From the beginning, social theory has been motivated by the desire to advance human freedom and bring about social change (Seidman, 2008). From classical theorists such as Marx, who writes of class division and the exploitative nature of capitalism in order to bring about change, to more contemporary sociologists such as C. Wright Mills, who helps to redefine personal problems in terms of public issues, many of sociology's foundational texts clearly demonstrate a propensity for advancing human freedom and inducing social change. Thus, it is interesting to examine what sociologists are doing because their work has historically had, and will continue to have, the potential to make real and significant change in the world. And, it is imperative to have knowledge of the current state of affairs in the discipline in order to facilitate discussion around how to promote sociological work that seeks to bring about social change. It is in this context that this research project seeks to answer the following: what is the distribution of sociology professors in Canada using Burawoy's (2009) disciplinary mosaic framework? In addressing this question, two sub-questions are asked: to what extent do Canadian sociologists agree or disagree with Burawoy's normative vision of the discipline? And, to what degree do the socio-demographic shown to be relevant by Brym and Nakhaie (2009) continue to emerge in the Canadian context. Using data collected from an online questionnaire delivered to all full-time sociologists in universities and colleges in Canada, this project reveals that Canadian sociology is dominated by Professional sociology with Public, Policy and Critical sociology featuring much less prominently. This is despite the fact that in aggregate Canadian sociologists tend to agree that all types of sociology ought to be conducted. Finally, several socio-demographic variables-such as gender, income and type of post secondary institution-continue to be relevant in the Canadian context.

From the beginning, social theory has been motivated by the desire to advance human freedom and bring about social change (Seidman, 2008). From classical theorists such as Marx, who writes of class division and the exploitative nature of capitalism in order to bring about change, to more contemporary sociologists such as C. Wright Mills, who helps to redefine personal problems in terms of public issues, many of sociology's foundational texts clearly demonstrate a propensity for advancing human freedom and inducing social change. Thus, it is interesting to examine what sociologists are doing because their work has historically had, and will continue to have, the potential to make real and significant change in the world. And, it is imperative to have knowledge of the current state of affairs in the discipline in order to facilitate discussion around how to promote sociological work that seeks to bring about social change. It is in this context that this research project seeks to answer the following: what is the distribution of sociology professors in Canada using Burawoy's (2009) disciplinary mosaic framework? In addressing this question, two sub-questions are asked: to what extent do Canadian sociologists agree or disagree with Burawoy's normative vision of the discipline? And, to what degree do the socio-demographic shown to be relevant by Brym and Nakhaie (2009) continue to emerge in the Canadian context. Using data collected from an online questionnaire delivered to all full-time sociologists in universities and colleges in Canada, this project reveals that Canadian sociology is dominated by Professional sociology with Public, Policy and Critical sociology featuring much less prominently. This is despite the fact that in aggregate Canadian sociologists tend to agree that all types of sociology ought to be conducted. Finally, several socio-demographic variables-such as gender, income and type of post secondary institution-continue to be relevant in the Canadian context.

Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro / Esta Tese objetiva analisar a relação entre a imaginação sociológica brasileira e os problemas públicos do país. Tomando como base a análise da produção de livros de sociologia publicados no Brasil entre 1940 e 2012, partimos da hipótese segundo a qual a imaginação sociológica brasileira tem, desde seu processo inicial de institucionalização, se mostrado responsiva e normativa em relação aos problemas públicos mais prementes colocados em cada conjuntura política. Em diálogo com a proposta da sociologia pública formulada originalmente por Michael Burawoy, nos Estados Unidos, procuramos demonstrar que uma experiência sociológica periférica, como a brasileira, marcada pela forte interdependência entre sociologia profissional e sociologia pública, possibilita repensar diferentes formas de imaginação sobre a noção de sociologia pública, tanto analítica quanto normativamente, ampliando suas bases teóricas e práticas. Objetivamos, nesse sentido, propor uma agenda intelectual em torno da sociologia pública voltada para a construção de um cosmopolitismo de conexões, que procure articulações entre o nacional e o universal na compreensão e enfrentamento de problemas públicos, para a qual a experiência sociológica brasileira tem muito para contribuir. / This Thesis aims to analyze the relationship between the sociological imagination and public problems in Brazil. Based on an analysis of the editorial output of sociology books in Brazil between 1940 and 2012, we suggest that the Brazilian sociological imagination has, since its initial process of institutionalization, proved responsive and normative regarding the most relevant public problems in each political conjuncture. In dialogue with the proposal of a public sociology, as originally formulated by Michael Burawoy in the United States, we demonstrate that a peripheral sociological experiment, such as the Brazilian one, characterized by the strong interdependence between professional sociology and public sociology, could provide a contribution in the process of rethinking different forms of imagination concerning the notion of public sociology - in both analytical and normative terms - broadening its theoretical and practical basis. To this end, we propose an intellectual agenda around public sociology focused on building a cosmopolitanism of connections, which seeks to connect the national and the universal in understanding and facing public problems, to which the Brazilian sociological experiment has much to contribute.

Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro / Esta Tese objetiva analisar a relação entre a imaginação sociológica brasileira e os problemas públicos do país. Tomando como base a análise da produção de livros de sociologia publicados no Brasil entre 1940 e 2012, partimos da hipótese segundo a qual a imaginação sociológica brasileira tem, desde seu processo inicial de institucionalização, se mostrado responsiva e normativa em relação aos problemas públicos mais prementes colocados em cada conjuntura política. Em diálogo com a proposta da sociologia pública formulada originalmente por Michael Burawoy, nos Estados Unidos, procuramos demonstrar que uma experiência sociológica periférica, como a brasileira, marcada pela forte interdependência entre sociologia profissional e sociologia pública, possibilita repensar diferentes formas de imaginação sobre a noção de sociologia pública, tanto analítica quanto normativamente, ampliando suas bases teóricas e práticas. Objetivamos, nesse sentido, propor uma agenda intelectual em torno da sociologia pública voltada para a construção de um cosmopolitismo de conexões, que procure articulações entre o nacional e o universal na compreensão e enfrentamento de problemas públicos, para a qual a experiência sociológica brasileira tem muito para contribuir. / This Thesis aims to analyze the relationship between the sociological imagination and public problems in Brazil. Based on an analysis of the editorial output of sociology books in Brazil between 1940 and 2012, we suggest that the Brazilian sociological imagination has, since its initial process of institutionalization, proved responsive and normative regarding the most relevant public problems in each political conjuncture. In dialogue with the proposal of a public sociology, as originally formulated by Michael Burawoy in the United States, we demonstrate that a peripheral sociological experiment, such as the Brazilian one, characterized by the strong interdependence between professional sociology and public sociology, could provide a contribution in the process of rethinking different forms of imagination concerning the notion of public sociology - in both analytical and normative terms - broadening its theoretical and practical basis. To this end, we propose an intellectual agenda around public sociology focused on building a cosmopolitanism of connections, which seeks to connect the national and the universal in understanding and facing public problems, to which the Brazilian sociological experiment has much to contribute.

