(THE6) Applying Theory: Reconciling Theory and Practice

For too long the theory and practice of sociology have been divided from one another, with subdivisions expanding in each category. Quantitative work in one camp and qualitative in another, with all those theoretical eggheads in a closet, only allowed out to teach the one mandatory theory class to the undergrads before being shooed away again. Often wider metatheoretical considerations are only used to choose one’s methods - the constructivist choosing this, the positivist choosing that – without a proper bridge being developed and maintained between ‘high theory’ and the individual conceptual development undertaken in inductive research. This session aims to provide a space to challenge these divisions, a space for sociologists to bring together questions of theory and practice by demonstrating how they are applying a wide range of social theory to their research. We are looking for work that balances theoretical engagement with methodological, fieldwork, and policy considerations, challenging each with the other in a progressive dialectical manner. We are open to papers which view sociological practice as a purely empirical space, for papers which view practice as policy consideration – internal to the discipline or otherwise – and for papers which present theory as a practice. Papers drawing on theories of method, grounded theory, demonstrative examples of applied theory, wider discussions of the applicability of theoretical work in empirical sociological practice, and the impact of sociological theory in the everyday of doing sociology are all welcomed and encouraged for this session. Tags: Knowledge, Theory

Organizers: Reiss Kruger, York University, Lara Farah, York University; Chair: Reiss Kruger, York University; Discussant: Christopher Powell, Toronto Metropolitan University

Presentations

Rebeccah Nelems, Athabasca university

Advancing relationality by theorizing-with (vs. about) the world

The practice of empirically engaging actors and communities whose voices might otherwise not be heard within academia is a significant contribution sociology makes to the social sciences. However, this contribution does not always reach the halls of sociological theory, which still heavily relies on textual canons and conceptual analyses. The persisting binary and disconnect between theory and practice within the field of sociology is a way in which the field directly reproduces individualist logics and hierarchies of knowledge. Drawing from decolonizing methodologies and Indigenous theory, in this paper, I advocate for a form of theorizing -with the world, vs. theorizing about it. Through empirically engaging the world and its many actors in their complex relationalities (Starblanket, 2018), the theorist stretches and encounters that which lies beyond their habitualized concepts, theoretical frameworks and research paradigms. Drawing on my work with youth climate justice activists, I argue that theorizing-with can make for more robust, comprehensive and relevant theory. In the face of hegemonic structures that continually morph and shift (Connell, 2016), the approach generates more nimble and insightful theorizing, informed by the emergent, on ‘the ground’ as it were. This approach reflects an ontology of deep relationality wherein the individual and expert is de-centred and knowledge is viewed as relationally generated with the world – what Flynn (2021) calls sympogogy . Such practices help avoid the pitfalls of metatheory, including the tendency to universalize, impose, decontextualize or extract ideas. However, more than avoiding pitfalls, engaging actors as theorists in their own right advances a decolonizing agenda within academia. When grounded in relationality as articulated by Indigenous theory, the social theorist actively disrupts and challenges individualist, colonial and extractive approaches to research. By ‘acting otherwise’ (Tully, 2008), theorists moreover actively enact and embody pathways by which those in the discipline might contribute to the advancement of relational knowledge systems and grounded normativity (Coulthard and Simpson, 2016). In this way, I explore theory-making as a simultaneous practice of worlding and un-worlding. This notwithstanding, braiding empirical research and theorizing together is not without logistical, ethical and practical challenges. In a knowledge system that is not well versed at teaching, advancing or promoting theorists to think collaboratively or relationally, many theorists receive limited training or practice in conducting empirical research. Additionally, the types of respectful, responsible and reciprocal (Wilson, 2008) practices needed to conduct genuinely relational research are far from mainstream within most departments. Further, how one might theorize with the more-than-human in ways that are consistent with relational knowledge systems (Kimmerer, 2013) remains an elusive conversation in many theory classes. Focused on teaching the canon, even where this canon has been ‘diversified’ and updated, most theory classes are text-centred and anthropocentric. With no shortage of available examples or expertise in the world for how to conduct decolonizing and non-extractive empirical research, I propose that one pathway by which such challenges might begin to be mitigated is through research collaborations between theorists and decolonizing, empirical researchers.

