Report on National Sociological Associations in Europe

Comte coined the term ‘sociology’ in 1824, many years after the wide diffusion of the idea of nation. But the idea of a national sociology came later. Weber and Simmel founded the German Sociological Association in 1909. More than 100 years ago, the American Sociological Society (now ASA) was established, in 1905. René Worms, with some other sociologists, anticipated future developments by creating the International Institute of Sociology in Paris, in 1893. Other national societies of sociology followed this initial example in the decades to come and the European Sociological Association (ESA) held its first conference as recently as 1992. New national associations continue to emerge, in the post-Soviet countries in particular. The proliferation of international and national associations, all understandably calling for different approaches, testifies to the vibrance of the discipline but also calls for regional dialogue and coordination. This, for instance, is evident in formalized and historically organized networks, or in informal relationships existing, for instance, in Europe, between the Portuguese, Spanish, French, Greek and Italian Sociological Associations (through the network named Réseau Sud – RESU), born with a view to discussing common topics. Perhaps there are many more projects underway that need to be taken into account. For instance the Balkan Forum was set up, in November 2011 thanks to the remarkable endeavours of Leke Sokoli, Director of the Albanian Institute of Sociology and Svetla Koleva of the Bulgarian Academy of Science. This network presently includes Albania, Bulgaria and Macedonia, but membership is likely to increase.

Are there better opportunities than those which presently exist for national sociologies to achieve self-organization? If so, does this imply that national associations of sociology may be enhanced through the creation of an international body like ESA? If so, what issues does this raise about national and linguistic identity in the international context? These questions began to loom larger than ever before at the end of the twentieth century. They have particularly concerned the European experience but the principles concerned may be generalized so as to become relevant to other regions of the world. According to Diderot, the nation is ‘une quantité considérable de peuple qui habite une certaine étendue de pays, renfermée dans de certaines limites, et qui obéit au même gouvernement’ (Diderot 1751–65), that is to say, that a nation is a number of people living within a limited territory and under the same government. The nation is in continuity with the past. The same may be said of national sociological associations.

In spite of differences between specific areas of knowledge, current national sociologies have been shaped by certain characteristics due to their origins and subsequent histories. For example, in the Italian case, after Vilfredo Pareto's contribution, sociology was absent from the country's universities during the entire fascist period. But there was a new beginning after the Second World War notwithstanding the intellectual opposition of philosophers like Benedetto Croce who, because of his liberalism, was a strong opponent of our ‘sickly’ science (Balbo et al. 1976).¹

A national sociological association can serve the purpose of protecting the public image of our science which some take to be ‘soft’, ‘politically oriented’ and ‘good for all topics and for all seasons’. In Europe, in general, the birth of an international association, ESA, arguably came too late, many years after the foundation of the European Community. European sociologists were unable to foresee (in time) the sociological relevance of the new continental economic and political structure that was being created.

Even today, the European network of sociologists has not taken off as expected. However, a pathway has been opened and progress is likely. We are dealing with the variety of difficult social problems that have arisen in a social world of rapid urbanization, industrialization and, lately, of economic, cultural and social globalization. Starting from a position of unspecialized or over-specialized interests, our national associations encompass a myriad of diverse intellectual backgrounds. Furthermore, many sociologists now tend to carry out research not only as individuals but also as members of teams, of national associations, and of international networks.

In some countries, we come up against unsuccessful attempts to institutionally establish sociology as a scientific discipline. In others, the study of society is undertaken largely from the perspective of local culture or within a particular political or religious framework. This makes the improvement of social and international links a priority concern of ESA. Of course, it is necessary to pay all due respect to the state of the art in local contexts. Sociologists are not preachers, neither are they missionaries. They have to analyse issues and – in some cases – advance proposals or make suggestions. Others will decide whether or not they are prepared to accept them. In this regard, efficient communication between both National Sociological Associations and between sociologists in general is a fundamental tool. The Internet can be of help, but it is essential that communication is well managed in order to avoid misunderstandings, dissemination of incomplete information, information overload (of messages and news), as well as impersonal and scattergun approaches.

The shared task for ESA is to underscore the ways in which sociological knowledge can justify sociological teaching and research. However, we are not specialist or guild organizations whose aim is to favour the occupational interests of sociologists as academics or professionals. An increase in the number of complete sociology curricula (undergraduate and postgraduate) in the universities is a goal to achieve, but not to the detriment of scientific standards and the quality of tuition.

