusions in the production of knowledge, we are wary of hierarchies that Burawoys typology may initiate or reproduce that rest on a narrowly cast US version of professional sociology. In contrast to his concept of professional sociology as an engagement with specific social theories (that are not critical) or with a limited range of methodological approaches to research (that are neither reflexive nor involve publics or policymaking), we suggest looking for a more inclusive definition. A more inclusive definition of professional sociology might, for example, involve particular credentials (a graduate degree in sociology) and the undertaking of specific activities (such as teaching sociology in a university or college and/or engaging in rigorous ethical research and publishing). This definition embraces a diversity of orientations, methods, institutional locations, and public and policy engagements Equally important, however, is the fact that Burawoys identification of four distinct forms of sociology is itself questionable. As Ericson notes, sociology is (or perhaps should be) simultaneously professional, critical, public, and policy relevant. Whether or not sociology does or should take these forms simultaneously, and how such research is undertaken, requires discussion and empirical investigation. As part of this process, we describe below our research to provide examples of the simultaneous undertaking of professional, critical, policy, and public sociology.We also take issue with the Gramscian separation of the distinct spheres of state, economy, and civil society that underlies Burawoys discussion. In sharply dividing the subject matter of the cognate fields of political science, economics, and sociology with their respective attention to the state, market, and civil society his model ignores the growth of interdisciplinary research in which many of us have long engaged. Interestingly, this division also entirely ignores other disciplines, such as anthropology, for which a parallel debate (the call for more public anthropology) predates by several years Burawoys intervention (for example, in Chicago in 1999, the topic of the American Anthropological Association forum was Public Anthropology).As Calhoun argues, rather than reinforcing disciplinary boundaries and social dichotomies, we should be arguing that state and market are social. Burawoys model tends to demonize the state (and policy intervention/state reform) as well as the market, while romanticizing civil society (including giving it a progressive spin). This ignores both the multisited institutional locations of sociological research and the complex interplay between fields of power, agency, and social change. Feminist theorizing shows that civil society is a complex concept that consists of both the public and the private spheres structured as male-dominated, with the private often disappearing in discourse on civil society. Burawoys focus on civil society can be interpreted as reinvoking the public and private dichotomy of Western societies that has been the subject of so much feminist critique, especially in its argument that family and community life (sites of civil society) cannot be understood as separate from political and economic spheres. Significant feminist theory and research have made a concerted effort to argue for a reconceptualization of these spheres acknowledging their interpenetration, rather than isolation from one another.Where we are in fundamental agreement with Burawoy is in locating the central questions for assessing the state of sociology in the US, Canada, and elsewhere by asking sociology for whom? and sociology for what? These questions require reflexivity that positions social theories, research methodologies, and indeed researchers within contexts of power and social location. Burawoy designates critical and public sociology as inherently reflexive in contrast to professional and policy sociology. Defining reflexivity, however, is no simple task. According to Burawoy (2004:1606), reflexive knowledge is communicative action that aspires to a dialogic character, although mutuality and reciprocity are often difficult to achieve in practice. Reflexivity involves value discussion concerning the ethical goals for which research may be mobilized and stimulates public discussions about the possible meanings of the good society.Recent feminist epistemological debates have been particularly fruitful in contributing to and expanding upon critical theorys understanding of reflexivity. Critical feminist sociological debates, informed especially by engagement with extra-academic communities concerned about social justice for socially marginalized groups, have helped to shape our research.Q.Which of the following about Burawoys hypotheses does the not criticize?a)The separation of state, economy and civil society in Burawoys discussionsb)Burawoys concept of professional sociologyc)The fact that Burawoy designates critical and public sociology as inherently reflexive in contrast to professional and policy sociologyd)Burawoys concern for social justice for socially marginalized groupsCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow.Burawoy divides sociology into four distinct types professional, critical, public, and policy distinguished by audience (academic versus nonacademic) and forms of knowledge (instrumental versus reflexive). Many commentators have noted that these central concepts anchoring his discussion are useful but ambiguous. As feminist sociologists who engage in forms of public sociology, we are concerned about the ambiguities of these concepts. In branding professional sociology as instrumental academic research, Burawoy elevates it above all other forms in his typology as the core of the discipline, contrary to his own efforts to challenge this hierarchy of evaluation. Professional sociology, he writes, provides legitimacy, expertise, distinctive problem definitions, relevant bodies of knowledge and techniques for analyzing data. An effective public or policy sociology is not hostile to, but depends upon the professional sociology that lies at the core of our disciplinary field. An implication of his analysis is that good research is only done in the sphere of professional sociology and that this sociology leads the other sociologies: only professionally oriented, disengaged research is conducted with rigour and is capable of yielding methodological and theoretical innovation.Read through a much earlier critique of trends in US sociology that included pleas for critical public engagement, Burawoys professional sociology brings to mind the categories of abstracted empiricism and grand theory that C. Wright Mills so trenchantly critiqued and that most feminist theories and methodologies have sought to overcome. In addition, despite his efforts to provincialize US sociology, Burawoys 2x2 table can be interpreted as a Parsonian-type model that intends to apply to sociology everywhere while most closely reflecting a particular kind of US sociology. This form of US sociology is formalistically professionalized, especially at the more elite research universities as distinct from being professional and results in institutionalized practices that are unnecessarily rigid and exclusionary. Rather than using this model to prescribe what sociology should be, McLaughlin and Turcotte usefully argue that it should be turned into empirical, researchable questions that determine the size and influence of each type of sociology within different disciplinary, institutional, and national contexts. As feminist sociologists, we are also concerned about other problems of interpretation in Burawoys typology. Burawoy characterizes each ideal type as a division of labour that exists, normatively, in reciprocal interdependence. He suggests that most sociologists concentrate their efforts in one type although he grants that they may simultaneously inhabit more than one of the cells or change from one to another over their careers. While allowing for internal complexity of each type (e.g., professional sociology can be reflexive at times, not just instrumental) and for permeable boundaries between the four types, Burawoys model can be interpreted as overly bounded, static, and nonvariable. It does not appear, for example, to adequately account for such multidisciplinary fields as social