If Physicians Acted Like Sociologists (or, Why We’re Mostly Irrelevant)

Last updated on: December 4, 2014 at 4:42 pm by Bradley Wright

If Physicians Acted Like Sociologists (or, Why We’re Mostly Irrelevant) 2014-12-04T16:42:08-05:00 Bradley Wright

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Imagine a physician seeing a patient who has been diagnosed with cancer. If that physician approached matters as sociologists do, the physician would sit the patient down in their office and start by presenting several general theories regarding why cancer occurs. For example, maybe one theory might explain why cancer rates have changed over the decades. Another might link cancer to environmental factors, such as air pollution. Still another might link cancer to lifestyle choices, such as smoking and diet.

After that, the physician would go into a long description of how rates of cancer vary by types of people, paying particularly close attention to race, class and gender. Perhaps people in some racial groups are more prone to this particular type of cancer. Maybe men get it earlier in life than women. The physician might also add what people in the general population think about cancer in general—how much they fear it, which cancers they fear the most, and if they think it’s getting worse over time.

Then the physician would share their own, personal observations of the effect of cancer on patients, based on watching and talking to cancer patients. These observations include how cancer patients make sense of their disease, how they talk about it, and how it affects their relationships with others.

By now the appointment would be over. The patient would leave the leave the doctor’s office, noticing bumper stickers and photocopied documents taped to the doctor’s door that decry cancer and call for a cancer-free society. The doctor would sit at their desk, assuming that something they said will somehow combat the cancer in that patient.

Sociology isn’t wholly irrelevant to society, but it’s mostly irrelevant when it comes to making society better in concrete ways.

We do a good job of identifying and elaborating general social processes, especially as they apply to select social problems. This parallels basic science in medicine. We also study the distribution and experience of social experiences, again focusing on problems, throughout the population. This parallels epidemiology.

What’s missing in sociology, and is found in other disciplines that are more socially-relevant, is an additional emphasis on creating and testing interventions. We know that employers discriminate on the basis of race, but how do we change that? We know that inequality is rampant, but how do we solve that? We know that reduced educational opportunity harms children, but how do we resolve that? Yes, identifying and understanding something as a problem is a key first step in addressing it, but once that happens in society, we sociologists are pretty much done.

With few exceptions, we do not create and systematically test ways of improving the social world. Instead, we put naïve, over-simplified calls for social change into the discussion sections of our journal articles. They have the social impact of a beauty contestant asking for world peace when interviewed in a pageant. If our descriptions of social problems are a Ferrari, our proposals for fixing them are a little red wagon that’s missing a wheel.

Are you writing a newspaper column about something wrong with society? Yes, sociology can help with that, giving you relevant numbers, stories, and ideas. Are you a member of a task force looking for practical solutions to a problem? Don’t call us. We have little to offer.

I doubt that this impracticality will change any time soon, for several reasons. We sociologists are trained and rewarded for pursuing grand explanations, not practical outcomes. Our journals are for social problems much more than social solutions. We under-utilize field experiments, the bedrock of intervention testing. We downplay the role of individual incentives, focusing instead on broader social forces. Yet, changing peoples’ incentives is a powerful mechanism for producing social change.

If I were to change this situation, I would start with changing the incentives for sociologists. Make it so that it makes sense for sociologists to study solutions as well as problems. Create an X-Prize for the sociologist who creates the policy or program that demonstrably does the most good. Start a journal that only features articles on social solutions. Offer an award each year at the ASA meetings for the solution-based research.

Until then, maybe just enjoy tenured irrelevance.

Photo credit

Brad Wright

Uncategorized

Previous Post

November 30, 2014

Christianophobia in the United States - Part 3

Next Post

December 13, 2014 Ferguson, Staten Island, What's Next?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Amy Reynolds Becky Hsu Brad Wright critical realism George Yancey Gerardo Marti Jeremy Rhodes Jerry Park John Schmalzbauer Margarita Mooney Mark Regnerus Nicolette Manglos positive sociology Richard Flory Robert Woodberry Uncategorized

Select a Month April 2017 August 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz