I am currently in the middle of reading Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers and think it could make a great addition to some sociology courses (actually, a sociology professor recommended it to me and does use it her course).
It explores a variety of social factors that contribute to individual success, and provides a very strong (and elegant) counter-argument to generally shared assumptions about how individuals work their way to the top. It is particularly interesting in light of my teaching in deviance, where I try to get students to see social factors that contribute to individual and group marginalization.
Gladwell holds a doctorate in sociology, and Outliers refers to a number of classic texts and experiments. His writing is so jargon-free, and his story-telling abilities are so exceptional, that the content is accessible to anyone. For this reason I can see how it would be useful in an introductory course.
However, I suspect that many would have objections to using a popular, non-academic text in the classroom. Because it is outside the academic discourse community, it might not be appropriate. Additionally, he can be accused of dumbing down or glossing over material. I would like to hear more of these objections, if any readers here have any, as well as objections to using popular and/or journalistic books in other disciplines.
Diana, your post has really made me interested in this book, and I will definitely go ahead and check it out!
You asked for objections in your post, but I can only offer my support for using similar, reader-friendly textbooks in your course, especially if it is an introductory-level sociology class! I am not a big fan of jargon when it comes to getting my students interested in my field (i.e. literature, literary theory). Of course I want them to feel challenged intellectually, but I also want them to feel a sense of achievement while actually understanding what they are reading. Gradually, they can ease their way into heavier material.
I also think that a gifted writer and story-teller, like your Gladwell, can whet my students’ appetite for more, and more. In the course of the winter break, I read Barbara Tuchman’s The Guns of August. She deliberately stayed away from the academia, and the book is a Pulitzer Prize winner. Not a real history book, and maybe I should have read it in my teens (had I been in the US then), yet it made me understand that if I had thought I knew some substantial things about WWI, I was wrong.
I totally agree with using popular books and novels in teaching and I think it greatly enhances learning experience. But Gladwell is hardly a sociologist. As far as I know he is a journalist and got an honorary Doctor of Letters degree. I find his arguments simplistic and his books should be on the pop-sociology shelf, but he doesn’t seem like a good exam of how to do scientific research in social sciences. He sure knows how to convince others of his opinions, but they are just that: opinions.
I think perhaps one chapter of Outliers may be useful in an intro sociology class (probably the one about hockey players and birthdates), as a way to flesh out structural explanations of success and debunk the myth of meritocracy. But I agree with Agnieszka–Gladwell started out as a science reporter, and he does a very good job at describing other people’s research in a lively, riveting fashion. I’d rather point my students directly to the primary sources, though. Unequal Childhoods by Annette Lareau is a book Gladwell rips off cites extensively, that makes the same points he makes, but Lareau offers original research that should not be too difficult for undergraduates to “get”.
Whoops, there was supposed to be a “strikethrough” through the words “rips off”…
I don’t know why I thought he was actually trained in sociology; I mean, I think I had it in my head that he was PhD. Anyway, I agree that if I used him at all it would have to be in conjunction with primary sources.
I’m not sure I think his arguments are actually simplistic. I think that he oversimplifies the material he presents as he condenses it and uses it for his own purposes, but the arguments themselves have complexity.
In general, I’m beginning to realize that I want to incorporate journalistic writings in some of my courses; it shows how certain issues are discussed in the “real” world. I’m using a journalistic account of a gang rape (Our Guys, by Bernard Lefkowitz) in a middle class suburb in my deviance class, and am hoping that students will approach this work from analytic perspectives explored throughout the course.
Malcolm Gladwell in general is an interested phenom, and I’ve only read his articles, never his books, so I’m far from an authority. But a science journalist friend of mine is driven crazy by his books for precisely the reason that Lauren mentions– he has a real knack for pillaging the ideas of others and repackaging them slickly enough to make good advertising copy.
Outside of the specific case of Gladwell, you’ve brought up some interesting questions about this kind of popular writing, which routinely relies on more “academic” source material, often with varying degrees of citation. I’ve heard many-a story of scholars opening up the New Yorker to find that their latest book has seemingly “inspired” a long magazine piece. Or maybe it’s all about trends; I’m sure Gladwell has a theory for it, regardless!
Some of my favorite undergrad courses used “popular” texts to provide a certain kind of dimension to whatever we were studying; Jonathan Kozol’s “Amazing Grace,” is a well-known example used often in Ed classes, Ehrenreich’s “Nickel and Dimed” comes to mind, too, or Nicole LeBlanc’s “Random Family.” As Diana mentioned, they open up additional lines of discussion to talk about the role of the writer/observer in those studies.
I agree that journalistic accounts can be great in the classroom. I’d add in Eric Schlosser’s “Fast Food Nation” here as well. But at least Kozol, Ehrenreich, and Schlosser, unlike Gladwell, do their own research rather than merely poach others.