gerontology or feminist sociology in which the distinctions between professional, critical, policy, and public domains are blurred. In attempting to integrate sociology and legitimate public sociology, Burawoy glosses over the contradictions and tensions between the four types he identifies, particularly vis-a-vis the longstanding methodological feuds between positivism, critical theory, and postpositivism. As feminists aware of sociologys history of exclusions in the production of knowledge, we are wary of hierarchies that Burawoys typology may initiate or reproduce that rest on a narrowly cast US version of professional sociology. In contrast to his concept of professional sociology as an engagement with specific social theories (that are not critical) or with a limited range of methodological approaches to research (that are neither reflexive nor involve publics or policymaking), we suggest looking for a more inclusive definition. A more inclusive definition of professional sociology might, for example, involve particular credentials (a graduate degree in sociology) and the undertaking of specific activities (such as teaching sociology in a university or college and/or engaging in rigorous ethical research and publishing). This definition embraces a diversity of orientations, methods, institutional locations, and public and policy engagements Equally important, however, is the fact that Burawoys identification of four distinct forms of sociology is itself questionable. As Ericson notes, sociology is (or perhaps should be) simultaneously professional, critical, public, and policy relevant. Whether or not sociology does or should take these forms simultaneously, and how such research is undertaken, requires discussion and empirical investigation. As part of this process, we describe below our research to provide examples of the simultaneous undertaking of professional, critical, policy, and public sociology.We also take issue with the Gramscian separation of the distinct spheres of state, economy, and civil society that underlies Burawoys discussion. In sharply dividing the subject matter of the cognate fields of political science, economics, and sociology with their respective attention to the state, market, and civil society his model ignores the growth of interdisciplinary research in which many of us have long engaged. Interestingly, this division also entirely ignores other disciplines, such as anthropology, for which a parallel debate (the call for more public anthropology) predates by several years Burawoys intervention (for example, in Chicago in 1999, the topic of the American Anthropological Association forum was Public Anthropology).As Calhoun argues, rather than reinforcing disciplinary boundaries and social dichotomies, we should be arguing that state and market are social. Burawoys model tends to demonize the state (and policy intervention/state reform) as well as the market, while romanticizing civil society (including giving it a progressive spin). This ignores both the multisited institutional locations of sociological research and the complex interplay between fields of power, agency, and social change. Feminist theorizing shows that civil society is a complex concept that consists of both the public and the private spheres structured as male-dominated, with the private often disappearing in discourse on civil society. Burawoys focus on civil society can be interpreted as reinvoking the public and private dichotomy of Western societies that has been the subject of so much feminist critique, especially in its argument that family and community life (sites of civil society) cannot be understood as separate from political and economic spheres. Significant feminist theory and research have made a concerted effort to argue for a reconceptualization of these spheres acknowledging their interpenetration, rather than isolation from one another.Where we are in fundamental agreement with Burawoy is in locating the central questions for assessing the state of sociology in the US, Canada, and elsewhere by asking sociology for whom? and sociology for what? These questions require reflexivity that positions social theories, research methodologies, and indeed researchers within contexts of power and social location. Burawoy designates critical and public sociology as inherently reflexive in contrast to professional and policy sociology. Defining reflexivity, however, is no simple task. According to Burawoy (2004:1606), reflexive knowledge is communicative action that aspires to a dialogic character, although mutuality and reciprocity are often difficult to achieve in practice. Reflexivity involves value discussion concerning the ethical goals for which research may be mobilized and stimulates public discussions about the possible meanings of the good society.Recent feminist epistemological debates have been particularly fruitful in contributing to and expanding upon critical theorys understanding of reflexivity. Critical feminist sociological debates, informed especially by engagement with extra-academic communities concerned about social justice for socially marginalized groups, have helped to shape our research.Q.Which of the following about Burawoys hypotheses does the not criticize?a)The separation of state, economy and civil society in Burawoys discussionsb)Burawoys concept of professional sociologyc)The fact that Burawoy designates critical and public sociology as inherently reflexive in contrast to professional and policy sociologyd)Burawoys concern for social justice for socially marginalized groupsCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow.Burawoy divides sociology into four distinct types professional, critical, public, and policy distinguished by audience (academic versus nonacademic) and forms of knowledge (instrumental versus reflexive). Many commentators have noted that these central concepts anchoring his discussion are useful but ambiguous. As feminist sociologists who engage in forms of public sociology, we are concerned about the ambiguities of these concepts. In branding professional sociology as instrumental academic research, Burawoy elevates it above all other forms in his typology as the core of the discipline, contrary to his own efforts to challenge this hierarchy of evaluation. Professional sociology, he writes, provides legitimacy, expertise, distinctive problem definitions, relevant bodies of knowledge and techniques for analyzing data. An effective public or policy sociology is not hostile to, but depends upon the professional sociology that lies at the core of our disciplinary field. An implication of his analysis is that good research is only done in the sphere of professional sociology and that this sociology leads the other sociologies: only professionally oriented, disengaged research is conducted with rigour and is capable of yielding methodological and theoretical innovation.Read through a much earlier critique of trends in US sociology that included pleas for critical public engagement, Burawoys professional sociology brings to mind the categories of abstracted empiricism and grand theory that C. Wright Mills so trenchantly critiqued and that most feminist theories and methodologies have sought to overcome. In addition, despite his efforts to provincialize US sociology, Burawoys 2x2 table can be interpreted as a Parsonian-type model that intends to apply to sociology everywhere while most closely reflecting a particular kind of US sociology. This form of US sociology is formalistically professionalized, especially at the more elite research universities as distinct from being professional and results in institutionalized practices that are unnecessarily rigid and exclusionary. Rather than using this model to prescribe what sociology should be, McLaughlin and Turcotte usefully argue that it should be turned into empirical, researchable questions that determine the size and influence of each type of sociology within different disciplinary, institutional, and national contexts. As feminist sociologists, we are also concerned about other problems of interpretation in Burawoys typology. Burawoy characterizes each ideal type as a division of labour that exists, normatively, in reciprocal interdependence. He suggests that most sociologists concentrate their efforts in one type although he grants that they may