Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:41:45.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EVERY SOCIAL SCIENTIST HER OWN HISTORIAN

Review products

CalhounCraig, ed., Sociology in America: A History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007)
AdcockRobert, BevirMark, and StimsonShannon R., eds., Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges since 1880 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2008

DANIEL GEARY
DANIEL GEARY*
Affiliation:
School of American Studies, University of Nottingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Essays
Information
Modern Intellectual History , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , August 2008 , pp. 399 - 410
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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 Veysey, Laurence, “Reappraising the Chicago School of Sociology,” Reviews in American History 6 (March 1978), 115CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Collini, Stefan, “‘Discipline History’ and ‘Intellectual History’: Reflections on the Historiography of the Social Sciences in Britain and France,” Revue de synthèse 3 (1988), 388–9Google Scholar.

3 To cite a well-known example, Dorothy Ross's analysis in The Origins of American Social Science (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991) is clearly designed in part as a critique of ahistorical approaches in the social sciences. Joel Isaac has argued that historians' preference for historicist modes of analysis in the social sciences has led them to neglect the significance of analytical and synchronic forms of analysis. See Joel Isaac, “Theories of Knowledge in the American Human Sciences, 1920–1960” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, 2006), 232–9.

4 Merton famously selected this Alfred North Whitehead quote as the epigraph to his Social Structure and Social Theory (Glencoe: Free Press, 1949), 3. While the statement accurately reflected the attitudes of many social scientists, Merton himself actually had a strong interest in the history of social science.

5 Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), xGoogle Scholar. Strikingly, Kuhn was writing at the very height of what is often assumed to mark the dominance of consensual paradigms in social-scientific disciplines.

6 One example of this is the superb Cambridge History of Science, vol. 7, The Modern Social Sciences (New York: Cambridge University Press: 2003), edited by Theodore Porter and Dorothy Ross and containing contributions from both historians and social scientists.

7 Some of the most interesting recent research on the history of social science breaks out of the standard US and Western European framework. See, for instance, the essays in part III of the Cambridge History of the Modern Social Sciences, all of which examine “The Internationalization of the Social Sciences.”