IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v14y2009i1p13-25.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rethinking ‘Current Crisis’ Arguments: Gouldner and the Legacy of Critical Sociology

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Hollands
  • Liz Stanley

Abstract

Proclamations of ‘current crisis’ in sociology are long-standing and have recently resurfaced in Britian and North America. This article explores the response of Alvin Gouldner to an earlier 1970s perceived ‘current crisis’. It then discusses some of the key dimensions ascribed to the current ‘current crisis’ – fragmentation, the decline of the intellectual, the need for a higher profile for public and professional sociology - to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Gouldner's ideas for analysing the situation of contemporary sociology. It concludes that Gouldner's critical sociology provides a useful basis for understanding current debates about fragmentation and public sociology, but less so in explaining the decline of intellectuals. In addition, neither Gouldner nor contemporary thinking about sociology's present-day ‘current crisis’ give much attention to the vastly increased regulation and bureaucratisation of the university system accompanying the expended remit of regulatory government, something we think underlies the discipline's successive perceptions of crisis. The contemporary version of critical sociology, with which this article aligns itself, provides a more structural and less voluntaristic rethinking of ‘current crisis’ arguments.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Hollands & Liz Stanley, 2009. "Rethinking ‘Current Crisis’ Arguments: Gouldner and the Legacy of Critical Sociology," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 14(1), pages 13-25, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:14:y:2009:i:1:p:13-25
    DOI: 10.5153/sro.1839
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.1839
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5153/sro.1839?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. M. Hammersley & R. Gomm, 1997. "Bias in Social Research," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(1), pages 7-19, March.
    2. Sue Wise & Liz Stanley, 2003. "Review Article: ‘Looking Back and Looking Forward: Some Recent Feminist Sociology Reviewed’," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 8(3), pages 65-76, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. M. Hammersley, 1997. "A Reply to Humphries," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(4), pages 51-54, December.
    2. B. Rappert, 1997. "Users and Social Science Research: Policy, Problems and Possibilities," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(3), pages 69-81, September.
    3. Gayle Letherby, 2003. "Reflections on where we are and where we want to be: Response to ‘Looking Back and Looking Forward: Some Recent Feminist Sociology Reviewed’," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 8(4), pages 211-214, November.
    4. M. Hammersley & R. Gomm, 1997. "A Response to Romm," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(4), pages 86-88, December.
    5. Liz Stanley & Sue Wise, 2006. "Putting it into Practice[1]: Using Feminist Fractured Foundationalism in Researching Children in the Concentration Camps of the South African War[2]," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 11(1), pages 14-50, April.
    6. N. Romm, 1997. "Becoming More Accountable: A Comment on Hammersley and Gomm," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(3), pages 129-136, September.
    7. B. Temple, 1997. "‘Collegial Accountability’ and Bias: The Solution or the Problem?," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(4), pages 8-14, December.
    8. Sylvia Walby, 2011. "The Impact of Feminism on Sociology," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 16(3), pages 158-168, August.
    9. Martyn Hammersley, 1999. "Sociology, What's it for? A Critique of Gouldner," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 4(3), pages 113-121, September.
    10. John Stephen Mckenzie, 2017. "Emotional Reflexivity and the Guiding Principle of Objectivity in an Inter-Disciplinary, Multi-Method, Longitudinal Research Project," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 22(1), pages 68-80, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:14:y:2009:i:1:p:13-25. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.