How Epistemology Matters: Five Reflexive Critiques of Public Sociology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyses Michael Burawoy’s vision of public sociology in light of five distinct ‘epistemic strategies’, each of which generates substantially different expectations regarding the challenges and opportunities facing public sociologists. The five epistemic strategies range along a spectrum from methodological individualism at one end to holism at the other. Between these two poles, considerations of the social relativity of scientific knowledge arise. Constructionist theories highlight the performative dilemma entailed when science reveals itself to be one narrative among others. Hierarchical theories such as Marxism suggest that public sociology is torn by the irreconcilable contradiction between hegemony and counter-hegemony. Heterarchical theories address both of these two problems together. Heterarchy suggests that science’s claim to universality may interfere with public sociology’s social-transformative aspirations. However, the dynamic complexity of ‘public’ social struggles generates opportunities to rethink the place of difference in the production of scientific knowledge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.076 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.161 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".