The intellectual climate of a nation is a determining feature for the success of sociology. The starting point for invigorating the discipline at the national level can be the creation of a scientific centre or an institute, but arguably a National Society or Association must remain an objective in all cases. It is difficult to distinguish between a Society and an Association. In general, an Association envisages the participation of members, both individual and collective. Collective membership is a characteristic of national or international associations (in the former case, collective members are departments, institutes, centres and so on; in the latter case, collective members are, specifically speaking, national associations).

A national Society is a more generic liaison, at least in principle, and has no local structures. The risk is that a national Society may remain isolated, without the opportunity to exchange and compare ideas and debate issues other than those concerning its immediate context. When a national structure does not favour an international debate or fails to stress the usefulness of international dialogue between regional approaches, it loses the opportunity of keeping in touch with best practices, emerging issues, and new research findings which result from the multifaceted contribution made collectively to the scientific arena. A national or international Association should not come across as exclusively self-referential, though, naturally, it will reflect the sensitivity of the sociologists who operate within that specific nation, the spirit of which will be apparent in the scientific production of its members.

A crucial factor in understanding the importance of sociology in each country is the date of its National Association's foundation. National associations of sociology were progressively established and institutionalized throughout the twentieth century, each one reflecting the political circumstances of the European Continent at the time. The oldest association is the German one, established in 1909. Later in the 1930s, the Dutch Association was created as well as the first version of the Polish Association (this association re-emerged in the 1950s). During the 1940s only one new association was founded, that of Finland. There were only four national associations in Europe in total by the end of the Second World War. Of the 40 associations we surveyed and which indicated the year of their constitution, only 10% were in existence in 1950. But the 1950s and 1960s marked a time when the national organizations began to emerge, both in Western countries (the UK, Austria, Denmark, Israel and Sweden), and in the countries of the socialist bloc [Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia (former Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia)]. Various Western countries were added during the 1970s (Belgium, Ireland, Norway and Switzerland). However, half of the present-day associations emerged during the 1980s, with their appearance corresponding with two factors. First was the democratization of the countries of Southern Europe, three of which were fresh out of dictatorships during the 1970s. Second was the entry, at the end of the 1980s, of the Eastern European countries into democracy. The French case is an exception. Although France can boast a long and extremely important sociological tradition, for endogenous reasons and after several false starts, it created its present national association as recently as 2002.

Based on this survey, we may conclude that the consolidation of the associative movement of sociologists covering the European area is generally quite recent. The same may be said when observing the organizational difficulties encountered when institutionalizing the ESA, which was formalized as late as 1992. In short, the European sociological movement was built up gradually over a century, with three central periods in its development. The first period corresponds to the strong affirmation of national sociological associations during the post-Second World War period and after 1950, and reflects not only a major interest at European level in the development of this scientific field but also the conflict which placed the countries belonging to the Western democracies and those of the Eastern bloc in opposing camps. This led to competition over epistemological issues, something beyond the scope of the present analysis (but which led many former Eastern-bloc associations to be re-founded after 1989). The second period is that of the 1980s which followed the democratization of the Southern European countries and paved the way towards the constitution of associations of lecturers, researchers and professionals belonging to the field of sociology, and the social sciences in general. The third period began precisely in 1989 with the reconstitution of the Russian Association, which, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, overcame the concept of the USSR and provided the Sociologies in place in the Eastern-bloc countries with new opportunities and fresh momentum. With the arrival of the twenty-first century, we can safely say that the whole of sociological Europe is adequately represented.

Another key element in the understanding of how sociology is organized throughout Europe is the size of each association in terms of numbers of members. With the type of members established by statute, the sociologists who consider themselves to be represented by these associations should also be taken into account, since this clearly impacts upon the number of members and the characteristics of each organization. As noted above, the size of the association may be explained, at least partially, by whether an organization is strictly directed towards academics or whether it also provides support to trained professional practitioners. However, there are also other factors (such as the importance attached to sociology and to the work of sociologists in each European country, the existence of other scientific or professional associations which sociologists may join), which reduce or increase the size and weight of a national association.

As to the numerical distribution of members, these range from the Macedonian and Armenian associations with 10 and 36 members respectively to the Russian association which enumerates around four thousand members. Because of this variation we have decided to create a classification which defines an association with over 1200 members as ‘very large’; those with between 600 and 1200 as ‘large’; those with between 300 and 600 as ‘medium’; those with between 100 and 300 as ‘small’; and those with less than 100 as ‘very small’.

