Critique and sociology: towards a new understanding of teaching as an integral part of sociological work

Abstract

This paper aims to shed light on teaching as an integral part of sociological work. The aim of sociologists to contribute to critical inquiry can be traced back to Enlightenment ideas. Based on empirical findings from my doctoral research on the self-understanding of sociologists, I will argue that teaching does not receive the attention it deserves as a way of living the critical traditions within sociology. In spite of decreasing readerships for a rapidly rising number of academic publications, research is better rewarded than teaching. Notwithstanding teaching having been structurally devalued, my research suggests that teaching seems to play a far more significant role in the self-understanding of sociologists.

Key words:

• sociology
• critique
• Enlightenment
• teaching
• research
• assessment

The core of a Reflexive Sociology then is the attitude it fosters toward those parts of the social world closest to the sociologist — his own university, his own profession and its associations, his professional role, and importantly, his students and himself — rather than toward only the remote parts of his social surround. A Reflexive Sociology is distinguished by its refusal to segregate the intimate or personal from the public and collective, or the everyday life from the occasional ‘political’ act. It rejects the old-style closed-office politics no less than the old-style public politics. A Reflexive Sociology is not a bundle of technical skills; it is a conception of how to live and a total praxis.

(Gouldner, 1970: 504)

Researching sociology in the UK, I am indebted to Gouldner’s reflexive sociology. Studying the discipline and its inhabitants in a holistic manner means paying attention to sociology’s intellectual claims and the institutional frameworks within which sociology is practised. Based on a larger empirical study that investigated British sociologists’ disciplinary aspirations and how they are put into practice in current UK higher education (HE) (Simbuerger, 2008), this article looks at what British sociologists identify as one of the key features of sociology — critique — and how it is practised and compromised in research and teaching in UK HE.

A brief analysis of the so-called crisis in British sociology in its different facets will be followed by a discussion of sociologists’ claims for critique as one of the distinctive features of the discipline. Thereafter — moving to practices — we will analyse the institutional framing of research and teaching by the current appraisal formats in the UK and how these compromise sociologists’ relationships to their initial disciplinary aspirations. Finally, we will argue that teaching sociology needs to be revisited as a key site for practising the disciplinary traditions of sociology.

Crisis, what crisis?

Sociology in the UK is said to be in crisis. It is charged with having become very fragmented (Scott, 2005; Stanley, 2000). Instead of providing a cohesive and complex analysis of society and engaging with current challenges, such as the biosciences, sociology gets lost in specialisms. As a result, other disciplines seem to have taken over the role sociology has had for decades (Fuller, 2006). The diagnosis of a crisis within sociology is by no means new, and almost seems to be a fixture of the discipline itself (Bottomore, 1975; Holmwood, 1996). Yet, while sociology has been said to be in a crisis many times throughout its history, the crisis of sociology at the turn of the millennium seems to take a unique shape. The massification of UK HE throughout the past 40 years, the scarcity of state funding and the implementation of assessment procedures in the UK such as the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) have resulted in the increase of fixed-term contracts and more academics competing for jobs (Hockey, 2004; Miller, 1996; Shore and Wright, 2000; Tight, 2000). Sociologists are not only pressured to prioritise research over teaching, but also face the challenge of finding a balance between their research interests and the demands of funding bodies (Sparkes, 2007; Willmott, 2003). All these developments have substantially challenged academic identities (Henkel, 2000; Parker and Jary, 1995) and have had an effect on the discipline of sociology itself (Rappert, 1999). In 2003, in the UK, the Commission on the Social Sciences observed a tendency in sociological research to be repetitive and less innovative and saw this as a result of restructuring processes in HE towards output (Commission on the Social Sciences, 2003).

Doing a sociology of sociology

Both the alleged crisis in sociology and the material conditions of knowledge production that sociologists face today trigger the question of how sociologists relate to their subject. The increasing number of publications on the state of sociology within the last few years indicate that analysis of the self-understanding of the discipline and its inhabitants seems to be experiencing a revival (Beck, 2005; Burawoy, 2005). Yet, while a crisis seems imminent, with a few exceptions (Halsey, 2004; Platt, 2003), these sociologies of sociology are rarely the result of more comprehensive empirical investigations. The topic at hand is mostly approached in a rather segmented way, not connecting the discourses on changes in HE (Ylijok, 2005) in their impact on academic activity (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997; Smyth, 1995) with an analysis of the development of sociology as a discipline in this context (Fuller, 2006; Scott, 2005) or with sociologists’ relationship to the discipline in theory and practice. However, the actual shape of the sociological discipline and its changing format cannot be understood without taking into account the material conditions within which academics produce knowledge.

