… one finds a large number of journal articles that briefly discuss the measurement of selected variables, that also admit to the probability of errors, but that then effectively announce to the reader that the subsequent empirical analysis and related interpretations will proceed as if there were absolutely no measurement errors whatsoever!

This is but one illustration of the more general point that methodological ideas are adopted when it is relatively easy and costless to do so, but that they are resisted or totally ignored when it is to the investigator’s vested interest to do so.  There is also the related tendency to attempt to substitute sophisticated data analysis techniques for inadequate data collection procedures, which are of course far more costly and time consuming. (p. 450)

The Disgruntled Sociologist notes with some despair that this has not changed much at all over the past 22 years. In fact, the tendency to deploy fancy techniques has increased as it has gotten easier and easier to do so.  (Yes, this is your fault, Stata.) And ironically, while data collection has — thanks to on-line data sources — in many respects gotten easier, TDS detects little improvement in the creativity applied to data collection. The vast majority of graduate students today are looking to download their dissertation data.

Blalock then goes for the kill (pp. 457-458):

Sociology is not a high-quality discipline. Over at least the past three decades our undergraduate and graduate applicants have consistently scored near the very bottom on standardized tests, not only with respect to quantitative reasoning scores but verbal reasoning scores as well. [Followed by a long list of examples: undergrad curricula, graduate training, promotion criteria, journal standards.]

…

Finally, our professional associations, and especially the ASA, also need to face the quality question head on.  In the early 1970s, when I first served on ASA Council, “quality” was a dirty word suggesting elitism and an attempt to impose orthodoxy. I even encountered instances where potential journal editors were passed over because it was argued that their standards would be too demanding!  …

In the end, ASA policies are influenced rather heavily by those whom we elect to office, particularly those elected to Council and the Publications Committee.  I am not too optimistic that “politics” within the ASA will change dramatically over the coming years. If not, it will remain for our leading departments to take our quality problem much more seriously than we have in the past.

Sigh. It would appear that Blalock’s pessimism was well-warranted.

This post is not meant to relaunch those debates. (For the record, TDS’s answer to all three questions is no.) Instead, TDS wishes to highlight the following intriguing sentence from page 6 of the amicus brief (emphasis added):

The domestic governing body of sociology is the American Sociological Association (ASA) which organizes professional conferences, establishes rules and norms for professional researchers, publishes the discipline’s flagship journal and several specialty journals, and defines the discipline.

(Andy Abbott and others may wish to dispute the bit about the flagship journal, but let us leave that aside.)

What does “domestic governing body of sociology” even mean? In what sense is sociology being governed? And which king or queen granted the ASA this charter?

And the ASA “defines the discipline”? Funny, TDS would have thought that sociologists define the discipline through their work – for better or worse. Does this mean that the ASA has a checklist somewhere that can be used to determine whether someone is really a sociologist?

Guess that large (and growing) share of sociologists who are not members of the ASA are guilty of practicing without a license. Oh, the horror.

Seriously, it is quite horrifying that the ASA would include such a description of itself in a legal brief.

Umm, no.

Collins, unfortunately, does not address the issue of transparency at all. Does not say “you’re right; we could have communicated this better.”  Does not say, “you’re right; you deserve a fuller accounting of our reasoning.”  Does not say “I understand that you also want what is best for the organization, but here’s the problem.”

Instead, Collins says – to paraphrase – “trust me.” Which is an ironic response to a petition calling for greater transparency, better communication, and more information. “Trust me.” Perhaps the reason nearly 700 people have signed the petition is that – well, that they don’t really trust you?

The ASA and its defenders (see, for example, some commenters in this orgtheory thread) can apparently only see this issue through the lens of progressivity. Or, to be more precise, they can only view the vote on the dues increase as a litmus test. If you do not support the dues increase, you are just another Tea Party member. If you do not support the dues increase, you are somehow not a real sociologist. If want more transparency to go with your dues, you can go elsewhere.

The Disgruntled Sociologist is trying very hard to respect Jenn Lena’s call for civility in the discourse surrounding this issue. But it is hard. Really hard.

The nearly 700 people (as of this writing) who have signed the petition deserve better. Look at the list.  They come from all over. They range from the most senior and accomplished, to students just starting out. To paint them with one brush is impossible. To dismiss them as rabble-rousers is irresponsible. Give them the respect they deserve when they ask for the answer to some very simple, very reasonable questions.

If you have not yet done so, please sign the petition.

Members would be shocked to learn that PubComm approved the contract with Sage without having been allowed to read that very contract on which they voted.

Holy crap. The Disgruntled Sociologist is, indeed, shocked.  And TDS is pretty cynical.

Read the whole set of comments from Fine. How utterly depressing.

Go to asatransparency.org to sign it.

When you fill out the form, you will be sent an email to confirm.  Remember to click on the link.  Your email will not be used for any other purpose.

TELL YOUR FRIENDS!  A big number will make a big difference.

See orgtheory for more. April Fool’s, unfortunately.

The case of the job bank is striking, because in the modern day and age, it is trivially easy to perform the same function.  Herewith a challenge to young, enterprising sociologists: set up a competing on-line job bank. Heck, colonize a portion of Craigslist. The main challenge is getting employers to send you their listings. (Job-seekers will find you.) But since you can offer a much lower price — if you get volunteer labor, the price could be zero — it is hard to see why they would resist.  There is no way this costs anywhere close to $200/month per ad.

Thanks again, Don, for engaging.

Jeremy has a very nice discussion of some of the problems with the math in Don’s post, and also some deeper comments on the transparency issue, which Don’s post does little to dispel.

A more recent comment from Don is worth surfacing.  To wit:

If you take out your trust excel spreadsheet and try to increase progressivity without increasing dues income this is what happens. The only way to do this mathematically, without giant reductions in income, is to add categories but increase dues more at the bottom then the top. My first forays into dues restructuring where exactly along these lines, but if you add high income dues categories and constrain to no dues increase it can only be done by having small differences across categories and raising the rents on the lowest paid members. This is particularly true because our membership distribution is bi-modal. So the herring is red, but in the old fashioned political sense.

As ably noted by another commenter,

This makes no sense at all.

The ASA could have taken the >=70,000 category, carved it up into intervals, and introduced progressivity within it. And they could have done it adaptively over five years to make sure that dues income doesn’t fall because members defect in response to it. (For example, in year one, the ASA could put in its usual CPI increase for categories below 70,000. They could have given the $70,000 to 99,9999 category no CPI adjustment leaving them at $234. They could have then raised the dues on those over $100,000 to compensate only for the lost no-CPI adjustment for the 70,000 to 99,9999 category. Perhaps they could shoot a little high, asking for $255 from this group. If this, then, isn’t enough progressivity, in year two, the ASA could pursue a little more, trying to subdivide and push things around again. In five years, or perhaps sooner, they could then declare the progressivity campaign completed.)

Just to pile on, TDS was equally puzzled by Don’s claim that the aggregate increase in dues was a mathematical necessity.

But before being able to draft a response, TDS was stumped by Don’s phrase “increase progressivity.” What exactly does this mean?

TDS had thought (in light of reading the Footnotes discussion of the proposed dues changes) that the problem faced by the ASA was that the income brackets were all out of whack because they were not being updated. They would indeed seem to be out of whack — the maximum income bracket was the same as average income.

But the other meaning, which is floating around in Don’s post, is that “increase progressivity” means that the marginal tax rate should rise more steeply with income than it did before. (Which would then explain how ‘soak the rich’ entered the discourse so seamlessly.)

What is the sense in which the ASA seeks to “increase progressivity”?

Again, in neither case does it seem that such implementing such changes requires an aggregate increase in dues. A revenue-neutral solution is possible. Which is not to say that a change in dues should be revenue neutral – just that increasing aggregate dues requires a separate argument. But unless Don can produce the math, TDS remains convinced that progressivity is, when it comes to the aggregate dues increase, a red herring.

It appears you may have been influenced by some highly inaccurate recent blog postings on the web. The elected leadership of the association is preparing accurate information so that members will not be mislead by some bloggers who have misread the ASA tax forms [snip - cc]. NONE of these are true.).

So it would appear that membership dues are supporting a Ministry of Truth? Sigh…

Dear ASA executive personnel (who I am sure are now monitoring this blog), as an annual dues paying member, who pays dues out of his personal finances rather than a departmental budget, even in years when he does not plan to attend the annual meeting, I have to tell you I’m rather disappointed. I teach my students that it is always better to show someone why a particular argument works rather than simply telling them.

I became interested in Jimmy’s blog after reading the original Footnotes article “explaining” the proposed dues structure. As has been established by people more thoughtful than me, that article did not show what the new dues structure would accomplish. Rather it told us this structure would be more progressive and therefore would make the world a better place.