Ma thèse traite de la sociologie britannique au XXe siècle (1904-2014). Comment expliquer que pendant longtemps, il n’y ait pas eu de sociologie en Grande Bretagne et qu’elle apparaisse si tardivement au XXe siècle ? L’apport principal de mon travail est de montrer qu’une discipline se construit à deux niveaux : d’un côté des institutions, de l’autre une identité. Si les britanniques ont disposé des premières très tôt, ils n’ont pas réussi à construire la seconde avant les années 1960. La sociologie est donc largement restée une « affaire d’amateurs ». La faiblesse et l’oubli historiographique dont souffre la sociologie britannique tient dans ce simple constat, qui n’a pas grand-chose à voir avec un échec intellectuel (Soffer, 1982 ; Goldman, 1987) comme on le croit souvent. Le fil rouge de ma thèse est donc la question de l’identité des sociologues. L’absence de frontières disciplinaires claires en sciences sociales avant les années 60 a fait que la sociologie britannique est longtemps restée insulaire. Cela explique qu’il faille la chercher, notamment hors des universités, pour la (re)trouver. Ma thèse apporte donc une pierre à l’édifice historique de la sociologie mais elle peut aussi aider les britanniques à s’affirmer comme ce qu’ils sont, une grande nation avec une sociologie originale qui mérite d'être au panthéon des grandes disciplines. C’est tout le problème du « complexe d’infériorité » qui domine les sociologues britanniques jusqu’à nos jours, alors même que la sociologie y est florissante. Il lui reste à gagner, toujours, en légitimité – à la fois sociale et scientifique. » Enfin cette thèse utilise des archives inédites des universités, du Parlement et des sources primaires ainsi que N=11 entretiens et une base de données de N=1 565 articles sociologiques pour montrer à quel point la sociologie britannique contemporaine est l’égal d’autres grands sociologies occidentales désormais. / This dissertation seeks to explain the peculiar development of British sociology in the 20th century (1904-2014). Why did it take it so long to emerge? Is it true to say that there is such things as “a British tradition in sociology?”. This thesis argues that British sociologists had institutions very early on, but lacked a coherent and cogent definition of themselves. In other words, British sociologists had institutions but no identity. This impacted on the definition of a discipline in universities, and thus its lack of recognition among academics. We therefore explore the long-running trend of “extra-mural” sociology and show how important it was for the post-WWII discipline, when the professionalisation of sociologists started as a process. It remains that British sociology was mostly insular and “parochial” for most of the twentieth century. However, our last chapter shows that British sociologists are coming to terms with the current intellectual situation in the world. British sociology has never been so lively and is on a par with all the other “grand sociologies” in the western World nowadays. But they need to realise that. To argue that sociologists lacked a definition of their discipline and still suffer from an “inferiority complex” both socially and intellectually, we use previously unused archives from universities and the Parliament, printed sociological sources such as journals, novels and newspapers as well as interviews with N=11 contemporary British sociologists and a database of N=1565 recent articles in sociology.

Cette thèse est consacrée à la discrimination ethnico-raciale dans les stages organisés sous statut scolaire. Elle aborde ces questions du point de vue de l’école, institution disciplinaire confrontée à des transformations de ses frontières - tant au niveau de la gestion des publics que de la réorganisation de ses rapports avec l’entreprise. Elle traite d’abord du contexte politique et institutionnel de ces questions en France, qui se caractérise simultanément par une banalité des processus d’ethnicisation dans l’école et par la dénégation de l’existence de discriminations ethnico-raciales. Traitant ensuite du cadre particulier des stages, elle analyse la façon dont la discrimination prend forme, avec d’autres illégalités, dans les tensions concrètes entre une pluralité de normes co-présentes, entre l’école et l’entreprise. Elle met en évidence les mécanismes institutionnels et professionnels ainsi que les raisons d’une coproduction et d’une banalisation des discriminations par les agents de l’école. Elle analyse enfin ce que disent et ce que font les élèves des expériences discriminatoires vécues, ainsi que les tactiques à travers lesquelles ils donnent ou non sens et place à la discrimination dans leur trajectoire et dans leur rapport à l’école. Dans une approche de sociologie publique, construite dans un travail avec les acteurs publics au sein de l’institution scolaire, l’analyse s’appuie sur plusieurs enquêtes réalisées de 2004 à 2010 dans différents terrains en France. / This thesis is dedicated to the ethnico-racial discrimination in the work experience placements organized under school status. It lands these issues from the school point of view, disciplinary institution confronted with the transformations of its boundaries - as much on the level of the management of the public as on the reorganization of its connections with the company. It is first about the institutional and political environment of these issues in France, wich is simoultaneously characterized by a banality of processes of ethnicisation in the school and by the denial of the reality of ethnico-racial discrimination. Dealing then within the particular framework of professional training, this thesis analyses the way discrimination takes shape, among other illegalities, in the concrete strain between a plurality of standards co-existing in the school and the company. It brings to light the institutional and professional mechanisms as well as the reasons of a coproduction and a banalization of discriminations by school agents. At last, it analyses what the pupils make of these discriminatory experiments they live, as the strategies they will use to make sense or not of these issues, to give them room in their path and in their relationship with school. By a public sociology approach, built through a work with the public actors in the scholar institution, the analysis stands on several investigations led from 2004 to 2010 in different grounds in France.