One author who envisions sociology as a life-encompassing way of being and as a critical and transformative endeavour that counters the segregation of professional and personal roles is Alvin Gouldner (Gouldner, 1970). For Gouldner, being a reflexive sociologist implies living up to the theoretical claims one makes in one’s research, teaching and everyday sociological practice inside the university, as well as among the wider public. In this sense, his reflexive sociology is an epistemological position that recognises the inextricable link between the material conditions within which sociologists are working, their disciplinary traditions, the knowledge they produce and how they practise it. Gouldner’s reflexive sociology therefore lends itself to being applied to a study of current sociologists in England and their negotiation of disciplinary aspirations in research and teaching. Gouldner’s relevance for current studies in the UK has also been emphasised in a number of contributions of leading British sociologists (Eldridge et al, 2000; Stanley, 2000).

It is the missing connection between apparently related bodies of literature, as well as the lack of empirical insights into how sociologists relate to the discipline and how they practise it, that I took as my point of departure for my investigations into the self-understanding of sociologists in England (Simbuerger, 2008). I analysed how current sociologists in England see themselves, how they frame their sociological calling and how they practise sociology. These questions were investigated based on 30 qualitative interviews with sociologists from ten sociology departments in England in the winter and spring of 2007.1 The ten narratives I selected for the purpose of this paper are indicative of the perspectives of the overall sample, and they cover gender, various age groups, positions, research interests and types of institution.

The critical calling of sociology

The initial part of the interviews was devoted to an exploration of the callings of sociology and my respondents’ aspirations. The social synthesis and critique were thereby identified as key features of the sociological discipline (Simbuerger, 2008). Within the realms of this article, I can only focus on one of these features — critique.

So maybe the unique thing about sociology is that it is more questioning the way things are than other disciplines. It takes as its starting point the very fact that the way we live is not inevitable or the best of all possible worlds, I guess.

(Lydia, 32, lecturer, 1960s university)

According to Liz Stanley, other disciplines pay equal attention to critique as an analytical tool; yet sociology distinguishes itself from these disciplines through employing critique as its main tool of analysis (Stanley, 2000). Lydia’s conviction that critique is a distinctive feature of sociology resonates with Liz Stanley’s view. However, what exactly critique signified for my respondents varied substantially, leaving us with three major modes which correspond to longstanding traditions within sociology. ² First of all, critique is considered to be a means for social transformation and progress. Second, critique is envisioned within a humanist, interpretive tradition, yet detached from politics. Third, on the level of outcomes, a critical approach makes sociology a provider of empirical evidence for policy makers, but without taking a political stance.

According to Neil, a lecturer at a post-1992 university, sociologists have a duty to think critically. He considers the attempt ‘to place oneself outside of society’, ‘to question the taken-for-granted with the power of reason’ and thereby to ‘think ourselves freer’ as distinctive features of sociological thought. Neil, who researches and teaches critical theory, makes a reference to the Enlightenment, which he regards as the foundation of sociology. It could be argued that Neil’s emphasis on critical inquiry derives from his affinity with the ideas of critical theory. Looking at Neil’s case only, it may therefore not be legitimate to deduce that the pursuit of critique and the aim for social transformation is intrinsic to sociology.

With Carl, we encounter a sociologist whose interpretation of critical inquiry as an inherently sociological mode of analysis differs from Neil’s. Carl is a senior lecturer at a red-brick university and was intellectually socialised in the 1960s. From his point of view, sociology can be characterised by its questioning of ideologies. He notes that his distance from what he calls dogmatic beliefs is informed by, among other things, Nobert Elias’ (1971) sociology of knowledge:

In many ways, I take a stand on not taking a stand. That comes straight out of my sociology. I find it impossible to argue in any kind of dogmatic way. Sociology gives you a kind of detachment from the belief systems of the vast majority of people. They sense that I am not one of them. If I am not one of them, from their angle, I must therefore be a conservative. This is polarisation in belief systems. I am not from that camp either. That’s the thing many people in sociology cannot deal with.

