Erin Leahey at the University of Arizona studies the benefits of specialization for scholars, including its effects on productivity and salary (much to the chagrin of those who aspire to be jills - or jacks - of all trades).
One of the most emailed articles in the NY Times from the weekend is tangentially related to the topic, as it demystifies epiphanies by pointing out that “aha moments grow out of hours of thought and study” rather than “flashes of pure brilliance, with great thunderclaps and echoing ahas.”
Put the two together, and here’s my question:
Is this true in sociology? Is specialization the key to epiphanies? Are the light-bulb moments, the greatest insight of our times, from those who specialized - knew a subject intimately and tweaked it just so, building on years of knowledge - or from people who sloppily (or perhaps with more poise) stumbled onto something great?
4 Comments
“Ideas occur to us when they please, not when it pleases us. The best ideas do indeed occur to one’s mind in the way in which Ihering describes it: when smoking a cigar on the sofa; or as Helmholtz states of himself with scientific exactitude: when taking a walk on a slowly ascending street; or in a similar way. In any case, ideas come when we do not expect them, and not when we are brooding and searching at our desks. Yet ideas would certainly not come to mind had we not brooded at our desks and searched for answers with passionate devotion.” — Max Weber, Science as a Vocation.
Respectfully,
Some ideas can indeed be forced from one’s mind. Although it can require the same strength required by Athena to burst through Zeus’ skull, it’s certainly possible: http://ideafirehose.blogspot.com
It takes some concentration, but if the ideas have already been incubating (naturally, over time), then some are indeed ready for hatching and just need a nudge.
Couldn’t say for sure about sociology as it is not my field of specialty, but I find that what few inspirations I experience are usually born from distraction, be it running, taking a shower, or gazing into the near distance. I suspect this is what Brad Feld had in mind when he endowed a restroom at the University of Colorado (http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jan/25/cu-bathroom-gets-a-namesake/). A good holiday with some reading in some other (unrelated) field helps. I think there’s something about the accumulation of study being given a forum in relaxed thought. Still, n=1 for that observation.
Jessica, when it comes to studies of brilliance, I put a lot of stock in David Galen, the economist who studies artistic careers. His view is that “genius” comes in two varieties: the early career “stroke of genius” and the late career magnus opus. Once you read his work, you realize that it’s not specialization vs. jack of all trades. For brilliance, it’s youthful insight vs. years of long hard work. Both are paths to success. Jack of all trades isn’t even in the running.
Looking around sociology, I would say that our field discourages youthful genius and highly rewards cumulative work because we don’t focus a lot on formal theory and puzzle solving. And it makes sense. If you think of the leading sociologists, they often make their hugest contributions very late in the career.
I can only think of a handful of conceptual break throughs early in the career (Harrison White ‘77, or Burt’s structural holes?). Even though we emphasize articles, sociologists really seem to excel when they take a very long view and dump into books - James Davis/GSS, Laumann/Sex studies, Collins/interaction rituals, urban ethnography, etc.