The Anthem Companion to Everett Hughes
242 pages
English

Vous pourrez modifier la taille du texte de cet ouvrage

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

The Anthem Companion to Everett Hughes

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus
242 pages
English

Vous pourrez modifier la taille du texte de cet ouvrage

Description

Original, authoritative and wide-ranging contemporary work on Everett Hughes


The Anthem Companion to Everett Hughes is a comprehensive and updated critical discussion of Hughes’s contribution to sociology and his current legacy in the social sciences. A global team of scholars discusses issues such as the international circulation of Hughes’s work, his intellectual biography, his impact on current ethnographic research practices and the use in current research of such Hughesian concepts as master status, dirty work and bastard institutions. This companion is a useful reference for students of classical sociology, practitioners of ethnographic research and scholars of sociology in the Chicagoan tradition.


List of Illustrations; Foreword Everett C. Hughes, Great Teacher - Howard S. Becker; Introduction Insight through Craftsmanship: The Sociological Legacy of Everett Hughes - Rick Helmes-Hayes and Marco Santoro; Chapter One Everett Hughes and the Chicago Tradition - Jean-Michel Chapoulie; Chapter Two Studying “Going Concerns”: Everett C. Hughes on Method - Rick Helmes-Hayes; Chapter Three The Natural History of Everett Cherrington Hughes: A Master of Fieldwork - Philippe Vienne; Chapter Four Everett C. Hughes: A Key Figure of the Canadian Chicago School Diaspora - Jacqueline Low and Gary Bowden; Chapter Five Everett Hughes: Notes from an Apprentice - Douglas Harper; Chapter Six An American in Frankfurt: Everett C. Hughes’s Unpublished Book on Germans after the End of the Nazi Regime - Christian Fleck; Chapter Seven The Origins and Evolution of Everett Hughes’s Concept: ‘Master Status’ - Lisa-Jo K. van den Scott and Deborah K. van den Hoonard; Chapter Eight Discovering the Secret of Excellence: Everett Hughes as a Source of Inspiration in Researching Creative Careers - Izabela Wagner; Chapter Nine Everett Hughes on Race: Wedded to an Antiquated Paradigm - Neil McLaughlin and Stephen Steinberg; Notes on Contributors; Index of Names; Index of Subjects.

Sujets

Informations

Publié par
Date de parution 01 décembre 2016
Nombre de lectures 0
EAN13 9781783085958
Langue English
Poids de l'ouvrage 1 Mo

Informations légales : prix de location à la page 0,0076€. Cette information est donnée uniquement à titre indicatif conformément à la législation en vigueur.

Exrait

The Anthem Companion to Everett Hughes
ANTHEM COMPANIONS TO SOCIOLOGY
Anthem Companions to Sociology offer authoritative and comprehensive assessments of major figures in the development of sociology from the past two centuries. Covering the major advancements in sociological thought, these companions offer critical evaluations of key figures in the American and European sociological traditions and will provide students and scholars with an in-depth assessment of the makers of sociology and chart their relevance to modern society.
Series Editor
Bryan S. Turner—City University of New York, USA; Australian Catholic University, Australia; and University of Potsdam, Germany
Forthcoming titles in this series include:
The Anthem Companion to Hannah Arendt
The Anthem Companion to Auguste Comte
The Anthem Companion to Karl Mannheim
The Anthem Companion to Robert Park
The Anthem Companion to Phillip Rieff
The Anthem Companion to Gabriel Tarde
The Anthem Companion to Ernst Troeltsch
The Anthem Companion to Thorstein Veblen
The Anthem Companion to Everett Hughes
Edited by Rick Helmes-Hayes
and
Marco Santoro
Anthem Press
An imprint of Wimbledon Publishing Company
www.anthempress.com

This edition first published in UK and USA 2016
by ANTHEM PRESS
75–76 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8HA, UK
or PO Box 9779, London SW19 7ZG, UK
and
244 Madison Ave #116, New York, NY 10016, USA

© 2016 Rick Helmes-Hayes and Marco Santoro editorial matter and selection;
individual chapters © individual contributors

The moral right of the authors has been asserted.

All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Helmes-Hayes, Richard C. (Richard Charles), 1951– editor. | Santoro, Marco, 1964– editor.
Title: The Anthem companion to Everett Hughes / editors, Rick Helmes-Hayes (University of Waterloo, Canada), Marco Santoro (Bologna University, Italy).
Description: London ; New York, NY : Anthem Press, 2016. | Series: Anthem companions to sociology | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016043561 | ISBN 9780857281784 (hardback : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Hughes, Everett C. (Everett Cherrington), 1897-1983. | Sociology – United States.
Classification: LCC HM479.H845 A57 2016 | DDC 301–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016043561

ISBN-13: 978-0-85728-178-4 (Hbk)
ISBN-10: 0-85728-178-X (Hbk)

This title is also available as an e-book.
CONTENTS
List of Illustrations
Foreword Everett C. Hughes, Great Teacher
Howard S. Becker
Introduction
Insight through Craftsmanship: The Sociological Legacy of Everett Hughes Rick Helmes-Hayes and Marco Santoro
Chapter One
Everett Hughes and the Chicago Tradition Jean-Michel Chapoulie
Chapter Two
Studying “Going Concerns”: Everett C. Hughes on Method Rick Helmes-Hayes
Chapter Three
The Natural History of Everett Cherrington Hughes: A Master of Fieldwork Philippe Vienne
Chapter Four
Everett C. Hughes: A Key Figure of the Canadian Chicago School Diaspora Jacqueline Low and Gary Bowden
Chapter Five
Everett Hughes: Notes from an Apprentice Douglas Harper
Chapter Six
An American in Frankfurt: Everett C. Hughes’s Unpublished Book on Germans after the End of the Nazi Regime Christian Fleck
Chapter Seven
The Origins and Evolution of Everett Hughes’s Concept: ‘Master Status’ Lisa-Jo K. van den Scott and Deborah K. van den Hoonard
Chapter Eight
Discovering the Secret of Excellence: Everett Hughes as a Source of Inspiration in Researching Creative Careers Izabela Wagner
Chapter Nine
Everett Hughes on Race: Wedded to an Antiquated Paradigm Neil McLaughlin and Stephen Steinberg
Notes on Contributors
Index of Names
Index of Subjects
Illustrations
Figures
0.1 Total references to Everett Hughes, and to three selected books authored or co-authored by him, in ISI Web of Science, 1985–2014
0.2 References to The Sociological Eye in ISI Web of Science and Scopus, 1971–2014
0.3 References to Men and Their Work in ISI Web of Science and Scopus, 1971–2014
5.1 Everett Hughes in his home in Cambridge, Massachusetts, July 1982
Tables
0.1 References to Everett Hughes in ISI Web of Science, 1985 to present, top five countries
0.2 References to Everett Hughes in ISI Web of Science, 1985 to present, by research areas
0.3 References to Everett Hughes in ISI Web of Science, 1985 to present, by source
0.4 Properties of texts citing The Sociological Eye or Men and Their Work according to Scopus, 1971 to present
Foreword
EVERETT C. HUGHES, GREAT TEACHER
Howard S. Becker
Everett Hughes, a great sociologist and a great teacher, may not be as unappreciated as the editors of this book suspect. His work continues to reverberate as new generations discover it for themselves. Equally important, more and more people discover, one way or another, that he didn’t just inspire generations of later-to-become-prominent sociologists. He did better than that. He taught us ‘How to Do It’, just as his teacher Robert E. Park had taught an earlier generation (Hughes was one of them) how to do it. I always imagined, when I sat in Hughes’s seminar, that he was reproducing, in his own style, the rambling, reflective, worldly, elegant style of thought and of imparting ideas that had characterized Park’s teaching.
As fine a sociologist as Hughes was (and there has never been a better practitioner of our trade), he was even better as a teacher. I think that many people who sat through his classes would disagree with me. Many colleagues of mine in graduate school found his classes disagreeable: rambling, without a clear point, even tedious. The first class I took when I entered the University of Chicago Sociology Department in the fall of 1946 was his class in how to do fieldwork, taken by all the incoming students in sociology, anthropology and human development. He assigned us, in pairs, to Chicago census tracts (a small area of one or two Chicago blocks) and gave us assignments to do: collect genealogies from two or three people (a bow to the anthropologists, I suppose), observe for an hour or two in a public place, attend a group meeting of some kind and interview a number of people who lived in the area about whatever he (Hughes) happened to be interested in that quarter. And write down all this ‘information’ we collected and turn it in to him each class period – which we all dutifully did.
He didn’t talk about that work in class. Instead he talked about any damn thing that came into his head, rambling in a contented way over things whose relevance to fieldwork wasn’t clear. At least, it seemed that way to us. We were bewildered. I noticed that a number of much older students – typically guys who had been in the army and were now in graduate school as a result of the G.I. Bill of Rights – would sometimes show up to listen to these monologues with great interest. I finally got my nerve up one day and asked David Solomon, one of the several Canadians who had come to Chicago to study with Hughes and a veteran of the war, what he was doing there. He wanted to know what I meant, and I said that he must know far more than what would be taught in an introductory class. He looked at me with real pity, and said, as best I can remember, ‘I can’t explain it to you now, but one of these days you’ll understand that these lectures are pure sociological gold.’
And they were. You had to be a little more sophisticated than we were then to appreciate Hughes’s way of taking a walk around a topic, noting some features you would otherwise have ignored, comparing it to other things happening in places that didn’t seem to have much in common with our census tracts and then concluding with a general remark that tied it all together. Was that sociology?
These explorations were a far cry from the polished, logical analyses so elegantly enunciated by his fellow faculty member Herbert Blumer, who explicated the complex, subtle and hard-for-us-to-grasp social psychology of one of his teachers, the philosopher George Herbert Mead. Many students thought that was the Real Thing. Nor did these explorations have the ostentatious erudition of Louis Wirth, who occasionally entertained himself by translating obscure passages from Georg Simmel instead of lecturing.
But when it was time to write a master’s thesis, some of us chose to study situations of work and were directed to see Hughes on the fifth floor of the Social Science Building (it had been Robert E. Park’s office, but none of us knew that then). And whatever kind of work you had chosen to study – and especially if, like me, you had chosen something less ‘noble’ than medicine or law – he would encourage you to get started doing some preliminary scouting around, to talk to some people in that line of work, to start your thesis right then and there without waiting for the formalities of making a written proposal.
And then you would take – sometimes for several quarters in a row – his eventually legendary seminar in what started as ‘The Sociology of Occupations and Professions’ and eventually was known as (not an innocent change, this) ‘The Sociology of Work’. So I started doing fieldwork with the musicians (of whom I was one) who played in bars and for parties, and with that ticket of admission to the class, joined a hard-working and productive rotating group, which included, among many others, Bob Habenstein (studying funeral directors), Dan Lortie (anaesthesiologists), Harold MacDowell (osteopaths), Bill Westley (police), Lou Kriesberg (retail furriers), Ray Gold (apartment house janitors) and eventually Erving Goffman (who proposed but never did a study of butlers).
The discussions were lively – always centred on what we had been finding out in our continuing field research and never allowed to stray into sterile discussions of ‘theory’ (which in those days would have meant trying to define the essence of a ‘profession’ as opposed to more mundane kinds of work), or the equally tedious questions which we liked to pester each other with about whether our samples were ‘adequate’ or not. The heated discussions always, under Hughes’s skilful guidance, led somewhere, to a new idea or direction for our inquiries, not necessarily to a solution to whatever problem we had brought up but surely to a direction to follow that would ultimately move our work along. And they led, finally, to broad hints that it was time to get on with the tedious work of actually writing a report of our research that could become a thesis or dissertation. In other words, he taught you how to do it, from the first vague ideas to a finished, written product.
And beyond that. I started working for him, interviewing schoolteachers for his research on schools, work I meant to use as the raw material for my dissertation (the master’s thesis done and accepted already). One day he looked at up me in the quizzical way he had, which I knew likely meant that there was something he’d thought up for me to do, and said, ‘Time you wrote an article. About what you wrote your master’s thesis about’ – meaning, clearly, musicians. I said, ‘Which part of it should I write up?’ He gave me one of those practical gems David Solomon had alerted me to: ‘Take one idea and put in anything you can make stick to it and leave the rest of it out.’ I did and that was my first article, published in the American Journal of Sociology .
Many other people have stories like that to tell. He didn’t teach his students his ‘theory’, partly because he didn’t have one. He had something better: ideas you could use to shape an investigation and the later report of its results. And he had ways of working that were better than ‘methods’ out of a cookbook: how to think about what you were learning in your research and use that to shape the next steps you took.
He taught you how to be a sociologist.
Introduction
INSIGHT THROUGH CRAFTSMANSHIP: THE SOCIOLOGICAL LEGACY OF EVERETT HUGHES
Rick Helmes-Hayes and Marco Santoro

He’s never been given, I think, the credit he deserves.
(Erving Goffman on Everett Hughes [Verhoeven 1993 : 336])
When one reads sociology textbooks or accounts of major trends and figures in the historical development of the discipline, there is a litany of names from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries – Karl Marx, Max Weber, Émile Durkheim, Robert Park, George Herbert Mead, Talcott Parsons, Erving Goffman – that appears over and over again. These figures are universally acknowledged as belonging to a list of scholars who built the theoretical foundations of the discipline. More recently, figures such as Jürgen Habermas, Anthony Giddens, Dorothy Smith, Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu have been added to that list.
This Anthem Companions to Sociology series is noteworthy from our perspective because it is the first time that Everett Cherrington Hughes (1897–1983) has been accorded a place in the pantheon. Hughes is largely unknown, or known by name only, to most practicing sociologists. He is rarely listed among ‘the masters’ by social theorists or historians of social thought and is usually missing from dictionaries, encyclopaedias and guides to the discipline. 1 Nonetheless, it is our view that Hughes belongs on these lists. And there is a growing community of scholars spread across North America and Europe – France and Italy, in particular – who regards him as among the most innovative and original sociologists of the twentieth century. Moreover, he was – and is – more influential than would appear to be the case. The source of his impact? His conceptual/theoretical influence on other high-profile scholars who were his students and colleagues (e.g., Howard S. Becker, David Riesman, Anselm Strauss, Eliot Freidson and Goffman) and his role in developing, nurturing and teaching the value of fieldwork.
Hughes’s contribution to North American sociology in the middle decades of the twentieth century is indisputable. Hughes, along with his wife, Helen MacGill Hughes, did his PhD at Chicago. While there, he became one of Park’s favourite students (Riesman 1983 : 480). After an interval at McGill University in Montreal (1927–38), he returned and became a prominent member of the Chicago department between 1938 and 1961. 2 While there, he championed the teaching of fieldwork methods and, by so doing, became a crucial figure in the ‘second Chicago School’ (Fine 1995). As well, Hughes is among the most influential pioneers of Canadian sociology in both its English- and French-language manifestations. During the 11-year period he spent at McGill, he collaborated with Carl Dawson to build English-language sociology in Canada and then, from that base, helped champion sociology in French Quebec, first, by writing French Canada in Transition (1943a), one of the first classics of Canadian sociology (Hiller and Langlois 2001 ) and, then, by helping French-language scholars in Quebec – especially at Laval University – develop a program of social research for the province (Hughes 1943b ; Falardeau 1953 ; see Wilcox-Magill 1983 ; Ostow 1984 ; Fournier 1987 ; Shore 1987 ; Helmes-Hayes 2000 ).
But Hughes’s influence as a sociologist extended beyond Northern America. In the 1940s he played a substantial role in the re-establishment of empirical sociology in (occupied) Germany following the demise of Nazism (Staley 1993 ; Guth 2010 ; see Fleck chapter, this volume). He was already familiar with Germany and its sociology, however, because he had spent the year 1930–1 in the Rhineland doing fieldwork on the Catholic labour movement (see Hughes [1935] 1971 ). Indeed, on the earlier trip he had witnessed the rise of the Nazis and got a foreboding of what it might become. 3
However, Hughes’s ideas have spread in Europe not through these early German experiences but as a consequence of the latter-day discovery of ‘the Chicago tradition’ by European scholars in the 1980s. 4 During this period many European scholars and political activists became disenchanted with structural functionalism on one side and Marxism on the other. Some of them, casting around for a more ethnographically rooted sociology, turned to Chicago sociology. Whether it was under the general rubric of the ‘Chicago School’, or more specific labels such as ‘symbolic interactionism’ or ‘fieldwork’, Hughes’s ideas gained currency because they appealed to new generations of sociologists looking for an alternative to both mainstream sociology – Parsons, Robert Merton, Paul Lazarsfeld – and what some perceived as the outdated radical sociologies of the 1970s – Marxism, critical theory and so forth.
Paradoxically, Hughes’s somewhat marginal status while alive might have contributed to his rediscovery and celebration post-mortem. Hughes resisted being referred to as part of ‘the Chicago School’ (see Hughes in Lofland 1980 : 276–7) and made no effort to build a coterie of followers. Nonetheless, he had a deep and abiding impact on those with whom he worked (see Harper’s chapter, this volume). This influence, sometimes revealed only indirectly in their work, becomes apparent only upon closer investigation. 5 In fact, only recently has Hughes’s stock once again begun to rise. Crucial to his new-found prominence has been the reputational entrepreneurship of his students and former collaborators, chief among them Becker. Beginning in the 1990s, and thanks first and foremost to Becker’s mediation and support, Hughes has come to enjoy a notable reputation in France. 6 Becker has been aided in this endeavour by several French scholars, most important among them Jean-Michel Chapoulie. Chapoulie has written a number of landmark studies on Hughes (1987; 1996 ; 2001; 2002; Sociétés contemporaines , 1997, entire issue) and, as well, edited the first-ever collection of Hughes’s writings translated into a language other than English. This development would have pleased Hughes, who spoke fluent French and German, taught for some years in Quebec and spent much of his early career writing about French Canada. Together, via their collective interest in the history of the Chicago tradition, Becker, Chapoulie and their colleagues have created what has come to be known as the ‘Chicago School in Paris’ (see Wax 2000 ). 7
From France, Hughes’s ideas travelled to Italy, where symbolic interactionism had never gained a foothold, but where the name of Goffman – in both his ‘critical’ persona (e.g., as a major source for the anti-psychiatry movement) and his ‘scholarly’ persona – was well established by the 1960s. Perhaps the earliest evidence of this interest was a conference organized by Luigi Tomasi (Trento) in 1993 that attracted papers from three Italian scholars (Filippo Barbano, Raffaele Rauty, Margherita Ciacci) and was highlighted by contributions from Edward Shils and Martin Bulmer. Two collections of essays that appeared subsequently added Stanford Lyman, Jennifer Platt and Chapoulie to the list (Gubert and Tomasi 1995; Tomasi 1998). In 2010, a representative of a younger generation of sociologists, Marco Santoro, published an Italian translation of some of Hughes’s most influential essays (from The Sociological Eye ), bearing witness to a burgeoning interest in Hughes’s ideas in the country of Antonio Gramsci – though it would be an overstatement to talk of a Hughes fashion there (Hughes 2010a ). 8 As well, translations of some of Hughes’s texts – articles not books – are now available in Spanish and Russian. 9 However, perhaps the best sign of growing interest in Hughes’s work is the book you hold in your hands, published in a series devoted to classics in social theory. It is edited by a Canadian sociologist and an Italian one, with contributions written by scholars from France, Belgium, Canada, Austria, Poland and the United States.
This volume is not the first attempt to assess Hughes’s place in the history of the social sciences or to offer a general discussion of his legacy to contemporary social research and theory. At least two predecessors should be mentioned: the Festschrift published in 1968 with contributions by many of his students and colleagues (Becker et al. 1968c ), and a special issue of the French journal Sociétés contemporaines , published in 1997, one year after the release of the first French edition of The Sociological Eye (Hughes 1996 ), with contributions by selected former students and colleagues as well as historians of sociology from both France and the United Kingdom. 10 A third, more circumscribed assessment was published in 2010 in the English-language Italian journal Sociologica (see Helmes-Hayes and Santoro 2010 ; Hughes 2010b ; 2010c ; 2010d ). It was published at the same time as the abridged Italian edition of The Sociological Eye mentioned above (Hughes 2010a ). In addition to the collections of essays mentioned above, it should be noted that during the last years of his career, and especially after he died in 1983, commentaries about Hughes and his work appeared in various journals and textbooks. 11 The current volume builds on these previous enterprises. Among the questions our contributors ask and answer are the following: What is Hughes’s legacy 30 years after his death? How could, and should, we make use of it now without becoming victims of presentism on the one hand or historicism on the other (Stocking 1965 )?
Unlike most scholars, whose legacy is largely confined to their oeuvre, Hughes’s greatest legacy may rest in his teaching and example. This is in part because Hughes never wrote either a theoretical treatise or a methodological handbook. In the words of Arlene Daniels, ‘What Hughes once said about Park could apply equally as well to himself: ‘Park has left no magnum opus ’ (1972: 402; citing Hughes ([1964] 1971 : 548; emphasis in original). 12 Indeed, over his long career, Hughes authored just two monographs: his PhD thesis on the Chicago Real Estate Board ( 1931 ) and his book on French Canada (1943a). The rest of his books are either collections of previously published articles ( 1958 ; 1971a ; 1984 ) or collective research projects he directed but that were written largely by his younger collaborators (Becker et al. 1961 ; Becker, Geer and Hughes 1968a ). However, though scattered across numerous journals and sometimes left for long periods unpublished, his essays and ideas had a major impact on scholars – students and colleagues alike – who, following his example or under his tutelage, produced a number of sociological classics: Riesman, The Lonely Crowd (1950); William Foote Whyte, Street Corner Society (1943, 1955); Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959); Becker, Outsiders (1963) to name just a few.
The study of Hughes’s work and ideas offers the discerning reader a more complex, detailed and comprehensive approach to doing sociology than what might first seem to be the case, given the often casual, folksy style of his writing. To read his oeuvre is to take a sagacious, if meandering, voyage through many of the most interesting and challenging problems with which scholars – not just sociologists – must deal as they try to understand social life.
In the balance of the introduction we

1. outline key biographical details of Hughes’s life in order to provide historical context for the rest of the book; 13
2. identify the main principles and features of ‘Hughesian sociology’, demonstrating how it has borne fruit in the work of a distinguished group of scholars directly formed or influenced by Hughes’s teaching and example;
3. outline the theoretical frame of reference that undergirded Hughes’s thinking and research;
4. assess the contemporary relevance of Hughes’s ideas for the social sciences (in part through a brief bibliometric mapping of their current international profile) and, finally;
5. provide a synopsis of the present book.
The Trajectory of a ‘Marginal Scholar’
Everett Cherrington Hughes (1897–1983) was born in Beaver, Ohio, the son of a Methodist minister and his wife. Like many early American sociologists, he was, thus, a ‘PK’ (a preacher’s kid), a background that proved consequential both for his choice of professions and for the detached attitude he came to adopt in pursuing it. His ancestors were pious, progressive farmers who praised higher education, especially for men (Coser 1994 : 2). After earning his degree from Ohio Wesleyan University at 20 years of age, Hughes moved to the Green Bay area of Wisconsin and spent five years teaching English to immigrants – an important opportunity for the would-be sociologist to come in contact with people really different from him. He entered the Department of Sociology and Anthropology of the University of Chicago in 1923 and, as Philippe Vienne notes (see his chapter, this volume) soon confirmed that he had found his niche. From that point on, Hughes recalled, he was ‘hooked’ on sociology: ‘I knew what I was going to do’ (Everett C. Hughes Papers, University of Chicago, Box 1, Folder 9: ‘Life after 60’; hereafter ECH Papers, UCHI, …). At Park’s urging, he took a part-time position as a director of a Chicago city park, which again put him in contact with migrants and others from backgrounds very different from his own. Doubtless, these early experiences shaped his view of the importance of using comparative analysis to understand the variety of human experience and belief. In 1928, he defended his PhD thesis, a study of the origins of the Chicago Real Estate Board and its search for legitimation and respectability. His adviser was Robert Park (1864–1944), then the leading light of the department.
Shortly before defending his thesis, Hughes moved to Canada to assume a position in the newly formed Department of Sociology at McGill University, an English-speaking university in (mainly French) Montreal. Hughes stayed in Canada for over a decade and became a central figure in the establishment of sociology in that country. Perhaps his most important contribution was French Canada in Transition (1943a). The volume, which became part of the canon of Canadian sociology, is a classical community study that describes and makes sense of the troubles experienced by the French-speaking members of a small, rural community as they try to cope with the impact of industrialization and modernization imposed on them by British and American industrial capitalists. As a part of his research for this project, and, more specifically, to better understand relations between Catholic French and Protestant English, Hughes spent a year in Germany doing research on the Catholic Labour Movement in the Rhineland. This experience proved to be consequential after the fall of Nazism and the occupation of Germany, when Hughes was part of a delegation of social scientists sent there to help re-establish German sociology along empirical (i.e., American) lines. Indeed, one of Hughes’s most insightful essays, ‘Good People and Dirty Work’ ([1962] 1971), came out of that experience (see Fleck chapter, this volume). 14
In 1938, on the invitation of Herbert Blumer and Louis Wirth, Hughes returned to Chicago. He remained there for 23 years, during which time his name came to be firmly linked to what is now widely known as the ‘Second Chicago School’. Like Blumer and others of his cohort, he came to be a bridge between those who had founded the so-called Chicago School in the early twentieth century and newer cohorts of students who developed ‘Chicago sociology’ in ways that brought it into the modern era. 15 He once again took up his interest in occupations and professions, making them privileged objects of teaching and research. In the process, he stimulated the development of a whole subfield in the discipline. As he recalls it,

In 1939, I began to teach a course on professions. People from various departments of the university and from many occupations came into the course; many of them wanted to write about the efforts of their own occupation to have itself recognized as a profession […] I soon changed the name of the course to ‘The Sociology of Work’ [in order to] include studies of a greater variety of occupations and problems […] The occupations considered included […] janitors, junk dealers […], furriers, funeral directors, taxi drivers, rabbis, school teachers, jazz musicians, mental hospital attendants, osteopaths, city managers, pharmacists, and YMCA secretaries. Others studied lawyers, physicians, and the clergy, as well as the newer professions or the newer specialties in these older professions. We studied workers, union leaders, and management in a variety of industries […] We […] got clues about how levels and directions of effort and production are determined in both lowly and proud kinds of work. Those who perform services, it turned out, prefer some customers, clients, patients, or even sinners, to others. Some tasks in any occupation are preferred over others; some are jealously guarded, while others are gladly delegated to those they consider lesser breeds, such as women or Negroes […] The contingencies which face people as they run their life-cycle, their career at work, turned out to be a constant theme. The great variety of students and of occupations and work situations studies stimulated the search for and the finding of common themes. Some of these common themes I put into an Outline for Sociological Study of an Occupation which was used by a whole generation of students. ([1970] 1971 : 418–19) 16
During his career, Hughes contributed to a range of subdisciplines, moving from one project to another without any apparent overall plan, taking up subjects as opportunities presented themselves. Certainly this was the case with relation to his research in work and occupations. He carried out or supervised several studies because he got a research grant or one of his students expressed an interest in a particular occupation and so forth. However, as the passage above indicates, undergirding this unsystematic body of research was a theoretical goal. By uncovering ‘common themes’, he could begin the process of elaborating a conceptual framework useful for making sense of any occupation: plumbers and clergymen, junkmen and psychiatrists, occupations both ‘humble’ and ‘proud’. The list of studies on occupations done by Hughes’s students during the period is impressive and helped establish the sociology of occupations as a distinctive field of sociological research. Indeed, Hughes was a pioneer in the field and for a long time its major advocate and practitioner – as Merton knew well when in the 1950s he began to establish an empirical tradition of research in the sociology of professions at Columbia. 17
During the same period, Hughes became involved in research on ethnic and racial relations in industry – a topic he had started to investigate while in Canada. The University of Chicago established a Committee for the Study of Human Relations in Industry and Hughes became central to the enterprise, contributing a series of papers of his own and supervising research done by others. As well, he taught courses in the area. For Hughes and his colleagues, there was a substantial link between the two research fields, that is, occupations and race and ethnicity. In Hughes’s estimation, the nature and organization of work – and, therefore, occupations – were central to understanding the dynamics of modern societies, not just for nation states but also for individuals and their sense of self as well. Hughes regarded work and occupations as a privileged lens through which he could make sense of race and ethnic relations and elaborated such concepts as the ‘knitting of racial groups’ and ‘dilemmas and contradictions of status’ to do so.
It was while Hughes was engaged in research on the relations binding work, occupations, race and ethnicity that he – perhaps unwittingly – made one of the most consequential decisions of his career, that is, to become a proponent of ‘formalized’ instruction in fieldwork. 18 When Hughes first arrived at Chicago, he was assigned a course in introductory sociology. Dissatisfied with traditional approaches to teaching it, he soon reorganized it as a primer in fieldwork. For Hughes, this meant, above all, the observation of people in situ. Only by studying people in their natural settings was it possible to understand the meanings of those activities for the people involved. Much other work was involved in fieldwork as well: conducting interviews with participants and informers, gathering data about the location (neighbourhood, institution, space) and so on. But even this was not enough. Hughes was, as Paul Rock has noted, a ‘methodological agnostic’ (1979: 20, 242n49) – we would probably refer to him today as a proponent of ‘multi-methods’ – who felt that field researchers had an obligation to contextualize their in situ observations by becoming familiar with official governmental statistics (e.g., census tract data) and by learning how to interpret them using quantitative data analysis techniques. In Hughes’s view it was not possible to understand the day-to-day behaviours of workers in various occupations – indeed, the workings of any neighbourhood, organization or institution – without understanding the broader web of relations – economic, political, cultural, regional, national, international – in which they were enmeshed (see Becker 2010 ; Verdet 1997 ).
After offering the fieldwork course for over a decade, in 1951 Hughes was given an opportunity to augment its profile. With anthropologists Robert Redfield and Lloyd Warner, he launched a ‘Field Training Project’ in the Department of Social Sciences, which eventually led to the publication of Cases in Fieldwork (Hughes, Junker, Gold and Kittel 1952). He was likewise instrumental in the preparation of Buford Junker’s volume Fieldwork: An Introduction to the Social Sciences (1960), and wrote the introduction. It is telling that even though Hughes had been teaching fieldwork for several years, he did not use the occasion to provide a ‘how-to’ manual for readers. Indeed, Hughes never wrote a methods text or its equivalent. His long experience as a fieldworker told him that any attempt to codify the research process would be futile – and wrong-headed in any case. Hughes regarded social phenomena and research settings as fluid, complex and often novel. In such circumstances, it was Hughes’s view that the fieldworker ‘is better equipped with a flexible theoretical frame of reference and an eclectic methodological orientation than with a formal theory to “test” and a set of textbook-determined procedures to “apply”’ (Helmes-Hayes 2010 : 11). In short, as Hughes phrased it in Junker’s fieldwork book, ‘the situations and circumstances in which field observation […] is done are so various that no manual of detailed rules would serve’ ([1969] 1971: 503). In this respect, Hughes’s approach was in keeping with a view generally held at Chicago that fieldwork ‘could be learned but not taught’. 19 One became accomplished at the task only through practice (Fielding 2005 : 2; see also Helmes-Hayes 2010 : 11).
In 1949, in recognition of his contributions to the discipline and the department, Hughes was granted full professorship. Ironically, his rise to prominence inside the department occurred at the same time that its status in the discipline declined. Chicago had lost its position of dominance as a consequence of postwar theoretical and methodological developments at Harvard and Columbia in particular. This decline in status and influence had a negative impact on Hughes’s chances of being widely read and influential beyond the bounds of his home department and university. Fortunately, the Chicago department remained sufficiently well regarded that it was able to attract a wide array of talented students and accomplished scholars (e.g., Riesman, who moved from law to sociology as a consequence of encounters with Hughes).
During his career, Hughes assumed many offices and duties in the department, in the discipline and across a smattering of other disciplinary fields. In addition to serving as chair of the Chicago department during a difficult period in its history, he served as president of the Society for Applied Anthropology (1951–2), editor of the American Journal of Sociology ( AJS ; 1952–60), president of the American Sociological Association (1962–3) and president of the Eastern Sociological Society (1968–9). 20
Just before he would have been forced to retire from Chicago, Hughes moved to Brandeis University in Boston, where he helped establish a fieldwork-oriented graduate program in sociology (see Reinharz 1995 ). His final academic stop was Boston College, beginning in 1968. There, too, he introduced several cohorts of students to the virtues of fieldwork (see Ostow 1985 ; Holmstrom 1984 ). He retired from academia in 1977 and died six years later, at 85 years of age.
In recognition of his many contributions, Hughes was awarded several honours, including election to the American Academy of Arts and Science, the Malinowski Award of the Society for Applied Anthropology, the American Sociological Association (ASA) Award for a Career of Distinguished Scholarship, honorary life presidency of the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association and honorary degrees from a number of Canadian and US universities.
Helen MacGill Hughes
Before we leave this description of Hughes’s career, we regard it as appropriate, indeed essential, to reflect at least briefly on the contributions of his intellectual partner and wife, Helen MacGill Hughes (1903–92). MacGill Hughes was an extremely bright and able woman – like Everett, the recipient of a PhD in sociology from the University of Chicago (1937). However, unlike her husband she never had the opportunity to enjoy a full career in academia. As a consequence of family, institutional and societal dynamics, MacGill Hughes, like most well-educated women married to male academics, worked in the margins of the discipline. She and Everett had a strong, mutually supportive relationship and, like other academic wives of the period, she helped advance her husband’s career by acting as a largely unacknowledged research assistant/collaborator and, of course, managing their home life. Hughes did nothing to change this traditional set-up (Hoecker-Drysdale 1996 : 227–8, 230), but it is unlikely he would have been able to do much in any case. Overt sexism in the academy that reflected and exacerbated sexist norms and structures of opportunity that favoured men, meant that she never held a full-time teaching position. Instead, she served in ‘auxiliary’ capacities in the discipline, filling a variety of significant but poorly paid and episodic positions on sociology’s fringe (Hoecker-Drysdale 1996 : 227). At the end of her career, in part as a consequence of her involvement in the feminist movement, she seemed somewhat regretful about what she had been ‘allowed’ to accomplish. 21 There is no little irony and pathos in her remarks on this phenomenon in her essay ‘Women in Academic Sociology, 1925–75’ (MacGill Hughes 1975 : 217–18).
MacGill Hughes was raised in an upper-middle-class family in Vancouver. Her father was a lawyer; her mother a feminist lawyer and juvenile court judge (MacGill Hughes 1977 : 72–4). After earning a degree in German and economics at the University of British Columbia in 1925, she enrolled, with Park’s encouragement, in the master’s program in sociology at the University of Chicago (MacGill Hughes 1980 –1: 27–38). Shortly thereafter, she met and married Everett Hughes. She then accompanied him to McGill when he went to Montreal in 1927 to take up his position in the Sociology Department later that year. Over the following decade, she worked as a research/teaching assistant and completed her PhD with Park at Chicago. Her dissertation on the human interest story in the newspaper was completed in 1937 and published three years later (MacGill Hughes 1940). It was the first in a string of publications over the next few years, but even after the Hugheses moved back to Chicago in 1938, she was unable to find a teaching job – this despite the fact that years later her writings on the media came to be regarded as ‘some of the best scholarly studies of news media among all those working on the subject in the 1930s and early ’40s’ (Women in Media Research). Instead, after a five-year period as a stay-at-home mother from 1938 to 1943, she took a job on the editorial staff of the AJS . She remained there in a part-time capacity for 17 years, eventually becoming managing editor. All the while, she did other, related jobs and collaborated in various capacities with her husband as he carried out the research that built his reputation and career. The pattern began when she helped him do the fieldwork for French Canada in Transition , for which she received some acknowledgement, and carried on through other projects for which she received greater and lesser degrees of public recognition. 22
In the end, MacGill Hughes ‘lamented’ that she built a resume, indeed ‘a busy and gratifying life’ (1977: 80), but not a ‘career’. Over her working life, she undertook a remarkable range of duties and published on an impressive, if disparate, list of topics. As well, at various junctures she wrote for the Encyclopedia Brittanica , Time and Scientific Monthly , published articles in mainstream sociology journals such as the AJS , Public Opinion Quarterly , the Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science and so forth. She did a good deal of editorial and related work for the AJS , of course, and undertook similar and related duties at the National Opinion Research Center, including the writing of grant proposals. The subjects of her research ranged from newspapers and the media to race and ethnic relations, occupations, drug addition, delinquency, arthritis (!) and the status of women in sociology (among others).
In an autobiographical essay, reflecting on this eclectic set of accomplishments, she remarks that most of her job opportunities were the result of happenstance rather than design – she recalls never having applied for a job (1977: 80) – and notes that they occurred by happenstance because she simply followed along behind her husband whenever he got a new job. In ‘Wasp/ Woman/ Sociologist’, published in 1977, after she had been involved for some time in the feminist movement and had done research on women’s academic careers, she wrote that before the ‘awakening’ occasioned by her exposure to feminism she had been ‘content […] to let accidental connections and friendly interventions determine the course of [her] life as a sociologist’. ‘Until very recent years’, she wrote, ‘I felt luckier than any woman I knew. I enjoyed an unusual measure of autonomy, was never locked into a routine – and never looked beyond the gratifications of running my own show’ (1977: 80). Later, she was more critical – both of herself and of the structure and ideology of patriarchy that infused the university, the discipline and wider society during her professional lifetime. ‘In the phase when I was a second-class citizen, I did not recognize it and I certainly was not unhappy; I was unalert and stupid concerning my status, as were most women then of theirs’ (1977: 69). This is a curious statement coming from a woman who grew up in a strongly feminist household and regarded her mother’s and grandmother’s feminist views and actions with admiration. In an essay comparing the careers of Everett Hughes and Helen MacGill Hughes, Susan Hoecker-Drysdale notes that MacGill Hughes ‘suppressed’ her feminist outlook for many years until it was ‘awakened’ by the second wave of feminism in the 1970s (1996: 228–9).
Whatever ambivalence or regret MacGill Hughes had about her somewhat scattered career, she was clearly admired and respected by her peers. In 1973 she was presented with the Award of Merit by the Eastern Sociological Association, in 1975 she was nominated for President of the ASA (though not elected) and in 1979 she was chosen as president of the Eastern Sociological Society.
‘Hughesian Sociology’
Everett Hughes’s unconventional teaching and pioneering research practice attracted many students. Indeed, he contributed to the formation of numerous sociologists who became influential in their own right. Above, we listed Becker, Riesman, Strauss, Freidson and Goffman. A more complete list would include inter alia Jean Burnet, Robert Emerson, Herbert Gans, Blanche Geer, Joseph Gusfield, Oswald Hall, Shulamit Reinharz, Donald Roy, Gregory Stone, Barrie Thorne, Gaye Tuchman and William Foote Whyte.
His influence on Goffman is especially noteworthy and instructive, given Goffman’s high profile in the discipline. Goffman probably never attended any of Hughes’s classes, but at least once he attributed to Hughes not only some of his ideas but his whole approach to sociological research, referring to himself as a ‘follower’ of ‘Hughesian sociology’. This is a surprising homage, considering Goffman’s dislike of labels and intellectual schools and his reluctance to reveal his sources. 23 Riesman, Hughes’s colleague and close friend at Chicago, likewise acknowledged Hughes’s strong influence on his life’s work. And Hughes’s direct influence extended to subsequent generations as well. The work of Susan Leigh Star, author of Sorting Things Out (Bowker and Star 1999 ), is one example among many. But perhaps the best example is Becker. Though Hughes disdained the notion of creating a school or a set of followers, the lineage from Hughes to Becker is clear. Indeed, over his career, Becker has frequently underlined the connection, drawing attention to Hughes’s lasting contribution to his formation as a scholar. For example, in 2011 and 2012, Becker made repeated references to Hughes’s influence on him at a pair of sessions at the École des Hautes Études de Sciences Sociales in Paris at which Becker was the featured speaker (Becker, EHESS 2011–12; 2012–13).
But Hughes’s contribution to sociology extends beyond his impact, both personal and scholarly, on important and influential scholars. He was a highly original student of social processes and social life in his own right. In order to understand this point we have to enter more deeply inside Hughes’s conception of the sociological enterprise – what Goffman referred to as ‘Hughesian sociology’. By this the author of Asylums meant a kind of sociological vision that at its core had an exceptional curiosity about ‘small-scale entities’ (e.g., an occupation, a setting, a situation) and relied, above all, on a ‘qualitative, ethnographic perspective’ (Goffman in Verhoeven 1993 : 318) to frame and understand it.
‘Small scale entities’ is an apt expression that describes not only the kind of objects in which Hughes was interested but also the attitude he employed as a social researcher. For him, nothing was too small to be without interest and relevance for sociology. Every detail of social life had some meaning if you were good and patient enough to look for it. This position was extremely useful for practicing the kind of research Hughes privileged and long taught, that is, fieldwork. But we should not miss also the theoretical relevance of this assumption; indeed, it is because he worked at this level of empirical research – situations such as medical emergencies, encounters such as those between white patients and black doctors – that he was able to discover and identify new sociological concepts such as ‘dirty work’ and ‘dilemmas of status’.
As emphasised by Santoro ( 2010a ; 2010b ), occupations were to Hughes privileged entrées for sociological investigation – and this would be true in any occurrence of social life, not only in the economic system or while studying the labour market. 24 They were a crucial aspect of the structure and dynamics of modern societies and a central ingredient of the identities of individuals in the modern world. ‘If you want to understand anything about a man’, Hughes said, ‘you ask him what is his work. What does he do for a living? What you will learn will explain much of how he feels, much of how he thinks, and all of his obituary’ (Hughes quoted by E. Gross, interview by R. Helmes-Hayes, 17 November 1995). Far from being a contingent research object, and as such modifiable and interchangeable with any other, Hughes regarded occupation as both a crucial social reality and a strategic object for sociological analysis. Nobody exists socially without being occupied in doing something and without occupying some place at some time in some wider system. This is the double meaning of occupation, that is, as human activity and as position. We should therefore conceive of occupation as an elementary structure of social life and, likewise, an elementary category of social thought. Be it occupation of the soil or of a certain position in the social division of labour, occupation has to do with the basic conditions of human life. People are always and everywhere socially and spatially grounded (Santoro 2010a ; 2010b ).
Not surprisingly, given the strategic significance of occupations for social analysis, Hughes’s influence on the sociology of work and occupations has been substantial. Indeed, in a sense, we can say that the field exists in good measure because of Hughes and his early courses, teaching and writings. His first contribution to occupational sociology dates to 1928, the year he finished his PhD dissertation, The Growth of an Institution: The Chicago Real Estate Board . The thesis, later published as a book by the same name, was an ethnographic study of an occupation – real estate agents – and its claim to professional status (Hughes 1931 ). He retained this interest in work and occupations throughout his career. At least five books Hughes authored or co-authored, including the classic Men and Their Work (1958), are devoted to the study of occupations. It is to Hughes that contemporary sociologists of occupation (themselves an integral part of the more general sociology of work) owe such profitable concepts as ‘license’, ‘mandate’, ‘career’ and ‘the social drama of work’ – not to speak of original developments from Hughes’s ideas like Andrew Abbott’s notion of ‘jurisdiction’ (Abbott 1988 ).
Another feature of Hughesian sociology is that it is rooted in an ethnographic perspective. With Becker we would argue that Hughes was an authentic and undisputed master of the ethnographic approach as both a research method and a philosophy of social research. This was true in a double sense. First, he was a highly skilled practitioner of the method, singularly talented at discerning patterns in the mess of notes inevitably produced by those doing in situ fieldwork. ‘He was’, as Riesman put it, ‘the star to pull the wagon of fieldwork through the mud of dailiness’ (1983: 481). Second, he introduced more than one generation of American and Canadian sociologists to ethnographic research and taught them how to look at social reality with a sensitive and discerning ethnographical ‘gaze’ or, better, ‘eye’. It is to his teaching, supervision and influence that we owe a series of outstanding ethnographic studies that to this day are considered essential reading for any apprentice to the ethnographer’s art. In addition to those mentioned above we would add Ned Polsky’s Hustlers, Beats and Others (1967); Roy’s ethnography of factory work, later replicated and supplemented by Michael Burawoy (Roy 1959 ; Burawoy 1979 ); Tuchman’s Making News (1978); and Thorne’s Gender Play (1993). Indeed, ethnography has become Hughes’s trademark – not because he was alone in practicing it, of course, but because it was mainly on account of his initiative and teaching that ‘fieldwork’ became an identifiable, self-conscious and acceptable way of doing social research. This was no mean feat in the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s when survey research and other quantitative approaches – largely hostile to the principles and practices of fieldwork – increasingly dominated the discipline (Platt 1995 ; 1998 ). Indeed, even at Chicago the approach had few defender-practitioners and Hughes ‘was almost the only one in the United States at that time to offer such a course’ (Chapoulie 1996 : 15–16).
Though ‘Hughesian sociology’ focuses on small-scale entities, it is, in fact, capable of dealing with a variety of ‘orders’ or ‘levels’ of social reality. We would like to describe briefly at least some of these basic principles and ideas because they help contextualize our discussion of his broad theoretical frame of reference in the section immediately below.
The first such principle is Hughes’s stress on doing ‘detached’ research and analysis. Value considerations (moral as well as political) might enter into the selection of a research problem, but it is the scholar’s privilege – indeed, for Hughes, a duty – to investigate fundamental problems that may have no short-term policy implications. The case for detachment was set forth in Hughes’s presidential address to the ASA, ‘Race Relations and the Sociological Imagination’. There Hughes declared, ‘The kind of freeing of the imagination I am speaking of requires a great and deep detachment, a pursuit of sociological thought and research in a playful mood. But it is a detachment of deep concern and intense curiosity […] [T]‌hose sociologists who will contribute most […] are those so deeply concerned with [human society] as to need a desperate, almost fanatical detachment from which to see it in full perspective’ (1963: 890). For Hughes, the case for policy research should not be pressed at the expense of research based on detachment (see Banton 2005 : 630). Hughes clarified how much one can learn by adopting such an intellectual stance in the paper ‘Bastard Institutions’ ([1951a] 1971), which was, for its time, an impressive attempt to transcend conventional ways of seeing social life by looking for the whole range of possibilities social life might offer to human agents, in their both angelic and diabolic versions. For Hughes, once one adopted this detached perspective, the criminal racket was just one institution like others, not that different from the state. 25
This is not to say that Hughes had no social conscience. Quite the opposite. He was, in fact, a ‘moral man’, much troubled by ‘cruelty, injustice and war’ (Becker, Geer, Riesman and Weiss 1968b : ix, viii). He had strongly held, politically liberal views on social issues, but was leery of tying sociology to political causes in any but extraordinary circumstances (see Helmes-Hayes chapter, this volume).
Second, ‘Hughesian sociology’, deeply rooted in Georg Simmel’s formalism (see Becker 1998 : 1; Helmes-Hayes 1998a : 652; Rock 1979 : 48, 51; Heath 1984 : 220), aimed to discover ‘social patterns’ – in the sense of what Eviatar Zerubavel ( 2007 ) has more recently referred to as ‘social pattern analysis’. Drawing on Simmel, Hughes argued that social interaction should be studied in processual terms and claimed, further, that the primary theoretical purpose of sociology was the discovery of ‘recurring forms of social interaction’ (Hughes 1971b : viii; Chapoulie 1996 : 24). And as Hughes’s friend, Lewis Coser, has pointed out, he was exceptionally good at it. ‘He displayed a genius for discerning similarities of pattern among social phenomena of the most diverse sort, and for inventing constructs – mistakes at work, routinized emergency, bastard institutions, dilemmas and contradictions of status – that threw new light on everyday happenings by viewing them as instances of such general parts’ (1994: 1). What Simmel pioneered, Hughes helped transform into a generalized research approach that students and apprentices (even ‘reluctant’ ones such as Goffman) could imitate and develop further.
Essential to this search for patterns is a third aspect of Hughesian sociology, that is, its stress on comparison. According to Becker, ‘comparison has always been the backbone, acknowledged or not, of good sociological thinking’ and, in his mind, Hughes was the ‘master’ of comparative sociology (2010: 1). Hughes’s emphasis on this principle can be found in the closing sentence of his preface to The Sociological Eye : ‘One of my basic assumptions is that if one quite clearly sees something happen once, it is almost certain to have happened again and again. The burden of proof is on those who claim a thing once seen is an exception; if they look hard, they may find it everywhere, although with some interesting differences in each case’ (1971b: ix). This is the reason that Hughes repeatedly encouraged his students and colleagues to use comparative analysis. A comparative gaze allowed one to draw on multi-contextual evidence in order to develop a transcontextual sociology. This is exactly the strategy Hughes envisioned for the sociological study of work.