Andrea Hill, Queen's University

Behind Bars and Beyond: Exploring Power and Agency in Women's Prisons

The criminal justice and education systems intersect, aiming to enhance societal outcomes and cultivate positive choices for individuals. Incarcerated women, experiencing higher victimization trauma rates than men, often lack completed high school education. Recognizing this, the Correctional Service of Canada introduced a women-centred, trauma-informed, gender-responsive framework in 2010 (Booth, 2012; Doueidar and Harris, 2016; Wardrop and Pardoel, 2019). While implemented in federal correctional institutions, its availability is contingent on women’s risk levels, needs, and responsiveness, excluding the prison’s school. In contrast, the Universal Design for Learning, widely adopted in Canadian education, suggests benefits for all (Allen and Wardrop, 2022). This prompts questions about the limited implementation of the gender-responsive framework and the exclusion of applying it in women’s correctional educational programming. This theoretical comparative paper explores the intricate relationship between power dynamics and agency within women’s correctional institutions in Canada. Focusing on the implementation of trauma-informed programs for incarcerated women, I question the extent of agency women possess in decision-making and personal development within the prison context. I raise concerns about promoting better choices and healing from trauma if programs aimed to promote this are not universally offered. Prisons are intended to limit one’s agency and free will, while the criminal justice system simultaneously expects individuals to make their own positive choices for the betterment of society. By this, what are positive choices, and how are women expected to make these decisions if they have not ever experienced a sense of safety, stability, and control? Why is the onus on the individual who likely experienced immense trauma to acquire the skills to make better choices, which ultimately requires some healing from trauma? How can we expect women to heal from trauma in a place that inherently inflicts further trauma? This essay seeks to explore how programs in women’s prison’s function to maintain dynamics of power, and how incarcerated women experience their personal and collective agency while in a system that inherently inhibits agency to maintain the status quo. Bourdieu’s Structures , Habitus, Practices (1990) in the context of the field (prison) and the habitus (unconscious practices of incarcerated women), is compared with Berger and Luckmann’s Social Construction of Reality (1991) to explore how incarcerated women experience everyday life within prison and how systemic structures and the women’s experiences work together to create dynamics of agency and power, with particular attention to how race, class, and gender intersect. The comparative analysis of Bourdieu’s Structures, Habitus , Practices (1990) and Berger and Luckmann’s Social Construction of Reality (1991) reveals the complexities of agency and power dynamics in women’s correctional institutions. In this paper, I argue that the onus placed on incarcerated women to navigate a system that inhibits agency contradicts the goals of rehabilitation. The research suggests a need for a more profound understanding of the connected nature of habitus, structures, and lived experiences to foster resistance and change within correctional institutions. This theoretical comparative analysis holds implications for education, particularly in understanding the impact of trauma-informed programs and the limitations of agency within correctional settings. The findings prompt a re-evaluation of educational pedagogy and policies, advocating for a more inclusive and trauma-informed approach to address the diverse needs of individuals who have experienced conflict with the law. By recognizing the power dynamics and agency constraints within women’s correctional institutions, educators can contribute to the development of more effective programs that facilitate more universal applications of trauma-informed and gender-responsive programming.

Aryan Karimi, University of British Columbia; Rima Wilkes, University of British Columbia

Assimilation Impossible: What is assimilation, how do we measure it, and how do we know when it has been achieved?

Researchers commonly measure newcomers’ socioeconomic status (SES) mobility versus that of native-born majorities to say where the assimilation line is. But, in reality, would ticking all the SES boxes on education, employment, intermarriage, and proximity with native-borns (Waters and Jimenez 2005) mean that an immigrant is therefore becoming an assimilated insider? Certainly, immigrants’ stories do not always equate SES mobility with assimilation: “[as a British Muslim] I wear British clothes. I speak broken English but, still, I speak English and I have got a beard. That gives away my identity. Now, people ask me ‘why don’t you integrate?’ and I say, ‘how do you mean?’. And they can’t answer me because I go to schools, give talks about how to deal with racist incidents, and very often the teachers ask me, ‘why don’t Muslims integrate?’. I say, ‘what do you mean? I pay tax. I obey the law of the land’” (Antonsich 2012: 60). This anecdote epitomizes a puzzle: there is a disconnect between assimilation-as SES-mobility research and how individuals comprehend assimilation in day-to-day life (see also Gans 2007). Assimilation theory, as a sociological theory, strives to explain how majority and minority immigrant groups interact and become similar for national coexistence. In this genealogical paper we delve into more than a century of assimilation research to argue why, given the current state of the theory, immigrants can never quite measure up and actually “assimilate”. We do so by considering the elements that comprise any scientific theory, including assimilation: its outcome concept, its measurement variables, and its bar of attainment. In terms of the outcome concept, we find that the meaning of assimilation changes over time. In the early 20th century, ethnoracial passing was the assimilation outcome (Park 1928). In the mid-20th century, researchers reconceptualized assimilation to quantifiable SES mobility as a means to passing (Warner and Srole 1945). Since the 1980s, SES mobility has become the endpoint in itself. In terms of measuring assimilation, we find that the early assimilation research used a qualitative ethnographic approach while the contemporary streams mainly rely on SES-related variables that are not coherent and vary across studies. Finally, in terms of the attainment rate or when assimilation should materialize, we find that no rate of SES indicates that assimilation has taken place. Taken as a whole, these changing concepts, variables, and rates mean that it is not possible to hold one or some of these elements constant to test the theory and refine its toolkit (for other critiques see Karimi and Wilkes 2023, 2024; Favell 2022; Schachter 2016). In this presentation, in three sections, we discuss assimilation’s changing concepts, variables, and (the missing) attainment rate. To make our findings intuitive, we briefly compare assimilation theory with an example from Hard Sciences to show the difference between a provisional theory with changing elements and one with fixed and testable elements. We then propose that future research can engage the emerging longitudinal data and machine learning language modeling to revisit European ethnics’ assimilation, the factors that shaped their trajectories, and form hypotheses for the 21st century assimilation.