Therefore, apart from the four cases for which no information is available (Belarus, Georgia, Serbia and Vojvodina), and excluding the smallest entities when countries have more than one association (Russia and Greece), the remaining 36 associations are distributed as follows: 4 ‘very small’, 12 ‘small’, 6 ‘medium’, 6 ‘large’ and 8 ‘very large’. In regard to the ‘very small’ (associations with fewer than 100 active members), it is hardly surprising that associations of small countries with a very recent associative history are to be found in this group. The reference here is to Armenia, Latvia, Lithuania and Macedonia, with associations all constituted after 1989 and which, at least in the case of Armenia and Lithuania, are clearly focused only on academia.

In the case of ‘small’ associations, again it is not surprising that they are located in medium-sized and small countries (in terms of population) with a short associative history, starting during the 1990s: Romania, Iceland, Cyprus, Estonia and Albania. The same may be said of older associations which were re-founded after the socialist period, as is the case for Croatia, Slovakia and Slovenia. More curious is the situation of the Swedish and Belgian associations. The former was created in 1962 and actually accepts professional practitioners as members while the Belgian association was created in 1975 and, although no formal restriction exists, it has only 10% of members who do not work in the Academia. We lack information to explain the Irish case, in existence since 1973, but the fact that it has only doubled its membership in 40 years, from 100 to 200, leads us to believe that this is an eminently academic association. This leaves Spain with a membership of only 200, seemingly inexplicable for such a large country. The explanation that springs most readily to mind is that there may be a misunderstanding concerning the FES (the federation of all the associations of the Spanish autonomous regions); the above figure may not take into account the aggregate number of members belonging to all the various associations existing across the entire national territory. In this case, the term ‘nation’ (national association) poses clear analytical problems seeing that some of these autonomous regions consider themselves as nations federated with the Spanish state.

As to the ‘medium-sized’ associations, that is, those with between 300 and 600 members, these are well-established and appear to follow a logic focused more on academic activity than on a public-sociology perspective. All these associations – Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Switzerland and the Netherlands – with some slight variations among them, have very few members that do not belong to the academic world. The ‘large’ associations show a variety of dynamics. Here the reference is to three large countries with very different approaches: Italy, with practically only academics enrolled but with nearly 1200 members, followed by Turkey and the Ukraine. The Turkish Association has a rather recent history, having been created only in 1990, and, despite not admitting professionals, has grown considerably from an initial membership of 15 members to its current 627. In Ukraine, the majority of the members are professionals and figures have soared from 320 members at its foundation in 1993 to today's 950. These cases represent highly differentiated processes which it is important to highlight in this analysis.

Then, also amongst the ‘large category’ we have the long-standing associations whose sizes depend also on their different histories. Denmark has gradually consolidated its association, based on academics, while Finland has a very strong presence of non-academics, and Norway appears to hold an intermediate position. This means that even among the Scandinavian countries, there are considerable differences to be found, in spite of their geographical proximity.

Finally, the ‘very large’; associations with over 1200 members. France, Germany, Poland, Russia and the UK are in the most highly populated European countries and all have a long sociological tradition. The members of these associations are almost exclusively academics: in the German case it is estimated that 5% are non-academics; in the UK and Poland the figure stands at 10%; in France is it 30%. The Russian case stands out due to the almost equal presence of professionals and academics. Yet, small countries like Portugal and Greece also have ‘very large’ associations, with over two thousand members. The explanation appears to reside in the fact that, due to sociology being a new science in the 1980s, during both countries’ post-dictatorship phases, the discipline came to be deemed a socially prestigious science-profession. The internal organization of the associations in Portugal and Greece reveals a certain balance between academics and non-academics to the extent that in Greece non-academics are the majority. It should also be noted that in both countries there is also another association of sociologists, in the case of Greece one for teaching staff, in Portugal one for professionals. Finally, the Bulgarian case is idiosyncratic because, while in 1989 it had 1400 members inherited from the previous associative phase, currently it has only 120 individual and seven collective members, thus posing the question: what may lie behind such a marked decline?

To conclude, we can say that as far as organizational issues are concerned, it is crucial to grasp the political, social and economic reality of each country to understand the historical pathway each association has taken, as well as the policies of affirmation it has followed. In order to further pursue our intention of outlining a European scenario, we need to understand how the associations of each country perceive their social role and how they are integrated into the overall dynamics of their various contexts. Some of the information provided in the survey deserves greater attention. This is outlined below in the form of questions.

• Which national associations are intended exclusively for academics and which focus on membership of university-trained professionals and non-academic professional sociologists; and why?

• How is sociological activity integrated, in associative terms, into the fabric of each country? Are sociologists autonomous within the social sciences and how do they cooperate with their scientific partners?

