Nearly two decades since the 2004 ASA presidential address, there are still lively discussions surrounding Michael Burawoy’s project of public sociology. At the core, public sociology seeks to contribute meaningfully to a better world by deepening the public dialogue about values and goals, but also has the possibility for their realisation. Further, Burawoy’s public sociology entails the ‘organic interdependence’ in which the flourishing of each type of knowledge – public, professional, policy, and critical sociology – ‘depends on the flourishing of all’ through instrumental means as well as its reflexive ends (Burawoy, 2010). Public sociology engages the vastness of real-world problems among them being inequality, climate change, colonialism, and migration – these are only a few of the social topics being explored in the Research Handbook on Public Sociology, edited by Lavinia Bifulco and Vando Borghi.
The Research Handbook ambitiously takes on the task to find its way through the already existing plethora of articles and books in order to find its own terrain. It is through the work of leading social scientists that provides an overview of public sociology by exploring its’ potential with the following key points corresponding with the handbook’s four thematic parts: first, explore the reasons for the enduring importance of public sociology in the current context and in light of ongoing changes in the social world; second, shedding new light on the connections between public sociology and other approaches which develop dialogues and conversations of different kinds and at different levels; third is the construction of a thematic agenda consistent with the scientific programme underlying public sociology, and finally to explore the applications of public sociology in empirical research and teaching.
In the introductory chapter, the editors discuss Michael Burawoy’s latest book that ‘traces the scientific, academic, and personal trajectory along which his theory of a public sociology has developed since 2004’ (Burawoy, 2021, p. 2). It is from here the editors begin to situate the reader vis-à-vis public sociology using a general framework. I highly suggest for those who are not familiar with the project of public sociology, young scholars, or those who haven’t followed the myriad of discussions to also read beyond this handbook including Burawoy’s texts. The introduction provides what is important for the aims of the handbook, but misses a deeper reading of the project’s trajectory which is not at the fault of the editors. It is important to note that with most books or handbooks on public sociology, including the Research Handbook, there’s emphasis on being exploratory over explanatory. Therefore, you will not find an exact answer to ‘what is public sociology’ or ‘how to practice public sociology’. Furthermore, the authors of the corresponding chapters also do well in situating their own work within Buroway’s project in order to help guide their discussions, which helps to locate the aims that I’ve already mentioned above.
One of the intriguing themes to emerge in the introduction is the editor’s discussion of Burawoy’s account of the relationships between sociology and utopia or rather the tension between utopia and anti-utopia (see further, Burawoy, 2021) – their suggestion is a call for more discussions on the topic. It is from here that the editors lead the reader towards their handbook’s main theme that is woven throughout: the tension between the possible and impossible that underlies sociology itself (p. 4). There’s not enough space here to give their discussion justice, so I will leave it to the reader to further explore it.
The Research Handbook’s four thematic parts and corresponding chapters are a lot to unpack. The aim of this review is to identify some of the aspects that will be relevant to readers of this journal. I won’t be able to cover all of the parts in great detail, rather, briefly summarise some highlights starting with Part I: Connections and Conversations: Authors and Research Perspectives in Dialogue with Public Sociology. The handbook starts strong in this short thematic section shedding new light on Burawoy’s project of public sociology: Chapter 3 is one of the most intriguing chapters, where Daniel Cefaï re-examines research perspectives with a pragmatist outlook through what Dewey called ‘the public’ (Dewey, 1927 [2008]). One of the highlights is how Cefaï imagines a topographic model called the ‘triple helix’ of public experience which conveys the ‘temporal dynamic of the social inquiry and the resulting three intertwined spirals that make up the public experience’ (p. 34). Chapter 4 (Jean-Michel Bonvin and Francesco Laruffa), meanwhile, provides a micro-level example that explores how the potential of Amartya Sen’s capability approach-inspired conception of public sociology enhances both the quality of knowledge while also creating publics that are able to build their own aspirations, give voice to the marginalised, and to defend them in public spheres. One of the important suggestions in the chapter states that ‘individuals forming the ‘public’ are conceived not only as objects in the scientific process, but also as subjects with their own positional objectivities that need to be properly included’ (p. 54).