(Carl, 64, senior lecturer, red-brick university)

For Carl, the true sociologist is ‘embattled’ and does not subscribe to one particular position: ‘The more embattled you are, the truer you are to the discipline.’ The fact that Carl needs to justify his position of embattlement, not only outside sociology, but also within it, could signify two things. First, it is indicative of a lack of consensus on the concept of ‘embattlement’ within sociology. Second, it may signify that the practice of most sociologists does not match Carl’s notion of sociology and his framing of critique that equals the constant detachment from any position. Consequently, by critically referring to his colleagues, Carl observes that key principles of sociological work — critique — are often compromised. Rather, critique is ‘carried out on behalf of groups’ and could thus be labelled as ‘disguised politics’ rather than as an attempt to decode ideology.

Stephen, a professor from a college of London University, also refers to Enlightenment ideas and their foundational significance for the discipline. He identifies critiquing, making and re-making arguments as the distinct features of sociology. According to him, ‘questioning, thinking otherwise and being humble about one’s own knowledge’ are the distinctive features of sociology that are informed by the Enlightenment:

So I think of it as a vocation. To live with thinking, to live with doubt in a productive way. To try and address audiences. To connect with the issues of the day and to make some kind of contribution to the representation of our time and the issues that are broad, the big questions about it.

(Stephen, 44, professor, University of London college)

According to Rose (29), a young research fellow from an old university, ‘evidence’ is the key word that allows sociologists to make a critical contribution. Rose thinks that sociologists should not propose critical interventions in society unless they can provide enough evidence. ‘Evidence’ is the keyword that explains the major difference from Carl’s seemingly similar conception, at first sight, of the separation between sociology and politics. What follows is that sociologists are in no way more entitled to enter the sphere of politics than other people. Hence, for slightly different reasons, both Carl’s and Rose’s narratives stand for an approach to sociology that distances itself from taking a political stance.

Despite my respondents’ varying epistemological positions, all of them refer to the Enlightenment as a milestone in shaping their understanding of critique. The foundational significance of the Enlightenment for sociology that emerges from my respondents’ narratives has been sufficiently documented (Hawthorn, 1987; Kilminster, 1998). Geoffrey Hawthorn argues that sociological thought in its current variation could not have been developed without the preceding work of key thinkers such as Rousseau, Kant and Hegel (Hawthorn, 1987). Likewise, Richard Kilminster illustrates that eighteenth century ideas need to be seen at the core of an understanding of how the comparatively autonomous sociological point of view came into existence (Kilminster, 1998). Critical inquiry and the attempt to question traditional assumptions about the order of the world are understood to be at the heart of this enterprise.

For Wolf Lepenies, the heritage of the Enlightenment becomes apparent in the different ways in which critique unfolds in sociology and its development between the two cultures of science and literature. Sociology emerged as the discipline of letters, trying to distinguish itself from science, philosophy and literature, while still drawing on them (Lepenies, 1988). While some sociologists of the nineteenth century were keen to take over the role of literature as society’s critics, others were tempted to imitate the methods of the natural sciences. For these early days, Lepenies illustrates sociology’s struggle for identity as a process of negotiation between reason and feeling or, as he puts it, between Enlightenment versus counter-Enlightenment (Lepenies, 1988). These processes of negotiation are still manifest in current sociology and can be seen in how Carl, whom we might describe as a representative of the interpretive camp, and Rose, who can be seen within a positivist tradition, describe their understanding of critique. My respondents’ conceptualisations of critique not only differed with regard to the means they sought to employ in the pursuit of critique and the disciplines they considered as relevant reference points for doing that. We also observed fundamental differences concerning the objectives that came about with sociologists’ varying conceptualisations of critical inquiry. ³

The glorification of research: ‘how to write one’s career without audience’ or ‘how to count nothing for practising critique in the classroom’

My respondents identified critique as one of sociology’s key features. Yet, in the spirit of Gouldner’s reflexive sociology, we would like to investigate how these claims of critical inquiry unfold in practice. We will thus analyse the impact of the current RAE culture on the relationship between teaching and research. More specifically, we will look at how the critical calling of the discipline is challenged by the institutional framing of research and teaching.