• How are early career researchers, and academics being attracted, in general, to the national associations at a time when there is widespread appeal to internationalization and where sociology's international associations may appear better able to support an international scientific career?

• What role is being given at present to the issue of language by national associations if doors are to be opened up to non-academics permitting sociologists to communicate with the society to which they belong and with non-European networks that share a common language? This question is particularly relevant in regard to the Neo-Latin languages, especially French, Spanish and Portuguese, which permit the constitution of complementary associative circuits, based on a shared language, as in the case of AISLF (International Association of French Speaking Sociologists) and the French language.

In every country, the size, relevance and socio-cultural impact of sociology as a discipline and as a professional endeavour are associated essentially with its quantitative and qualitative presence in higher education institutions. The space accorded to sociology in higher education institutions risks being restricted when scarcity of resources and university policies make disciplines compete against one another for inclusion in students’ curricula and in the appointment of faculty chairs. In times of cutbacks in public funding and use of the university as a tool for science policy, this is a crucial issue for national sociological associations, which have the promotion sociological education and the propagation of sociological knowledge and research findings as one of their main goals.

The snap-shot picture captured by our survey may be considered an initial cross-sectional description of the presence of sociological education in national academic institutions that should be monitored over the next few years in order to understand how the various sociological associations succeed, more or less efficaciously, to defend the positions they have acquired, at a time when they may be more easily contested and eroded than enhanced.

National sociological associations may need to assume new forms of agency and ways of having their voice heard, in order to promote not only the position of their discipline but also the role played by the scientific associations in general in shaping national – and European – scientific and educational policies. This will undoubtedly become the ultimate issue at stake for the destiny of the discipline where the governance of university systems is placed more and more in the hands of evaluation agencies, at the mercy of funding committees and market competition for student tuition fees, and private or local government support, the latter obtained thanks to the delivery of on-demand services.

At present, and generally speaking, the national sociological associations seem to be more interested in issues related to research funding and investment and not to be particularly committed to being aware of the exact situation of their discipline in their own national higher education systems. In fact, the majority were capable of providing only approximate figures when invited to indicate how many bachelor, master and PhD courses in sociology were available in their countries. This difficulty may also be due to the different institutional structures of higher education curricula, making the meaning of such questions ambiguous and not universally applicable to each national system's peculiar situation – some comments by the respondents actually indicated this matter to be one of the weaknesses of our survey. But it may also be due to recent changes having interested European higher educational systems, in complying to the Bologna process, that make it difficult to gain access to updated figures. Whatever the case may be, the acquisition of a clear description of the presence of sociology within the different national higher education systems emerges as an important task to be accomplished in the future by national sociological associations, and by ESA as well, seeing that it is essential that we obtain a comparative and global picture at European level. Also data about the flow of students within the different levels of higher education (bachelor, master and Ph.D. degree courses) need to be more adequately assessed. National sociological associations who are collective members of ESA may jointly take initiatives in that direction by deciding to carry out a systematic, periodic review of the presence of the discipline in higher education systems throughout Europe under the scientific direction of a Committee of representatives designated by them. This would act as a symbolic and, at the same time, pragmatic sign of a new kind of collectively acquired agency within and through ESA membership.

With all due caution, and because of the uncertain reliability of the figures gathered, the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Poland, followed by Lithuania and Croatia, appear to be the countries where sociological education has been developing most in higher education curricula. But data are missing for Russia, Spain, Switzerland, Hungary, Sweden, Iceland, Georgia, Macedonia, Serbia, Slovenia, Belarus and Vojvodina.

The number of people that have received a sociological education at different educational and degree levels, in each country, is one of the consequences of the presence of the discipline in each nation's higher education system and of its appeal to students, conditioned as it is by the ups and downs of the professional prestige of academic sociologists and practitioners. But it is also conditioned by the commitment of cultural and social movements indirectly inspired by a sociological understanding of reality and by a sociological imagination, and by sensitivity towards social inequalities and power conflicts. It is also influenced by the collective relevance attributed to changes in societal values and to the new challenges posed by techno-scientific innovation and environmental issues that need to be addressed, on the one hand, and by financial and economic competition at present occupying the global scene and defining new global equilibria, on the other. The striving for enhanced societal impact of sociology by national associations may not only require an increase in the numerical power of sociologists but also and most importantly that sociology becomes a part of the general education of individuals so that a more conscious and reflexive form of citizenship may be engendered along with the greater capability of achieving the public good throughout Europe.