The essential problems of men at work are the same whether they do their work in the laboratories of some famous institution or in the messiest vat room of a pickle factory. Until we can find a point of view and concepts which will enable us to make comparisons between the junk peddler and the professor without intent to debunk the one and patronize the other, we cannot do our best work. ([1951b] 1971: 342)
However, the attempt to identify formal patterns implies the capacity to limit one’s attention to only certain aspects of actual situations. Only by learning how to be selectively observant could one stay analytically focused – to see the abstract in the concrete, the general in the specific. To adopt this strategy one had to be willing to repurpose one’s theoretical concepts and to decontextualize one’s empirical findings. But for Hughes this is essential: ‘If one frees his curiosity of the peculiarities of some one time and place by developing a good set of abstract ideas for comparing one case or situation with another, he will see many situations in various parts of the world comparable to those that originally aroused his interest’ ([1956] 1971: 439–40). ‘The more abstract one’s way of conceiving things, the more likely one is to make generic discoveries which apply to many concrete […] phenomena’ (438).
Essential to the fixing of the comparative gaze and the rethinking and/or development of abstractions and concepts were two other notions: ‘marginality’ and the use of what Hughes referred to as ‘free association’. The former, marginality, referred to benefits that come from being an outsider to whatever setting is under investigation. The outsider can see things that insiders miss – or, at least, can see them in a new light – because he or she does not take them for granted (Hughes [1957a] 1971: 529; [1956] 1971: 434–5; see also Weiss 1997 : 548–51; Strauss 1996 : 273–4). The latter, free association, is a wide-ranging and creative, but disciplined, attempt to think about cultural objects and social processes – from multiple settings, familiar and unfamiliar – in novel and revealing ways.