The Research Assessment Excercise (RAE) was implemented in the UK in the early 1980s due to the scarcity of state funding. Universities were increasingly treated as ‘cost centres’, with academics as ‘work units’ (Shore and Wright, 2000: 67). The implementation of the RAE has substantially altered working conditions for academics, putting stronger emphasis on research and publications (Miller, 1996), with a rising teaching workload as a result of the massification of academia from the 1960s onwards (Martin, 1999). Moreover, managerialism put a stress on administration, leaving less time for research while at the same time involving rising pressure to publish (Dominelli and Hoogvelt, 1996; Henkel, 2000). Elizabeth describes what lies at the heart of these changes.

There is the RAE culture, most obviously. But this is a general question for academics, not simply for sociologists. And in my previous workplace that changed the intellectual culture quite a lot. And it created a great deal of competitive anxiety.

(Elizabeth, 39, lecturer, old university)

With Elizabeth describing the RAE as a culture, we can already see some of the far-reaching effects and anxieties that it triggered. Strathern identified the RAE as one of the most powerful discourses in academia (Strathern, 2000). The facts are clear. Yet only in a limited number of writings do the all-encompassing effects of the RAE get captured, going beyond a sketch of the technicalities of submission requirements and touching the theme that the RAE now determines our work practices and our approach to the discipline. Based on informal interviews with academics at various universities in England, Andrew Sparkes looked at the stories behind the scenes and presented the ‘embodied struggles of an academic at a university that is permeated by an audit culture’ (Sparkes, 2007: 521). As he explains in the beginning of his article, his way of making sense of the RAE is ‘inspired by partial happenings, fragmented memories, echoes of conversations, whispers in corridors, fleeting glimpses of myriad reflections seen through broken glass, and multiple layers of fiction and narrative imaginings’ (Sparkes, 2007: 521).

Just as Sparkes analysed the effects of the RAE on his respondents’ lives, the RAE could also be seen to be at the forefront of my respondents’ reflections. ⁴ Janet is a young research fellow in a 1960s university. She experiences academia as highly competitive and describes the RAE requirements for publications as particularly difficult to fulfil for academics at the beginning of their careers:

So many people are teaching on 15 courses. And I am not because of the nature of my kind of post. So I am really lucky. There is tremendous pressure on younger scholars. It is enormously competitive. And I think that is quite hard. You are awarded for what you publish. So teaching really isn’t that important. As long as you teach on an adequate level, that’s fine. Research funding is becoming more important. Admin isn’t really; you have to tick particular boxes. But, essentially, it is what you publish. I think that is quite constraining, in particular for younger academics.

(Janet, 31, research fellow, 1960s university)

Janet notes that her ‘luck’ consists in having obtained a research fellow position. More than any other form of employment, this contract facilitates her conforming with the requirements of the RAE. Her self-description as ‘lucky’ could further be understood as an expression of dislike for the activity of teaching. Notwithstanding experiencing teaching as a rewarding occupation, Janet concedes that being almost ‘free’ from it and instead focusing on research allows her to build a career. One way of looking at Janet’s case is that her predominant preoccupation with research and her neglect of teaching are due to reasons that are not linked to her like or dislike of research and teaching as modes of practising the traditions of the discipline. Despite teaching being assessed through Teaching Quality Assessment, performing well in teaching does not have the same status as excelling in the spheres of research output and publications (Skelton, 2004). In fact, leaving aside occasional prizes for excellent teaching practice, there are hardly any structural incentives for engaging in teaching (Skelton, 2004). The unbalanced appraisal of teaching and research is further exemplified by Janet’s statement that ‘teaching really isn’t that important. As long as you teach on an adequate level, that’s fine.’

This disparity in rewards becomes most apparent in promotional matters. According to Gibbs, ‘only 12% of promotion decisions are made on the basis of teaching excellence (only 10% in ‘old’ universities) and in 38% of universities no promotions at all are made on the grounds of quality of teaching’ (Gibbs, 1995: 148). While the emphasis on research-related output makes maintaining a position or advancing one’s career particularly difficult for younger scholars, institutional affiliation is another variable that should be taken into account (Sikes, 2006). The starting conditions for competing within the RAE are very different for academics in post-1992 universities compared to those in pre-1992 institutions. Traditionally, most universities of the latter type have been strongly research-based and excelled in previous RAEs, whereas the so-called new universities have mainly focused on teaching. Yet, as Sikes illustrates, the ‘shadow of the Research Assessment Exercise’ has become bigger and is increasingly dominating the work practices and orientations of academics in post-1992 institutions (Sikes, 2006).

