In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The Canadian Journal of Sociology 31.4 (2006) 509-522

A British Connection?
A quantitative analysis of the changing relations between American, British and Canadian sociologists
Yves Gingras
Jean-Philippe Warren

Is Canadian sociology facing a crisis? Depending on one's point of view and temperament, one can always provide arguments for comfort or alarm. Although we recognize that some debates are difficult, if not impossible to settle, we are also convinced that most questions framed in terms of "crisis" are unfalsifiable and particularly ill-suited for constructive analysis, and can easily lead to tavern-like discussions and grandiose pronouncements. McLaughlin's recent discussions of Canadian sociology's future (McLaughlin, 2004, 2005, 2006) and the debate they have fuelled provide an illustration of such artificial polemics created by an inadequate formulation of the question and insufficient methodologies to provide an answer.

McLaughlin emphasizes the institutional weakness of the Canadian sociological tradition. This institutional weakness would be a reflection of Canadian sociology's historical connections to the kind of social sciences practiced in the United-Kingdom and consequently explains its meagre appeal to the American scientific field (McLaughlin, 2004 and 2005). Assuming that British sociology is a "weakly institutionalized discipline" and that Canadian sociology is excessively embedded within this British tradition, it should surprise no one that McLaughlin concludes that "this has hurt the development of a strong sociological perspective in Canada" (McLaughlin, 2004: 89). Combined with two other major factors — the "flatness' or non-hierarchical nature of the Canadian education system and the left-wing orientation of Canadian sociology (McLaughlin, 2004) — the "British flavour" pervading Canadian universities has not only hampered the development of a "distinct and [End Page 509] serious discipline" but threatens to make it "cease to exist in Canada in anything more than name alone" (McLaughlin, 2005: 6).

In reading McLaughlin's articles it is unclear whether he believes the "Englishness" of Canadian sociology to be either a cause or the effect of a vague but persistent anti-American sentiment among Canadian scholars. This "relative indifference even hostility to American sociology" (McLaughlin, 2005: 19) nevertheless is treated as self-evident. "Far too much of Canadian sociology has become dominated by a knee-jerk anti-Americanism, leaving us vulnerable to falling uncritically in with trends in the European-oriented critical humanities." (McLaughlin, 2004: 92) Since the article provides the reader with no empirical evidence of such implicit "xenophobia", one is reluctant to take the author's word for it as the very existence of a homogeneous "American sociology" is dubious at best, given its high diversity in methods and approaches.

Is McLaughlin correct in assuming that the continuing reliance of Canadian scholars on British sociology is "something that can be seen in terms of faculty hiring, university governance, and culture as well as the intellectual orientation of Canadian institutions of higher education" (McLaughlin 2004: 89)? Should readers believe him when he claims that American sociology is neglected by Canadian social scientists? We leave to others to assess if McLaughlin is right in arguing that England, "the homeland of empiricism, classical liberal political and economic thought, Fabian socialism and analytic philosophy", truly "remains a relative backwater with regards to the discipline of sociology" (McLaughlin, 2005: 16). What appears more problematic in our eyes is that throughout his three lengthy papers, the author mainly relies on quotations from a few Canadian sociologists, vague intuitions and unquestioned judgements to substantiate his claims. The only fact offered as hard evidence of the embedment of Canadian sociology within a British tradition is that "even as late as 1997, faculty in sociology departments with M.As and PhD. Programs in Canada where ten times more likely to be trained in Britain than faculty at equivalent institutions in the United States" (McLaughlin, 2004: 90, emphasis by the author).

Yet, the detailed analysis of the academic origins of Canadian faculty members hardly supports McLaughlin's conclusion. If indeed, to use his data, 11% of them were trained...

pdf

Share