Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:41:30.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social administration and sociology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Joyce Warham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It may be that when the history of social administration as an academic discipline during the 1960s comes to be looked back upon, one of the most significant developments will be seen to have been the growing influence upon it of sociology. As social services have developed in extent and complexity, a descriptive approach to the study of them has appeared ever more inadequate; and with the rapid development of sociology, both new empirical material, new perspectives, and new methods of analysis have become increasingly accessible. Social administration now uses sociological research methods, and draws heavily upon sociological theory. At the same time, both the active interest of ‘committed’ sociologists in the field of social welfare and, specifically, the emergence of the ‘sociology of welfare’ to join other sociological specializations indicate that the tendency for the two disciplines to impinge increasingly upon each other is not one-sided.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , July 1973 , pp. 193 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I am here considering the academic discipline of social administration rather than the process: although the two are clearly to an important degree symbiotic.

2 Simey, T. S., Social Science and Social Purpose, London: Constable, 1968, p. ix.Google Scholar

3 See Gouldner, A., The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, London: Heinemann, 1971, pp. 344–51Google Scholar for discussion of these.

4 Donnison, D. V. et al. , Social Folicy and Administration, London: Allen and Unwin, 1965, p. 23.Google Scholar

5 Wilensky, H. L. and Lebeaux, C. N., Industrial Society and Social Welfare, New York: Russell Sage, 1958, p. 13.Google Scholar

6 Titmuss, R. M., Commitment to Welfare, London: Allen and Unwin, 1968, p. 22.Google Scholar

7 Pinker, R. A., Social Theory and Social Policy, London: Heinemann, 1971, p. 5.Google Scholar

8 Ibid. pp. 135–6.

9 Eliot, T. S.. East Coker. London: Faber and Faber, 1940.Google Scholar

10 Runciman, W. G., Relative Deprivation and Social Justice, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966, p. 292.Google Scholar

11 Titmuss, R. M., The Gift Relationship, London: Allen and Unwin, 1971, p. 238.Google Scholar

12 Ibid. p. 241.

13 Mitchell, G. D. (ed.), A Dictionary of Sociology, London: Routledge, 1968, p. 196.Google Scholar

14 See, for example, discussions of ‘rights’ in relation to social policy in: Titmuss, R. M., ‘Welfare Rights, Law and Discretion’, Political Quarterly, Spring 1971Google Scholar, and Marshall, T. H., ‘The Right to Welfare’, Sociological Review, Vol. 13, 1965.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

15 Jones, K., in paper read to conference of Civil Service Department and Joint University Council for Public and Social Administration, May, 1970.Google Scholar

16 Bottomore, T. B., Sociology, London: Allen and Unwin, 1962, p. 279.Google Scholar

17 Ibid. pp. 293–4.

18 R. A. Pinker, op. cit. Ch. 4.

19 Gouldner, A., Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy, Free Press, N.Y., 1954, Introduction.Google Scholar

20 T. S. Simey, op. cit.

21 D. V. Donnison, op. cit. p. 26.

22 R. A. Pinker, op. cit. p. 211.