Search

This paper examines one aspect of early twentieth century debates over the meaning of scientific methodology and epistemology within the social sciences: the tendency of sociologists to invoke 'laboratory' as a multivalent concept and in reference to diverse institutions and sites of exploration. The aspiration to designate or create laboratories as spaces of sociological knowledge production was broadly unifying in early American sociology (1890-1930), even though there was no general agreement about what 'laboratory' meant, nor any explicit acknowledgment of that lack of consensus. The persistence of laboratory talk in sociology over decades reflects the power of 'laboratory' as a productively ambiguous, legitimizing ideal for sociologists aspiring to make their discipline rigorously scientific. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Edward A. Ross, a key figure in the early history of American sociology, developed a conceptualization of natural and social changes of the material environment that is virtually forgotten today. In this paper, these topics are discussed and located vis-à-vis Ross's intellectual contemporaries and their general take on the nature/society relationship. It is argued that ecological and sociological ideas in the early twentieth century influenced one another and, in the case of Ross, produced a perspective of social change that tried to include the dynamics of nature. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper examines the relationship between two seminal figures in American sociology, in terms of its contribution to the movement to establish the science within the academic world. Using archival data, the analysis shows how Edward A. Ross and Pitirim A. Sorokin became acquainted and subsequently collaborated to expand the intellectual horizons and institutional base of sociology. Their collaboration is understood as intergenerational solidarity, which the paper argues is fundamental to an understanding of both the past and the future of organized sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Professional sociology in the U.S. began as a field area within economics, but gradually emerged as a separate discipline. Using new data on joint meetings and the separation of departments, I track interdisciplinary relations through three phases: sponsorship (1890–1905), collaboration (1905–1940), and disengagement (post-1940). In the early years, sociology was mostly a branch of economics departments. With the formation of the American Sociological Society, relations with economics began to be more characterized by professionally autonomous collaboration. The 1920s saw a large wave of sociology departments separating from economics. Still, joint annual meetings (including joint presidential addresses) remained the norm until 1940. Paradigmatic conflict between institutional and neoclassical economists was the major force that sustained the economics–sociology collaboration. As institutionalism faded from the scene in the late 1930s, so went interdisciplinary contact. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The background and history of the three major studies that have been made of Middletown (Muncie, Indiana) are traced. The findings of these studies are summarized, their contributions evaluated, and their receptions described. The problems inherent in trying to replicate results over a lengthy span of years in community research are analyzed, concluding with some thoughts on the future of community studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This critical narrative history examines the development of sociology in the United States during what has come to be labeled as the Progressive Era, roughly the years from the 1890s to World War I. Despite the label, this era was defined as much by social problems associated with industrialization, urbanization, and immigration as by the growth of its cities and the wealth of its capitalists. We explore the roots of American sociology in the transition of protestant theology from Calvinism to its reformation in the social gospel, the simultaneous development of settlement houses, and the 'creation' of sociology as the science of reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By the middle of the 1970s, a Max Weber revival commenced in American sociology. Almost 75 percent of the articles on Weber in the American Journal of Sociology published in the past six decades appeared in the 1970s and 1980s. The Weber revival in American sociology is a phenomenon observed in leading literature. New translations and publications are frequently indicated reasons for the renewed interest in Weber. Without dismissing this factor, it is not an entirely satisfactory explanation. This article accounts for the Weber revival in a new way. Taking the American Journal of Sociology as a case study, I argue that the Weber revival was a case of circulating knowledge. Certain historically set issues led to a reorientation of Weber, which meant that knowledge about Weber was moved, extended, and transformed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the critical responses to Talcott Parsons' first major work, The Structure of Social Action (1937), and his two subsequent books, Toward a General Theory of Action and The Social System (both 1951). Because Parsons' work was the subject of such virulent debate, we cannot fully understand Parsons' impact on the discipline of sociology without understanding the source and nature of those early criticisms. I trace the responses to Parsons, first through book reviews and private letters and then in the more substantial statements of C. Wright Mills, George Homans, and Alvin Gouldner, from the largely positive but superficial reception of Structure to the polemics that followed Parsons' 1951 works. In the late 1930s and 1940s, Parsons' reputation grew steadily but there remained no careful reception of Structure, fostering resentment toward Parsons in some quarters while precluding a sophisticated understanding of his work. After 1951, a few critics capitalized on that tension, writing sweeping rejections of Parsons' work that spoke to a much broader audience of sociologists. That dynamic, coupled with Parsons' own indifference toward his harshest critics, produced a situation in which many sociologists simply chose not to read Parsons in the 1950s and 1960s, reinforcing a caricature and distorting perceptions of Parsons' place in mid-twentieth-century American sociology. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the 1950s and 1960s, the concept of culture had currency beyond the disciplinary boundaries of anthropology and sociology. This article takes up a clinical example of the invocation of the culture concept by examining how early family therapists such as Nathan Ackerman, Murray Bowen, and Don Jackson used culture as a category of analysis during the formative years of their new field. The culture concept played an integral role in the processes by which family therapists simultaneously defined the object of their research and treatment, the family, and built their new field. Their varied uses of culture also contained tensions and contradictions, most notably between universal and relativist views of family and psychopathology and between views of family therapy as a conservative force for maintaining the nuclear family or a progressive force for overcoming social inequality. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alvin W. Gouldner (1920–1980) was a prolific sociologist of the post-World War II era who spent the early part of his career (the 1950s) in the field of industrial sociology. A case study of Gouldner's early life and career is useful insofar as it intertwines with the development of industrial sociology as a distinct subfield within sociology. Through this analysis we are also better able to understand how and in what ways a burgeoning organizational studies program developed at Columbia University during the 1940s. This analysis of the historical and cultural contexts within which Gouldner came to prominence as an industrial sociologist at Columbia, and the intellectual program that resulted, can also help shed light on more recent trends in organizational studies. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is necessary to reevaluate the role of the Department of Sociology at Columbia University in the years 1929–1950. The impact of Robert M. MacIver, who played a significant role in the exchange between European and American thinkers, is examined, as well as his marginalization. It is argued that in the 1930s it was characteristic that the sociologists in the centers in Chicago and Columbia exchanged their disciplinary functions. It was MacIver's Columbia that took on the role of advocate of humanistic sociology and Mead's and Cooley's heritage. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]