The essence of the sociological imagination is free association, guided but not hampered by a frame of reference internalized not quite into the unconscious […] When people say of my work, as they often do, that it shows insight, I cannot think what they could mean other than whatever quality may have been produced by intensity of observation and a turning of the wheels to find a new combination of the old concepts, or even a new concept. (1971b: vi)
It is the adoption of Simmel’s ‘formal’ sociological imagination, a search for recurring forms and patterns of behaviour, that allows us to see the generic when we look at the specific. From this perspective, we can realize that the setting of statutes of limitations is actually not that different from enacting bankruptcy laws or letting bygones be bygones (Zerubavel 2003 : 9, 94; see also Becker 2010 ). Similarly, studies of ‘lowly’ occupations can, in fact, shed light on work-related behaviour in high-status occupations (Hughes [1951b] 1971: 343). ‘The comparative student of man’s work learns about doctors by studying plumbers; and about prostitutes by studying psychiatrists’ (Hughes [1951c] 1971: 316).
One final point in this regard, to bring the discussion full circle. The style of social pattern analysis Hughes employs is of a special type. While ‘formal’ in the Simmelian sense, it does not abstract totally from time and space. Hughes wrote on a wide range of social issues and phenomena: the industrialization and modernization of French Canada, German social movements, student culture in American colleges, professionalization and the growth and development of various historically contingent institutions, ‘bastard’ and otherwise. In each case, the institutions and social processes he discussed were real entities embedded in concrete spatial and temporal contexts. This suggests that while Hughes was interested in ‘social patterns’, he retained a balance between conceptual abstractness and historical concreteness. In the true Chicago spirit, he never forgot that the social sciences are historical sciences, and that social life is temporalized and located in physical space (see Abbott 2001 ). This was a necessary implication of the ecological approach he adapted from his mentor, Park, and used in modified form in his own research. As the two subsequent sections make clear, Hughes’s general theoretical frame of reference is best understood as a form of ‘interpretive ecology’, that is, as a pioneering attempt to capture in one framework both the ‘objectivism’ of a ‘structuralist’ ecological approach to social life and a ‘subjectivist’ approach to meanings and symbols that is the mark of any interpretivism. In our view, this framework constitutes one of Hughes’s major legacies to contemporary scholarship in the social sciences. 26
Hughes’s Theoretical ‘Frame of Reference’: Interpretive Institutional Ecology 27
It is best to be modest or circumspect in claiming to be able to ‘describe’/‘construct’ Hughes’s general theoretical frame of reference. Indeed, Becker, Chapoulie and others have argued that for three reasons it would be wrong to look for such a thing in his work.

1. Hughes was suspicious of pure or general theory, especially the sort of speculative theorizing undertaken by Parsons. 28 As Joseph Gusfield put it, ‘Hughes always gave me the feeling he considered “theorizing” a waste. Everett was one whose sociology was always “grounded” and [thus he] had a mild distaste for those who “did theory” and avoided grounding’ (J. Gusfield to R. Helmes-Hayes, n.d. [December 1994]). Robert Weiss, Hughes’s colleague at Brandeis said the same thing: ‘Hughes was […] a strong theorist, but one not that interested in developing pure theory in the fashion of Parsons. Everett was a little uncomfortable with people who were too abstract. He thought it was easy to get lost in pure conceptualization’ (R. Weiss to R. Helmes-Hayes, 23 March 1995). And it is not just that Hughes did not ‘do’ theory in the sense that Parsons ‘did theory’.
2. Some commentators on Hughes’s work argue that there is no coherent, general theory to be found in his oeuvre. As Becker put it, ‘Hughes had no love for abstract theory […] He thought that there were theories about specific things like race and ethnicity or the organization of work, but that there wasn’t any such animal as theory in general’ (1998: 1). ‘He had, rather, a theoretically informed way of working […] His theory was not designed to provide all the conceptual boxes into which the world had to fit. It consisted, instead, of a collection of generalizing tricks he used to think about society, tricks that helped him interpret and make general sense of data’ (1998: 3). Chapoulie makes a related point: ‘Freely developing a small number of concepts, [Hughes’s] work offers a collection of subtly elaborated ideas that outline an analytic perspective on social reality. But these essays, in form and content, scarcely resemble what is understood today as “theory”’ (1996: 21).
3. In fact, for Chapoulie, the very act of searching for, identifying and codifying the theoretical content of Hughes’s work would be to misrepresent its nature and purpose. ‘You postulate that there is a quasi-complete coherence and unity in the work of Hughes. I think it’s not true for Hughes and for all serious research in the social sciences. These works are historical products shaped by a genuine approach (or point of view), but also by historical contingencies, and there is not a core in these intellectual products you can prove you have discovered (J.-M. Chapoulie to R. Helmes-Hayes, 9 June 1995; see also Chapoulie 1987 : 278–9). To look for and outline Hughes’s theoretical frame of reference would, he says, do an injustice to ‘the investigative spirit at the centre of his sociology’. (1996: 21, 12; see also Becker to R. Helmes-Hayes, 31 December 1994; interview of Becker with Helmes-Hayes, 16 November 1993)
In our view, this representation of Hughes as a ‘theorist’ should be reconsidered. Part of the problem is our disciplinary conception of what a theory is, what theorizing looks like and, thus, who gets to wear the mantle of theorist. What does it mean to say one is a ‘theorist’? What do we mean when we say Hughes is a theorist? We certainly do not claim that Hughes was a theorist on the model of Parsons or Habermas. However, we can reasonably say that he regarded theory as crucial to the sociological enterprise and that he used and developed it over his career. Becker himself points out that ‘Hughesian sociology’ was larded throughout with intellectual devices and conceptual innovations – ‘tricks of the trade’ (1998) – which might be understood as ingredients of a truly theoretical approach to sociological investigation (see also Simpson 1972 : 547; Strauss 1996 : 281; Strauss to Helmes-Hayes, 2 November 1994; Emerson 1997 : 40). We acknowledge that he never wrote the ‘little book of theory’ mentioned by Becker – a modest volume that would have distilled ‘the essence of [Hughes’s] theoretical position’ from the ‘nuggets of sociological generalizations scattered throughout his essays and books’ (Becker 1998 : 1). However, none of this means that there was no general theoretical frame of reference to be gleaned from Hughes’s writings.
Such is the claim Rick Helmes-Hayes makes in ‘Everett Hughes: Theorist of the Second Chicago School’ (1998a; see also 1998b; 2005). There Helmes-Hayes argues that Hughes was a ‘social theorist’ in his own right and that there is a theoretical ‘frame of reference’ 29 to be found by a close reading of Hughes’s work. ‘The fact that Hughes did not outline his frame of reference in the self-consciously coherent and comprehensive way that today’s tastes demand’, Helmes-Hayes writes, ‘does not mean that there isn’t a relatively coherent and comprehensive theory to be found in his oeuvre [… and] systematized’ (1998a: 633). Once systematized, insofar as this is possible and appropriate, Helmes-Hayes argues, this frame of reference is found to be ‘abstract, generalizable, empirically grounded and reflexive’ (1998a: 633; see Hughes [1957a] 1971: 525–6). 30 Moreover, it is directly and symbiotically tied to an equally reflexive, complementary ‘methodological orientation’ Hughes developed and employed (see Helmes-Hayes, ‘Studying “Going Concerns”: Everett C. Hughes on Method’ [2010]; reproduced in the present volume). The last mentioned feature – reflexivity – is especially crucial and appealing in Helmes-Hayes’s view because it means that Hughes’s theoretical/methodological approach ‘is capable of describing itself in the same way that it describes other aspects of social reality’. That is, ‘like other aspects of social reality, Hughes’s perspective is a ‘going concern’ – elusive, multi-sided, changeable and lacking closure’ (1998a: 633).
In our estimation there is much that is theoretically interesting and valuable in Hughes’s writings. We acknowledge that Hughes did not produce either an elaborate, complex and highly abstract system of conceptual categories or a philosophically inclined critical theory of the type we have become accustomed to reading in recent decades. Nonetheless, he had highly developed conceptual skills, a keen critical and political eye, and always kept theoretical concerns in mind. As a result, when read as a whole, his work can be seen to contain a general theoretical ‘frame of reference’ that can be outlined ‘without violating either the investigative spirit or the tentative and processual character of the approach’ (Helmes-Hayes 1998a : 633).
Helmes-Hayes’s article refers to Hughes’s frame of reference as interpretive institutional ecology . 31 It has two aspects, one microsociological, the other meso-/macrosociological. The micro- (or interpretive) aspect is based on a set of concepts – social interaction, institution, the definition of the situation, process, careers and so on (1998a: 649) – drawn from the work of William Graham Sumner, Charles Horton Cooley, Park, Thomas and, above all, Simmel. Hughes used this framework to examine ‘the typical processes by which people in face-to-face interaction situations individually and collectively interpret “reality” and then uncritically use or intersubjectively renegotiate […] institutionalized forms of social behaviour appropriate to that reality as they have defined it’ (653). This is the ‘interpretive’, ‘interactionist’ Hughes so familiar to students of the Chicago School. 32
Not so well known are the meso- and macrosociological elements of his approach based on an ecological and functionalist analysis of institutions. Most sociologists see Hughes as an interpretive/interactionist scholar (see, e.g., Prus, 1996 : 125–32), but Hughes’s own view was that he was an ‘ecologist’. Note the following claim, made in 1977: ‘I think I can rightly claim to have trod the ecological path from my graduate school days until now’ (Everett C. Hughes Papers, Boston College, Box 5, file ‘Memorandum on possible lecture at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville’, 8 March 1977). Like Park and Roderick McKenzie, he was interested in the macrosociological factors and processes that affected the distribution of people and institutions in physical and social space. For him, ecological analysis was an essential part of sociological research: ‘It is not probable that any institution could be completely understood without study of the ecological conditions of survival of its operating units’ (Hughes 1969 : 159; see also 1936: 188). Thus he retained elements of the classical Chicago approach: a focus on the ecological struggle for survival among competing individuals, groups and institutions (which he often referred to as ‘enterprises’ or ‘going concerns’); a concern with the ‘natural history’ of institutions; the sense of society as an organic system and a web of reciprocal social relations; and so forth (ECH Papers, UCHI, Box 100, Folder 13; ‘A Proposal for the Study of the Dynamics of Rural Culture and Institutions, 1945’, 6 November 1945; see also Hughes 1936 ; 1939 ; 1946 ; 1957b ; 1969 ; Simpson 1972 : 550; Riesman and Becker 1984 : xi–xii). The purpose of this aspect of his approach, according to Helmes-Hayes, was to provide ‘a solid ecological understanding of the broader institutional framework within which […] interpretive (formalist-interactionist) analyses of face-to-face interaction milieux might be developed’. More specifically, its purpose was to deal with (a) ‘the meso-sociological description and explanation of typical […] social processes operational at the level of single institutions’ (see, e.g., Hughes 1931 : 2, 6–8; 1939: 304–9; 1969: 147–53) and (b) ‘the explication of phenomena such as industrialization, colonialization, power and social class in terms of the logic of inter-institutional relations at the level of what we now refer to as macrosociology’ (Hughes 1939 : 289–95; 1969: 130–7; see Chapoulie 1996 : 21 and Helmes-Hayes 1998a : 637; 1998b).
However, to say that Hughes viewed himself as an ecologist and to argue that he used the ecological approach is not to claim that he employed classical human ecology in an unthinking way. Hughes recognized the shortcomings of Park’s approach and developed a version of ecology that incorporated some aspects of the classical approach and modified or excised others (Helmes-Hayes 1998a : 626–33; 1998b; see also Faught 1980 : 74, 79). In addition, he added elements from other theoretical perspectives; for example, from anthropological functionalism he picked up Alfred Radcliffe-Brown’s concept of ‘function’ (Hughes 1939 : 290; 1936: 187; see Helmes-Hayes 1998a : 646; 1998b). Despite these modifications, which gave the frame of reference a structuralist side or component, Hughes’s approach remained dualistic.
In the paragraphs immediately above, we have outlined some of the basic elements of Hughes’s theoretical frame of reference. It is possible to look at Hughes’s theoretical orientation in another way as well. That is, rather than looking at the pieces and kinds of theory he cobbled together to develop his frame of reference, we can describe some of the theoretical and methodological principles that undergirded his approach to doing sociology.
Hughes’s Underlying Theoretical Principles
Hughes’s vision of what social life is and how it should be studied – a relatively comprehensive set of theoretical principles – is very different from the general systems of such theoretically minded scholars as Parsons, Habermas or Luhmann. Instead, it resembles in content and style the approaches of such scholars as Norbert Elias, Goffman and Bourdieu.

