|
Showing 1 - 10 of
10 matches in All Departments
This book, which represents probably the most comprehensive
discussion of the emergence of modem social science yet produced,
is of far more than merely historical interest. The contributors
set out to rewrite the history of the social sciences and to show
the limitations of conventional conceptions of their development.
These tasks they accomplish with great success and much
distinction. Yet in so doing they contribute in a direct way to our
understanding of the relation between social analysis and the
nature of human societies today. The brilliant and distinctive
perspective of the papers in this collection is to demonstrate,
with many specific examples, that social science and modem
institutions have helped shape each other in mutual interplay.
Modem systems are in some part con stituted through the reflexive
incorporation of developing social science knowledge; on the other
hand, the social sciences organise themselves in terms of a
continuing reflection upon the evolution of those systems. Such a
perspective, as Wagner and Wittrock in particular make clear, does
not in any way either impugn the status of knowledge claims made
within social science or destroy the independent reality of social
institutions. The book questions the notion that the
institutionalising of the social sciences can be understood as a
process of their increasing autonomy from extemal social
connections. 'Autonomy' forms a mode of legitima tion and a basis
of power rather than a distinctive phenomenon as such."
This book, which represents probably the most comprehensive
discussion of the emergence of modem social science yet produced,
is of far more than merely historical interest. The contributors
set out to rewrite the history of the social sciences and to show
the limitations of conventional conceptions of their development.
These tasks they accomplish with great success and much
distinction. Yet in so doing they contribute in a direct way to our
understanding of the relation between social analysis and the
nature of human societies today. The brilliant and distinctive
perspective of the papers in this collection is to demonstrate,
with many specific examples, that social science and modem
institutions have helped shape each other in mutual interplay.
Modem systems are in some part con stituted through the reflexive
incorporation of developing social science knowledge; on the other
hand, the social sciences organise themselves in terms of a
continuing reflection upon the evolution of those systems. Such a
perspective, as Wagner and Wittrock in particular make clear, does
not in any way either impugn the status of knowledge claims made
within social science or destroy the independent reality of social
institutions. The book questions the notion that the
institutionalising of the social sciences can be understood as a
process of their increasing autonomy from extemal social
connections. 'Autonomy' forms a mode of legitima tion and a basis
of power rather than a distinctive phenomenon as such."
This volume of the Sociology of the Sciences Yearbooks stems from
our experience that collaborations between non-scientists and
scientists, often initiated by scientists seeking greater social
relevance for science, can be of major importance for cognitive
development. It seemed to us that it would be useful to explore the
conditions under which such collaborations affect scientific change
and the nature of the processes involved. This book therefore
focuses on a number of instances in which scientists and
non-scientists were jointly involved in the genera tion of
scientific results at the "interface" of science and society.
Despite the considerable variety of cases reported here, a number
of questions are central. Under what conditions do such cooperative
processes occur? What perceptions of social relevance and what
sorts of col laborations with non-scientific groups are involved?
How is this collaboration achieved, and through what forums? How
can insights into its conditions and mechanisms stabilize such
cooperations over a longer period of time? If they are stabilized,
do they really affect science, or do they mainly function to shield
the rest of the science system against external influences? These
questions are pertinent both to intellectual problems in the
sociology of science and to the practical concerns of modern
science policies. The significance of relations between knowledge
producers and knowledge consumers and interest in how these
relations affect science and society have changed considerably in
recent decades."
This volume of the Sociology of the Sciences Yearbooks stems from
our experience that collaborations between non-scientists and
scientists, often initiated by scientists seeking greater social
relevance for science, can be of major importance for cognitive
development. It seemed to us that it would be useful to explore the
conditions under which such collaborations affect scientific change
and the nature of the processes involved. This book therefore
focuses on a number of instances in which scientists and
non-scientists were jointly involved in the genera tion of
scientific results at the "interface" of science and society.