The hierarchies between these two types of university have been consolidated as academics in the post-1992 universities have come to face a larger teaching workload than their peers in pre-1992 institutions. With the traditionally researched-based institutions having a strong track record of research that facilitates their success with research grant applications, the gap between old and new universities is widening. Thus, the chance of successfully participating in the research arena is comparatively more difficult for academics in post-1992 universities than for their colleagues in pre-1992 universities. However, the dominance of the RAE discourse slightly overshadows the fact that the asymmetries between the statuses ascribed to research and teaching were in place prior to the emergence of the audit culture. Particularly in old and established universities in the UK, ‘research productivity and quality judged by peer review has always been central to the academic labour process’ (Harley and Lee, 1997: 1429). Oili-Helena Ylijok refers to this phenomenon of idealising the research and teaching relationship from the past as ‘academic nostalgia’ (Ylijok, 2005). Based on qualitative interviews with 23 senior researchers in Finland, Ylijok found out that nostalgia does not describe the actual past of the research and teaching relationship, but an idealisation of it, which seems to serve as a coping mechanism with the present (Ylijok, 2005). While the study draws on data from Finnish universities, with performance measurement and audit culture being an almost common phenomenon in the western HE world, the conclusions of this study are also relevant for the UK. One way of looking at this is that the pre-existing separation between research and teaching was further reinforced by the implementation of the RAE and the status ascribed to it.

The devaluation of teaching is not confined to sociology, however, but concerns all disciplines in UK HE. Based on a study of geography departments in the UK, Jenkins concludes that the current funding arrangements have encouraged individuals, departments and institutions to make research a priority at the expense of teaching (Jenkins, 1995). Young’s research on social policy lecturers’ perceptions of the status and rewards for teaching and research reached similar conclusions. Her respondents unanimously suggested that the status of teaching could only rise if its importance becomes reflected in appraisals similar to the RAE (Young, 2006). In her case study of sociology, English and biology departments, Lucas investigated the impact of the RAE on departmental life (Lucas, 2006). She describes the game character of the RAE and identifies how accommodating and deviating from the requirements set by the assessment exercise are negotiated at the departmental level among academics, playing out disciplining and self-disciplining mechanisms (Lucas, 2006). According to her analysis, sociologists who deliberately decide to focus on teaching may elicit mixed reactions from their peers. This phenomenon also becomes evident in my respondents’ narratives. Brian, a well-published reader in a post-1992 university, has always had a passion for teaching, and has pursued this activity beyond the teaching requirements of his senior position:

One of the unintended consequences out of the RAE is this separation of teaching and research. All the glamorous attention. And I think it is such a great shame, such a great shame. I just feel that, as a reader as well, it pushes me to one specific trajectory. You must be very stupid to do teaching. This year, I teach year 1, year 2, year 3 students. Why should I involve myself in undergraduate teaching? That, I don’t like, that I really, really don’t like. That glamour that is attached to research, notwithstanding its value. And therefore devaluing teaching and the contribution made by my colleagues who teach only. Because that is still the main business of the university if you look at it. That glamour is totally out of proportion. I don’t like that.

(Brian, 43, reader, former polytechnic)

In an RAE-dominated environment, teaching undergraduates is not perceived as beneficial to an academic career and is seen to put departmental RAE results at risk. Brian knows that he could have advanced much faster in his career had he left teaching aside. Putting more emphasis on teaching than was required, Brian could be considered as violating the ‘rules of the game’ — to use Lucas’s term — that are set by the RAE and followed by most academics.

The stronger focus on research and publications in the last 15 years has led to a massive expansion of the publishing market (Nixon, 1999). As Nixon found from a study of senior editors in the UK publishing industry, the academic publishing market has also become more professionalised and fragmented, with access being increasingly restricted and a more general public hardly being addressed (Nixon, 1999). With the development of rankings and index measures of top journals, RAE publishing requirements are about to enter the next stage that will severely affect academic publishing. ⁵ Yet, knowing that so little of what is published is read makes it even more difficult to justify the current emphasis on research and publishing. Many of my respondents deplored the lack of institutional incentives to publish outside merely academic publications. Christopher, a well-published lecturer from a 1960s university five-star department, mentions that his recent publication in an international journal was recognised for the RAE, whereas his numerous articles and commentaries in newspapers did not count. With only journal articles in recognised journals and research monographs contributing to the RAE, the spectrum of all research contributions and formats of expressions that do not count is very large indeed. ⁶

While sociologists claim to stimulate critical discourse, the realities of how research and teaching are currently organised and rewarded do not seem to hold up to the academic aspirations mentioned earlier. It is no surprise that this partly results in frustration and a more general questioning of the utility of academic endeavour as a whole. How do these sociologists ultimately negotiate their initial disciplinary aspirations to practise critical inquiry?

