Terje Ostebo (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Islam in Africa

Third, even if we agree with the principle of public sociology, does it really need to be encouraged or promoted within the academy? Given, as acknowledged by Burawoy, that there is already public sociology conducted elsewhere, why would we need to embark upon this exercise within a university and professional research setting? How would, for instance, academic recruitment be affected by Burawoy’s stance? If we were to follow his stance, should we recruit junior academics whose political commitments (and political associations) align with ours? Should we evaluate students’ work (including PhDs) on a similar basis? One can see that this easily leads to a problematic and at worst sectarian academic culture. Fourth, there is a broader methodological issue, one that is intimately connected to Burawoy’s insistence that public sociologists are supposed to learn as much from the publics that they serve, as these publics do from them. If this is indeed his position and that of his fellow public sociologists, then various questions arise. Most importantly, how reliable is this ‘local’ knowledge generated by the public(s) and how do public sociologists evaluate this knowledge? Would it not be vital, especially in some circumstances, for public sociologists to take critical distance from his knowledge provided by their public(s)? Similarly, what distinguishes expertise in the social sciences from the knowledge generated by the publics?