Despite the considerable variety of cases reported here, a number
of questions are central. Under what conditions do such cooperative
processes occur? What perceptions of social relevance and what
sorts of col laborations with non-scientific groups are involved?
How is this collaboration achieved, and through what forums? How
can insights into its conditions and mechanisms stabilize such
cooperations over a longer period of time? If they are stabilized,
do they really affect science, or do they mainly function to shield
the rest of the science system against external influences? These
questions are pertinent both to intellectual problems in the
sociology of science and to the practical concerns of modern
science policies. The significance of relations between knowledge
producers and knowledge consumers and interest in how these
relations affect science and society have changed considerably in
recent decades."
The prevailing view of scientific popularization, both within
academic circles and beyond, affirms that its objectives and
procedures are unrelated to tasks of cognitive development and that
its pertinence is by and large restricted to the lay public.
Consistent with this view, popularization is frequently portrayed
as a logical and hence inescapable consequence of a culture
dominated by science-based products and procedures and by a
scientistic ideology. On another level, it is depicted as a
quasi-political device for chan nelling the energies of the general
public along predetermined paths; examples of this are the
nineteenth-century Industrial Revolution and the U. S. -Soviet
space race. Alternatively, scientific popularization is described
as a carefully contrived plan which enables scientists or their
spokesmen to allege that scientific learn ing is equitably shared
by scientists and non-scientists alike. This manoeuvre is intended
to weaken the claims of anti-scientific protesters that scientists
monopolize knowledge as a means of sustaining their social
privileges. Pop ularization is also sometimes presented as a
psychological crutch. This, in an era of increasing scientific
specialisation, permits the researchers involved to believe that by
transcending the boundaries of their narrow fields, their
endeavours assume a degree of general cognitive importance and even
extra scientific relevance. Regardless of the particular thrust of
these different analyses it is important to point out that all are
predicated on the tacit presupposition that scientific
popularization belongs essentially to the realm of non-science, or
only concerns the periphery of scientific activity."
The prevailing view of scientific popularization, both within
academic circles and beyond, affirms that its objectives and
procedures are unrelated to tasks of cognitive development and that
its pertinence is by and large restricted to the lay public.
Consistent with this view, popularization is frequently portrayed
as a logical and hence inescapable consequence of a culture
dominated by science-based products and procedures and by a
scientistic ideology. On another level, it is depicted as a
quasi-political device for chan nelling the energies of the general
public along predetermined paths; examples of this are the
nineteenth-century Industrial Revolution and the U. S. -Soviet
space race. Alternatively, scientific popularization is described
as a carefully contrived plan which enables scientists or their
spokesmen to allege that scientific learn ing is equitably shared
by scientists and non-scientists alike. This manoeuvre is intended
to weaken the claims of anti-scientific protesters that scientists
monopolize knowledge as a means of sustaining their social
privileges. Pop ularization is also sometimes presented as a
psychological crutch. This, in an era of increasing scientific
specialisation, permits the researchers involved to believe that by
transcending the boundaries of their narrow fields, their
endeavours assume a degree of general cognitive importance and even
extra scientific relevance. Regardless of the particular thrust of
these different analyses it is important to point out that all are
predicated on the tacit presupposition that scientific
popularization belongs essentially to the realm of non-science, or
only concerns the periphery of scientific activity."
In recent years sociologists of sciences have become more
interested in scien tific elites, in the way they direct and
control the development of sciences and, beyond that, in which the
organization of research facilities and resources generally affects
research strategies and goals. In this volume we focus on
scientific establishments and hierarchies as a means of bringing
aspects of these concerns together in their historical and
comparative contexts. These terms draw attention to the fact that
much scientific work has been pursued within a highly specific
organizational setting, that of universities and aca demic research
institutes. The effects of this organizational setting as well as
its power relations, and its resources in relation to governmental
and other non-scientific establishments in society at large,
deserve closer attention. One significant aspect of scientific
establishments and hierarchies and of the power relations impinging
upon scientific research, is the fact that the bulk of leading
scientists have the professional career, qualifications and status
of a professor. As heads or senior members of departments,
institutes and laboratories, professors form the ruling groups of
scientific work. They are the main defenders of scientific - or
departmental - autonomy, accept or resist innovations in their
field, play a leading part in fighting scientific controversies or
establishing consensus. Even where research units are not directly
controlled by professors, authority structures usually remain
strongly hierarchical. These hierarchies too deserve attention in
any explora tion of the social characteristics of scientific
knowledge and its production."
