Monday, February 23, 2009
Division of Labor in Science and Education
In Durkheim's introduction to The
Division of Labor, he discusses how not only industry but
all of society is on a track of continuous specialization and division
of labor (Durkheim 1997:2-4). He discusses the fragmentation of
philosophy into a host of special disciplines and the further
fragmentation of those disciplines into minutely narrowed, specialized
fields of research. The typical saying with graduate studies is that
the further you go along in your education process the more and more
you should be specializing in your education in order to find your
'niche' that will earn you respect in your field, tenure, etc. Taking
the field of Sociology as an example, we see people specializing in
such sub-fields as criminology, rural sociology, urban sociology, etc.
These fields are then FURTHER subdivided into areas of further
specialization that I would be the wrong person to ask about, but I
know they exist. There are also additional divisions based on
researchers epistemologies, or there understanding of what makes
something true (in Durkheim's time positivism was the rule and the
way), that not only further divide things into sub-specializations but
often form entirely separate schools of thought so even when
individuals are tackling the same problem they may not accept one
another's results as 'true' or understand one another's view of
'truth'. In some ways, this repetitive labor calls to mind Durkheim's
notion of organic society, but rather than forming the organic
solidarity he spoke of we are finding fissures that Coser's
introduction to this version of the book discusses Durkheim's reaction
to: "if the division of [...] produces a low degree of social cohesion
and solidarity, if technical developments have outstripped the growth
of an appropriate regulative apparatus--it behooves social scientists
to warn decision makers that only creation of new institutionalized
bonds can prevent social decay through strife and spreading of social
disorder" (Durkheim 1997:xxi). In some ways, this is what is happening
with the social sciences, a low degree of social cohesion and
solidarity has emerged through the development of sub-specializations
within sub-specializations and splits between social scientists on what
'truth' means, but there is no social scientist to warn the social
scientists in charge of their field of this division (or at least not
one all sides would listen to), there is no policy that they can
influence aside from the journals that are counted toward tenure
application but due to the ease of publication with modern technologies
ways of subverting the system can easily be found, not to mention that
the social sciences produce the works that analyze subversion of social
structures, norms, etc. and would be the ones most able to break any
system in place. This is a topic Dr. Woodman has broached in class on
at least one occasion this semester and in reading Durkheim, we should
be well aware of the perils the current state of things places the
discipline as a whole. While it could end up as a "mostly harmless"
splintering into additional disciplines, reading Durkheim should make
it clear to all of us that there is also a very real possibility of it
splintering into non-existence, collapsing like a house of cards.
The other part about this very brief section I chose to narrow my focus down to (in the interest of division of labor and specialization), is what he has to say for people like me who try to spread to many disciplines (computer science and creative writing undergrad, human-computer interaction Masters with some elements of psychology and working with a geoscientist, and now human-computer interaction and sociology for my PhD) and refuse to fully specialize: "It appears to us that such a state of detachment and indeterminateness is somewhat antisocial" (Durkheim 1997:4). Maybe to society such an approach is viewed as antisocial and maybe the traditional view of the tenure process is a narrow niche that you can own and that pays you back with tenure, but I see the approach as the opposite--but taking this wide view of research, I am able to cross not just disciplinary bounds but bounds of colleges in order to find research collaborators from a wide area to explore larger issues, seek out larger grants, and publish more widely (you'd be amazed at how much further data takes you when different parts of that data are of interest to different fields). I haven't applied for any grants, but in looking through the call for grants and in discussion with various faculty members from different parts of campus the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other large grant boards are increasingly searching for less specialized research that is taking more of this interdisciplinary approach. Besides enriching my vita and pockets, this wider view also enriches my life more because it allows me gain friends in other disciplines such as biology, physics, etc. who specialize in obscure areas of their field (fields that I only have passing formal education about) but we are able to find common ground in portions of a wider area of research and still discuss their work in ways that inform me of their fields and widens my area of understanding in general. So while Durkheim is definitely right about societal expectations for specialization, and he may be right about the negative views society gives to those who do not specialize, I nevertheless claim that by not FULLY specializing one is able to gain a competitive advantage if the rest of the field blindly specializes. I say not fully specializing because breadth of knowledge only gets you so far and some specialization and depth is definitely needed--you just have to make sure that no matter how deep you dig you dig horizontally on occasion or remember to tie a rope to the top so you can occasionally climb up for air and a horizontal walk to explore a hole in another area.