The European sociological community is the aggregate blend of several parallel currents going back over 100 years with each current generating as many tributaries as there are individual academic (and other) corporations in action in dozens of the countries where sociology has been able to take root and to develop, favoured by university and social policies or opposed by governments and public and/or private bodies.

Each country has a story to tell about its own particular claims and losses, its ups and downs, and the advances and set-backs that sociology as a discipline has known. It may be hypothesized, and rightly so, that the two world wars acted as a watershed to events in the twentieth century: these world wars, which impacted one way or another on the whole of Europe, certainly had a strong influence on the internal dynamics of the continent and on its international relations.

It may justifiably be asserted that the initial phase of the history of sociology was characterized by great uncertainty, by the more or less overt opposition of the other disciplines and the field's own frantic quest, on the one hand, for scientific recognition, and, on the other, for methodologies and methods capable of meeting the implicit (sometimes explicit, especially in the case of historians) challenges posed by the multifarious contexts that come within the scope of the social sciences.

It would be very worthwhile to carry out a continent-wide investigation of the main factors contributing to increases and diminutions in the role of sociology in each of the strands that comprise that compound interweave known as Europe. For the moment, we must do the best we can with the rather rudimentary indicators at our disposal and which we may use as the preliminary exploratory foundation on which to base our research while awaiting a more specifically customized, well-prepared, much larger study capable of paying due attention to the peculiarities of individual socio-economic situations and local policies.

There are, broadly speaking, four categories of social actors involved in the overall sociological structure: on the one hand, we have the academics and researchers (in the broad sense), on the other, private and public practitioners of the profession of sociologist. To these we need to add those who work for purposes other than those typical of the four main categories. Nor should we overlook those who, despite having been properly qualified to operate in the universities or in bodies of various other types, fail to find employment within the field. It is particularly important to distinguish too between the public and private sectors.

Of the total of 40 associations or societies who took part in ESA's survey, academics represent a conspicuous and well-distributed percentage, each closely proportionate to the characteristics of its own national reference. Special mention goes to Russia and Greece, each of which can boast two associations in the field of sociology. France is particularly active with about 2800 university teachers, Italy enumerates about 1500, Austria 960 and Poland 800. The most interesting datum is that regarding Turkey with an amazing number (5450) of scholars engaged in teaching sociology. If these figures are somewhat approximate and not always supported by rigorous numerical controls, the overall picture is that there are many sociologists in Europe. The lowest figures are those recorded for Armenia (40), Macedonia (1), the Czech Republic (10) and Romania (36). There are over 100 in Greece (240), Finland (120) Hungary (115), Portugal (510), Lithuania (155), Slovakia (106) and Slovenia (150), while slightly below the 100 mark we find the Ukraine (95), Denmark (72), Estonia (72), Bulgaria (70), Croatia (50) and Cyprus (60). But it must also be pointed out that there is no information available for a number of important countries like the UK, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Ireland, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Israel, all of which have a long-standing and important national history of sociology to their name.

Passing from teaching to research, the data do not vary much, on the whole. The statistical data for Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Lithuania and Slovenia, for example, show that the number of researchers is identical to that of teachers. One may presume, therefore, that it is the university teachers themselves that carry out research. In some other countries the percentage of researchers exceeds that of teachers: the Czech Republic (33 vs. 10), Romania (180 vs. 36), Portugal (765 vs. 510) and Turkey (10,900 vs. 5450). Unfortunately, on this particular issue, we neither have data for Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK, nor for another eight countries. In some countries the number of academics is greater than that of researchers. Ultimately, the main (relative) tendency is that there are more university teachers than professional practitioners though this fact does not have a negative impact on commitment to empirical in-field research in many countries.

Somewhat more complex is the relationship existing between the public and private spheres. Notably in Turkey (21,800), Portugal (3825), France (2427), Italy (2700) and Austria (1680), but also in Romania (900), Greece (820), Bulgaria (420) Denmark (432), Lithuania (310), Slovakia (198) and Slovenia (450), the number of active practitioners in the public sector appears very high indeed compared to that of teachers and of researchers.

The private sector is sometimes more, sometimes less, favourable to the presence of sociologists. Greater favour and employment levels are found in Armenia (30), Bulgaria (560), Finland (120), France (11,760), Hungary (345), Italy (11,250), Estonia (24), Lithuania (775) and Slovakia (264), but also the Ukraine (65). In other countries, however, it is mainly the public sector that employs sociologists. One should not overlook the noteworthy importance of those who work as sociologists in areas, both public and private, and who are not necessarily over-qualified for the duties assigned them. They are quite active in Austria (1200), Italy (2250), Portugal (5100), Slovakia (673) and Turkey (5450). One should note the large number of Cypriot sociologists (300) who work outside the public and private sectors. Finally, those who are qualified but do not work in the sociological field and may not be unemployed seem to number about 2307 in France, 2400 in Greece, 2250 in Italy, 1275 in Portugal, with as many as 16,350 in Turkey.