En 2004, Michael Burawoy, alors président de l’Association américaine de sociologie (ASA), faisait un plaidoyer pour une sociologie « publique ». Ses considérations portaient sur l’orientation de la pratique de la discipline. Il avançait que le domaine devait réengager un dialogue avec des préoccupations plus proches d’un public « non-sociologue ». Dans ce mémoire, je propose des pistes de réflexion sur ces préoccupations en me penchant sur la pratique journalistique à travers deux genres : le fait divers et le feuilleton. Je mets en parallèle les deux genres en les approfondissant et en analysant leur traitement respectif de certains procès. C’est sur ce thème que je souligne leurs apports possibles pour une sociologie « en dehors de la sociologie ». Le fait divers, genre largement lu dans les journaux d’aujourd’hui, porte son attention sur l’environnement proche de ses lecteurs et sur des événements prenant naissance dans leur quotidien, mais qui ont pris des tangentes hors de l’ordinaire. Alors qu’on peut le qualifier de sensationnaliste et de genre exploitant la peur, il démontre cependant un intérêt pour des événements ordinaires pouvant apporter de nouveaux thèmes à la sociologie. Le feuilleton, un genre journalistique allemand foisonnant des années 1920-1930 et plus précisément le type qu’écrit Siegfried Kracauer, s’intéresse à de « petits faits » du monde urbain et assemble ses observations sous la forme d’une mosaïque. Le feuilleton tente de révéler l’implication de ses lecteurs dans les phénomènes qu’il observe, produisant un effet réflexif à sa lecture qui apporte une dimension possible à l’écriture sociologique. Suite à l’analyse d’exemples des deux genres, je propose trois pistes de réflexion pouvant répondre aux préoccupations de Burawoy : 1) la sociologie peut avoir un aspect « sensationnel », 2) la sociologie peut s’inspirer davantage du quotidien, 3) la sociologie peut prendre exemple sur une écriture journalistique. C’est en tentant de générer un effet par la lecture, à s’investir dans une forme d’écriture stimulant la réflexivité et à adopter une posture qui tienne compte de la contingence et du point de vue de l’auteur dans l’interprétation que le journalisme peut apporter des éléments d’orientation de la pratique sociologique afin de permettre à celle-ci de s’ouvrir à un plus large public. / In 2004, Michael Burawoy, then president of the American Sociological Association (ASA), made a plea for a “public sociology”. His considerations focused on the direction of the discipline's practice. His concerns were for a re-engagement in a dialogue with concerns closer to a “non-sociological” public. In this master thesis, I propose avenues to reflect on these concerns by looking at the journalistic practice through two genres: the “fait divers” and the “feuilleton”. I open up a dialogue between the two genres by exploring them in depth and analyzing their respective treatment of trials. It is through this theme that I underline their possible contributions to a sociology “outside of sociology”. The “fait divers” is a genre that is widely read in today’s newspapers. It focuses its attention on the environment close to its readers and on events that take origin in everyday life, but which have taken paths outside away from the ordinary. While this genre can be described as sensationalist and fearmongering, it nevertheless shows an interest in ordinary events that can bring new themes to sociology. The “feuilleton” and more precisely the type written by Siegfried Kracauer, is a German journalistic genre that flourished in the 1920s and 1930s. This author is interested in “small facts” of the urban world and assembles his observations in the form of a mosaic. The “feuilleton” tries to reveal the involvement of its readers in the phenomena it observes, thereby producing an effect of reflection after being read that brings a possible dimension to sociological writing. Following the analysis of examples from both genres, I propose three avenues that can respond to Burawoy’s concerns: 1) sociology can have a “sensational” aspect, 2) sociology can draw more inspiration from daily life, 3) sociology can take the example of a journalistic writing. By being interested in generating an effect through reading, investing in a form of writing that stimulates reflexivity and adopting a posture that takes into account contingency and the author's point of view in interpretation, journalism can provide elements of direction for the sociological practice in order to help it open up to a wider public.