I'll possibly decide to 'specialize' less on this post at a later time this week. I'm generally really enjoying Durkheim, especially since he generally does not cause the same amount of conflict between my two social selves the way Marx did causing me to decide how much I value luxuries gained through manipulation of social power vs. how much I value a fair shake for all (I think I, generally, ended up in realizing that I am mostly a Social Democrat--much to my younger brother's smug approval since he's been a Social Democrat for years and I always had fun taking an overly conservative stance just to mess with him). Durkheim has a style though where I feel like he is at least "telling it like he sees it", if not always telling it like it is due to the limited knowledge of the time--there is no ideological baiting or anything that puts one side or the other of me on an offensive defensive mode. Durkheim is what I see a social scientist as needing to be: an objective observer seeking to understand a system so that proposals can be made to try and change things, to fix flaws in the social structure, and not to simply "whine" about a problem without explaining how it's a problem or ways it can be fixed. I do not gain understanding from 'understanding' a specific case, I gain understanding by understanding the system in place and how that system might be changed to allow for a specific improvement. I do not expect that a model of society will be perfect and explain everything or that a solution will fix all problems, I expect a model to be "good enough" to explain the phenomena "most of the time" under certain conditions and that it will be expanded and modified as needed as new information becomes available. Likewise, my assumption is that solutions are just "steps in the right direction" and not end all solutions as progress is a constant process and maybe one day one problem will be solved, but I expect another problem (possibly caused by the solution of the first problem) will crop up to be solved. Some may call this posivist grounded approach 'oppressive' and 'dominant culture', but I look at this 'science' that seeks understanding but no solutions and I ask 'what's the point?' I may very well be part of that problem of division within social sciences by taking that approach, but if somebody wants to give me an answer about the point that doesn't attempt to attack in attempt to justify itself, then I'm all ears.
Durkheim, Emile. 1997 (1893) The Division of Labor in Society. W.D. Halls, trans. NY: Free Press.
The other part about this very brief section I chose to narrow my focus down to (in the interest of division of labor and specialization), is what he has to say for people like me who try to spread to many disciplines (computer science and creative writing undergrad, human-computer interaction Masters with some elements of psychology and working with a geoscientist, and now human-computer interaction and sociology for my PhD) and refuse to fully specialize: "It appears to us that such a state of detachment and indeterminateness is somewhat antisocial" (Durkheim 1997:4). Maybe to society such an approach is viewed as antisocial and maybe the traditional view of the tenure process is a narrow niche that you can own and that pays you back with tenure, but I see the approach as the opposite--but taking this wide view of research, I am able to cross not just disciplinary bounds but bounds of colleges in order to find research collaborators from a wide area to explore larger issues, seek out larger grants, and publish more widely (you'd be amazed at how much further data takes you when different parts of that data are of interest to different fields). I haven't applied for any grants, but in looking through the call for grants and in discussion with various faculty members from different parts of campus the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other large grant boards are increasingly searching for less specialized research that is taking more of this interdisciplinary approach. Besides enriching my vita and pockets, this wider view also enriches my life more because it allows me gain friends in other disciplines such as biology, physics, etc. who specialize in obscure areas of their field (fields that I only have passing formal education about) but we are able to find common ground in portions of a wider area of research and still discuss their work in ways that inform me of their fields and widens my area of understanding in general. So while Durkheim is definitely right about societal expectations for specialization, and he may be right about the negative views society gives to those who do not specialize, I nevertheless claim that by not FULLY specializing one is able to gain a competitive advantage if the rest of the field blindly specializes. I say not fully specializing because breadth of knowledge only gets you so far and some specialization and depth is definitely needed--you just have to make sure that no matter how deep you dig you dig horizontally on occasion or remember to tie a rope to the top so you can occasionally climb up for air and a horizontal walk to explore a hole in another area.