The types of contexts in which sociologists are employed are highly differentiated both at the public and private level. On the whole there are about 50 different job-types involved in the public, just as in the private sector but with a further increase in the type of institutions in which social scientists are called upon to work: especially in government, the universities, social policy-making agencies, schools and the mass media.

This highly varied portrait informs us that sociology has undoubtedly branched out and become actively present in every part of Europe, and also that the situation presents enormous differences, both in terms of the academic world and the profession in general. In theory (because many data are wanting and therefore the figures must be considered an approximation to reality) at least 13,412 sociologists are university professors; 15,368 are researchers; those employed in a professional capacity in the public sector number some 36,328; while the private sector employs 33,836; sociologists engaged in other tasks (not necessarily below their qualification) seem to number as many as 16,558; while some 25,606 trained sociologists have failed to find employment in their specific field (although they may have found some other kind of work). As may easily be seen, these numbers are by no means negligible, especially when one considers that the figures might actually be double, seeing that data are missing for academics in the case of 18 out of 40 countries; for 19 out of 40 for researchers; for 19 out of 40 in the case of the public sector, and 21 out of 40 in the case of the private sector; and for 24 out of 40 for all other areas. In the case of the unemployment of sociologists, data are missing for 23 out of 40 countries.

However, the following overall data regarding European sociology may be deemed plausible and reliable: there are about 27,000 university teachers, nearly 31,000 researchers, an estimated total of 73,000 sociologists in the public sector, 67,000 in the private sector and 33,000 in other areas. Sociologists employed in sectors other than those they trained for number about 51,000. It is possible, therefore, to deduce that approximately 231,000 sociologists are active in Europe and that to this number may be added the numbers of those who studied as sociologists but found work in other contexts which brings the aggregate total to 282,000. This means that sociology is a highly specialized, almost elitist niche, accounting for well under 1% of the entire European population (504,121,631 for the 28 countries belonging to the European Union today, according to an estimate of 1st January 2009; 805,974,129 for all 49 European countries, according to an estimate dating 2012 (www.slideserve.com/rashad/europa). And yet, it is evident that as few as 300,000 people with a medium-to-high professional education and training make a considerable impact upon the various national societies of Europe to which they belong, whether it is due solely to the range of analytical tools they devise for an understanding of social dynamics and/or the way in which they mould critical awareness of social issues among those who administer public matters. Thus, the discipline of sociology, born in Europe, continues to act as a significant étalon for hundreds of millions of people.

In this section, we present a combined picture of what we define as the ‘sensitive’ issues facing sociology. They concern its composition, its relationship with other disciplines and its capacity to exert positive influence.

The majority of those who responded to the question about whether gender is ‘an issue’ agreed (60% ‘yes’; 40% ‘no’), though it should be noted that data are missing for 12 associations. However, it is very difficult to know what lies behind these responses. Many associations which answered ‘yes’ provided some interpretation of their response with the majority flagging up that gender is a substantive topic of sociological interest amongst members and/or that their association takes gender issues seriously. Although relatively few referred directly to gender inequality in the profession, those which did drew attention to male domination and lack of career opportunities for women. This is not surprising given what we already know about gender inequality and discrimination against women in the wider academy. Thus data gathered by Thomson Reuters for 2010 for the top 400 ‘research intensive’ universities in the world (Times Higher Education2013) show that women constitute only 38.5% of staff in the social sciences. The percentages (for all disciplines combined) vary widely by country within Europe, for example, 25.9% in the UK, 31% in Denmark and 31.7% in Norway. The country that comes closest to statistical equality at least is Turkey at 47.5%, which tallies with the report of the Turkish Sociological Association in our survey that the majority of sociologists are female. But we need to bear in mind that the academy is also vertically divided, with men being much more likely to hold positions of power at departmental, institute and institutional levels. Thus EU data (EU 2013) for all academic disciplines across Europe reveal that women made up less than 25% of heads of institutions in 2010 in all countries bar Finland, Sweden and Norway (where between 25% and 50% of such positions were held by women).

