Sanford Dornbusch, a sociology professor at Stanford, agrees that mainstream sociology was not at all well-defined. "One person's main-stream is another person's creek," he says.

"Part of the reason there's such disagreement is that, unlike some social sciences, sociology has no central set of theoretical doctrines," Dornbusch adds.

But most Harvard faculty members agree that the general trend in sociology has been toward a more quantitative, or number-oriented discipline.

"The profession has been going through the kind of changes that have already gone on in economics. It has been a transition in the quantitative direction," says David S. Landes, Coolidge Professor of History and Professor of Economics.

"Such changes are always a source of travail, as they involve bringing in techniques that the older generation hasn't learned. In the Harvard case, my sense is that this is a problem which has not yet been resolved," he adds.

Rooted in Past

But the struggle over sociology's proper direction does not explain all of Harvard's problems, which many say have roots in the more distant past of social relations.

Forty years ago, Harvard's sociology department merged with social psychology and cultural anthropology to become the Department of Social Relations, under the leadership of Talcott Parsons. Parsons, trained in philosophy and intrigued by several areas within the social sciences, envisioned a broad-based department which could transcend individual disciplines in its study of society as a whole.

"Social relations sprung from this vision of a large, inter-disciplinary enterprise that would break down barriers and deal with the larger problems of social and behavioral sciences," says Landes. "There was an emphasis on the positive, unifying, lubricating elements of society."

But when sociology broke off from social relations, it was ill-equipped to be a department of its own, and some of the problems that faced the fledgling department--such as its lack of focus and its small size--still greatly hinder Harvard sociology today, according to a number of sources within the department.

But social relations grew less and less unified, and in 1970, sociology split off to become an independent department.

"It's very hard to have one department containing several disciplines. For example, each discipline has different reference groups. Also, you have to figure out which sub-areas get to make appointments, and so on. Eventually, the hassle just wasn't worth it," Sorenson says.

"During the reign of social relations, there was really an effort on the part of the sociologists to be part of larger disciplines," Vogel says.

But this tendency, while part of the spirit of social relations, has tended to create problems for the department ever since it became independent.

"One of the problems we've had has to do with the fact that many of us are considered peripheral sociologists--we're interested in sociology, but we're also interested in related disciplines," Vogel comments.