simultaneously inhabit more than one of the cells or change from one to another over their careers. While allowing for internal complexity of each type (e.g., professional sociology can be reflexive at times, not just instrumental) and for permeable boundaries between the four types, Burawoys model can be interpreted as overly bounded, static, and nonvariable. It does not appear, for example, to adequately account for such multidisciplinary fields as social gerontology or feminist sociology in which the distinctions between professional, critical, policy, and public domains are blurred. In attempting to integrate sociology and legitimate public sociology, Burawoy glosses over the contradictions and tensions between the four types he identifies, particularly vis-a-vis the longstanding methodological feuds between positivism, critical theory, and postpositivism. As feminists aware of sociologys history of exclusions in the production of knowledge, we are wary of hierarchies that Burawoys typology may initiate or reproduce that rest on a narrowly cast US version of professional sociology. In contrast to his concept of professional sociology as an engagement with specific social theories (that are not critical) or with a limited range of methodological approaches to research (that are neither reflexive nor involve publics or policymaking), we suggest looking for a more inclusive definition. A more inclusive definition of professional sociology might, for example, involve particular credentials (a graduate degree in sociology) and the undertaking of specific activities (such as teaching sociology in a university or college and/or engaging in rigorous ethical research and publishing). This definition embraces a diversity of orientations, methods, institutional locations, and public and policy engagements Equally important, however, is the fact that Burawoys identification of four distinct forms of sociology is itself questionable. As Ericson notes, sociology is (or perhaps should be) simultaneously professional, critical, public, and policy relevant. Whether or not sociology does or should take these forms simultaneously, and how such research is undertaken, requires discussion and empirical investigation. As part of this process, we describe below our research to provide examples of the simultaneous undertaking of professional, critical, policy, and public sociology.We also take issue with the Gramscian separation of the distinct spheres of state, economy, and civil society that underlies Burawoys discussion. In sharply dividing the subject matter of the cognate fields of political science, economics, and sociology with their respective attention to the state, market, and civil society his model ignores the growth of interdisciplinary research in which many of us have long engaged. Interestingly, this division also entirely ignores other disciplines, such as anthropology, for which a parallel debate (the call for more public anthropology) predates by several years Burawoys intervention (for example, in Chicago in 1999, the topic of the American Anthropological Association forum was Public Anthropology).As Calhoun argues, rather than reinforcing disciplinary boundaries and social dichotomies, we should be arguing that state and market are social. Burawoys model tends to demonize the state (and policy intervention/state reform) as well as the market, while romanticizing civil society (including giving it a progressive spin). This ignores both the multisited institutional locations of sociological research and the complex interplay between fields of power, agency, and social change. Feminist theorizing shows that civil society is a complex concept that consists of both the public and the private spheres structured as male-dominated, with the private often disappearing in discourse on civil society. Burawoys focus on civil society can be interpreted as reinvoking the public and private dichotomy of Western societies that has been the subject of so much feminist critique, especially in its argument that family and community life (sites of civil society) cannot be understood as separate from political and economic spheres. Significant feminist theory and research have made a concerted effort to argue for a reconceptualization of these spheres acknowledging their interpenetration, rather than isolation from one another.Where we are in fundamental agreement with Burawoy is in locating the central questions for assessing the state of sociology in the US, Canada, and elsewhere by asking sociology for whom? and sociology for what? These questions require reflexivity that positions social theories, research methodologies, and indeed researchers within contexts of power and social location. Burawoy designates critical and public sociology as inherently reflexive in contrast to professional and policy sociology. Defining reflexivity, however, is no simple task. According to Burawoy (2004:1606), reflexive knowledge is communicative action that aspires to a dialogic character, although mutuality and reciprocity are often difficult to achieve in practice. Reflexivity involves value discussion concerning the ethical goals for which research may be mobilized and stimulates public discussions about the possible meanings of the good society.Recent feminist epistemological debates have been particularly fruitful in contributing to and expanding upon critical theorys understanding of reflexivity. Critical feminist sociological debates, informed especially by engagement with extra-academic communities concerned about social justice for socially marginalized groups, have helped to shape our research.Q.Which of the following about Burawoys hypotheses does the not criticize?a)The separation of state, economy and civil society in Burawoys discussionsb)Burawoys concept of professional sociologyc)The fact that Burawoy designates critical and public sociology as inherently reflexive in contrast to professional and policy sociologyd)Burawoys concern for social justice for socially marginalized groupsCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow.Burawoy divides sociology into four distinct types professional, critical, public, and policy distinguished by audience (academic versus nonacademic) and forms of knowledge (instrumental versus reflexive). Many commentators have noted that these central concepts anchoring his discussion are useful but ambiguous. As feminist sociologists who engage in forms of public sociology, we are concerned about the ambiguities of these concepts. In branding professional sociology as instrumental academic research, Burawoy elevates it above all other forms in his typology as the core of the discipline, contrary to his own efforts to challenge this hierarchy of evaluation. Professional sociology, he writes, provides legitimacy, expertise, distinctive problem definitions, relevant bodies of knowledge and techniques for analyzing data. An effective public or policy sociology is not hostile to, but depends upon the professional sociology that lies at the core of our disciplinary field. An implication of his analysis is that good research is only done in the sphere of professional sociology and that this sociology leads the other sociologies: only professionally oriented, disengaged research is conducted with rigour and is capable of yielding methodological and theoretical innovation.Read through a much earlier critique of trends in US sociology that included pleas for critical public engagement, Burawoys professional sociology brings to mind the categories of abstracted empiricism and grand theory that C. Wright Mills so trenchantly critiqued and that most feminist theories and methodologies have sought to overcome. In addition, despite his efforts to provincialize US sociology, Burawoys 2x2 table can be interpreted as a Parsonian-type model that intends to apply to sociology everywhere while most closely reflecting a particular kind of US sociology. This form of US sociology is formalistically professionalized, especially at the more elite research universities as distinct from being professional and results in institutionalized practices that are unnecessarily rigid and exclusionary. Rather than using this model to prescribe what sociology should be, McLaughlin and Turcotte usefully argue that it should be turned into empirical, researchable questions that determine