The initial interpretation of the answer from 40% of associations that gender is not an issue is either (i) that there is gender equality in the profession and/or (ii) that gender sociology as a topic is incorporated into the discipline. However, it may not be so straightforward. For example, in three instances gender is reported not to be an issue because the majority is female or the discipline is becoming female (though it is not clear if this is in relation to the academy and/or the student body). While this may suggest a reversal of male dominance in the profession, there is a risk that the increasing numerical superiority of female over male university students in many countries and the movement of more women into the discipline in some countries (at least at the lower echelons) could be taken by outsiders as evidence of a decline in prestige and skill, as has happened, for example, in debates over the ‘feminization’ of the medical profession in some countries of Europe. This suggests a need for continued vigilance to the messages conveyed by national associations and by ESA about ‘gender balance’ and how they are received by influential bodies such as governments and policy making institutions.

Arguably vigilance also applies to ‘disciplinary proximities’. Much has been made in recent years of the opportunities and threats posed by what are seen as increasingly porous boundaries around sociology as a discipline. In one sense there is nothing new here. For example, well over a century ago Simmel (1909) wrote that the then new sociology risked becoming ‘the Dorado of the homeless and the unattached’, ‘where unavoidable and indefiniteness of the boundaries afford right of asylum to everyone’ (Simmel 1909: 291). However, the present political context obviously is markedly different to Simmel's time, with tensions between, on the one hand, the need for collaboration with other disciplines (including beyond the social sciences) to raise research income and, on the other hand, the elevation of disciplinary ‘pure’ research for tenure and promotion in a number of countries. Relatedly, the social sciences have been under attack from some quarters for their failure to innovate via ‘true’ interdisciplinary collaboration (Goodall and Oswald 2014). The survey data provide us with a simple list of proximate disciplines but tell us nothing about nature of the relationships formed or the political contexts they operate in, which is likely to vary quite a lot between countries. That said, the majority of national associations reported between two and three proximate disciplines, though six or more were listed in some cases. By far the most common link reported is with political science/politics, which was mentioned by a large majority, followed by philosophy, economics, psychology/social psychology and history. Conversely, disciplines mentioned by very few include geography, criminology, media and cultural studies. Notably absent is any mention of proximities with the sciences and medical disciplines (though conceivably some aspects of psychology might be part of this). This is surprising given the emphasis that major funding programmes, such as H2020, place on this, as is the lack of proximities with environmental science given the growing emphasis on the intelligence that social science can bring to global change (see e.g. OECD 2013).

Arguably the capacity of sociology to attract students and to generate and secure research funding is related to the ‘academic credit’ that sociology enjoys in the international and in national contexts. Responses here are quite variable. The Scandinavian countries are notable in reporting strong/excellent/high/very good standing of the discipline, though this also applies to some other countries, such as Germany, Portugal and Armenia. Quality academic outputs from research are also often taken as a marker of credit. But a number of associations point to the moderate and even poor standing of the discipline both within the social sciences and in comparison to the arts/humanities and the natural sciences. The vulnerabilities that follow from moderate or low academic credit are likely to include less than optimum student numbers, lack of employment opportunities and, as pointed to by a minority of respondents, political suspicion of the discipline. Further insight into these matters is provided by responses to the question on the ‘social recognition’ of sociology. Here the picture is rather mixed. In some countries, for example, Norway, Germany, Denmark, Finland and Estonia, sociology is reported to be highly recognized in general. But for others it is less positive. In the UK, for example, it is reported to be ‘largely invisible and misunderstood’, which although expressed less strongly, also seems to be the situation in several other countries. It seems that sociological research may attract the attention of the media and market research but finds it hard to secure the ear of politicians/the state.

Raising awareness of sociology's contribution amongst the public appears to be a challenge in many country contexts. This raises significant questions about sociology's public mandate, an issue which many national associations, as well as ESA and ISA, have sought to address in recent years. For example, in the UK the Campaign for Social Science (which, obviously, is wider than sociology) was set up in 2011 by the Academy of Social Sciences to ‘raise the profile of social science in the public, media and Parliament’ (http://campaignforsocialscience.org.uk). It is therefore salutary that the majority of associations responding to our survey report that sociologists are asked by the media and personally intervene in public debates on societal issues via various social media. However, just how this is received – positively or not – is not known from the survey.

The interviewees who, on behalf of associations or societies of which they are members, answered the questionnaire drawn up by ESA and sent to both the collective members regularly enrolled in the Association and to other national sociological agencies, numbered 42. This is the first survey of its kind ever carried out, covering the whole of the European continent.

