Sosc 301 Report on Staff/Student Meeting

Sixty-two stage 3 students and 6 staff members showed up to do battle at the Sosc 301 class on Monday afternoon. You might say the armies were equally balanced.

Proposal 1 is the most relevant to other sociology students and all of the discussion was devoted to it. Much of the time was spent by students and staff giving vent to their wrath and frustration (not necessarily respectively) and was constructive only as release for adrenalin build-up.

However, certain aspects were made clearer and some concrete suggestions were made.

A) On Theory

The major student criticism about theory in 301 was its superficial nature, which the staff did not deny. Lynn White explained that in designing this half of the course, the choice he and Alain Levett had, was whether to give students a wide variety of theoretical knowledge or to give them a narrow, but deep, range of theory. Apparently, depth and variety are mutually exclusive, and the staff opted for variety.

B) On Methodology

Charles Crothers gave the aims of this section as 1) giving the student a smattering of research skills and 2) outlining the appropriate conditions under which these skills can be used, 3) giving guidelines in the literature so that students know where to look to increase their research skills.

The main student criticism of the methods was the artificial, contrived and non-relevant nature of the pracs, which the staff did not deny.

The students gave the opinion that in order to be motivated about pracs, they had to be involved. In order to be involved, they had to be 'doing' or utilizing their research skills in a problem that was relevant to them, i.e. they wanted to collect their own data in some useful piece of research. The saff pointed out ethical problems of primary data gathering, using the survey or questionnaire method which Sosc 301 is presently studying. They were also bound by university regulations concerning disturbing the public by unleashing untrained researchers on them. Two problems arose concerning theory and methods together.

C) On lack of connectedness

Both the paradignatic approach of theory and breaking up of methodology into separate little pracs give rise to the 'bitsy' nature of the whole course. Students apparently were at first confused then frustrated at the lack of connection. The staff promised it would (or should) all come together and crystallize into a logical pattern at the end of the course. The students reacted with more frustrated noises.

D) On Lack of integration of theory with Methods

Arising from the approaches mentioned in C) the students heavily criticised the staff on the lack of relevance the theory had on methods and vice versa. The staff did not really reply to this as the problem apparently lies in administrative organisation i.e. manpower distribution of who should teach what and when.

Other criticisms concerning assessment were relevant only to 301 and need not be reported here.

Both these measures are to be optional, but should give that degree of flexibility to allow those students who want to, to choose and study in depth areas of theory and methods that are particularly interesting to them.

It was acknowledged that many of the problems experienced in 301 would hopefully be resolved by the introduction of Sosc 208 next year. Staff urged students to consider this. Students pointed out that next year's 301 class would not have had the benefit of 208 and abhorred the prospect for next year's 301 students.

I would like to offer my own opinions here. Firstly, the viewpoint of the staff is to turn out a saleable B. A. in Sociology for the job market. Thus they need to give the prospective employee a wide grounding in theory and methods to prepare that person for a wide variety of positions. On the other hand, students are looking for personal satisfaction in their course which does not altogether coincide with the Department's "marketable-produce" concept of them. It is these two conflicting definitions of what a Sosc student is or whould be, that causes most of the frustration.

My suggestion for 301 for the rest of this year and next year, as a "stop gap until 208 comes into full effect, is that optional tutorials be run and that students choose the staff member who best represents their theoretical interests as their tutor. I suggest also that 301 students have a research project as a major piece of written work in which they have to overview the literature, develop a theoretical framework, develop a research design and implement it as far as ethically possible, on a topic of their choice, perhaps run in conjunction with one of their other Sosc 3. options. This would give in depth study of a body o theory and the opportunity to effectively utilise research skills, as well as integrate theory and methods. It would also focus on a problem area, the lack of which is a major factor in 30l's superficiality.

The manpower shortage could be filled by honours and thesis students conducting sessions with Stage 2 and 3 students, thus freeing staff for tutorials at Stage 3. These senior students would not be paid for teaching (the purse isn't big enough) but many would agree to teach in exchange for undergraduate students doing work for them.

For instance, a thesis student would train some Stage 3 students in interviewing and use these students to do interviewing for the thesis. Anne Meade, a thesis student, set a precedent for this last year. The manpower shortage reason becomes an excuse when other sources are taken into account.

Finally, the one good trend that is coming out of the whole debate is that staff and students are voicing their feelings and thoughts to one another. These have been suppressed for too long on both sides. Congratulations to 301 for speaking up on Monday and congratulations to the staff who had the courage to show up.