Réalisé en association avec le Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologie (CIRST). / Inspirée par les débats portant sur la typologie de la recherche proposée par Michael Burawoy (2005b) et fondée sur une analyse qualitative de vingt-cinq entrevues auprès de professeurs en histoire, en économie et en sociologie, notre investigation a comme but d’identifier et de décrire l’organisation sociale du sens de la recherche en fonction de ses auditoires et ses visées cognitives. À partir d’une analyse sémantique du langage et des repères construits par les acteurs dans leurs expériences de production et de diffusion de connaissances, nous étudions premièrement l’organisation des pratiques de recherche dans l’espace académique, puis l’extension de ces pratiques vers d’autres champs d’activités sociales. Cette analyse nous permet de revenir sur la typologie de Burawoy et d’apporter quelques corrections quant aux distinctions entre les connaissances professionnelle, critique, appliquée et publique. À cet égard, nous proposons que ces « types » de recherche doivent être décomposés en de multiples postures qui s’inscrivent d’une part dans une différenciation des espaces discursifs académiques et d’autre part à l’interface de différents modes d’intervention extra-académique. / Our study of the orientation of research in the social sciences and humanities is a response to Micheal Burawoy’s typology of knowledge production. The objective of this investigation is to identify and describe the social organisation of the meaning of research as scholars attempt to reach different audiences and as their investigations are routed towards particular cognitive aims. Having conducted twenty-five in-depth interviews with historians, sociologists and economists, we analysed their interpretations of research practices in relation to the social space of academia and in regards to the extension of academic activities towards other social spaces. This analysis is then mobilised to comment on Michael Burawoy’s typology of research as we attempt to correct some of the distinctions he makes between professional, critical, policy and public knowledge. Notably, we suggest that these “types” should be broken down into multiple postures understood in relation to a segmentation of academic discursive fields and a differentiation of extra-academic modes of intervention.

Inspirée par les débats portant sur la typologie de la recherche proposée par Michael Burawoy (2005b) et fondée sur une analyse qualitative de vingt-cinq entrevues auprès de professeurs en histoire, en économie et en sociologie, notre investigation a comme but d’identifier et de décrire l’organisation sociale du sens de la recherche en fonction de ses auditoires et ses visées cognitives. À partir d’une analyse sémantique du langage et des repères construits par les acteurs dans leurs expériences de production et de diffusion de connaissances, nous étudions premièrement l’organisation des pratiques de recherche dans l’espace académique, puis l’extension de ces pratiques vers d’autres champs d’activités sociales. Cette analyse nous permet de revenir sur la typologie de Burawoy et d’apporter quelques corrections quant aux distinctions entre les connaissances professionnelle, critique, appliquée et publique. À cet égard, nous proposons que ces « types » de recherche doivent être décomposés en de multiples postures qui s’inscrivent d’une part dans une différenciation des espaces discursifs académiques et d’autre part à l’interface de différents modes d’intervention extra-académique. / Our study of the orientation of research in the social sciences and humanities is a response to Micheal Burawoy’s typology of knowledge production. The objective of this investigation is to identify and describe the social organisation of the meaning of research as scholars attempt to reach different audiences and as their investigations are routed towards particular cognitive aims. Having conducted twenty-five in-depth interviews with historians, sociologists and economists, we analysed their interpretations of research practices in relation to the social space of academia and in regards to the extension of academic activities towards other social spaces. This analysis is then mobilised to comment on Michael Burawoy’s typology of research as we attempt to correct some of the distinctions he makes between professional, critical, policy and public knowledge. Notably, we suggest that these “types” should be broken down into multiple postures understood in relation to a segmentation of academic discursive fields and a differentiation of extra-academic modes of intervention. / Réalisé en association avec le Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologie (CIRST).