.jpg)
Salient. Victoria University students' Newspaper. Volume Number 39, Issue 7. April 12 [1976]
Dear Sir,
Thank you Mr Crothers for taking the time and effort to reply to our analysis of the Sociology Department.
We must start off our reply by mentioning the amount of space that Mr Crothers devoted in his reply to the various sections of our article. Our analysis of the Sociology Department which constituted 75% of our article (measured in column inches) was dealt with by 40% of Mr Crothers letter.... obviously Mr Crothers saw this as being of less importance than our table which took up 25% of the space we used and occupied 60% of Mr Crothers' reply.
The most important issues in our article were 'What has happened to the Sociology Department at Victoria University between 1973 & 1976?' and 'How can we explain these changes sociologically?'
We reply to Mr Crothers points in the order in which they appear in his letter.
| 1. |
Mr Crothers says 'The Committee of Nine' sees the significance of this change (from 1973 to 1975) in terms of a power struggle between a conservative core and the radicals who were forced out....' We were puzzled at this criticism as we used the word 'radical' only once in our analysis of the Department. We also used it in reference to students, the use of radical here meant 'critical of the power structure of capitalist society. We used it thus 'In 1973 the Department of Sociology was considered to be one of the most radical of its kind in New Zealand' i.e. we used the term radical to refer to the social structure of the Department.... why was the Department radical? Because the Department in 1973 was characterised, by 'many opposing camps that had emerged internally within the Department' ....and 'fierce debates were conducted between the varied perspectives held by members of the various camps.' The social structure of the Department was radical in that it was so different from that of other Departments in New Zealand, and indeed so different from the structure of the Department of Sociology today - which is, we believe, characterised by it 'conservative unity'. Sociologically speaking, a relatively differentiated social structure existed at the beginning of 1973, a relatively integrated social structure existed at the beginning of 1976....Why? |
||||||||
| 2. |
We will now leave any further discussion of the term 'radical' out of our reply. Mr Crothers accuses us of exaggerating the background qualifications of those who left the Department in 1973. We must ask Mr Crothers, who in the conservative section of the Department today has published as widely as Webb and Collette.... who in the Department today lectures as well as O'Malley and Mugford (use of class questionnaires could amplify this point eg compare this year with 1972-3)? The question is then raised as to whether we have accurately portrayed the extent to which debate was stimulated in the Department - those members of the Committee of Nine who were involved with the Department in 1972, '73 strongly feel that the level of sociological debate then was far higher than it is now... and we have explained the reason for the change in the level of debate - in terms of the change in the social structure of the Department. The contrast remains! |
||||||||
| 3. |
Mr Crothers states 'Any department losing half its membership within a short space of time is going to face considerable problems in building up its own perspectives and research programmes etc' - Mr Crothers teaches 300 level Sociology of Work, and we'd like to ask him a question and then answer it.... 'Mr Crothers, what would you say about an organisation that lost half of its members within a short space of time...?' (Mr Crothers reply)... 'I'd say there was something wrong with the organisation, labour turnover is generally an indicator of dissatisfaction and alienation'. We have argued, and will continue to argue that the staff who left in such a short period of time did so because they were dissatisfied with the power structure in the Department. What caused this alienation and labour turnover in the Department. We can think of a few possible causes:
|
||||||||
| 4. | Mr Crothers says that he knows of at least 'five promotions within the Department in the 1970's' We confess to having made an error on this point - it was our method which was at fault. We analysed the University Calendars of the 1970's in order to come up with our statement that there had only been two promotions within the Department during the 1970's.... the Calendars were obviously inaccurate. We will restate our case.
|
At the end of our original attempt to build a 'Sociology of the Sociology Department we said 'this analysis, like any piece of scientific work is not definitive. We believe that we have isolated the true nature of the Sociology Department. . .
It is now up to other sociologists to challenge this view with a different analysis. We challenge the Department to come up with a viable critique of this article'.
Our explanation of the state of the Sociology Department today remains. So do our predictions.
We repeat our predictions... 'The Department will remain conservative in orientation. Major sociological questions and debates will be ignored. Lip-service will be paid to non-conservative sociology, and non-conservative staff and students will be frozen out of the Department. Little New Zealand material will be taught in courses.
'Students at all levels will be dissatisfied 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 isn't too critical of the power structure of capitalist society)'.
These predictions are all based on our analysis of the Sociology Department. If the Department can come up with a different analysis and explanation of the changes that have occured between 1973 and 1976, their analysis will yield a different set of predictions. We will then be able to put our respective sets of predictions to the empirical test, in order to see whose analysis is the better one. This way we will truly be able to develop a 'Sociology of the Sociology Department'.
PS (We have not treated the bulk of Mr Crothers letter which dealt with a critique of the table presented at the foot of our article. The letter from 'Sociology Student' in Salient provided, we feel a reasonable critique of this part of Mr Crothers article. Further discussion on this (admittedly)subjective table will distract from the real issue... the issue 75% of our original article was devoted to, the development of a 'Sociology of the Sociology Department').