Finding Sociology in Its Funding? Networks, Relations, and Key Players in Late 20th Century Social Science
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/13965Keywords:
American social science, sociology, Clifford Geertz, anthropology, National Science Foundation, scientific field, fractals, National Endowment for the HumanitiesAbstract
In this paper we start from Mark Solovey’s Social Science for What? to analyze the place and the role of the social sciences in the US National Science Foundation from the mid-1940s to the end of the 1980s. The book highlights the tensions that built up around the epistemic status of the social sciences vis-à-vis the natural sciences and the reputational debates surrounding their role and fate during and after the postwar period. We mostly focus our attention on structures, actors and processes not addressed by Solovey: relationships, networks, and patterns of stratification within and across disciplines; the emergence of novel approaches outside the scientistic and positivistic framework sponsored by the NSF; alternative sources of funding, such as the National Endowment for the Humanities; and a set of broader, long-term processes in the macro-field of the social and behavioral sciences. We present some preliminary data suggesting that a wider, theoretically-oriented approach might be fruitful in casting a more complex and dynamic portrayal of the development of American social science.
References
Abbott, A. (1999). Department and Discipline. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226222738.001.0001
Abbott, A. (2001). Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Abbott, A. & Sparrow, J.T. (2007). Hot War, Cold War: The Structures of Sociological Action, 1940–1955. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Sociology in America (pp. 281–313). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226090962.003.0008
Alexander, J.C. & Smith, P. (Eds.) (2011). Interpreting Clifford Geertz. New York: Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230118980
Baert, P. (2018). Reflections on the Use of Positioning Theory in the Sociology of Intellectuals. In A. Buch & T. Schatzki (Eds.), Questions of Practice in Philosophy and Social Theory (pp. 225–235). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351184854-14
Bellah, R.N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W.M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S.M. (1985). Habits of the Heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Blasi, A.J. (Ed.) (2005). Diverse Histories of American Sociology. Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047407416
Bode, J.C. (1972). The Silent Science. The American Sociologist, 7(3), 5–6.
Bortolini, M. (2014a). Review of "Shaky Foundations", by M. Solovey. Sociologica, 8(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.2383/77061
Bortolini, M. (2014b). Blurring the Boundary Line. The Origins and Fate of Robert N. Bellah's Symbolic Realism. In C. Fleck & A. Hess (Eds.), Knowledge for Whom? (pp. 205–227). Farnham: Ashgate.
Bortolini, M. (2019). Introduction: On Being a Scholar and an Intellectual. In M. Bortolini (Ed.), The Anthem Companion to Robert N. Bellah (pp. 1–29). London: Anthem. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjsf6p6.4
Bortolini, M. (2021a). A Joyfully Serious Man. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1m46fmb
Bortolini, M. (2021b). The Grudging Modernizer. A Trip to the Middle East and Cold War Social Science. Minerva, 59(2), 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-020-09413-6
Bortolini, M. & Cossu, A. (2020). In the Field but Not of the Field: Clifford Geertz, Robert Bellah, and the Practices of Interdisciplinarity. European Journal of Social Theory, 23(3), 328–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431018823140
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Homo academicus. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
Brown, J.S. & Gilmartin, B.G. (1969). Sociology Today: Lacunae, Emphases, and Surfeits. The American Sociologist, 4(4), 283–291.
Calhoun, C. & VanAntwerpen, J. (2007). Orthodoxy, Heterodoxy, and Hierarchy: "Mainstream" Sociology and Its Challengers. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Sociology in America (pp. 367–410). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226090962.003.0010
Camic, C. (2021). Veblen. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674250710
Cappell, C.L. & Guterbock, T.M. (1992). Visible Colleges: The Social and Conceptual Structure of Sociology Specialties. American Sociological Review, 57(2), 266–273. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096210
Chen, L. (Ed.) (2020). A Journey of Discovering Sociology. Singapore: Springer-Peking University Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6603-5
Collins, R. (1994). Why the Social Sciences Won't Become High-consensus, Rapid-discovery Science. Sociological Forum, 9, 155–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01476360
Collins, R. (1998). The Sociology of Philosophies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cossu, A. (2021). Clifford Geertz, Intellectual Autonomy, and Interpretive Social Science. American Journal of Cultural Sociology, 9(3), 347–375. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41290-019-00085-8
Cossu, A. (2022). Talcott Parsons and Clifford Geertz: Modernization, Functionalism, and Interpretive Social Science. In H. Staubmann & J. Trevino (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Talcott Parsons Studies (pp. 261–270). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429321139-24
Cossu, A. & Bortolini, M. (2015). Two Men, Two Books, Many Disciplines: Robert Bellah, Clifford Geertz, and the Making of Iconic Cultural Objects. In A. Law & E. Royal-Lybeck (Eds.), Sociological Amnesia (pp. 37–55). Farnham: Ashgate. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315609737-3
Davis, N.Z. (2009). Review: "The Interpretation of Cultures" by C. Geertz. The Sixteenth Century Journal, 40(1), 58–61.
