Abstract
Since its beginning, American sociology’s role in society has been debated between those who see it as an instrument for social change and those who view it as a purely scientific endeavor requiring neutrality on social issues. Today there is a growing consensus that sociology should take a more active role in using its tools to improve social conditions. But how? And in what ways? Service Sociology and Academic Engagement in Social Problems, edited by A. Javier Treviño and Karen M. McCormack, attempts to answer these questions through an examination of the history, context, and application of service sociology in the community and in the classroom.
American sociology, like its European counterpart, arose in the belief that social science could improve society. It has its roots in the social reform efforts of Anna Julia Cooper, Ida Wells-Barnet, W.E.B. DuBois, and Jane Addams and the Chicago School, among others. However, this approach was undermined by those who sought acceptance into the academy and the privileges it bestowed. Acceptance into the academy called for a value-free, objectivist sociology that emphasized pure research and eschewed social involvement. This approach dominated the field for decades until more recent calls for a return to a more activist sociology. How to restore the activist tradition is one of the central themes of this book.
Service Sociology begins by reminding us of the social activism that characterized the field early on, providing us with some important lessons for today. In its infancy, sociology was much more community-based and practice-oriented. From professional associations and publications to community-based researchers and settlement houses, a variety of people from all walks of life participated in social research and reform. However, this broad-based, populist kind of sociology was eclipsed by its professionalization and assimilation into the academy, retreating from the community. This history is important, not only in highlighting sociology’s involvement in social reform, but as a warning against co-optation.
The core of the text consists of several calls to reestablish sociology’s ties with the community via the classroom as well as working directly in the community. The classroom-community bridging efforts presented here range from class-based projects to individualized student placements. One class participated in a micro-lending project through Kiva, which specializes in matching donors to those in need of capital for small businesses throughout the world. Their efforts to alleviate poverty through loans to small entrepreneurs engaged students in a sociological analysis of global poverty. In another class project, students worked with a local organization to improve organizational practices and conduct oral histories of its leaders. However, because this organization was going through many internal changes, there were challenges in getting the project off the ground and completing it.
One of the strengths of this book is its presentation of some of the challenges in connecting the classroom to the community. These challenges are analyzed in a study of the advantages and disadvantages of class-based versus individualized service-learning projects. There are lessons here for faculty and administrators embarking on university-community partnerships for the first time. Some students may not be responsible in carrying out their duties or may lack adequate training. Faculty may not be directly engaged in monitoring students or in communicating with partner organizations. Community organizations may not be actively involved in the planning and implementation of projects, leaving students without a clear purpose. Despite these pitfalls, results show that college-community partnerships can do much to address the needs of local residents.
How can we overcome the limitations oftraditional forms of college-community collaborations? How can we engage more directly with the community and its concerns? These questions are addressed in another section of the book in an exploration of alternative approaches. Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Popular Education are two methods that put people and communities at the center of research and social activism. Through PAR, sociologists assist local residents in defining, researching, and proposing solutions to their problems. The Popular Education movement, associated with Paulo Freire in Brazil, among others, also focuses on the empowerment of local communities for social change. By exploring their history, residents discover the roots of their problems and how to solve them. PAR and Popular Education put researchers and their students in the role of facilitators in helping residents discover the structural roots underlying the social issues that concern them.
Throughout the book, PAR and Popular Education, along with other forms of sociological activism, are in tension with traditional forms of service learning that focus more on amelioration than transformation. However, it is in the last part of the text that this issue is examined directly, in a section aptly titled “Sociology for Whom?” Questions are raised about the effectiveness of service learning in promoting the sociological goal of bringing about structural change. Indeed, it is suggested that service-learning projects may even undermine this aim by misleading students into thinking that doing good works for others is the solution for social problems. Do students and colleges benefit the most and risk the least in dispensing charity instead of insisting on social justice? Sociology for whom and for what are key questions that need to be answered by those running and participating in the service-learning programs that have become so institutionalized on college campuses today. Ironically, many of these programs may serve as convenient cover for injustices in local communities that colleges do not want to confront and may even be complicit in. While service-learning programs are important in providing relief, they must be accompanied by social activist research that empowers local communities in pursuing social justice.
The final section of the book, which questions the meaning and purpose of the sociological enterprise, is its strength. The questions and issues raised here should be at the center of all sociology departments and discussions with students. This section matches up well with the first part of the text, with its rich exploration of the myriad meanings of service sociology and its inspirational history of social activism. It shows us the power and promise of sociology that will engage faculty and students. The middle of the book, with case studies of college-community collaborations, is instructive but would have benefited from more depth in description and analysis. Overall, this is an excellent book that can be used for courses such as research methods, theory and senior seminars, and introduction to sociology. Most importantly, it asks students, faculty, and others what our purpose is in doing our work and helps us to clarify that purpose. It thus performs a great service.