Search

Other sciences among them history, archaeology mineralogy, ornithology astronomy and entomology, have profited greatly from their vigorous amateur wings, which have existed along side of and sometimes preexisted the now dominant profession. The greatest single contribution of amateur science societies to their associated professions is the collection and dissemination of descriptive data. Intensive research on two of these amateur sciences and examination of the descriptive-historical literature of all six suggest that we ought to think seriously about promoting an amateur sociology. After a description of avocational science in general, a proposal for an amateur sociology is presented using the avocational developments in the other sciences as a model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents Robert A. Stebbins' reaction to several comments on his paper which appeared in a previous issue of The American Sociologist, which provided an account of professional and amateur sociology in the U.S. Stebbins states that he wishes only to offer a single clarification of a poorly communicated passage that caught Althauser's attention. It concerns the four conditions that encourage the emergence and persistence of an avocational interest in science. According to Stebbins, when he wrote the passage, he had Kuhn's concept of normal science in mind. Amateurism takes root in those sciences or areas of sciences that lack a dominant paradigm as the exclusive grade to scholarly research. These fields are in a preparadigm stage of development in which several schools of thought compete. Why then, is there no amateur sociology? Among the answers to this question, according to Stebbins, are that sociologists lack a tradition of amateurism, a vision that amateurs could help professionals with some of their research interests, and a willingness to organize nonprofessional assistance on any basis other than temporary. The same conclusions could likely be reached for other sciences.