Frickel, S. & Gross, N. (2005). A General Theory of Scientific/Intellectual Movements. American Sociological Review, 70(2), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000202
Geertz, C. (1963a). Peddlers and Princes. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Geertz, C. (1963b). Agricultural Involution. Berkeley: University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520341821
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Geertz, C. (1976). Art as a Cultural System. Comparative Literature, 91(6), 1473–1499. https://doi.org/10.2307/2907147
Geertz, C. (1995). After the Fact. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Geertz, C. (2000). Available Light. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Glenn, N.D. (1971). American Sociologists' Evaluations of Sixty-Three Journals. The American Sociologist, 6(4), 298–303.
Grossmann, M. (2021). How Social Science Got Better. New York: Oxford University Press.
Heyck, H. (2015). Age of System. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kaysen, C. (1976). Report of the Director 1966–1976. Princeton: Institute for Advanced Study.
Kleinman, D. & Solovey, M. (1995). Hot Science/Cold War: The National Science Foundation After WWII. Radical History Review, 63, 110–139. https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-1995-63-111
Kuehn, D. & Rohlfing, I. (2016). Are There Really Two Cultures? A Pilot Study on the Application of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Political Science. European Journal of Political Research, 55(4), 885–905. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12159
Lindee, S. & Radin, J. (2016). Patrons of the Human Experience. A History of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, 1941-2016. Contemporary Anthropology, 57, supplement 14, S218–S301. https://doi.org/10.1086/687926
Lipset, S.M. & Ladd, E.C. (1972). The Politics of American Sociologists. American Journal of Sociology, 78(1), 67–104. https://doi.org/10.1086/225296
McCartney, J.L. (1970). On Being Scientific. The American Sociologist, 5(1), 30–35. https://doi.org/10.2307/278185
McCartney, J.L. (1971). The Financing of Sociological Research: Trends and Consequences. In E.A. Tiryakian (Ed.), The Phenomenon of Sociology (pp. 384–397). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Miller, S. (1984). Excellence and Equity. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
NCH. (1975). Minutes of the Thirty-Sixth Meeting of the National Council on the Humanities, May 15–16, 1975. National Council of the Humanities. https://neh.dspacedirect.org/handle/11215/2745
Padberg, B. (2020). The Global Diversity of Institutes for Advanced Study. Sociologica, 14(1), 119–161. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/9839
Parmar, I. (2012). Foundations of the American Century. New York: Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/parm14628
Parsons, T. (1963). Papers of Talcott Parsons. HUGFP 15.4 Correspondence and Related Papers 1959–1966, box 8. Harvard University Archives.
Parsons, T. (1965). Editorial Statement. The American Sociologist, 1(1), 2–3.
Parsons, T. (1967). The Editor's Column. The American Sociologist, 2(2), 62–64.
Platt, J. (1996). A History of Sociological Research Methods in America 1920–1960. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Price, D.H. (2016). Cold War Anthropology. Durham: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822374381
Rabinow, P. & Sullivan, W.M. (Eds.) (1979). Interpretive Social Science. Berkeley: University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520340343
Rhoades, L.J. (1981). A History of the American Sociological Association, 1905–1980. Washington, D.C.: American Sociological Association.
Schwemmer, C. & Wieczorek, O. (2020). The Methodological Divide of Sociology: Evidence from Two Decades of Journal Publications. Sociology, 54(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038519853146
Scott, J. & Keates, D. (Eds.) (2011). Schools of Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sica, A. & Turner, S.P. (Eds.) (2005). The Disobedient Generation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Skura, B. (1976). Constraints on a Reform Movement: Relationships between SSSP and ASA, 1951--1970. Social Problems, 24(1), 15–36. https://doi.org/10.2307/800319
Smelser, N.J. & Davis, J.A. (1969). Sociology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Solovey, M. (2001). Science and the State during the Cold War: Blurred Boundaries and a Contested Legacy. Social Studies of Science, 31(2), 165–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312701031002002
Solovey, M. (2012). Cold War Social Science: Specter, Reality, or Useful Concept? In M. Solovey & H. Cravens (Eds.), Cold War Social Science (pp. 1–22). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137013224
Solovey, M (2013). Shaky Foundations. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Solovey, M. (2020). Social Science for What? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12211.001.0001
Solovey, M. & Pooley, J.D. (2010). The Price of Success: Sociologist Harry Alpert, the NSF's First Social Science Policy Architect. Annals of Science, 68(2), 229–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/00033790.2010.516244
Steinmetz, G. (2007). American Sociology before and after World War II. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Sociology in America (pp. 314–366). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226090962.003.0009
Swidler, A. (1996). Geertz's Ambiguous Legacy. Contemporary Sociology, 25(3), 299–302. https://doi.org/10.2307/2077435
Szanton, D. (1976). South and Southeast Asia: New Concerns of the Council. Items, 30(2), 1–2.
Traag, V. & Franssen, T. (2016). Revealing the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide in Sociology Using Bibliometric Visualization. Centre for Science and Technology Studies. https://www.cwts.nl/blog?article=n-q2v294 (last accessed January 12, 2022).
Turner, S.P. (2014). American Sociology. Basingstoke: Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137377173
Turner, S.P. & Turner, J.H. (1990). The Impossible Science. Newbury Park: Sage.
Wallerstein, I. (Ed.) (1998). Open the Social Sciences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Warner, B. (2011). Dialogical History and the History of a Dialogue: Three Visions of The Committee for the Comparative Study of New Nations at the University of Chicago. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.416.956&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Giovanni Zampieri, Matteo Bortolini
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