the size and influence of each type of sociology within different disciplinary, institutional, and national contexts. As feminist sociologists, we are also concerned about other problems of interpretation in Burawoys typology. Burawoy characterizes each ideal type as a division of labour that exists, normatively, in reciprocal interdependence. He suggests that most sociologists concentrate their efforts in one type although he grants that they may simultaneously inhabit more than one of the cells or change from one to another over their careers. While allowing for internal complexity of each type (e.g., professional sociology can be reflexive at times, not just instrumental) and for permeable boundaries between the four types, Burawoys model can be interpreted as overly bounded, static, and nonvariable. It does not appear, for example, to adequately account for such multidisciplinary fields as social gerontology or feminist sociology in which the distinctions between professional, critical, policy, and public domains are blurred. In attempting to integrate sociology and legitimate public sociology, Burawoy glosses over the contradictions and tensions between the four types he identifies, particularly vis-a-vis the longstanding methodological feuds between positivism, critical theory, and postpositivism. As feminists aware of sociologys history of exclusions in the production of knowledge, we are wary of hierarchies that Burawoys typology may initiate or reproduce that rest on a narrowly cast US version of professional sociology. In contrast to his concept of professional sociology as an engagement with specific social theories (that are not critical) or with a limited range of methodological approaches to research (that are neither reflexive nor involve publics or policymaking), we suggest looking for a more inclusive definition. A more inclusive definition of professional sociology might, for example, involve particular credentials (a graduate degree in sociology) and the undertaking of specific activities (such as teaching sociology in a university or college and/or engaging in rigorous ethical research and publishing). This definition embraces a diversity of orientations, methods, institutional locations, and public and policy engagements Equally important, however, is the fact that Burawoys identification of four distinct forms of sociology is itself questionable. As Ericson notes, sociology is (or perhaps should be) simultaneously professional, critical, public, and policy relevant. Whether or not sociology does or should take these forms simultaneously, and how such research is undertaken, requires discussion and empirical investigation. As part of this process, we describe below our research to provide examples of the simultaneous undertaking of professional, critical, policy, and public sociology.We also take issue with the Gramscian separation of the distinct spheres of state, economy, and civil society that underlies Burawoys discussion. In sharply dividing the subject matter of the cognate fields of political science, economics, and sociology with their respective attention to the state, market, and civil society his model ignores the growth of interdisciplinary research in which many of us have long engaged. Interestingly, this division also entirely ignores other disciplines, such as anthropology, for which a parallel debate (the call for more public anthropology) predates by several years Burawoys intervention (for example, in Chicago in 1999, the topic of the American Anthropological Association forum was Public Anthropology).As Calhoun argues, rather than reinforcing disciplinary boundaries and social dichotomies, we should be arguing that state and market are social. Burawoys model tends to demonize the state (and policy intervention/state reform) as well as the market, while romanticizing civil society (including giving it a progressive spin). This ignores both the multisited institutional locations of sociological research and the complex interplay between fields of power, agency, and social change. Feminist theorizing shows that civil society is a complex concept that consists of both the public and the private spheres structured as male-dominated, with the private often disappearing in discourse on civil society. Burawoys focus on civil society can be interpreted as reinvoking the public and private dichotomy of Western societies that has been the subject of so much feminist critique, especially in its argument that family and community life (sites of civil society) cannot be understood as separate from political and economic spheres. Significant feminist theory and research have made a concerted effort to argue for a reconceptualization of these spheres acknowledging their interpenetration, rather than isolation from one another.Where we are in fundamental agreement with Burawoy is in locating the central questions for assessing the state of sociology in the US, Canada, and elsewhere by asking sociology for whom? and sociology for what? These questions require reflexivity that positions social theories, research methodologies, and indeed researchers within contexts of power and social location. Burawoy designates critical and public sociology as inherently reflexive in contrast to professional and policy sociology. Defining reflexivity, however, is no simple task. According to Burawoy (2004:1606), reflexive knowledge is communicative action that aspires to a dialogic character, although mutuality and reciprocity are often difficult to achieve in practice. Reflexivity involves value discussion concerning the ethical goals for which research may be mobilized and stimulates public discussions about the possible meanings of the good society.Recent feminist epistemological debates have been particularly fruitful in contributing to and expanding upon critical theorys understanding of reflexivity. Critical feminist sociological debates, informed especially by engagement with extra-academic communities concerned about social justice for socially marginalized groups, have helped to shape our research.Q.Which of the following about Burawoys hypotheses does the not criticize?a)The separation of state, economy and civil society in Burawoys discussionsb)Burawoys concept of professional sociologyc)The fact that Burawoy designates critical and public sociology as inherently reflexive in contrast to professional and policy sociologyd)Burawoys concern for social justice for socially marginalized groupsCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow.Burawoy divides sociology into four distinct types professional, critical, public, and policy distinguished by audience (academic versus nonacademic) and forms of knowledge (instrumental versus reflexive). Many commentators have noted that these central concepts anchoring his discussion are useful but ambiguous. As feminist sociologists who engage in forms of public sociology, we are concerned about the ambiguities of these concepts. In branding professional sociology as instrumental academic research, Burawoy elevates it above all other forms in his typology as the core of the discipline, contrary to his own efforts to challenge this hierarchy of evaluation. Professional sociology, he writes, provides legitimacy, expertise, distinctive problem definitions, relevant bodies of knowledge and techniques for analyzing data. An effective public or policy sociology is not hostile to, but depends upon the professional sociology that lies at the core of our disciplinary field. An implication of his analysis is that good research is only done in the sphere of professional sociology and that this sociology leads the other sociologies: only professionally oriented, disengaged research is conducted with rigour and is capable of yielding methodological and theoretical innovation.Read through a much earlier critique of trends in US sociology that included pleas for critical public engagement, Burawoys professional sociology brings to mind the categories of abstracted empiricism and grand theory that C. Wright Mills so trenchantly critiqued and that most feminist theories and methodologies have sought to overcome. In addition, despite his efforts to provincialize US sociology, Burawoys 2x2 table can be interpreted as a Parsonian-type model that intends to apply to sociology everywhere while most closely reflecting