1. What we call ‘society’ looks like a bundle of interactions.
2. Interactions are both interpersonal, face-to-face and subjectively experienced and objective, that is, identifiable by scholars on the basis of observations and documentary records, independently of the actors’ consciousness – even if the latter is the primary source of data for social observers. This means that there is a social structure that is made of interpersonal interactions but extends beyond them.
3. If society is a bundle of interactions, then social phenomena are continuously in flux, that is, they have a processual nature. Change is inscribed in social life, though evolutionary models are not the best way to capture this changing nature of social life, even if the Chicago notion of ‘natural history’ makes a case for an idea of change as a recurrent succession, or sequence, of stages.
4. Every social object – a norm, an institution, a social group, even a social representation – is a historical product situated in specific spatial-temporal coordinates. It is context-dependent and should not be analysed exclusively in general and abstract ways.
5. Every social object is what it is thanks not to some mysterious ‘essence’ but because of the system of relations in which it is embedded. Even when studying an individual object, such as an occupation, the task of sociology is to locate this object in a larger field of social relations.
6. Sociology is the study of recursive forms of interaction (collective action) that are constantly being made and remade – even disappearing, for that is always an open possibility. Sociology is also, however, the study of persistent social rules, norms, folkways and institutions, which impinge on that interaction, not in a predetermined, or fixed, way but according to the social uses people make of the rules in their local and temporally defined context. Norms are not fixed entities, but are subject to interpretation and manipulation, even distortion, by those who are supposed to be regulated by them. However, social actors’ agency has limits; it is historically and spatially constrained. These limits have to be empirically determined.
7. Language is a crucial ingredient of social life and must be studied carefully. Social situations are what they are because of the ways in which they are defined. Such definitions depend on the social uses of terms and vocabularies. As language is a social tool, crucial in social intercourse, it should be a key focus of sociological investigation. Since language is an instrument, possibly the instrument, of objectification and reification, the analysis of language is the best antidote against ethnocentrism. 33
8. Sociology has to be rigorously non-ethnocentric, even if ethnocentrism is a common feature of social life. Sociology must be a cosmopolitan enterprise. This is why the comparative gaze is crucial.
In our view, the centrality and strategic mission granted to language and to the analysis of words and symbolic tools makes Hughesian sociology an important – and curiously neglected – forerunner of current cultural sociology. That is, it is an important forerunner to the ‘cultural turn’ that has marked contemporary sociology. This attention to language as a natural means of social life is pivotal, and it accounts for Hughes’s interest in redefining ordinary language terms (career, drama, restriction, turning point, mandate, license and so on) in order to make them into analytical tools. Hughes was not an inventor of technical neologisms but a forger of definitions for selected terms from the ordinary linguistic repertoire (Demazière and Dubar 1997). This makes his sociological writings not only extraordinarily readable but also apparently easy – even if under the surface there is a complex reasoning.
Hughes’s Contemporary Relevance: Bibliometric Evidence
A return to Hughes, especially a revisiting of his intellectual example and teachings, can be justified for reasons other than a nostalgic homage to a forgotten master. As the pages above make clear, Hughes dealt sensitively and intelligently with a range of complex issues that continues to engage the discipline, issues best captured, perhaps, under the heading of the problem of structure and agency (see Coser 1994 : 1). Moreover, ethnographic research now has a high profile in social research, thanks in part to the rise of cultural studies and other transdisciplinary approaches that are especially sensitive to issues of subjectivity, interpretation and experience. Given these circumstances, it seems time to re-engage Hughes’s writings and reconsider his influence. In short, it is our view that Hughes’s work should constitute a familiar part of the corpus of everyday sociology. Certainly, it rewards those who read it, use it and assess it.
Earlier in the introduction we described in general terms the spread of interest in Hughes’s work in France and Italy and, to a lesser degree, in other parts of Europe. Russia, Brazil and Poland can now be added to the list. In the pages that follow, we offer bibliometric evidence to document Hughes’s impact on the social sciences since his death. Our starting point is a search conducted in the ISI Web of Knowledge, looking for trends in the citation of Hughes’s work – both in general and vis-à-vis his three major books (1958; 1971a; Becker, Geer, Hughes and Riesman 1961). In total, we identified 2,403 texts (articles and reviews) published in scientific periodicals since 1985 (the first year covered by ISI Web) that cited or referred to at least one of Hughes’s publications. 34 This body of texts offers useful information about (1) the timing of the reception of Hughes’s work; (2) the geographical spread of his ideas; (3) the languages in which his work has been published/discussed; and (4) the disciplines/research areas (and publications) that have demonstrated a receptiveness to Hughes’s work.
The first thing to note (see Fig. 0.1 ) is that Hughes’s profile in the social scientific literature is modest compared to the profiles of other major figures such as Merton, Goffman or Bourdieu. References to Hughes in the time span under investigation hover around 80 per year, with a substantial uptick since 2007. References to the others mentioned amount to hundreds each year. This is hardly news, of course. More interesting is that while Hughes’s presence is modest, it is relatively steady. Hughes died in 1983, so our data pertain specifically to his post-mortem reception. Looking at individual works in Hughes’s oeuvre, we do not find highly significant differences in the number of citations, though Boys in White usually draws more citations than other pieces. This means that Hughes’s reputation rests less on any single magnum opus or foundational article than on the broad set of ideas he discussed in a wide array of venues.


Figure 0.1 Total references to Everett Hughes, and to three selected books authored or co-authored by him, in ISI Web of Science, 1985–2014
Source : ISI Web of Science.
Second (see Table 0.1 ), citations of Hughes’s work are found overwhelmingly in the English-language literature – 93.5 per cent of all citations – though there are signs it is slowly being extended to French (3.6 per cent) and other languages (i.e., Italian, German, Portuguese). 35 Third, while the circulation of Hughes’s ideas continues to be based largely in the United States, his work has a substantial profile in other countries, especially the United Kingdom and Canada. As one might expect, France is the (continental) European country where Hughes’s ideas have circulated most, followed by Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. More surprising are data about the penetration of Hughes in countries in the so-called Global South, that is, Australia, China and Brazil. Surprisingly, Italy is near the bottom of this ranking.

Table 0.1 References to Everett Hughes in ISI Web of Science, 1985 to present^, top five countries (minimum 60 citing texts)
USA
1252
52
UK (England + Wales + Scotland)
468
19.5
Canada
245
10.2
France
118
4.9
Australia
60
2.5

Source : Elaboration on data from ISI Web of Science.
^ November 2015.
With respect to the disciplines/research areas in which Hughes’s works are cited (see Table 0.2 ), sociology ranks at the top, though his research is frequently cited in economics/business, education and psychology journals as well. 36 Some specialized research areas Hughes cultivated during his career, for example, nursing, rank relatively high, a sign of a persistent presence – and possibly strength of impact – on these fields. More striking is the wide dispersion of his ideas across research areas. There are references to his work in over 50 disciplines as disparate and ‘far from home’ as veterinary medicine, reproductive biology, neurology and rehabilitation. However, if we recall that Hughes devoted large part of his research to the study professional education, especially in the health sector, and to the study of issues of identity at work, these apparent anomalies make sense. Nonetheless, the data also suggest that Hughes’s impact on research and scholarship may be difficult to assess because of its wide but ‘thin’ dispersion.

Table 0.2 References to Everett Hughes in ISI Web of Science, 1985 to present^, by research areas (first 15 research areas only) Research Area N % Sociology 780 32.4* Business, Economics 380 15.8 Education Educational Research 326 13.6 Psychology 291 12.1 Social Sciences (Other Topics) 200 8.3 Public Environmental, Occupational Health 197 8.2 Biomedical Social Sciences 157 6.5 Health Care Sciences Services 130 5.4 Nursing 82 3.4 Government Law 75 3.1 Criminology, Penology 65 2.7 Urban Studies 61 2.5 Communication 60 2.5 Anthropology 55 2.3 History 45 1.8

Source : ISI Web of Science.
^ : November 2015.
* Note : Percentage figures do not add to 100 per cent because the same reference might be classified into more than one research area (e.g., Sociology and Urban Studies). Thus, the percentage figures are to be read as follows: 32.4 per cent of the references to Hughes’s writings occurred in journals classified by ISI as pertaining to ‘Sociology’; 15.8 per cent of the references to Hughes’s writings occurred in journals classified by ISI as pertaining to ‘Business, Economics’, and so on.
By comparison, there is a clear pattern to the journals in which Hughes’s works are cited. Most citations occur in social science journals, especially sociology journals (see Table 0.3 ). At the top of the list is the flagship journal of the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction, Symbolic Interaction , with 66 articles referring to Hughes. This is hardly surprising, given Hughes’s high status in this intellectual tradition. Equally understandable is his presence in journals devoted to medical sociology and ethnography. Also worthy of notice, and not unexpected, is the frequent citation of Hughes’s work in two high-profile French journals, that is, Revue Francaise de Sociologie and Sociologie du travail . There are three influential British journals on the list, including Sociology , the flagship journal of the British Sociological Association, and two core Canadian journals. However, the two main American sociology journals, the American Sociological Review and the American Journal of Sociology (AJS) figure relatively low in the ranking. This is surprising, considering that Hughes was for a long time the editor of the AJS . His lack of profile in Social Problems , the journal of the Society for the Study of Social Problems, is likewise perplexing. Hughes served as vice president of the organization in 1960–1 and published one of his most famous and influential articles – ‘Good People and Dirty Work’ – in Social Problems in 1962 (1962] 1971). Besides medicine and ethnography, journals devoted to organizations and occupations are likely to cite Hughes’s works, for example, Organizational Studies , Administrative Science Quarterly and Work and Occupations . Noteworthy is the citation of his work in management and business journals such as the Academy of Management Journal and the Academy of Management Review. 37

Table 0.3 References to Everett Hughes in ISI Web of Science, 1985 to present^, by source (i.e., journal title) (first 18 only) Journal Title N Symbolic Interaction 66 Social Science & Medicine 59 Sociology of Health & Illness 49 Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 42 Human Relations 32 Sociological Quarterly 32 Journal of Health & Social Behavior 27 Journal of Advanced Nursing 25 Revue française de sociologie 25 Work & Occupations 23 American Journal of Sociology 22 Academic Medicine 19 American Sociological Review 19 Organization Studies 19 Sociologie du travail 19 Medical Education 18 Social Problems 18 Sociology (Journal of the British Sociological Association) 18 Administrative Science Quarterly 17 Academy of Management Journal 16

Source : ISI Web of Science.
^ November 2015.
Authors who make use of Hughes’s work and/or ideas include some of the most well-known figures in sociology: Hughes’s collaborator and student par excellence, Becker, and Gary Alan Fine, one of the most active ethnographers and symbolic interactionist spokespersons of recent times. Authors who cite Hughes’s work in the field of work and professions (including medicine) include Stephen Timmerman, Julia Evetts, Christian Heath and Robert Dingwall, the last-mentioned an outspoken representative of symbolic interactionism. It is also worth noting the presence of Stephen Barley, a leading theorist of organization; Star, a leading scholar in the field of science and technology studies; and Candace West, a renowned sociologist of gender. All the numbers are small, however: Fine heads the list with 14 citations of Hughes’s work. Well-known texts in which Hughes’s works are cited include Doing Gender (West and Zimmermann 1987) and ‘Institutional Ecology, “Translations” and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39’ (Star and Griesemer 1989 ). In each case, the authors not only cite his work but also use it as a source of ideas for building their respective main arguments. 38
The ISI Web of Science covers only a relatively small subset of English-language, US- and UK-based scientific periodicals. Since 1997, data in ISI Web of Science also cover Latin American journals, thanks to the inclusion of the SCielo database among its sources. However, still excluded are most journals published in Europe and elsewhere. Thus, its representativeness is limited to top journals and certain geopolitical areas. In order to complement and supplement our data, we searched an additional database, that is, the Europe-based Scopus . While including almost all of the journals covered by ISI, Scopus contains also a large number of European journals. Figures 0.2 and 0.3 compare references to The Sociological Eye and Men and their Work according to ISI and Scopus.


