Abstract
I am not an ethnographer, but I’d like to try to channel those skills for a moment. I want to describe a scene from a meeting of the Pacific Sociological Association (PSA) about a half decade ago. It was a session billed as an “ethnographers’ circle.” Colleagues sat in a circle, actively engaging with one another—very informally and very collegially. As the session started, one member began to discuss her current research, focusing as much on the challenges and pitfalls of the project as the preliminary insights that were emerging. As I look around the room, I see colleagues from a variety of institutions (research-intensive institutions, teaching-intensive institutions, graduate programs, two-year colleges), at a variety of stages in their careers (from tenured professors to graduate students). Had I not known (or known of) most participants beforehand, I would have been unable to discern those differences, because the interactions in the room belied no recognition of rank or status. The interactions were focused and critical, but also clearly designed to be helpful and move the research forward—as if all were engaged in a collaborative project. Indeed, in many ways, they were.
My (feeble) attempt at ethnography is meant to describe the seedbed of this wonderful special issue of Sociological Perspectives, as part of a broader “ethnography initiative” within the PSA. Specifically, I would like to describe the institutional context of the PSA, where the initiative sprouted and flourished, and explain why I think the efforts leading to this special issue represent an important lesson for our discipline and profession—and, most specifically, for regional sociological associations.
To understand the PSA, it is important to begin with the challenges faced by regional sociological associations. In an insightful analysis, Bruce Keith (2004) identified those challenges and offered suggestions for how to respond to them. He noted that regionals have declined in an era in which the limits that led naturally to vibrant regionals (largely limitations of travel) no longer hold. What is a regional association when geography and regional distinction are no longer salient? Add the dramatic expansion of higher education and the solidification of status differences across institutional types, and that creates a difficult context to navigate. Regionals have seen a secular decline in the participation of faculty from doctoral-granting institutions, as they seek out venues that will offer greater professional visibility and opportunities. Keith argued that the national association focused on research scholars in doctoral programs, creating natural constituencies for the regionals among sociologists who focus on teaching and practice (and who represent the overwhelming majority of sociologists). As Keith (2004:98) points out, however, “[I]n light of these important differences, a cursory examination of the regional associations’ conference programs and journals suggest that they are transfixed on being identical to the national association.”
Keith’s analysis suggests that the regional associations should abandon the goal of organizing their annual meetings primarily as a venue for the kind of disciplinary research exchanges that have traditionally been the hallmark of those meetings. Instead, they should focus on issues of more immediate relevance to their constituencies. In many ways, that is exactly what the PSA has done—with a strong emphasis on teaching, professional development opportunities, and informal networking. However, I would argue that disciplinary research has to maintain an important role in the regional meetings—and member feedback affirms that. Moreover, one of the central constituencies demand that: students. The PSA is now routinely over 50 percent students (graduate and undergraduate), who want and need exposure to discipline-leading research—both as a model for research norms and as a professional networking opportunity. But how does an association serve one population (primarily those at or aspiring to teaching institutions) by focusing its meeting primarily on the type of disciplinary research characteristic of those at research institutions? A clear tension remains in the purpose of the meeting—and of the association.
Those challenges and tensions had been very much on my own mind at the time that I attended the session described above. I was beginning my work as Program Chair for the 2013 meetings (drawing on experiences from performing the same task several years before). The PSA was healthy and vibrant, thanks largely to the tireless stewardship of Dean Dorn for nearly a quarter century. It was providing rich opportunities for professional development and networking to both faculty and students, and had a committed membership base that treasured its unique culture (informal, inclusive, and collegial). A central aspect of that culture was an effectively open program—that is, a program in which virtually all submissions are given a place on the program, which contributed to lively and well-attended meetings.
Nevertheless, PSA members frequently noted frustrations with presentations that were not adequately prepared. Or worse, presenters who simply didn’t show up. In some sense, this was the cost of inclusivity—an open program that had no barriers to entry could do little to guarantee the quality of sessions. Some members preferred the resulting unpredictability; for example, Harry J. Mersmann (2014) likened it to the excitement of the “Wild West.” For many others, it was becoming a disincentive to attend, and threatened to further erode the research role in a feedback loop. How might that loop be reversed? The most direct route to reestablishing the meetings as a venue for disciplinary research is to become more exclusive—that is, filtering out more submissions and accepting only the most polished and significant. But that runs directly counter to the most valued characteristics of the PSA, and is exactly what the membership does not want—understandably so. It was a vexing conundrum: How to raise the overall quality of presentations without making the meetings more exclusive.
In an attempt to begin to resolve those tensions, in 2013, the PSA introduced a new process for putting together its annual meetings. The program remained effectively open, but organizers did more to distinguish among types of proposed presentations, and to find the most appropriate and productive venues for each. Mostly, that was accomplished by making a distinction between research-in-progress and formal research presentations. That attempt to sail between Scylla and Charybdis was largely successful according to member feedback (Downey and Orr 2014). Of course, that was just one incremental step in a longer journey that the PSA has continued to engage. Many of those efforts—and members’ responses—are chronicled in a special issue of The American Sociologist focusing on the PSA as a regional sociological association (Downey and Hohm 2014).
It was in that general context that I initially came to learn of the ethnography initiative at the PSA meetings. One of the benefits of serving as Program Chair is the opportunity to get to know and to work with one’s colleagues, and to serve as a funnel for members’ ideas. At that time, Black Hawk Hancock approached the Executive Director (Chuck Hohm) with an idea for highlighting ethnography at the meetings. The vision was to organize a series of sessions that would allow ethnographers to “workshop” their research in a supportive atmosphere. He also requested funding for an ethnographers’ reception, to allow them to build professional networks within the PSA. We were supportive of the idea—in part because the PSA has always made an effort to support member initiatives, especially those designed to get members more engaged. It was also a time of experimentation, and the ideas feathered well with what we were trying to do on a broader level. Most of all, we supported the idea because it was compelling.
The events that year were a wonderful success, and have served as a foundation for expanding activities in subsequent years. We now have a half dozen or so lively sessions on ethnography at our annual meetings, and the PSA is developing a well-earned reputation as a hotbed for ethnographers. And those activities have now led directly to this special issue of Sociological Perspectives. The issue embodies the culture of the PSA, as evident in the mix of authors from across the range of the discipline. And it is the richer on account of that. One can also clearly see the intellectual rigor and innovative thinking in the research, pushing the boundaries of our discipline outward. Given the evidence of inclusion and rigor, of critical and collegial exchange, I would argue that the ethnography initiative and this special issue represent some of the best that the PSA has to offer—and, more generally, represent a valuable model for efforts to address the challenges facing regional associations.
The issue has something to offer to a variety of readers. Those familiar with contemporary ethnographic research will recognize and appreciate the wealth of talent represented in the issue. For readers less familiar with ethnography, the issue is a wonderful introduction to the range of rich contemporary work in that area. Readers who have attended PSA meetings will recognize the evidence of collaboration and inclusiveness characteristic of our association. Finally, for readers unfamiliar with the PSA, I hope that it inspires you to attend a meeting and enjoy the rich exchange of ideas with warm colleagues. You have a new opportunity each spring, in a beautiful west coast destination.