a particular kind of US sociology. This form of US sociology is formalistically professionalized, especially at the more elite research universities as distinct from being professional and results in institutionalized practices that are unnecessarily rigid and exclusionary. Rather than using this model to prescribe what sociology should be, McLaughlin and Turcotte usefully argue that it should be turned into empirical, researchable questions that determine the size and influence of each type of sociology within different disciplinary, institutional, and national contexts. As feminist sociologists, we are also concerned about other problems of interpretation in Burawoys typology. Burawoy characterizes each ideal type as a division of labour that exists, normatively, in reciprocal interdependence. He suggests that most sociologists concentrate their efforts in one type although he grants that they may simultaneously inhabit more than one of the cells or change from one to another over their careers. While allowing for internal complexity of each type (e.g., professional sociology can be reflexive at times, not just instrumental) and for permeable boundaries between the four types, Burawoys model can be interpreted as overly bounded, static, and nonvariable. It does not appear, for example, to adequately account for such multidisciplinary fields as social gerontology or feminist sociology in which the distinctions between professional, critical, policy, and public domains are blurred. In attempting to integrate sociology and legitimate public sociology, Burawoy glosses over the contradictions and tensions between the four types he identifies, particularly vis-a-vis the longstanding methodological feuds between positivism, critical theory, and postpositivism. As feminists aware of sociologys history of exclusions in the production of knowledge, we are wary of hierarchies that Burawoys typology may initiate or reproduce that rest on a narrowly cast US version of professional sociology. In contrast to his concept of professional sociology as an engagement with specific social theories (that are not critical) or with a limited range of methodological approaches to research (that are neither reflexive nor involve publics or policymaking), we suggest looking for a more inclusive definition. A more inclusive definition of professional sociology might, for example, involve particular credentials (a graduate degree in sociology) and the undertaking of specific activities (such as teaching sociology in a university or college and/or engaging in rigorous ethical research and publishing). This definition embraces a diversity of orientations, methods, institutional locations, and public and policy engagements Equally important, however, is the fact that Burawoys identification of four distinct forms of sociology is itself questionable. As Ericson notes, sociology is (or perhaps should be) simultaneously professional, critical, public, and policy relevant. Whether or not sociology does or should take these forms simultaneously, and how such research is undertaken, requires discussion and empirical investigation. As part of this process, we describe below our research to provide examples of the simultaneous undertaking of professional, critical, policy, and public sociology.We also take issue with the Gramscian separation of the distinct spheres of state, economy, and civil society that underlies Burawoys discussion. In sharply dividing the subject matter of the cognate fields of political science, economics, and sociology with their respective attention to the state, market, and civil society his model ignores the growth of interdisciplinary research in which many of us have long engaged. Interestingly, this division also entirely ignores other disciplines, such as anthropology, for which a parallel debate (the call for more public anthropology) predates by several years Burawoys intervention (for example, in Chicago in 1999, the topic of the American Anthropological Association forum was Public Anthropology).As Calhoun argues, rather than reinforcing disciplinary boundaries and social dichotomies, we should be arguing that state and market are social. Burawoys model tends to demonize the state (and policy intervention/state reform) as well as the market, while romanticizing civil society (including giving it a progressive spin). This ignores both the multisited institutional locations of sociological research and the complex interplay between fields of power, agency, and social change. Feminist theorizing shows that civil society is a complex concept that consists of both the public and the private spheres structured as male-dominated, with the private often disappearing in discourse on civil society. Burawoys focus on civil society can be interpreted as reinvoking the public and private dichotomy of Western societies that has been the subject of so much feminist critique, especially in its argument that family and community life (sites of civil society) cannot be understood as separate from political and economic spheres. Significant feminist theory and research have made a concerted effort to argue for a reconceptualization of these spheres acknowledging their interpenetration, rather than isolation from one another.Where we are in fundamental agreement with Burawoy is in locating the central questions for assessing the state of sociology in the US, Canada, and elsewhere by asking sociology for whom? and sociology for what? These questions require reflexivity that positions social theories, research methodologies, and indeed researchers within contexts of power and social location. Burawoy designates critical and public sociology as inherently reflexive in contrast to professional and policy sociology. Defining reflexivity, however, is no simple task. According to Burawoy (2004:1606), reflexive knowledge is communicative action that aspires to a dialogic character, although mutuality and reciprocity are often difficult to achieve in practice. Reflexivity involves value discussion concerning the ethical goals for which research may be mobilized and stimulates public discussions about the possible meanings of the good society.Recent feminist epistemological debates have been particularly fruitful in contributing to and expanding upon critical theorys understanding of reflexivity. Critical feminist sociological debates, informed especially by engagement with extra-academic communities concerned about social justice for socially marginalized groups, have helped to shape our research.Q.Which of the following about Burawoys hypotheses does the not criticize?a)The separation of state, economy and civil society in Burawoys discussionsb)Burawoys concept of professional sociologyc)The fact that Burawoy designates critical and public sociology as inherently reflexive in contrast to professional and policy sociologyd)Burawoys concern for social justice for socially marginalized groupsCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow.Burawoy divides sociology into four distinct types professional, critical, public, and policy distinguished by audience (academic versus nonacademic) and forms of knowledge (instrumental versus reflexive). Many commentators have noted that these central concepts anchoring his discussion are useful but ambiguous. As feminist sociologists who engage in forms of public sociology, we are concerned about the ambiguities of these concepts. In branding professional sociology as instrumental academic research, Burawoy elevates it above all other forms in his typology as the core of the discipline, contrary to his own efforts to challenge this hierarchy of evaluation. Professional sociology, he writes, provides legitimacy, expertise, distinctive problem definitions, relevant bodies of knowledge and techniques for analyzing data. An effective public or policy sociology is not hostile to, but depends upon the professional sociology that lies at the core of our disciplinary field. An implication of his analysis is that good research is only done in the sphere of professional sociology and that this sociology leads the other sociologies: only professionally oriented, disengaged research is conducted with rigour and is capable of yielding methodological and theoretical innovation.Read through a much earlier critique of trends in US sociology that included pleas for