In recent years sociologists of sciences have become more
interested in scien tific elites, in the way they direct and
control the development of sciences and, beyond that, in which the
organization of research facilities and resources generally affects
research strategies and goals. In this volume we focus on
scientific establishments and hierarchies as a means of bringing
aspects of these concerns together in their historical and
comparative contexts. These terms draw attention to the fact that
much scientific work has been pursued within a highly specific
organizational setting, that of universities and aca demic research
institutes. The effects of this organizational setting as well as
its power relations, and its resources in relation to governmental
and other non-scientific establishments in society at large,
deserve closer attention. One significant aspect of scientific
establishments and hierarchies and of the power relations impinging
upon scientific research, is the fact that the bulk of leading
scientists have the professional career, qualifications and status
of a professor. As heads or senior members of departments,
institutes and laboratories, professors form the ruling groups of
scientific work. They are the main defenders of scientific - or
departmental - autonomy, accept or resist innovations in their
field, play a leading part in fighting scientific controversies or
establishing consensus. Even where research units are not directly
controlled by professors, authority structures usually remain
strongly hierarchical. These hierarchies too deserve attention in
any explora tion of the social characteristics of scientific
knowledge and its production."
practice, some of which is translated into the standard forms of
public discourse, in publication, and then retranslated by readers
and adapted again to local practice at self-selected other sites.
Less may be left implicit, and additional personal and contextual
information is carried, by the "informal" methods of communication
which mediate local projects and international publication. But
both methods of communication are screens as well as conduits of
information. History and Background of the Volume When the planning
of this volume began in the spring of 1977, it seemed a natural
part of the mandate for the Yearbook. There had also been a number
of more specific calls for deeper studies of research in social and
historical context (3). These calls can be seen as giving
permission and legitimacy to ask questions otherwise seen as
irrelevant, or even disrespectful, and as attempts to develop new
perspectives from which to ask and to answer them. The implied and
expressed irreverence toward traditions and institutions of great
respect may have prolonged this process of initial apologetics. In
any case, in May 1977 the theme of 'The Social Process of
Scientific Investigation' was proposed to the Editorial Board for
Volume IV as "the heart of the subject. " That is, the ethnographic
and detailed historical study of actual scientific activity and
thinking at or close to the work site.
practice, some of which is translated into the standard forms of
public discourse, in publication, and then retranslated by readers
and adapted again to local practice at self-selected other sites.
Less may be left implicit, and additional personal and contextual
information is carried, by the "informal" methods of communication
which mediate local projects and international publication. But
both methods of communication are screens as well as conduits of
information. History and Background of the Volume When the planning
of this volume began in the spring of 1977, it seemed a natural
part of the mandate for the Yearbook. There had also been a number
of more specific calls for deeper studies of research in social and
historical context (3). These calls can be seen as giving
permission and legitimacy to ask questions otherwise seen as
irrelevant, or even disrespectful, and as attempts to develop new
perspectives from which to ask and to answer them. The implied and
expressed irreverence toward traditions and institutions of great
respect may have prolonged this process of initial apologetics. In
any case, in May 1977 the theme of 'The Social Process of
Scientific Investigation' was proposed to the Editorial Board for
Volume IV as "the heart of the subject. " That is, the ethnographic
and detailed historical study of actual scientific activity and
thinking at or close to the work site.
|
You may like...
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
|