The response printed above by Jimmy further undermines my faith in the ASA’s leadership. I have yet to find a clear, unambiguous, statement that shows me, the dues paying member, what my dues are providing. The points raised in the various “misleading blog posts sprinkled across the web at least make an effort to show readers why we should be concerned.

I am pleased to see that this agitation has at least generated some activity from our association’s K-street headquarters. I’ve seen more activity in the ASAnews twitter feed in the last few days than I’ve seen in the last few months. But, y’all have a ways to go. For instance, yesterday’s tweet: “ASA Public Affairs Dept works to ensure members are prepared to communicate with the press and legislators..” with a link to a page heavy no telling, light on showing doesn’t really help the cause.

I’ll close with an observation. In my Department at second (or third… or fourth?) tier R1 institution nearly half of Sociology faculty are no longer active dues paying members of the ASA. When asked why they don’t join, they tell me that there is no reason to be members; if they are not planning on getting to the annual meeting, they see no benefit to our professional association. I interpret them to say “the ASA is not relevant to their careers.” If you wish to persuade them otherwise (as I would), I strongly encourage you to show your relevance.

Signed… an insignificant dues paying ASA member.

The Disgruntled Sociologist does not have much to add, other than to say that if it is accurate that upwards of half of faculty in “second-tier” departments see no benefit to joining the ASA, there is a problem. Professional sociologists deserve better.

It appears you may have been influenced by some highly inaccurate recent blog postings on the web. The elected leadership of the association is preparing accurate information so that members will not be mislead by some bloggers who have misread the ASA tax forms (e.g., saying ASA has significantly increased its staff, has lost huge amounts of money. has huge non-mortgage due, or has a personnel budget way above that of comparable organizations. NONE of these are true.).

For the moment, let me make a couple of comments and also refer you to a piece in the current issue of Footnotes by the ASA Secretary Catherine Berheide regarding the financial situation of the ASA.  http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/mar11/ask_0311.html

My additional comments are as follows: ASA has no debt other than the annual payment on the tax-free, low interest bonds from the DC Government that financed the purchase of the ASA headquarters space. (Other associations such as APSA and AHA own their space outright having finished paying their financing for their DC purchases years ago; other comparable associations are currently seeking to purchase space in DC but will not do as well as ASA which received an award for the “best financing deal in 2007.)

ASA does not speculate in the stock market; we have ASA’s invested assets in a low-risk portfolio of short-term bonds and stock mutual funds. ASA removed restricted funds from its investments in 2007 to put a down payment on the real estate purchase; this was restricted money from the sale of ASA’s previous headquarters.

ASA’s audits and ASA Council’s approval and twice-annual discussion of the budget is on the ASA website ( http://www.asanet.org/about/governance.cfm ).

The ASA Committee on the Executive Office and Budget, chaired by the elected Secretary, routinely reviews all of ASA’s financial and management activities and sets the compensation of the Executive Officer.

* ASA has not increased its staff significantly over more than a decade.

* ASA’s personnel budget is not out of line with other comparable organizations (the tax forms for ASA include salaries of paid staff in our 14 editorial offices; our permanent Executive Office staff compensation is combined with these on the tax forms prepared by the auditors so it looks larger than other organizations).

* ASA has not lost any money; the dip in our invested assets during the financial crisis has come back and they now exceed pre-crisis levels.  And we have added the value of the office space we purchased (which has appreciated since the purchase) to the ASA’s assets.

* ASA’s dues are not out of range with comparable associations.  The maximum regular membership fee to join the ASA is $234 (member with gross income at or above $70K and ASR subscription at cost);  http://www.asanet.org/printpage.cfm?page_ID=1045

For membership in comparable associations (American Anthropological Association or American Political Science Association): The maximum APSA dues for someone at a roughly comparable income level including journals is $194, but if your income $100,000 or more your dues are from $227 – $305 depending on income.   For the AAA the comparable dues are $214, and $250 – $306 for incomes above $100,000.

The maximum ASA student cost is $50 with a journal. APSA student membership is $43.The lowest AAA dues rate for students is $70, and dues go up with income above $20,000; if you make from $20K-$25K as a student, you pay $135 in AAA dues.  (Note: NIH pre-doctoral award stipends exceed $25,000/year.)

* Annual Meeting 2011 Registration Fees: ASA= $190; APSA=$185; AAA=$214.

I hope this information, especially the article from the ASA Secretary cited above, allays your concerns. I appreciate you contacting me and giving me the opportunity to respond.

Sincerely,

Sally