critical public engagement, Burawoys professional sociology brings to mind the categories of abstracted empiricism and grand theory that C. Wright Mills so trenchantly critiqued and that most feminist theories and methodologies have sought to overcome. In addition, despite his efforts to provincialize US sociology, Burawoys 2x2 table can be interpreted as a Parsonian-type model that intends to apply to sociology everywhere while most closely reflecting a particular kind of US sociology. This form of US sociology is formalistically professionalized, especially at the more elite research universities as distinct from being professional and results in institutionalized practices that are unnecessarily rigid and exclusionary. Rather than using this model to prescribe what sociology should be, McLaughlin and Turcotte usefully argue that it should be turned into empirical, researchable questions that determine the size and influence of each type of sociology within different disciplinary, institutional, and national contexts. As feminist sociologists, we are also concerned about other problems of interpretation in Burawoys typology. Burawoy characterizes each ideal type as a division of labour that exists, normatively, in reciprocal interdependence. He suggests that most sociologists concentrate their efforts in one type although he grants that they may simultaneously inhabit more than one of the cells or change from one to another over their careers. While allowing for internal complexity of each type (e.g., professional sociology can be reflexive at times, not just instrumental) and for permeable boundaries between the four types, Burawoys model can be interpreted as overly bounded, static, and nonvariable. It does not appear, for example, to adequately account for such multidisciplinary fields as social gerontology or feminist sociology in which the distinctions between professional, critical, policy, and public domains are blurred. In attempting to integrate sociology and legitimate public sociology, Burawoy glosses over the contradictions and tensions between the four types he identifies, particularly vis-a-vis the longstanding methodological feuds between positivism, critical theory, and postpositivism. As feminists aware of sociologys history of exclusions in the production of knowledge, we are wary of hierarchies that Burawoys typology may initiate or reproduce that rest on a narrowly cast US version of professional sociology. In contrast to his concept of professional sociology as an engagement with specific social theories (that are not critical) or with a limited range of methodological approaches to research (that are neither reflexive nor involve publics or policymaking), we suggest looking for a more inclusive definition. A more inclusive definition of professional sociology might, for example, involve particular credentials (a graduate degree in sociology) and the undertaking of specific activities (such as teaching sociology in a university or college and/or engaging in rigorous ethical research and publishing). This definition embraces a diversity of orientations, methods, institutional locations, and public and policy engagements Equally important, however, is the fact that Burawoys identification of four distinct forms of sociology is itself questionable. As Ericson notes, sociology is (or perhaps should be) simultaneously professional, critical, public, and policy relevant. Whether or not sociology does or should take these forms simultaneously, and how such research is undertaken, requires discussion and empirical investigation. As part of this process, we describe below our research to provide examples of the simultaneous undertaking of professional, critical, policy, and public sociology.We also take issue with the Gramscian separation of the distinct spheres of state, economy, and civil society that underlies Burawoys discussion. In sharply dividing the subject matter of the cognate fields of political science, economics, and sociology with their respective attention to the state, market, and civil society his model ignores the growth of interdisciplinary research in which many of us have long engaged. Interestingly, this division also entirely ignores other disciplines, such as anthropology, for which a parallel debate (the call for more public anthropology) predates by several years Burawoys intervention (for example, in Chicago in 1999, the topic of the American Anthropological Association forum was Public Anthropology).As Calhoun argues, rather than reinforcing disciplinary boundaries and social dichotomies, we should be arguing that state and market are social. Burawoys model tends to demonize the state (and policy intervention/state reform) as well as the market, while romanticizing civil society (including giving it a progressive spin). This ignores both the multisited institutional locations of sociological research and the complex interplay between fields of power, agency, and social change. Feminist theorizing shows that civil society is a complex concept that consists of both the public and the private spheres structured as male-dominated, with the private often disappearing in discourse on civil society. Burawoys focus on civil society can be interpreted as reinvoking the public and private dichotomy of Western societies that has been the subject of so much feminist critique, especially in its argument that family and community life (sites of civil society) cannot be understood as separate from political and economic spheres. Significant feminist theory and research have made a concerted effort to argue for a reconceptualization of these spheres acknowledging their interpenetration, rather than isolation from one another.Where we are in fundamental agreement with Burawoy is in locating the central questions for assessing the state of sociology in the US, Canada, and elsewhere by asking sociology for whom? and sociology for what? These questions require reflexivity that positions social theories, research methodologies, and indeed researchers within contexts of power and social location. Burawoy designates critical and public sociology as inherently reflexive in contrast to professional and policy sociology. Defining reflexivity, however, is no simple task. According to Burawoy (2004:1606), reflexive knowledge is communicative action that aspires to a dialogic character, although mutuality and reciprocity are often difficult to achieve in practice. Reflexivity involves value discussion concerning the ethical goals for which research may be mobilized and stimulates public discussions about the possible meanings of the good society.Recent feminist epistemological debates have been particularly fruitful in contributing to and expanding upon critical theorys understanding of reflexivity. Critical feminist sociological debates, informed especially by engagement with extra-academic communities concerned about social justice for socially marginalized groups, have helped to shape our research.Q.Which of the following about Burawoys hypotheses does the not criticize?a)The separation of state, economy and civil society in Burawoys discussionsb)Burawoys concept of professional sociologyc)The fact that Burawoy designates critical and public sociology as inherently reflexive in contrast to professional and policy sociologyd)Burawoys concern for social justice for socially marginalized groupsCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow.Burawoy divides sociology into four distinct types professional, critical, public, and policy distinguished by audience (academic versus nonacademic) and forms of knowledge (instrumental versus reflexive). Many commentators have noted that these central concepts anchoring his discussion are useful but ambiguous. As feminist sociologists who engage in forms of public sociology, we are concerned about the ambiguities of these concepts. In branding professional sociology as instrumental academic research, Burawoy elevates it above all other forms in his typology as the core of the discipline, contrary to his own efforts to challenge this hierarchy of evaluation. Professional sociology, he writes, provides legitimacy, expertise, distinctive problem definitions, relevant bodies of knowledge and techniques for analyzing data. An effective public or policy sociology is not hostile to, but depends upon the