. 
In 2004, then president of the American Sociological Association (ASA) Michael Burawoy addressed a group at the ASA annual conference. In that address he dissected Sociology into a strict division of labor (see image above). His assertion through this talk was that while the four types of Sociology ( professional, critical, policy and public) are and should be interconnected, the notion of "Public Sociology" has been lost. Public Sociology Burawoy defines as " Bringing insights gained from Sociological analysis into the public conversation about social issues and Social problems." This topic has been hotly debated in Sociological circles, and I have decided to through my hat into the ring.
When I first started reading about Burawoy's Public Sociology and his dissection of the discipline, I was overcome with a feeling of futility and annoyance. I could not (and still can't) get past how unnecessary this division seems. First of all, if there is supposed to be a interconnection between all of these types of Sociology, why break them up to begin with? Secondly, this idea of Public Sociology as Burawoy outlines it, is a repackaging of what most Sociologists have known as "Applied Sociology." Additionally, Burawoy also uses Millsian language from his[C. Wright Mills] seminal work The Sociological Imagination. This is a work that any Sociologist worth her/his salt has read multiple times and considers it an important foundation for the general Sociological Perspective. The most annoying aspect of this whole spectacle is how much attention this (repackaged uninspiringly basic idea) is actually getting. Burawoy has made a career out of this writing papers and even creating a course at UC Berkeley titled "Public Sociology: Live" (complete with youtube channel) where he empowers young individuals to spread the sociological word to their communities without (in my opinion) proper training.
Burawoy becoming famous for these ideas leads me to two conclusions: One, that I am working way to hard. If all it takes to get recognition in the field of Sociology is to repackage and retread classical works of Sociology with little or no effort, I might as well quit writing my lectures and stop my professional development. Two, Burawoy fails to engage in a fundamental practice of Social Research: to be Reflexive (the process a researcher goes through during a research project in which they seek out and eliminate any form of bias they may have).
I agree with Burawoy in one particular instance, "Professional" Sociology (Sociology in academia) as he calls it, has lost touch( many researchers write and publish only for other Sociologist in their field). However, Burawoy fails to see that he is a part of that. Only someone who is so out of touch, locked in the "ivory tower" of a four year research university, would think that all professional Sociologists are equally out of touch. It has been my experience that Sociologists holding positions at teaching institutions, (rather than research institutions) or who are also community leaders engage in "Public Sociology" everyday. Yet, Burawoy can't see that, because he is too busy creating complexity where there is simplicity, all for the purpose of professional validation.
Watch the First lecture and see for yourself:
