Review of "Engineering Pure Sociology"

This is a review of the paper, Engineering Pure Sociology. In the interest of transparency and accountability, I like when reviewers disclose their identity. I’m Scott Jacques. As a reviewer, my goal is to help the authors to improve the paper as a constructive but critical colleague. The following comments are in the order they arise in the paper. I hope you find them fair and useful. They’re suggestions, not demands. 

Overall assessment: Great paper with important ideas. It/they could actually improve the world if put into practice in a diligent manner.

Page 3: Is it true that “most research and practice in sociology is atheoretical”? If so, put a cite so I can read more about it. If not, omit the sentence so readers don’t get distracted, even if it’s true.

Page 4: I’d make a new paragraph for the bit starting with, “We extend this line...”

Introduction: It may be worth defining “(social) engineering” before going further. Otherwise, I fear, passive readers won’t always understand how your examples (e.g., healthcare) illustrate what you mean. So for example, maybe restate something I read later on page 17: “... engineer just cultures by creating healthcare settings that are both vertical and flat, detached and bonded.” Such a sentence will help readers better understand the direction and content.

Likewise for the section on “Just Cultures in Healthcare,” perhaps state from the start something like, “First we’re gonna tell you what these cultures are, then we’ll talk about how to social engineer it with social engineering.” 

Page 6: I recommend moving footnote 3 into the body. Possibly, with elaboration. It’s important point you’re making here: don’t tell people what to do (as sociologists often do); rather, help them make their own decisions. “Persuasion.” 

Page 7: Move the citation (“Gecker 2019”) to the second sentence and remove the sentence on “Taking effect in July 2019...”

Regarding “Just Cultures in Healthcare,” I’m reminded of a bit by Norm McDonald. RIP.

Throughout: There’s a part of me that worries readers won’t understand the paper because they don’t know much/anything about pure sociology, social geometry, etc. The logical answer would be to add more material, maybe a whole section, on this. But I like the conversational approach currently taken. 

Throughout but noticed on page 15: Sometimes you refer to “Black,” sometimes you add his first name. If the inconsistency is unintentional, you’ll want to fix it. 

Page 22: Remind/tell us why “these conversations will not be mandated, just encouraged”? You an explain it with common sense or ideally pure sociology. (I.e., according to theory, why is mandating bad, encouragement good.) You do this a good amount already, to be clear. 

Page 23: Same comment as above, except about severe penalties like termination.

Throughout but noticed on page 25: I agree about the “political left” but I wonder if it’s necessary to specify? I.e., would the paper lose any power by simply referring to politics (and leaving aside the left vs right)? If not, should the paper have a stronger argument about how its perspective isn’t left or otherwise susceptible to this critique? Otherwise, I worry you’ll unnecessarily lose some readers. 

Page 27: Students “would flock to sociology departments” is too strong of a statement. Though if it’s meant as tongue-in-cheek, it’s perfect.