professional sociology that lies at the core of our disciplinary field. An implication of his analysis is that good research is only done in the sphere of professional sociology and that this sociology leads the other sociologies: only professionally oriented, disengaged research is conducted with rigour and is capable of yielding methodological and theoretical innovation.Read through a much earlier critique of trends in US sociology that included pleas for critical public engagement, Burawoys professional sociology brings to mind the categories of abstracted empiricism and grand theory that C. Wright Mills so trenchantly critiqued and that most feminist theories and methodologies have sought to overcome. In addition, despite his efforts to provincialize US sociology, Burawoys 2x2 table can be interpreted as a Parsonian-type model that intends to apply to sociology everywhere while most closely reflecting a particular kind of US sociology. This form of US sociology is formalistically professionalized, especially at the more elite research universities as distinct from being professional and results in institutionalized practices that are unnecessarily rigid and exclusionary. Rather than using this model to prescribe what sociology should be, McLaughlin and Turcotte usefully argue that it should be turned into empirical, researchable questions that determine the size and influence of each type of sociology within different disciplinary, institutional, and national contexts. As feminist sociologists, we are also concerned about other problems of interpretation in Burawoys typology. Burawoy characterizes each ideal type as a division of labour that exists, normatively, in reciprocal interdependence. He suggests that most sociologists concentrate their efforts in one type although he grants that they may simultaneously inhabit more than one of the cells or change from one to another over their careers. While allowing for internal complexity of each type (e.g., professional sociology can be reflexive at times, not just instrumental) and for permeable boundaries between the four types, Burawoys model can be interpreted as overly bounded, static, and nonvariable. It does not appear, for example, to adequately account for such multidisciplinary fields as social gerontology or feminist sociology in which the distinctions between professional, critical, policy, and public domains are blurred. In attempting to integrate sociology and legitimate public sociology, Burawoy glosses over the contradictions and tensions between the four types he identifies, particularly vis-a-vis the longstanding methodological feuds between positivism, critical theory, and postpositivism. As feminists aware of sociologys history of exclusions in the production of knowledge, we are wary of hierarchies that Burawoys typology may initiate or reproduce that rest on a narrowly cast US version of professional sociology. In contrast to his concept of professional sociology as an engagement with specific social theories (that are not critical) or with a limited range of methodological approaches to research (that are neither reflexive nor involve publics or policymaking), we suggest looking for a more inclusive definition. A more inclusive definition of professional sociology might, for example, involve particular credentials (a graduate degree in sociology) and the undertaking of specific activities (such as teaching sociology in a university or college and/or engaging in rigorous ethical research and publishing). This definition embraces a diversity of orientations, methods, institutional locations, and public and policy engagements Equally important, however, is the fact that Burawoys identification of four distinct forms of sociology is itself questionable. As Ericson notes, sociology is (or perhaps should be) simultaneously professional, critical, public, and policy relevant. Whether or not sociology does or should take these forms simultaneously, and how such research is undertaken, requires discussion and empirical investigation. As part of this process, we describe below our research to provide examples of the simultaneous undertaking of professional, critical, policy, and public sociology.We also take issue with the Gramscian separation of the distinct spheres of state, economy, and civil society that underlies Burawoys discussion. In sharply dividing the subject matter of the cognate fields of political science, economics, and sociology with their respective attention to the state, market, and civil society his model ignores the growth of interdisciplinary research in which many of us have long engaged. Interestingly, this division also entirely ignores other disciplines, such as anthropology, for which a parallel debate (the call for more public anthropology) predates by several years Burawoys intervention (for example, in Chicago in 1999, the topic of the American Anthropological Association forum was Public Anthropology).As Calhoun argues, rather than reinforcing disciplinary boundaries and social dichotomies, we should be arguing that state and market are social. Burawoys model tends to demonize the state (and policy intervention/state reform) as well as the market, while romanticizing civil society (including giving it a progressive spin). This ignores both the multisited institutional locations of sociological research and the complex interplay between fields of power, agency, and social change. Feminist theorizing shows that civil society is a complex concept that consists of both the public and the private spheres structured as male-dominated, with the private often disappearing in discourse on civil society. Burawoys focus on civil society can be interpreted as reinvoking the public and private dichotomy of Western societies that has been the subject of so much feminist critique, especially in its argument that family and community life (sites of civil society) cannot be understood as separate from political and economic spheres. Significant feminist theory and research have made a concerted effort to argue for a reconceptualization of these spheres acknowledging their interpenetration, rather than isolation from one another.Where we are in fundamental agreement with Burawoy is in locating the central questions for assessing the state of sociology in the US, Canada, and elsewhere by asking sociology for whom? and sociology for what? These questions require reflexivity that positions social theories, research methodologies, and indeed researchers within contexts of power and social location. Burawoy designates critical and public sociology as inherently reflexive in contrast to professional and policy sociology. Defining reflexivity, however, is no simple task. According to Burawoy (2004:1606), reflexive knowledge is communicative action that aspires to a dialogic character, although mutuality and reciprocity are often difficult to achieve in practice. Reflexivity involves value discussion concerning the ethical goals for which research may be mobilized and stimulates public discussions about the possible meanings of the good society.Recent feminist epistemological debates have been particularly fruitful in contributing to and expanding upon critical theorys understanding of reflexivity. Critical feminist sociological debates, informed especially by engagement with extra-academic communities concerned about social justice for socially marginalized groups, have helped to shape our research.Q.Which of the following about Burawoys hypotheses does the not criticize?a)The separation of state, economy and civil society in Burawoys discussionsb)Burawoys concept of professional sociologyc)The fact that Burawoy designates critical and public sociology as inherently reflexive in contrast to professional and policy sociologyd)Burawoys concern for social justice for socially marginalized groupsCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow.Burawoy divides sociology into four distinct types professional, critical, public, and policy distinguished by audience (academic versus nonacademic) and forms of knowledge (instrumental versus reflexive). Many commentators have noted that these central concepts anchoring his discussion are useful but ambiguous. As feminist sociologists who engage in forms of public sociology, we are concerned about the ambiguities of these concepts. In branding