The data on the profiles of those who completed the questionnaire are indicators of no secondary importance to this achievement because they contain comments relevant both to the questionnaire itself and to European sociology on the whole. The 42 interviewees represent a total of 40 nations (the two extra sets of answers were due to the fact that Russia and Greece were represented by both of the organizations officially present in those countries).

Respondents numbered 17 males and 14 females (11 failed to provide information on their gender). The age of the respondents ranged from under 40 to over 60. Those aged 39 and below numbered 4; those aged 40–49 were 6 in total; those aged 50–59 amounted to 10; and the over-sixties to 10, while 12 omitted to declare their age.

In terms of highest academic degree, there were 18 post-docs, 13 PhDs, one Master's and one Bachelor's degree; nine did not indicate their academic qualifications.

There were 16 full professors, 10 professors, four researchers, one assistant professor and one professional ‘other’; 10 did not declare their professional capacity.

Finally, with regard to the role played in the association to which they belong, among the respondents 21 were presidents, four were vice-chairpersons and six were executives (directors, secretaries, board members, etc.); and 11 did not declare their roles.

Of the total of 42 associations or societies contacted, 20 commented on the nature and focus of the initiative. The positive reviews numbered eight, nine were more or less critical, those who did not proffer value judgments but provided additional information numbered three. One respondent's criticism was particularly negative. The person concerned declared being disgusted because he held that the questionnaire failed to bestow validity on the investigation especially as far as the numerical estimates were concerned and because, according to him, they were impossible to compare with each other due to the difficulty of providing precise figures relative to the various issues. Others considered the questions difficult and in need of a reliable database. Some complained of the absence of questions regarding the promotion of sociology in Europe. Others objected to the lack of clarity in the way the questions were formulated. More than one reported being unable to provide adequate information on a number of issues.

All these comments clearly pointed to the difficulties encountered when trying to obtain reliable, systematic data on the issues of interest. Thus, the attention paid to certain basic issues appeared neither adequate nor constant over time. For a number of decades now, several important problems, both structural and individual, have undergone changes, which are not easy to accommodate without accurate and continuous monitoring due to the fact that no on-going tradition of data collection exists in this area. One fundamental question regards accessibility to sources of information and lack of data. The survey also suggested the need to carry out appropriate investigation capable of bridging the gaps in existing levels of both general and particular knowledge.

Another critical remark was made by those who considered the questionnaire overly demanding on those asked to respond. It should be noted that recently the British Sociological Association has carried out a survey of its own similar to that administered by the ESA, but with different questions and results not easy to transfer and therefore not readily exploitable. However, it emerged that there is an urgent the need for more thorough investigation at European level, and that an annual survey to take stock and keep track of the changes occurring from year to year, would be advisable.

Besides the legitimate (and acceptable) observations on the initiative, the questionnaire and its content, the survey has obtained noteworthy favour and certainly deserves a more comprehensive and coordinated scientific effort, so that it may become a routine operation for the European sector of sociology. One also hopes that it may become of basic significance to the future of sociological knowledge in Europe.

We have so much to gain from a larger scientific environment, in particular from cooperation with fields such as economics, political science, statistics, history, anthropology, geography, law, psychology, etc. Finally, we are aware of a more mature social science and of the need for sociology to deal with empirical, real phenomena, the relevance of multi-factorial explanations, the merits of qualitative methods and the subjective-objective distinction, i.e., the difference between personal values or viewpoints and scientific results.

The establishment of new electronic journals, regional and national associations and sociological societies reflects an expanding range of interests and professional specialization. The International Sociological Association now has an on-line Sociopedia. Smaller local publications have also been created by regional sociological societies. One of the main problems is the linguistic barrier. For instance, International Sociology, the official ISA journal, is now providing room for the review of books in languages other than English. Global Dialogue, an on-line editorial initiative by Michael Burawoy, previous ISA President, diffuses sociological information in a number of languages. Having a combined membership greater than that of the various national societies and regional associations spells greater personal contact, fellowship and intellectual discussion among groups of scholars than national or international meetings are capable of permitting; it also provides greater opportunities – particularly for younger sociologists – to present research reports.

Finally, we need to increase the inter-continental exchange of scholars, to reinforce the trends already under way in many countries. International sociology has diversified its investigational tools, specialized its methods and refined its generalizations and theories. By investigating the problems of the world in which they live, sociologists have utilized predominantly European and North-American intellectual traditions and resources to date. Today fresh possibilities are available if we accept new sociological impetus from Africa, Asia, Australia, Southern and Central America.