I'll possibly decide to 'specialize' less on this post at a later time this week. I'm generally really enjoying Durkheim, especially since he generally does not cause the same amount of conflict between my two social selves the way Marx did causing me to decide how much I value luxuries gained through manipulation of social power vs. how much I value a fair shake for all (I think I, generally, ended up in realizing that I am mostly a Social Democrat--much to my younger brother's smug approval since he's been a Social Democrat for years and I always had fun taking an overly conservative stance just to mess with him). Durkheim has a style though where I feel like he is at least "telling it like he sees it", if not always telling it like it is due to the limited knowledge of the time--there is no ideological baiting or anything that puts one side or the other of me on an offensive defensive mode. Durkheim is what I see a social scientist as needing to be: an objective observer seeking to understand a system so that proposals can be made to try and change things, to fix flaws in the social structure, and not to simply "whine" about a problem without explaining how it's a problem or ways it can be fixed. I do not gain understanding from 'understanding' a specific case, I gain understanding by understanding the system in place and how that system might be changed to allow for a specific improvement. I do not expect that a model of society will be perfect and explain everything or that a solution will fix all problems, I expect a model to be "good enough" to explain the phenomena "most of the time" under certain conditions and that it will be expanded and modified as needed as new information becomes available. Likewise, my assumption is that solutions are just "steps in the right direction" and not end all solutions as progress is a constant process and maybe one day one problem will be solved, but I expect another problem (possibly caused by the solution of the first problem) will crop up to be solved. Some may call this posivist grounded approach 'oppressive' and 'dominant culture', but I look at this 'science' that seeks understanding but no solutions and I ask 'what's the point?' I may very well be part of that problem of division within social sciences by taking that approach, but if somebody wants to give me an answer about the point that doesn't attempt to attack in attempt to justify itself, then I'm all ears.
Durkheim, Emile. 1997 (1893) The Division of Labor in Society. W.D. Halls, trans. NY: Free Press.
posted by Mike Oren # 10:17
PM 
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Like
you, I was particularly drawn to Durkheim’s discussion of the
division of labor in relation to academia. I think you accurately
discussed the division of labor in sociology. We are trained to be
highly specialized to each develop a niche that we will build a body of
research within. Applying Durkheim’s division of labor to academia
seems Darwinian in a sense that becoming specialized is linked to the
struggle to survive. Durkheim uses an analogy of the animal kingdom in
comparison when he says “that an organism occupies the more exalted a
place in the animal hierarchy the more specialized its functions are”
(3).
I think you hit the nail on the head when you talk about your qualms with applying Durkheim’s approach of specialization to academia. I, like you find the interdisciplinary approach more appealing in academia. I believe that any graduate program needs to train sociologists in core criteria such as theory and methodology. In addition I believe that sociologists can interact in informative ways with criminologists, anthropologists, psychologists, political scientists, etc. where each party can bring something to the table. Today, specialization exists for the same purpose Durkheim proposed, survival. Social scientists have long needed to prove the validity of their research, particularly in comparison to research within the hard sciences. This need to prove oneself has only increased with the tightening of grants. Research thrives off grants and grants are more frequently given to scientific research that yields testable outcomes. In order for the discipline to survive the academic institution has emphasized a reliance on empirical, testable knowledge and sociology will continue to have hardcore positivists doing systematic studies of society (Cole 1994). Therefore, I believe that Durkheim’s positive approach and his desire to make sociology empirical is the result of this application of specialization.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you talk about your qualms with applying Durkheim’s approach of specialization to academia. I, like you find the interdisciplinary approach more appealing in academia. I believe that any graduate program needs to train sociologists in core criteria such as theory and methodology. In addition I believe that sociologists can interact in informative ways with criminologists, anthropologists, psychologists, political scientists, etc. where each party can bring something to the table. Today, specialization exists for the same purpose Durkheim proposed, survival. Social scientists have long needed to prove the validity of their research, particularly in comparison to research within the hard sciences. This need to prove oneself has only increased with the tightening of grants. Research thrives off grants and grants are more frequently given to scientific research that yields testable outcomes. In order for the discipline to survive the academic institution has emphasized a reliance on empirical, testable knowledge and sociology will continue to have hardcore positivists doing systematic studies of society (Cole 1994). Therefore, I believe that Durkheim’s positive approach and his desire to make sociology empirical is the result of this application of specialization.
Links to this post:
<< Home
Post a Comment