professional sociology as instrumental academic research, Burawoy elevates it above all other forms in his typology as the core of the discipline, contrary to his own efforts to challenge this hierarchy of evaluation. Professional sociology, he writes, provides legitimacy, expertise, distinctive problem definitions, relevant bodies of knowledge and techniques for analyzing data. An effective public or policy sociology is not hostile to, but depends upon the professional sociology that lies at the core of our disciplinary field. An implication of his analysis is that good research is only done in the sphere of professional sociology and that this sociology leads the other sociologies: only professionally oriented, disengaged research is conducted with rigour and is capable of yielding methodological and theoretical innovation.Read through a much earlier critique of trends in US sociology that included pleas for critical public engagement, Burawoys professional sociology brings to mind the categories of abstracted empiricism and grand theory that C. Wright Mills so trenchantly critiqued and that most feminist theories and methodologies have sought to overcome. In addition, despite his efforts to provincialize US sociology, Burawoys 2x2 table can be interpreted as a Parsonian-type model that intends to apply to sociology everywhere while most closely reflecting a particular kind of US sociology. This form of US sociology is formalistically professionalized, especially at the more elite research universities as distinct from being professional and results in institutionalized practices that are unnecessarily rigid and exclusionary. Rather than using this model to prescribe what sociology should be, McLaughlin and Turcotte usefully argue that it should be turned into empirical, researchable questions that determine the size and influence of each type of sociology within different disciplinary, institutional, and national contexts. As feminist sociologists, we are also concerned about other problems of interpretation in Burawoys typology. Burawoy characterizes each ideal type as a division of labour that exists, normatively, in reciprocal interdependence. He suggests that most sociologists concentrate their efforts in one type although he grants that they may simultaneously inhabit more than one of the cells or change from one to another over their careers. While allowing for internal complexity of each type (e.g., professional sociology can be reflexive at times, not just instrumental) and for permeable boundaries between the four types, Burawoys model can be interpreted as overly bounded, static, and nonvariable. It does not appear, for example, to adequately account for such multidisciplinary fields as social gerontology or feminist sociology in which the distinctions between professional, critical, policy, and public domains are blurred. In attempting to integrate sociology and legitimate public sociology, Burawoy glosses over the contradictions and tensions between the four types he identifies, particularly vis-a-vis the longstanding methodological feuds between positivism, critical theory, and postpositivism. As feminists aware of sociologys history of exclusions in the production of knowledge, we are wary of hierarchies that Burawoys typology may initiate or reproduce that rest on a narrowly cast US version of professional sociology. In contrast to his concept of professional sociology as an engagement with specific social theories (that are not critical) or with a limited range of methodological approaches to research (that are neither reflexive nor involve publics or policymaking), we suggest looking for a more inclusive definition. A more inclusive definition of professional sociology might, for example, involve particular credentials (a graduate degree in sociology) and the undertaking of specific activities (such as teaching sociology in a university or college and/or engaging in rigorous ethical research and publishing). This definition embraces a diversity of orientations, methods, institutional locations, and public and policy engagements Equally important, however, is the fact that Burawoys identification of four distinct forms of sociology is itself questionable. As Ericson notes, sociology is (or perhaps should be) simultaneously professional, critical, public, and policy relevant. Whether or not sociology does or should take these forms simultaneously, and how such research is undertaken, requires discussion and empirical investigation. As part of this process, we describe below our research to provide examples of the simultaneous undertaking of professional, critical, policy, and public sociology.We also take issue with the Gramscian separation of the distinct spheres of state, economy, and civil society that underlies Burawoys discussion. In sharply dividing the subject matter of the cognate fields of political science, economics, and sociology with their respective attention to the state, market, and civil society his model ignores the growth of interdisciplinary research in which many of us have long engaged. Interestingly, this division also entirely ignores other disciplines, such as anthropology, for which a parallel debate (the call for more public anthropology) predates by several years Burawoys intervention (for example, in Chicago in 1999, the topic of the American Anthropological Association forum was Public Anthropology).As Calhoun argues, rather than reinforcing disciplinary boundaries and social dichotomies, we should be arguing that state and market are social. Burawoys model tends to demonize the state (and policy intervention/state reform) as well as the market, while romanticizing civil society (including giving it a progressive spin). This ignores both the multisited institutional locations of sociological research and the complex interplay between fields of power, agency, and social change. Feminist theorizing shows that civil society is a complex concept that consists of both the public and the private spheres structured as male-dominated, with the private often disappearing in discourse on civil society. Burawoys focus on civil society can be interpreted as reinvoking the public and private dichotomy of Western societies that has been the subject of so much feminist critique, especially in its argument that family and community life (sites of civil society) cannot be understood as separate from political and economic spheres. Significant feminist theory and research have made a concerted effort to argue for a reconceptualization of these spheres acknowledging their interpenetration, rather than isolation from one another.Where we are in fundamental agreement with Burawoy is in locating the central questions for assessing the state of sociology in the US, Canada, and elsewhere by asking sociology for whom? and sociology for what? These questions require reflexivity that positions social theories, research methodologies, and indeed researchers within contexts of power and social location. Burawoy designates critical and public sociology as inherently reflexive in contrast to professional and policy sociology. Defining reflexivity, however, is no simple task. According to Burawoy (2004:1606), reflexive knowledge is communicative action that aspires to a dialogic character, although mutuality and reciprocity are often difficult to achieve in practice. Reflexivity involves value discussion concerning the ethical goals for which research may be mobilized and stimulates public discussions about the possible meanings of the good society.Recent feminist epistemological debates have been particularly fruitful in contributing to and expanding upon critical theorys understanding of reflexivity. Critical feminist sociological debates, informed especially by engagement with extra-academic communities concerned about social justice for socially marginalized groups, have helped to shape our research.Q.Which of the following about Burawoys hypotheses does the not criticize?a)The separation of state, economy and civil society in Burawoys discussionsb)Burawoys concept of professional sociologyc)The fact that Burawoy designates critical and public sociology as inherently reflexive in contrast to professional and policy sociologyd)Burawoys concern for social justice for socially marginalized groupsCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.