Figure 0.2 References to The Sociological Eye in ISI Web of Science and Scopus, 1971–2014


Figure 0.3 References to Men and Their Work in ISI Web of Science and Scopus, 1971–2014
References to Hughes’s two most important books are more numerous in Scopus than in ISI, but show similar patterns of circulation and reception (see Table 0.4 ): (1) They are cited predominantly in English-language sources, followed at a distance by French-language sources. (2) They are cited predominantly in US and UK sources followed by sources in Canada, France, Australia and Germany. What emerges from Scopus is a wider circulation out of Western Europe and North America, and some indications of the spread of Hughes’s ideas to Eastern Asia and Africa. (3) Hughes is cited predominantly in the social sciences (especially sociology), followed by business, medicine and psychology. (4) The list of journals titles in which his work is cited is similar to the list generated by an analysis of the ISI database, though some journals not included in the latter appear in the former (e.g., Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung ) and some of the journals included are more prominent in the discipline (e.g., Theory and Society ).

Table 0.4 Properties of texts citing The Sociological Eye or Men and Their Work according to Scopus, 1971 to present^ (N = 1178) Language English (1,079), French (55), Portuguese (19), German (15), Spanish (6) Chinese (3), Dutch (3), Italian (2), Russian (2), Japanese (1), Slovak (1), Swedish (1) Country United States (452), United Kingdom (243), Canada (88), France (78) Australia (43), Germany (39), Sweden (21), Netherlands (17), Switzerland (16), Brazil (14), Denmark (14), Belgium (13), Spain (12), Finland (11), Italy (10), etc. Subject Area Social Sciences (796), Business, Management and Accounting (258), Medicine (176), Psychology (148), Arts and Humanities (87), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (78), Nursing (65), Health Professions (28), Computer Science (27), Decision Sciences (22), Engineering (20), etc. Source Title Social Science and Medicine (35), Symbolic Interaction (28) Sociology of Health and Illness (25), Qualitative Sociology (22) Human Relations (14), Revue Francaise de Sociologie (11) Gender Work and Organization (10), Current Sociology (10) American Sociologist (10), Journal of Contemporary Ethnography (10), etc.

^ November 2015.
Indeed, the greater representativeness of this source, and the greater number of journals covered makes it possible to focus not just on citations in the body of an essay or other source but also to document references to Hughes’s work and ideas that appear in the inner core of articles, that is, in their titles and/or abstracts and/or keywords. This is a more direct way to assess Hughes’s presence and relevance in contemporary scholarship than the simple (and often purely ritual or highly contingent) bibliographic references to various of his texts.
Between 1995 and 2015, 24 articles indexed by Scopus referred to Hughes either in their title or, more often, their abstract. The countries involved were the United States (7), France (5), United Kingdom (3), Canada (2) and, with one each, Belgium, Brazil and Sweden. The subject areas range from the Social Sciences (21) to Arts and Humanities (5), Medicine (3), Business, Management and Accounting (2), Psychology (2), Decision Sciences (1) and Economics, Econometrics and Finance (1). The dispersion among journals is very high: only two journals, the Journal of Contemporary Ethnography (2) and Symbolic Interaction (2), have more than one article. Other journals listed include those in sociology (e.g., Sociological Inquiry , Sociological Theory , Sociologie du travail , Tidsskrift for Samfunnsforskning ); organization ( Accounting Organizations and Society ); economics ( Consumption Markets and Culture ); history of ideas ( Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences ); medicine ( Historia Ciencias Saude Manguinhos , Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy ); religious studies ( Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion ); education ( Education et Sociétés ); and history and literature ( Annales de Bretagne et des Pays de l’Ouest ). Looking at the contents of the citing texts, five are studies of Hughes and his work (Strauss 1996 ; Chapoulie 1996 ; Helmes-Hayes 1998a ; 2000 ; Guth 2010 ); one is a study on Goffman dealing with his relationship to Hughes (Jaworski 2000 ); and another is a celebrative assessment of Boys in White (Nunes and de Barros 2014). Apart from an article on Quebec (Fournier 2001 ) that refers to Hughes as a founder of Canadian sociology, all the other texts invoke Hughes as the inventor of one or more concepts (e.g., dirty work, master status, moral division of labour) that are used in the citing article, or as a major, if not iconic, representative of the Chicago School (e.g., Vienne 2005 ). Taken together, the image of Hughes these texts transmit is that he is a scholar whose name is relatively well established and who is firmly associated with a set of key concepts to be found in the toolbox of the social researcher. This contrasts with the image that emerges from studies that focus on Hughes’s work in the style of intellectual biography. In these studies he is portrayed as a worthy and insightful scholar whose work should be better known.
This Book
This book describes Hughes’s formation and oeuvre and offers an outline and critical assessment of a number of Hughes’s contributions to sociological theory and method while trying to guide readers to an understanding of his current legacy. It includes ten chapters: two were previously published, and eight appear for the first time in this volume.
The opening chapter, by Chapoulie is the one that most directly and broadly addresses Hughes’s contribution. The essay, which originally appeared in Sociological Theory in 1996, offers a description and assessment of Hughes’s work that sets it in the context of American sociology and, more particularly, the so-called Chicago School. In Chapoulie’s view, there was no such school for Hughes to join, even had he been so inclined – which he was not. So Hughes is best thought of not as a latter-day representative of the Chicago School but as a bridging figure between the Chicago ‘tradition’ – a ‘collective enterprise’ characterized by only ‘partial intellectual coherence’ – and subsequent generations of students. He argues that Hughes developed an approach that retained some theoretical and methodological sensibilities and elements from the time of Park but refused to ‘preserve the tradition’ and be a ‘representative’ of the school. He stresses Hughes’s role as a champion and shepherd of fieldwork in the 1940s and 1950s. As well, he discusses Hughes’s reliance on the essay as a form of communication, his use of everyday language and his informal style of writing. Chapoulie concludes by arguing that Hughes practised sociology as a ‘craft’ that drew sensitively and creatively on (1) a wide range of theoretical ideas and frameworks and (2) a sophisticated, deeply reflexive conception of methodology. The result? ‘Original’, ‘stimulating’ and ‘consequential’ research, wise commentary on a broad array of disciplinary and societal problems and disputes, and ‘inspiration’ for those who engage with his perspective.
Helmes-Hayes picks up on many of the themes discussed in Chapoulie’s chapter but focuses on Hughes’s methodological thinking and practice. He argues that Hughes’s methodological orientation can be outlined in terms of eleven interrelated ‘principles’. There is, he says, an integral connection between Hughes’s methodological ‘orientation’ and his overall theoretical ‘frame of reference’. Perhaps the most unusual feature of Helmes-Hayes’s argument is his claim that Hughes’s theoretical frame of reference and methodological orientation contain a view of how to live a reflective and reflexive life as a scholar-citizen. Helmes-Hayes’s contention is that Hughes did not, as the conventional wisdom would suggest, everywhere and always separate sociology and politics.
To provide readers with a sense of Hughes as a person and a scholar, we begin the balance of the collection with a biographical chapter by Vienne. For the past 15 years, France, more than any country outside the United States, has been a site of increasing interest in Hughes’s teaching and writings. In part, this has been a consequence of Bourdieu’s mediated reception of Goffman and in part due to efforts described above by Becker and Chapoulie. Vienne’s interest in Hughes is grounded in this recent but well-established Francophone interest in Chicago, interactionism and fieldwork. He thus frames his chapter as an account of Hughes’s formation as a field researcher and inspiring proponent and teacher of fieldwork.
The chapter by Jacqueline Low and Gary Bowden extends Vienne’s account of Hughes’s intellectual legacy by detailing his contribution to the institutionalization of sociology in Canada. They do so employing the term ‘the Chicago School diaspora’, though their use of the term ‘diaspora’ is a novel one. For them, the use of the term is not meant to invoke ‘an image of the scattering of a people’. Rather, they want to employ it to ‘conceptualize how key ideas and symbolic representations of key figures that people associate with the Chicago School have been dispersed and taken up by scholars, many of whom cannot claim any relationship with the Sociology Department at the University of Chicago’. In their rendering, the spread of various facets of the Chicago School, so-called, is best understood as a consequence of the fact that ‘there is no absolute agreement on what is meant by the cultural object known as the Chicago School’. They then draw on a very Hughesian-style analogy – the Chicago School as a ‘Swiss army knife’ – to argue that the idea of the Chicago School is best understood as ‘a multifaceted tool with no predefined purpose’ but many potential uses and capacities. For some scholars it is Blumerian symbolic interactionism; for others, Park’s human ecology and so on. Scholars use it for all these purposes, they say, but inappropriately ‘conflate the ‘tool’ they are using with the entirety of the Swiss army knife toolkit that is the Chicago School’.
The chapter by Douglas Harper speaks directly to one of the most consequential aspects of Hughes’s legacy, that is, his impact on the development of fieldwork. Harper earned his PhD at Brandeis University in 1975 and was among the last students Hughes supervised. Harper’s project, described here, was a fieldwork-based study of the culture of railroad tramps who earn a sporadic income travelling (illegally) by rail to pick fruit in various parts of the United States. In his sensitive and respectful chapter, Harper recalls Hughes’s efforts to encourage him to see these men not as ‘misfits’ but as migrant workers whose unusual habits fit the needs of an agricultural economy based on seasonal labour. A distinctive aspect of the project – and a subsequent book that Harper produced from the thesis (Harper 1982 ) – was that photography was integral to the fieldwork. Harper’s recollection of his discussions of these photographs with Hughes showed him to be both teacher and student as he helped Harper to understand society sociologically using visual tools and visually based insights that would supplement a more traditional, text-based form of communication.
The subsequent chapter, by Christian Fleck, provides a fascinating account of a consequential ‘non-event’ in Hughes’s career, that is, the University of Chicago Press’s curious decision not to publish Hughes’s fieldwork-based study of the post-World War II culture of silence that developed among Germans – citizens, scholars, bureaucrats – regarding Nazi efforts to exterminate the Jews, Slavs and gypsies. In the course of describing and explaining how such atrocities could be committed, ignored, even condoned (see Hughes’s memorandum ‘Innocents Abroad, 1948: Or How to Behave in Occupied Germany’, first published in Sociologica 2 [2010d]), Hughes developed the concept of ‘dirty work’. When the University of Chicago Press declined to publish the manuscript, Hughes put the materials aside. Not until 1962, at the urging of Becker, did he publish the iconic essay ‘Good People and Dirty Work’ in Social Problems . Fleck’s chapter is interesting and significant for a number of reasons. Two in particular stand out for our purposes. First, Fleck’s chapter complements perfectly Harper’s essay on Hughes as a proponent of fieldwork. Here is a first-person account of Hughes’s efforts to understand the culture of silence around the Holocaust. We get to hear from Hughes the fieldworker instead of hearing about him from others. Second, it describes the genesis of one of Hughes’s most famous concepts: ‘dirty work’. Historically, scholars have pounced on these nuggets – ‘the drama of work’, ‘routinized emergencies’, ‘total institutions’ – as the core of Hughes’s theoretical contribution to the discipline.
The chapter by Lisa Jo van den Scott and Deborah van den Hoonard picks up on precisely this theme, that is, Hughes’s conceptual contribution. We noted above that Hughes is well known for his development of useful concepts such as dirty work. We also argued that his theoretical and conceptual contribution is less well known than it should be. Van den Scott and van den Hoonard illustrate precisely this point by documenting the genesis and development of the concept ‘master status’, a term developed by Hughes and now widely used in sociology. Drawing on data generated by a Google Scholar web search, they show how the concept, originally framed in Hughes’s 1945 article ‘Dilemmas and Contradictions of Status’, came to be part of the taken-for-granted lexicon of sociology. They then demonstrate further how it has been appropriated and modified over the years, applied in settings for purposes very different than those he intended – often, too, without citing him. Their chapter is, thus, more than an exercise in terminological archaeology. It is an illustration of the point we made above that he is a more influential sociologist than most scholars appreciate.
The last two chapters in the collection – one by Izabela Wagner, the other by Neil McLaughlin and Stephen Steinberg – offer very different interpretations of Hughes’s historical legacy and contemporary usefulness.
Wagner’s chapter is the most enthusiastically positive treatment of Hughes’s work in the volume. Wagner, a student of Chapoulie and others of the ‘Chicago School in Paris’, is a long-time fieldworker. She regards Hughes as a ‘creative’ and ‘inspiring’ scholar and frames her chapter as an illustration of the usefulness of Hughesian-style ethnography. She draws on a number of Hughes’s methodological injunctions but in particular his stress on the utility of extreme comparisons. Her chapter reports on two very different groups of people – musicians and scientists – who live, in a sense, in two very different social worlds. One group performs in public; the other works in the closed confines of a research laboratory. As well, the groups are different in age. Many of the violin virtuosos are children, while all of the research scientists are adults. Despite these and other differences, some things bind them together. Both groups are seen by the public at large as individual ‘geniuses’ in search of ‘excellence’. But this impression, she argues, is partly false – and herein lies the importance of fieldwork. The fieldwork she undertook allowed her to demonstrate that whatever excellence or genius elite musicians and scientists might demonstrate as individuals, it is in part the outcome of a process of social construction. Musicians and scientists alike benefit from efforts made on their behalf by workers who do behind-the-scenes labour that ‘creates’ or ‘enables’ the genius/excellence demonstrated by elite musicians and scientists.
McLaughlin and Steinberg’s assessment of Hughes is the diametrical opposite. Like other critics of the Chicago School/Chicago tradition, they take Chicago sociology in general and Everett Hughes in particular to task for what they regard as an egregious failure of nerve and insight. The focus of their analysis is Hughes’s treatment of the race question in the United States, more specifically, his failure to appreciate the depth and significance of racial inequality in the United States in the early 1960s. McLaughlin and Steinberg are respectful of Hughes’s personal moral and political opposition to racism, but unlike other contributors to the volume – and unlike other scholars who have praised Hughes’s contributions to the field of race and ethnic relations – they see his approach to and understanding of the race question as profoundly and irremediably flawed. The chapter provides a cogent and welcome counterpoint to the balance of the book. As editors, we were cognizant throughout the writing and editing process that the collection might tend in the direction of a Festschrift. This is not surprising, given that many of us are admirers of Hughes’s work, but it would do no justice to Hughes if that is all it was.

