A good sociologist should be, at the same time, someone who moved with the same ease in the field of mathematics -you know, for example, of truth, reasoning with probabilities, statistical distributions-in relation to the meanings that you may understand the distinctions and intentions of the various such – and in regard to the theory -that you could understand how the rationalities that seem abstruse have consequences for the study of social life. Not be handled in all of those areas at the same time, in the end, it produces a wrong understanding of that which, it is supposed, we are interested in knowing.
A sociologist at least mediocre should at least know how to use -albeit without understanding, and to know it as a ‘black box’- various statistical tools, be able to draw the distinctions more basic to read, qualitative results, and understand how they can be used to investigate certain basic distinctions. We will have to recognise that not all met even this range humble, that at least allows you to generate knowledge that will have any validity.
What the sociologist ideal? Someone who at the same time to be able to prove a theorem, develop a new approach mathematics to study our realities and be able to be handled without problems in all the ambiguities and forms of use and development of the meanings of social life and be able to invent new arguments for theoretical and know-how this impacts on the research; all this based on a deep knowledge of the varieties and vicissitudes of social life in history. By the way, if you already have their difficulties to attain the level of mediocrity, and really being a good sociologist is more sparse, closer to the ideal, in reality, has happened a few times (if that has ever happened to you).
I have pointed out several criteria of a good sociologist. There is one that should shine by its absence: any reference to its political behaviour, its character as a public intellectual, the jock influence the social life. Two reasons. The main one is that any political behaviour and public sociologist in both a citizen but not as a sociologist. The second thing is that the temptation of being the counselor of the prince, or even to be the prince, almost always has been people that have been bad politicians, and who have wasted their talents for research. The siren song of power have been ill-fated more than a career, and still do not quite understand what it is that they believe that sociologists who can give advice (as sociologists, I have already said that this is different to as citizens) in relation with the social life when, to say truth, there is not much that we know. How to accompany processes? Can help to reflect to the actors? Yes, of course, that makes sense; but the position of the person who has knowledge and says so what you would do is you would not know for sure what would be the reason for us to have it.