چکیده:
We are living in an era where sociology has distanced itself more than ever from the world it studies, and the need for what I call 'people-oriented sociology' is felt more than ever. By people-oriented sociology, I mean a science whose concern is 'popular groups' and whose method is blending with them. My call for the recognition of people-oriented sociology has been well-received by my audience everywhere, and movements have taken place in this field. In this article, I present 11 theses. First, I provide reasons for the necessity of people-oriented sociology and enumerate its various types. Then, I examine the fourfold matrix of sociology (professional sociology, policy-making sociology, people-oriented sociology, and critical sociology), which varies from time to time and from one country to another, and finally, I address those characteristics that distinguish sociology from other disciplines, not as a science, but as a moral and political force.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Several years later, universities—especially those with a stronger background in sociology—became sites for protests to achieve freedom of speech, civil rights, and the establishment of peace, and thus, sociology's consensus and non-critical approach to science were called into question.
People-oriented sociology, on the contrary, is formed based on a two-way dialogue between the sociologist and popular groups; such that each party enters the dialogue with their own specific agenda and attempts to adapt themselves to the other.
And finally, professional sociology also has a critical aspect, which occurs when it engages in discussions within or between research programs—for instance, one could refer to discussions regarding, such as the discussion on the relative priority of class and race in social analyses, or the positive and negative effects of globalization among sociologists (1).
The knowledge that results from the dialogue between public sociologists and popular groups is different from both the foundational knowledge of critical sociology and the other two.
Professional sociology defends the preconditions of science; policy sociology intervenes in various ways in policymaking; public sociology seeks to establish a democratic dialogue between sociologists and popular groups; while critical sociology aims to create intra-disciplinary debates.
At least in the United States, professional and policy-making sociology—where one creates employment and the other provides budgets—determines the direction of the discipline, and for this reason, both critical and public sociology are placed in an inferior position.
(
, 
, 
)