On the cultivation of critique: educating the next generation

Much has been written about the RAE and the devaluation of teaching. Yet little has been said about the implications this devaluation of teaching has for sociology as a discipline. It is by conveying critical thinking — the ‘skills’ to question — to future generations that sociology could be at its best in implementing critique in society.

While my respondents regarded teaching and research as the most important ways of practising sociology, many of them emphasised teaching as a way of putting critical disciplinary traditions into practice. In fact, the extent to which critique features at the forefront of sociology became clear when I asked my respondents what they considered to be the most important thing to bring across to students: critique. ⁷

For Lydia, a well-published early career sociologist, part of being a good sociologist is to teach well and to think about teaching as much as about research. She admits that what really reassures her in her aspirations as a sociologist is teaching:

I think the only place through which we can really have a positive impact on people’s lives is how we speak to our students and how we teach our students and what we give to them to take away. So I feel quite strongly that part of being a good sociologist is to teach well and to think about teaching as much as you think about your research.

(Lydia, 32, lecturer, 1960s university)

The idea that sociology’s critical values particularly come to the forefront in teaching has also been discussed by Rosie, Bufton and Hirst (2001). Based on a case study of sociology undergraduate students taking courses in social theory, they analysed how sociology as a discipline promotes an understanding of moral categories. This also relates to what many of my respondents said about the importance of critique in teaching sociology. For Christopher, the driving force to come to sociology was his commitment to social and political change. While he had hoped that his research endeavours would contribute towards these aims, the realities of the RAE and the devaluation of teaching made him question the framing of research as the only avenue through which he could pursue his disciplinary aspirations. In the light of these developments in HE, teaching is the only commitment that remains for him as a sociologist:

I think the thing that remains for me within the academy, on a political level, are the students and the commitment to the students. And wanting to see young people do well and develop some of the understandings that I have been exposed to. They don’t need to agree with me, of course, but reading and trying to understand and to form their own views and critique. That goal is still there with me and really hasn’t become jaded … It is still there and I would say that my commitment to — it sounds arrogant, so please forgive me — but my commitment to students is the one commitment that remains. And, for the academy, I am dispirited with the academy, if you like. I would put my allegiance with the students rather than with the academics.

(Christopher, 49, lecturer, 1960s university)

Providing students with the skills to think critically for themselves is experienced as a rewarding activity despite a lack of appropriate material recognition. These responses also feed into recent research across other disciplines (Hannan and Silver, 2000; Young, 2006). Notwithstanding the systematic devaluation of teaching, these studies on academics and their relationship with teaching and research suggest that many academics remain committed to teaching.

For Stephen, looking back to his own experience as a student, the preoccupation with knowledge and the opportunity to think otherwise were the most important and liberating experiences:

I think, to me being a sociologist, it is a matter of taking teaching seriously. It is important in my mind. The kind of dialogue and the spaces of thinking that can be made possible, however damaged and fraught and subject to external pressures that can happen in the university lecture room or the seminar. To me, in my experience, coming to university, was such a mind-opening experience. To think otherwise, to be allowed. To be allowed to think. To be wrong. To say outrageous things and then to think, ah that’s rubbish what I have just said. To reflect. And the importance of thinking in and of itself, and trying to create an environment where thinking in and of itself can happen that relates to the issues of the day and to the experiences of the people in the classroom. I think that is the task of what sociology should be about. Facilitating that. Not only in the university seminar, in the lecture theatre. It is also about going out into other environments.