Notes
1 An exception is Helmes-Hayes ( 2005 ).
2 Hughes served as department chair, 1952–6.
3 After returning to McGill, Hughes taught a course on social movements that students referred to as ‘Hughes on the Nazis’ (Hughes 1971b : xv).
4 Hughes’s efforts did not help establish Chicago-style sociology in Germany (Fleck 2011 ). Almost nothing by Hughes has been translated into German. An exception is Hughes’s preface to Kracauer ( 1959 ).
5 Discussed below.
6 Hughes’s connection to French sociology dates to the late 1940s, but only in the last two decades has this relation been cemented (Tréanton 1997 : 73).
7 Others in this group are Michel Briand, Jean Peneff and Henri Peretz.
8 While the publisher of the Hughes volume is the same publisher that produced Italian versions of Goffman’s work, the editor of the Hughes volume, Santoro, discovered Hughes not through Goffman but via other avenues: (i) research in the sociology of professions and of ethnic relations (including migration); (ii) French social theory, especially the work of Bourdieu; and (iii) a search for alternative guides for doing empirical social research, specifically ethnographic methods. The latter gained a wide following in Italy after 2000. Textbooks were published and in 2008 a new journal devoted to this approach ( Etnografia e Ricerca Qualitativa ) was established. Despite these developments, Hughes’s work is rarely referred to in this literature, which is more attuned to critical and postmodern versions of ethnography than ‘classical’ ones.
9 In 2008 and 2009 three of Hughes’s articles – ‘Mistakes at Work’, ‘The Making of a Physician’ and ‘Social Role and the Division of Labor’ – were translated and appeared in Russian sociology journals (Hughes 2008a ; 2008b ; 2009 ).
10 The special issue, edited by Chapoulie, is organized around two axes: Hughes’s legacy in the United States, and Hughes’s impact on French sociology over time. Contributors included Becker, Platt, Robert Emerson, Robert Weiss and Paule Verdet.
11 In addition to the essays cited elsewhere in this introduction, see Baker ( 1976 ), Peneff ( 1984 ) and Manning ( 2000 ).
12 In the balance of the chapter, we cite many of Hughes’s works from The Sociological Eye (1971). A source originally published in 1936 would be cited as follows: Hughes ([1936] 1971). Page numbers cited are from The Sociological Eye .
13 See Vienne’s biographical essay on Hughes (this volume).
14 See also Hughes’s essay ‘The Gleichschaltung of the German Statistical Yearbook’ re the treatment of Jews in the official statistics of Germany during the Nazi period ([1955] 1971).
15 Many scholars argue that the ‘Chicago School’ was not a coherent school with a shared perspective and goals. They claim it should be understood as a ‘tradition’ or simply as ‘Chicago sociology’, each of the latter two labels intended to convey the idea that there was little (if any) unity to the sociology done at Chicago during the first decades of the department’s existence.
16 The ‘Outline’, a key piece of Hughes’s intellectual legacy, was published for the first time in 2010 in Sociologica (Hughes 2010b ; see also Helmes-Hayes 1998a , 639–40; Santoro 2010b ).
17 In the early 1950s Merton collaborated with W. J. Goode on a large-scale research program on professions in American society. On 26 July 1950, in a letter to Hughes about the prospect of a visit by the latter to Columbia University, Merton wrote, ‘I would really appreciate if you could find the time to send along the bibliography of projects which you have been directing on the professions and other occupations. We are making haste slowly on our own program, and we would like to have the benefit of your experience’ (Robert K. Merton Papers, Series II: Correspondence, Alphabetical. E. C. Hughes, 1950–1973. Columbia University, Archival Collections). Merton published a series of articles from that project while simultaneously carrying out a research project focused on medical education (Merton et al. 1957 ).
18 Though we use the term ‘formalized’, it is probably the wrong word. Hughes had no formal fieldwork ‘method’ per se. Instead, he had a fieldwork-based methodological ‘orientation’ and taught some ‘tricks of the trade’ (Becker 2010 ; see Helmes-Hayes, this volume).
19 See interviews of E. Friedson and E. Gross by J. Platt cited in Platt ( 1995 : 94) and Verdet ( 1997 : 61–2).
20 During Hughes’s time as chair, the department took the difficult and contentious decision to hire scholars educated elsewhere, including Columbia, in order to bring the department back into a position of prominence in the mainstream of American sociology (Chapoulie 1996 : 19 and 19n30, 11–12; see also Abbott and Gaziano 1995 ).
21 She wrote some brief essays about her life and career (1973; 1975; 1977; 1980–1) and has been the subject of some sympathetic commentaries (Hoecker-Drysdale 1990 ; 1996 ; Deegan 1991 ; Eichler 2001 ). The account that follows is based on these sources.
22 It is not clear from Hughes’s papers, interviews with Hughes and MacGill Hughes and relevant passages in Hughes’s publications what she contributed to ‘his’ scholarship. In some cases ( Where Peoples Meet and 20,000 Nurses Tell Their Story ), her contribution is obvious and acknowledged. In other cases, for example, French Canada in Transition, it appears she contributed substantially to the fieldwork for the book, if not the writing (see Hoecker-Drysdale 1990 : 156; 1996: 224, 228). For still others, there is no clear evidence about what she might have contributed, though they likely discussed their respective work on a routine basis.
23 On the relationship between Hughes and Goffman, see Burns ( 1992 ), Jaworski ( 2000 ) and Vienne ( 2010a ). Drawing on rich documentation about the Hughes-Goffman relationship located in the Hughes Papers in Chicago, Vienne ( 2010a ; 2010b ) demonstrates the extent to which Goffman was influenced by Hughes. Vienne documents how the latter originally elaborated the idea of ‘the total institution’, a concept regarded as having been developed by Goffman. In the process, Vienne tries to make sense of an evolving intellectual relation between a ‘master’ – Hughes – and a ‘reluctant apprentice’ – Goffman. Hughes’s ‘memo’ to Goffman is published in Sociologica 2 2010 (Hughes 2010c ).
24 Helmes-Hayes ( 1998a ) argues that the best entrée into Hughes’s theoretical perspective is the ‘institution’ (see the discussion of Hughes’s theoretical frame of reference, below).
25 Becker argues that, according to Hughes, once one discovered a typical form of behaviour or belief – a norm – one was likely just at the beginning of one’s investigative quest, for ‘all behaviour can be located on an axis that extends outward in both directions from a central point which corresponds to what is typical (or normalized)’ (1997: 377).
26 This would pave the way for a rereading of Hughes’s work along lines that would possibly make him closer to some contemporary social theorists (especially, Bourdieu) than is usually assumed. Santoro is currently undertaking such a comparison and analysis.
27 Based on Helmes-Hayes ( 1998a ; 1998b ; 2000 ). Summarized in Helmes-Hayes ( 2005 ).
28 In this respect Hughes’s attitude reflected the attitude of the Chicago department as a whole (Platt 1998 : 95–6, citing Gusfield [ 1982 ]).
29 The term ‘frame of reference’ was chosen with a purpose, inspired by Hughes himself. There is a copy of Faught’s article (1980) in the Hughes Papers at the University of Chicago. The only significant editorial change Hughes made to Faught’s manuscript was to strike out the term ‘paradigm’ and substitute in its place the phrase ‘frame of reference’ (ECH Papers, UCHI, Box 31, File ‘Park folder’). Hughes used the same term elsewhere (Everett C. Hughes Papers, Boston College, Box 5, File ‘Memorandum on possible lecture at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville’, 8 March 1977).
30 ‘Hughes’s frame of reference seems elusive and unsystematic [and is certainly incomplete] because he neither developed it all at once nor allowed it to remain static. Instead, he developed it somewhat haphazardly and by accretion, over time and in use, and applied it selectively, driven primarily by his attempts to make sense of particular agglomerations of empirical data’ (Helmes-Hayes 1998a: 632).
31 Helmes-Hayes ( 1998b ) refers to Hughes’s interpretive institutional ecology as a sociology of ‘going concerns’ and frames his essay on Hughes’s method around this notion (Helmes-Hayes 2010 , reprinted this volume; see also Hall 2003 ).
32 Demazière and Dubar (1997) argue that Hughes’s work presaged the ‘grounded theory’ approach developed by Glaser and Strauss in 1967.
33 See the chapter ‘What’s in a name?’ in Hughes and MacGill Hughes ( 1952 ). Hughes’s interest in language grew in the last years of his career, in part through his involvement in debates on linguistic politics and policies in Canada.
34 Technically, we did what the Web of Science website refers to as a ‘cited reference search’. We completed the search in October 2015 in the Core Collections, limiting our search to the following databases: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Social Science & Humanities (CPCI-SSH). The first two cover the period from 1985 to the present, the last-mentioned covers the period 1990 to the present. The 2,403 texts took the following form: articles (85 per cent), reviews (7 per cent), proceedings papers (5.8 per cent), editorials (3.1 per cent), book reviews (1.6 per cent), book chapters (0.8 per cent). The rest (less than 1 per cent) comprised notes, reprints or letters.
35 The ISI Web of Science is an American-based archive published in English and, thus, biased in favour of English-language publications. We return to this issue below.
36 We use the same research classification areas employed by our source. We understand the problematic nature of this classification system, but think it works well enough for our purposes, that is, to map the general patterns and trends in citations of Hughes’s work during the period in question.
37 To Hughes is dedicated the Award for Careers Scholarship, the highest honour given by the Careers Division of the Academy of Management. The award recognizes scholarship that has made a significant contribution to the task of linking careers theory with the broader field of organization studies.
38 In the ISI Web database, Doing Gender records 2,138 citations with an average per year of 73.7, while Institutional Ecology records 1,762 citations with an average per year of 65.2. Other highly cited articles that include references to Hughes are Scott ( 1987 ), Zucker ( 1987 ) and Hilgartner and Bosk ( 1988 ). See also West and Fenstermaker ( 1995 ).

References

Archival Sources
Everett C. Hughes Papers, University of Chicago Archives
Everett C. Hughes Papers, Boston College Archives
Robert K. Merton Papers, Columbia University Archives

Interviews
Howard S. Becker by R. Helmes-Hayes, 16 November 1993
Ed Gross by R. Helmes-Hayes, 17 November 1995

Correspondence
Howard S. Becker to R. Helmes-Hayes, 31 December 1994
J.-M. Chapoulie to R. Helmes-Hayes, 9 June 1995
J. Gusfield to R. Helmes-Hayes, n.d. December 1994
A. Strauss to R. Helmes-Hayes, 2 November 1994