Part II, Forth and Back Across (Disciplinary) Borders: Ways of Thinking and Practicing Public Research, takes on the relevant discussion of practice pertaining to the role of the researcher in designing and conducting public research in different fields. For example, Chapter 6 (Didier Fassin) discusses the crucial role of criticism in the encounters of public and counter-publics as well as the complexity of popularisation and the role of the researcher within these contexts. There are a variety of other discussions in Part II that are important challenges for practicing public research today such as public history and the ‘memory battlefields’ happening in the era of fake narratives about the past (Serge Noiret, Chapter 7), public geography and the methodological dilemmas in practicing it (Salvo Torre, Chapter 8), and urban planning and its political dimension concerning spatial justice (Marco Cremaschi, Chapter 9).
At the centre of many discussions on public sociology as a ‘practice’ lies the question poking at whether public sociology is being used as a ‘cipher’ for a variety of activities that are public and being done in the public sphere but might not necessarily have anything to do with sociology per se (Fatsis, 2017). The Research Handbook misses an opportunity to engage directly with this question that still looms over public sociological practice since its inception – to explore the potential in bringing something uniquely sociological into the engagements with our public(s). Going back to one of the dominant themes in the handbook – the tension between possible and impossible – might also connect to whether public sociologists have the ability to know how ‘public’ their scholarly work is. Therefore the discussions around practice and methodology are important when it comes to public sociology. There is a way forward when discussing the practice of public sociology without laying too much groundwork for a manual on ‘how to practice public sociology’. An example are the chapters on methodology (Part III) and case studies (Part IV) found in The Routledge International Handbook of Public Sociology (2022) which shows how Burawoy’s use of ‘style’ when discussing his project of public sociology is still exploratory and not programmatic (Burawoy, 2005).
Part III: Themes and Research Issues: Deepening PS Potentialities Dealing with Different Fields is the biggest thematic section in the handbook providing a unique challenge for anyone intending to review it. One of the strengths in the Research Handbook is the depth and breadth of topics pertaining to ‘public sociological encounters with other approaches and perspectives’ which makes it difficult to adequately represent them within a single review. Some of the chapters are mostly exploratory, clearly delivering on the handbook’s promise, but at times these type of chapters leaves too much work for the reader to piece together. The topics within Part III have a large range dealing with many current issues from focusing on migration and the ‘public-face of sociology’ (Chapter 15) to Science, the environment and the public (Chapter 12) to poverty and the role of public sociology (Chapter 22). There are plenty of discussions for the reader to ‘locate’ their own research path.
The Research Handbook ends with another topic that looms over the practice of public sociology: For a Public Academia: Public Sociology and Public Academies (Part IV). The editors discuss in the introductory chapter on how Burawoy tackles the discussion of ‘real utopias’ in his recent work (Burawoy, 2021) along with Burawoy himself questioning in Chapter 2 (p. 20), ‘What is to be done?’ – both are referencing the issue that sociology cannot insulate itself within academia. Part IV misses an opportunity for a lively discussion on public academia and students being an important ‘public’ according to Burawoy’s project. Furthermore, there’s relevancy in exploring the potential in what it means for imagining a future for public sociology outside of academia or to critically engage again with the question of ‘sociology for whom?’ Or in Burawoy’s words: ‘Are we just talking to ourselves (an academic audience) or are we also addressing others (an extra-academic audience)?’ (Burawoy, 2005) – the latter brings to mind relevant questions regarding ‘privileged public’ in public academia (Mahadeo, 2023). These comments are not directed towards the authors themselves in Part IV whose work still provides important discussions on sociological research and teaching in academia (Chapter 25) and on the relationship between post-colonialism and sociology (Chapter 26) in regards to engagement with public causes and current policies (by delineating the types of sociological knowledge: public, professional, policy, and critical). Rather it is unfortunate that Part IV is a short section with little to grasp about the potential surrounding the future of public academia. The Research Handbook also ends abruptly after Chapter 26 without any conclusions from the editors nor provides the reader with an outlook towards future research paths. I think the handbook could have been strengthened by this – especially since the editors provided a great introductory chapter. It was a pity to end on this note.
Still, I highly recommend the Research Handbook on Public Sociology as it is a contribution to public sociology research, but also an appealing invitation for scholars of sociology, cultural sociology, and anthropology – along with other disciplinary fields such as the study of migration, cultural geography, and urban planning who might also find the handbook appealing.