(Stephen, 44, professor, University of London college)

Stephen would like to create circumstances where knowledge is taken as a value and students can experience the liberating power of ideas in the same way that he did. It is in teaching, in which we promote the relentless questioning of knowledge, that we have to demonstrate our intellectual roots at their best. Thus, one of the most striking points mentioned by many of my respondents across all institutions concerned the audiences they could reach in the lecture theatre. George argues that one of sociologists’ most significant privileges and responsibilities is to teach the next generation and thus have an impact on society:

One obviously is teaching. I don’t mean it to sound pompous. There is a privilege involved in teaching. You have access to young people, you will have major influence on their generation. It is a remarkable opportunity to engage with the most able people of a generation. The inadequate resources. Teaching is very important. And I enjoy teaching.

(George, 64, senior lecturer, University of London college)

All of this resonates with Michael Burawoy’s call for sociologists to consider students as the first public that they need to address. Burawoy (2005) emphasises the need to see the challenges of the mass university in a new light. The argument of purveying critical thinking through teaching can be further substantiated in the light of the widening of HE and increasingly diversified student populations. In a C-SAP-funded project called ‘Learning sociology for life’, Alex Law, Wallace McNeish et al investigated the contribution of sociology in the lives and careers of ‘non-traditional’ students from working-class backgrounds. Based on 24 qualitative interviews with sociology undergraduate students on coming to university and studying sociology, the authors concluded that sociology students particularly value the skills of critical thinking they gain throughout a sociology degree. Sociology allowed them to develop a different perspective on the world (Law, McNeish et al, 2004). In a similar vein, coming from a teaching perspective, many of my respondents from post-1992 universities reported on their encounters with students from non-traditional backgrounds as being particularly rewarding. In particular, the respondents who had been the first ones in their families to go to university emphasised the significance of teaching in their lives as sociologists. Elizabeth, a lecturer at an old university, appreciated the critical thinking she gained when she went to university as an undergraduate student. She found her disciplinary aspirations to convey critique confirmed in teaching:

It is in teaching that you feel that your work can have some kind of impact beyond you and the computer screen and you and the page … I do think part of the changing culture, the RAE culture, has been to give this weight to what is called ‘research’, which often is just writing. That overstates its importance and certainly its impact, its wider impact. Whereas with teaching — and it comes out of my own experience — going to university changed my life and gave me opportunities that I would never have had otherwise. And I think that’s the case with the students that I have taught, particularly at X. The students at X, a lot of their experience was similar to mine, the first people of their family to go to university. Being able to engage with people in that way is potentially empowering for them and rewarding for you … I think the experience of education is such an important one and that is where I see the real impact happening.

(Elizabeth, 39, lecturer, old university)

The future of conveying critique

While conveying critique was considered to be the most important thing to bring across to students by my respondents, it nevertheless remains unclear why academics, and sociologists in particular, silently accept the devaluation of teaching. In spite of structural changes, such as the implementation of performance measurement and the increase in fixed-term contracts, having severely affected academics in both their employment security and working conditions, as well as in their ability intellectually to practise their disciplines in both research and teaching, academics in the UK have not mounted much resistance to any of these changes (Roberts, 2002). While this lack of engagement and critique may also be an expression of the decreasing political activism of academics that reflects a general decline in political participation (Gitlin, 1994), it raises particular questions for a discipline such as sociology that is essentially founded on the aim of contributing to critique and social change in society (Hawthorn, 1987). That the discipline is still being unified around this key feature — even though this may partly be confined to a rhetoric level of engagement — can be seen in the frequent reference to C Wright Mills’ conceptualisation of sociology and sociological activity as critique, as spelled out in The Sociological Imagination (Mills, 1959/2000). Yet current developments within the discipline as a body of knowledge and as a sociological practice as presented in this article raise questions of whether the discipline still lives up to its initial calling.

