Progress in sociology: A reply to Cole's reply

A reply to the former editor argues the priority of standardized empirical definitions in scientific studies of causation, proposes a small set of definitions to be standardized in sociology, and cites exemplars of such standardization in other fields.     

Anticolonial thought,the sociological imagination,and social science: A reply to critics

Sociology was born in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a project in, of, and for empire. This essay excavates a tradition of social thought that grew alongside metropolitan sociology but has been marginalized by it: anticolonial thought. Emerging from anticolonial movements, writers and thinkers, anticolonial thought in 19th and 20th centuries emerged from a variety of thinkers (from indigenous activists in the Americas to educated elites in the American, Francophone and British colonies). I argue that this body of thought offers distinct visions of society, social relations, and social structure, along with generative analytic approaches to the social self, social solidarity and global relations—among other themes. Anticolonial thought offers the basis for an alternative canon and corpus of sociological thinking to which we might turn as we seek to revitalize and decolonize sociology.     

Personalisation,social justice and social work: a reply to Simon Duffy

This paper begins by defining what is meant by adolescence and reviewing the literature which indicates concern for the high rates of suicidal behaviour in adolescence. Possible explanations as to why adolescents harm themselves are considered, as is the contagious aspect of some suicidal behaviours. Extracts from three interviews conducted with young women in residential care who have engaged in self-harming behaviours are then considered. Links are made between what they say and relevant theory. The paper goes on to discuss the impact of suicidal behaviour in residential care settings. It concludes that it is essential to create time and space to think carefully about this complex and multi-faceted difficulty both for the adolescents themselves and those in the caring professions charged with the responsibility of trying to help them.     

Ethical turn in the social sciences

This paper discusses the ethical or moral turn of the social sciences, especially in sociology in the works of Zygmunt Bauman and in anthropology in the works of Didier Fassin. These scholars have embarked on relating morals or ethics to their particular area of specialization. We note that their contributions have highlighted the moral or ethical questions in their respective field works and empirical observations and have produced moral or ethical discourses or frameworks in their respective area or field. Ethics or morality (sometimes) morals is not just a theory but also practice in their respective disciplines and advocacies. This moral or ethical practice is translated into questioning our cognitive frameworks and political consequences of globalization or consumerism affecting some groups or individuals in contemporary world. We shall consider morality as human actions while ethics is the reflections on those actions.     

A rhetoric in defense of formalism in the social sciences: Comment on McCloskey

McCloskey’s criticism of formalism in economics and other social sciences fails to identify important arguments that justify the practices he criticizes. While it is valuable to expose accepted methods to critical examination, McCloskey’s broad attack implies the rejection of good social science as well as bad. He studies the labor market and population migration.     

Commitment and imagination in the social sciences: A concern for the future state of sociology

This paper deals with the actual as well as possible roles of sociologists in modem societies. It is based on the experiences of a typical pragmatical Scandinavian welfare state, namely Norway, where sociology undoubtedly has reached a certain level of success, especially as a repair‐oriented applied science. Sociology thus provides an avenue for entering important political and administrative processes in society. But this development—desirable as it may be—also includes certain risks. Sociology may thus abstain from becoming a kind of critical and intellectual pursuit it could be by paying due attention to alternative ways of organizing social life. A discussion is needed about how to avoid this trap and how new roles may be created.     

The suicide of the social sciences: causes and effects

The social sciences have undergone profound changes. The causes of these changes are many, and in this article we discuss the most important ones. First, we discuss the shift to a situation where the American tradition is the norm and European and national traditions are vanishing. Secondly, we discuss the shift from a focus on the empirical context to a pure internal research focus. These and other changes cause dramatic effects for the social sciences. In our article we analyze these effects on the topics, results, methods and values of the social sciences. We especially focus on the career system and the PhD education. Our conclusion is that changes implemented to gain higher quality have instead caused decreasing quality to a point where the social sciences as a whole are at risk.     

The social sciences and the population problem

Four essentially independent conceptions of the population problem are visible in current discussions. One is derived from macroeconomics, one from microeconomics, one from the health sciences, and one from ethical concerns about the just relation between man and nature. After describing these conceptions, this paper addresses the population problem principally using the economic definitions. It cites five reasons why discussions of the economic hazards posed by population growth have become markedly less alarmist in the past decade. Failures of highly quantified input-output models to account for human progress are emphasized. The paper presents examples of how technical demography has shed light on the dimensions of and solutions to the population problem and concludes with a brief discussion of contemporary population problems in the U.S.The real world consists not of numbers but of shapes and sizes. It is topological rather than quantitative. Quantification for the most part is a prosthetic device of the human mind, though certainly a very useful one. Anyone who thinks that numbers constitute the real world, however, is under an illusion, and this is an illusion that is by no means uncommon (Boulding, 1980:833).     

From boundary-work to boundary object: how biology left and re-entered the social sciences

In an archaeological spirit this paper comes back to a founding event in the construction of the twentieth-century episteme, the moment at which the life- and the social sciences parted ways and intense boundary-work was carried out on the biology/society border, with significant benefits for both sides. Galton and Weismann for biology, and Alfred Kroeber for anthropology delimit this founding moment and I argue, expanding on an existing body of historical scholarship, for an implicit convergence of their views. After this excavation, I look at recent developments in the life sciences, which I have named the ‘social turn’ in biology (Meloni, 2014), and in particular at epigenetics with its promise to destabilize the social/biological border. I claim here that today a different account of ‘the biological’ to that established during the Galton–Kroeber period is emerging. Rather than being used to support a form of boundary-work, biology has become a boundary object that crosses previously erected barriers, allowing different research communities to draw from it.     

Interdisciplinarity and the social sciences: capital, institutions and autonomy

Recent discussions about disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity in the social sciences have tended to map and critique methods, theories and approaches to knowledge production, but spend less time exploring the ways in which institutional constraints and personal trajectories produce different kinds of disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity. In this paper we present findings on interdisciplinarity from UK research undertaken as part of an EC project on knowledge, gender and institutions. The research involved a small survey (n = 14), in-depth interviews (n = 5), two focus groups (n = 7) and observation of social scientists in one university department between June 2006 and April 2007. We reflect on the unwillingness of social scientists to confront the conditions of our academic labour in an account of our difficulties with gaining access and respondents in this study, before moving on to consider some of the different ways in which interdisciplinarity and disciplinary commitments were related to particular forms of scientific and symbolic capital. We go on to discuss this in relation to the autonomy of academic teaching-and-research staff compared to contract researchers, and consider the implications of our findings for the future of interdisciplinarity and the social sciences.     

Formalism in the social sciences,rhetorically speaking

Even formal methods in economics, which sociologists have been tempted to adopt, are “rhetorical,” in the sense of “argued to other scholars, not proven forever and ever.” The rhetoric of inquiry, in other words, is not confined to flowery language. Two examples of formal methods that have defective rhetorics are significance tests (in which the sociologists are far ahead) and existence theorems (in which the sociologists are in danger of imitating the economists’ errors). Much effort in economics is spent on a rhetoric without conclusions. A more humanistic economics — or sociology—would examine all the arguments, whether mathematical or not. He is also director of the Project on Rhetoric of Inquiry.