A Critical Review of Sociologists

‘Study study finds cruddy duds’ (Sheil, 2003: 22)

– A Critical Review of Sociologists.

This is a humorous ‘out cry’ of an article that comically undermines and satirises the work of sociologists by reducing them to a group of ‘willy-nilly’ grant gathering academics that produce nothing more than unreadable reports that are nevertheless “mind numbingly uninformative” (ibid).

It is well known by all Australians that it is the continuous research (funded by the government, universities and so forth) all across Australia, that provides the vital statistics and information toward the planning and development for the future, yet, Sheil (2003) mocks this need for ongoing exploration of society by playing on its key purpose:

“[It has been] established that no further analysis of Australian society is called for…everything we need to know about Australian attitudes to violence on television, gay marriages and dedicated cycling lanes is already known and that further investigation would be both redundant and infuriating”

Thus, successfully using comedic irony and the juxtaposition of key, controversial aspects of current day society (such as gay marriage) with an issue as mundane and somewhat less significant as ‘dedicated cycling lanes’ to demean the research itself. Consequently this colloquial styled article would readily appeal to those who also feel that they are bombarded with pointless statistics and irrelevant information.

The satirical nature of the article also plays on key ethnographic methodologies used by sociologists. In Sheil’s planned ‘pre-emptive strike’ as it could be described, against the sociological researchers who authorise the studies that are tormenting his life, he plans to, in a sense give them a taste of their own medicine.

His intended use of “intrusive, offensive and self-important” way of researching indicates an obvious bitterness toward the household studies. All of which have been authorised by the professors that normally wouldn’t “think twice about recommending open-ended funding for studies of transsexual lesbians” (ibid).

Sheil’s plan is of course to force these ‘guff’ authorisers to think twice when “they, themselves, are the subject of an even more pointless and intrusive inquiry”, to subject the creators to fragments of their own creations by testing them on insignificant aspects such as their hair colour, their ethnicity and their all important pharmaceutical consumption. Therefore, by deliberately researching aspects that, to his audience would seem completely random and pointless, he is turning the tables on the researchers.

Sheil successfully uses logical reasoning to justify his planned attack; he sees it as a retribution-like revolt, a revolt against the endless investigations to which he sees no point and in their intrusive modes of research.