Following their critical ambitions, sociologists should be particularly drawn to see the university as the first space where their aspirations can jointly unfold in their thinking, their pedagogies and their writing. One way of giving teaching the significance it deserves as a way of putting the disciplinary aspirations of critique into practice would be to reflect its value in adequate institutional rewards, comparable to the credits academics get for research. As Gibbs (1995) suggests, this could be achieved by implementing peer review of teaching. Irrespective of the problems that may arise from attempting to measure ‘good teaching’, strategies for the enhancement of the status of teaching that disregard research may further segregate what Humboldt once envisioned as a unit. Initiatives such as the foundation of 74 HEFCE-funded Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETLs) in the UK can be seen as institutionalised incentives for going beyond this separation and thinking and living research and teaching in relation to each other (Lambert, Parker and Neary, 2007; Bell, Neary and Stevenson, 2009). Whereas the relationship between research and teaching has been a frequent subject of investigation in recent years, with a few exceptions (Abbas and McLean, 2001; Canaan, 2002; Cope, Canaan and Harris, 2006; Law, McNeish et al, 2004; Rosie, Bufton and Hirst, 2001), the intellectual remit of teaching sociology has hardly been touched upon. Yet valuing teaching is particularly important for a discipline such as sociology that takes the principle of critique as one of its key points of departure. Rather than keeping a discussion of teaching and research separate from sociology’s intellectual heritage, this article has demonstrated the necessity of thinking them in their togetherness. Based on empirical research on part-time teachers in sociology, Andrea Abbas and Monica McLean argue along similar lines and conclude that sociology’s devaluation of teaching will have long-term effects on the development of sociology as a discipline: ‘if what we currently understand as sociology has developed out of the practices and writings of sociologists of the past, then sociology of the future will also depend on the current workforce’ (Abbas and McLean, 2001: 339). Coming back full circle to Alvin Gouldner’s reflexive sociology of knowledge, we would like to argue that a discourse on researching and teaching sociology can only be advanced by acknowledging the intertwining between sociology’s intellectual shape and the material conditions within which we craft and teach sociology. A discussion about teaching first and foremost needs to revisit sociology’s disciplinary traditions, recognising that conveying critique is right at the centre of what sociology has always been about. Rather than seeing teaching as an add-on, it needs to be understood as central to any intellectual discourse about sociology. In order for that to happen, sociologists need to show a little more awareness of how their disciplinary aspirations can directly unfold in their sociological practice, in particular in teaching.

Biography

Elisabeth is a researcher at the Centro de Políticas Comparadas de Educación at the Universidad Diego Portales in Santiago, Chile. She has recently finished her doctoral thesis, Against and beyond — for sociology: a study of the self-understanding of sociologists in the UK, at the University of Warwick. The writing of this article was facilitated by an early career fellowship of the Institute of Advanced Study, University of Warwick.

Notes

1 The interviewees were selected according to a matrix of gender, age, position, research interest and type of university. The semi-structured interviews lasted for between one and two hours and were voice-recorded and transcribed. All interviews were anonymised.

2 In a forthcoming article from a conference paper, Gerard Delanty identifies five major major uses of critique in sociological theory, ranging from critical theory, Bourdieu and critical realism to Foucault and various notions of critical practice (Delanty, 2009). Yet, while Delanty’s analysis focuses on positions that ‘define their methodological purpose as one of critique’, my analysis takes a broader perspective, including all positions that my respondents referred to when they explained sociology’s critical remit to me.

3 For respondents such as Carl, who stands for an interpretive sociological approach, critical inquiry is pursued in order to understand and describe society. However, social transformation and ‘identity politics on behalf of groups’, as he put it, would not be part of the agenda. Rather, for representatives of what I label the interpretive camp, sociological critique merely unfolds on a highly abstract level. For respondents such as Neil, who can be seen as a representative of a critical social theory approach, critical inquiry is pursued in order to promote social change. Finally, for respondents such as Rose, who represents a positivist framing of sociology, sociology’s task is the provision of objective knowledge and evidence that could further be employed by political actors.

4 At the time of the interview encounters with respondents between January and June 2007, my respondents were busy preparing their final RAE submissions for the RAE 2008.

5 However, as can be seen from a ranking by impact factor for journals of sociology indexed by Thomson Reuters in its Journal Citations Report for the social sciences for 2007, only two of the ten top journals are based in the UK (Times Higher Education Supplement, 11 September 2008. Available at: www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=403493 (accessed 11 September 2008)).

6 It covers more frequent formats of dissemination, such as more popular journals and newspapers, as well as formats of dissemination that make use of new media, such as online publications, exhibitions or films.

7 This is a very powerful theme indeed, as was confirmed in a study, related to this doctoral research, in which the author carried out 25 qualitative interviews in a 1960s university sociology department on sociologists’ relationship with teaching and research. The results of this research were presented in an exhibition, entitled ‘Sociologists talking’, that was conceptualised and curated with Cath Lambert and presented at the 2008 BSA annual conference at the University of Warwick and during the social science festival at Warwick in June 2009. An online documentation of the exhibition is available at: www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/rsw/undergrad/cetl/filmspublications/sociologiststalking/