Introduction to Sociology
Yes, see attached comments
Some errors exist. See attached document
Test is far too US-centric, see attached document
Well written and basically jargon free.
yes
Yes, good modular structure
The flow is coherent and sufficiently flexible to allow people to adopt alternative orders.
Display features are fine, save for the US-centric focus
Well written
The text makes no reference to Canada. This is its core weakness
Report on "Introduction to Sociology" N Guppy (UBC) August, 2013 In reviewing the OpenStax College textbook, Introduction to Sociology, I preface my comments, briefly, with two pieces of background. First, I say a bit about my own teaching experience as it bears on this review. Second, I describe a little about how sociology in BC/Canada differs from the United States. The remainder of the review addresses the substance of the book. I end by suggesting what some challenges would be in adapting this book for a BC audience. In all of this I have paid attention to, and responded to, the various issues raised in the BC Open Textbook review criteria. Experience Two issues are germane here. First I have taught versions of Introduction to Sociology at UBC since 1979 so I am quite familiar with the material typically covered in the course for which this book was designed. In my introductory course teaching I have used a range of different textbooks. I have also reviewed introductory level textbooks for various publishers, both in Canada and the United States so I am well acquainted with the range of material available and used in these courses. Second, I have recently spent ten months adapting one of the best-selling US Introductory Sociology textbooks for use in Canada. From this I know, firsthand, how much the standard US sociology book needs to be changed to work as an effective learning aid in Canada (compare George Ritzer's Introduction to Sociology, Sage Publications with George Ritzer and Neil Guppy's Introduction to Sociology, Canadian Version, Sage Publications). At its core the OpenStax text is a US centric-book. I also am aware that this latter experience, adapting a US text, might imply that I am in a conflict of interest in reviewing this book. I obviously do not hold that view because, in my judgement, insights from this experience outweigh any possible personal benefit I might accrue. Nevertheless, it is important that readers of my review are apprised of what some might interpret as a conflict of interest. Sociology in Context Mathematics and physics are disciplines whose basic content does not differ across societies. The fundamental core of these disciplines are largely invariant even if for various reasons scholars in different countries may begin in different places or stress different topics. Such would not be the case in literature, as a third disciplinary example, where every country would be expected to have, to a large degree, its own literary themes and traditions. Sociology is much like the latter. Societies differ and sociology, at its centre, is focused upon those differences. India's caste system is much different from the class structure of Europe. Labour migration in China is fundamentally different from such migration in Mexico. Social movements in the Arab world follow different rhythms than do related movements in the industrial west. As these examples illustrate there are parallels across societies – caste versus class is about differentiation, for example – but sociology in India would approach things quite differently than would sociology in Europe. This is true too of Canada versus the United States. Here are a few examples. Both societies are riven with differences that fracture social cohesion – in Canada the French-English divide is often paralleled with the differences between Blacks and Whites, and increasingly Hispanics, in the US. To understand these divisions requires quite separate analytic tools even though at one level it is a difference of ethnicity versus race. A second example comes in examining social mobility. The United States experiences greater levels of individual or circulation mobility than is true of Canada, although in both countries the cultural myths we live by exaggerate just how much such mobility actually occurs (inheritance of poverty or privilege is rampant, as Blacks and Aboriginal peoples will testify). [In both countries a large amount of the mobility that does occur is structural not individual, which suggests of course some sociological similarities across societies as would be expected.] Not to belabour the point too much, but from a different angle the Canada-US difference is seen in how the discipline of sociology in North America articulates with European influences. These are much greater in Canada than in the US. Canadian scholars have found much more merit in using political economy perspectives shaped in part by Europeans, than have US sociologists. To a large extent that is a function of a much, much greater manufacturing presence, at least historically, in the US (and the idea of US exceptionalism) and a much less developed resource economy which is, of course, the lifeblood of many, many Canadian communities (whether in harvesting or transporting raw materials). OpenStax College Introduction to Sociology In my judgement this is an adequate, one-semester, introductory book for sociology. It highlights the core concepts, foundational scholars, and emerging theories that any competent sociologist in BC would employ to introduce students to the discipline. Most people who adopted such a book would add some of their own emphases and tastes, but the fundamental conceptual core is sound (with a few exceptions as noted below). Where the book is much weaker is with evidence, research, and illustration. Anyone using this book for BC students would have to do an enormous amount of work, relative to the amount involved if other books were used, in supplementing the evidence and examples. In my judgement many sociologists in the province would deem this book totally unsatisfactory for introducing sociology to BC students. I will illustrate this latter issue in much of what follows. I should also note that in my judgement the book would not be used in most research intensive universities in the United States. The reasons for this are complicated, and have at least something to do with the snobbishness of such institutions. However the book just does not integrate solid research into its exposition of sociology. This is seen, for example, in the repeated use of Wikipedia commons as a source for evidence. But more profoundly it occurs because the book is more descriptive than explanatory. For example, the book describes social mobility (and structural mobility) but if fails to explain what social forces act to enable or constrain rates of mobility – either circulation mobility or structural mobility. This latter lacunae is the core reason that schools stressing research as opposed to social description would avoid this book. The book is organized as a set of modules whose order can be changed. This is a very good feature since sociologists have idiosyncratic habits in teaching the discipline (this is unlike math or physics where a linear approach needs to occur as topics build on one another). There is no correct place to begin to dissect society – the analysis doesn't necessarily start at ‘one' or with ‘A'. Alternative starting points are feasible and there is no consensus in the discipline as to exactly where one ought to begin (and in my judgement the best starting place differs by time and place). Sociology is less about covering topics and building one upon the other, and more about understanding a way of thinking, a particular process of observing and analyzing. That process can be effectively highlighted in multiple ways. There are clear learning objectives at the beginning of each module which is very helpful both for students and instructors. All of the basic features of contemporary textbooks are available – powerpoints, text banks, and the like. The materials at the end of each module (chapter) are generally well done and supply a variety of good learning aids for students. The opening example chosen to begin the book is clever, unique, and compelling. Sociology is about linkages between individuals and societies. The book starts, quite reasonably, with an emphasis on how individuals act in crowds, and how crowds differ (e.g., rock concert crowds, political protest agitators, throngs of shoppers). The comparative framing of this is good and would clearly work in a BC classroom. Problems begin on page 11 where issues of foreclosure are introduced. The Canadian/BC experience is substantially different from what has occurred in the US. Contrary to patterns south of the border, Canadian unemployment is not at record highs, foreclosures have not significantly increased in Canada, and subprime mortgages remain relatively rare in Canada. All of this material is therefore misleading, if not outright erroneous, for the Canadian case. This first example, discussed throughout most of the third page of Chapter one, is meant to illustrate how social context (foreclosures, unemployment) can help people to understand their personal predicaments (their private troubles). But, of course, that example simply doesn't work in Canada. The Canadian context is different and so the example just doesn't ring true to students. The core point of page three, understanding private troubles in the context of public issues, is good sociology – but that will be lost on students who will correctly point out that these public issues are not as germane in Canada. Using ill-conceived examples is bad teaching and leads to students misunderstanding the core message. The US experience is simply not directly transferable to the Canadian context. The second example in the Chapter, meant to reinforce the same basic point about social context, focuses upon food stamps. But food stamps are a core part of the US welfare system and are not used in Canada (where food banks would be more appropriate). Again the example not only lacks resonance, but effectively misleads students about the very workings of society. Table 1.1 reinforces the food stamps point and so the