Sociology

In 1973 the Department of Sociology was considered to be one of the most radical of its kind in New Zealand. Now, in 1976, it has gained a reputation for conservatism second to none. Why has this change taken place?

In 1973 the Sociology Department employed 9½ academic staff members (one staff member was employed ½ time in two departments), all of which fitted into many of the opposing camps that had emerged internally within the Department.

Fierce debates were conducted between the varied perspectives held by members of the various camps. Students in this year tended to develop a good understand of various sociological perspectives because of the ferocity with which the debate was conducted. The largest camp within the Department was known as the 'Conservatives'. It consisted of three members - significantly (as far as students were concerned) they were the least influential of all the camps within the Department.

During 1973 many of the staff members had very promising futures, some had published quite extensively, others were looked upon as being the 'bright young men' in New Zealand sociology... .... their academic futures were assured.

Now in 1975 the Department of Sociology employs 9½ staff members - only 3½ of whom were employed by the Department in 1973. Three of them belong to the group which was labelled the 'Conservatives' in 1973! The divisions which existed within the Department during 1973 no longer exist.... the Department (or at least 94% of it) presents a relatively united face to students. How does a sociologist explain this remakable transformation of the Sociology Department - a transformation from conflict to consensus, a transformation which has occurred within the space of two years?

The 'Conservatives' (representing 86% of the academic staff who have been employed by the Department since 1973) have played a major (possibly covert) role in the selection of new staff...... as all new staff members selected are characterised by their conservatism (even though many of them would wish to deny this).

All new staff members are in extremely weak positions with regard to any future employment as sociologists. None have published major works, many are in their first teaching jobs, none have made the impact of the teachers of 1973. In other words the staff have to toe a particular line if they are to have any future in the academic world if they want promotion at Victoria they have to be conservative (the only two promotions in the Department during the 1970's have been those of (believe it or not) two of the conservatives!!). If they want jobs outside Victoria University they will require (in the absence of good publications) good references or MA's and Phd's from Victoria. Such degrees or references will not be forthcoming if a particular line isn't followed. If they buck the system and refuse to toe the line they will be frozen out of the Department by the conservative power clique - one of the major reasons why Victoria's Sociology Department lost many of the staff it had in 1973.

In 1975 the Department of Sociology is characterised by its conservatism, this conservatism having been brought about through an interaction of two factors, (1) a particular staff selection procedure, and (2) subtle coercion.

What can we predict on the basis of the above analysis, about the Sociology Department in 1976?

The Department, we predict, will remain conservative in orientation. Major sociological questions and debates will be ignored. Lip-service will be paid to non-conservative sociology and nonconservative staff and students will be frozen out of the Department. Little New Zealand material will be taught in courses (two-thirds of the staff aren't New Zealanders).

Students at all levels will be dissatified with the lack of opportunity for critical thinking. Drop-out rates will remain high. Nearly everyone who completes their required course work will pass their course (provided their sociology is not too radical).

In other words, if you think Sociology at Victoria University will stimulate you, or give you cirtical insights into New Zealand, or any other Western, society, you are dreaming. There is no chance of that happening given the present conservative unity of the Department.

Finally, this analysis, like any piece of scientific work is not definitive. We believe that we have isolated the true nature of the Sociology Department in this article. It is now up to other sociologists to challenge this view with different analysis. We challenge the Department to come up a viable critique of this article.

Quality of lecturing	Lecturer's interest in course	Workload	N.Z. Content	Ability to develope critical thought in course	Lecturer's Approachability	General Comments
101	3	4	4	5	4	4	Should be better than in 1975, when it was a disaster. Need for good essay topics.
202	4	3	3	4	5	5	Very lazy lecturer. Returns essays with marks only. Uses same lectures every year.
204	2	3	3	3	4	3	Self-confessed right-winger. Gives entertaining unsociological lectures - should be a geography lecturer, not a sociologist.
205	5	4	3	4	5	Boring lectures, with quite good content Should improve an presentation.
206	3	3	3	5	3	3	This course will probably ignore many major questions.
207	3	2	3	5	4	2	Little said about this course in the prospectus.
301	3	4	2	-	4	4	A bore.
303	4	1	3	5	2	3	Course outline looks over-ambitious in the extrem.
304	2	1	2	4	3	2	Excellent content in lectures.
305	2	1	1	2	1	2	If you're not interested in Marx, or hard work, do something else.
307	4	4	3	4	2	4	Little known about M. Hill who is taking ½ of course.

Scale: 1-5 (1=High 5=Low)