Search

Information about several papers discussed at a session on currents from Chicago, Illinois and the impact of U.S. sociology around the world, that were given before the American Sociological Association, are presented. The papers presented ventures into the history of sociology and emphasizes its effort as a discipline to confront the realities of war and peace, poverty and wealth, nationalism and imperialism, dominance and subornation and to define the role of sociology and sociologists in the face of these realities.

Given its renown, many psychologists and sociologists likely consider the publication of Gordon Allport's (1954/1979) seminal book The Nature of Prejudice as the inauguration of the psychological study of prejudice. However, we have uncovered rarely-cited, published papers (starting in 1830) that provide a wealth of speculation on prejudice even before psychologists/sociologists attempted to measure it (circa 1925). Thus, this paper intends to discuss early published work on prejudice in psychology and sociology by focusing on three key questions: a) when did psychologists/sociologists recognize prejudice as a psychological phenomenon, b) when did psychologists/sociologists recognize prejudice as a phenomenon in need of study, and c) what were the historical and personal conditions that gave rise to the interest in prejudice? In short, the seeds of prejudice research were maturing for some time before Allport's seminal book and the first attitudinal studies on prejudice, although these earlier works are seldom cited. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reviews recent interpretive trends among historians of anthropology and sociology, examining both introductory texts and scholarly studies. It focuses on works published over the last ten years, and stresses that there has been no resolution of the long-standing conflict between “presentist” and “historicist” approaches to the history of the human sciences. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This introduction to a special section brings together three papers first presented at a panel, 'Medical Professions in South Asia: Historical and Contemporary Analyses', at the 26th European Conference on South Asian Studies, held in Vienna, Austria and online, in July 2021. All three papers deal with aspects of the professionalisation of biomedical doctors in India since its independence in 1947. The authors bring together historical and sociological approaches to illuminate the growth of specialisms, patterns of practitioner–patient interactions and efforts to maintain occupational closure and maintain status in the face of growing challenges. The introduction concludes with a discussion of the relevance of these papers for the sociology of health and illness in India and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In his opening remarks in Economy and Society, Max Weber states that the sociologist converts concepts into types and searches for formal rules of social action. He distinguishes sociology from history as a science by noting that the latter strives for causal analysis and the description of unique historical activities, structures, personalities and cultural phenomena. The concept of "meaning," in the sense of a comprehensive, interpretive sociology, must, however, embrace more than the contemporaneous. The emphasis on conceptualization in neo-Kantian thought follows from this assumption. Weber was reluctant to generalize his findings by postulating principles of history that go beyond concrete historiography. Despite his differences with the neo-Kantians, Weber was fascinated by the methodological clarity and usefulness of their idea of the conceptualization of the historical individual because he understood the necessity of including the concrete historical world in his social environment.

Among the founders of sociology, it was Georg Simmel who provided the most thorough analysis and theory of space. This paper aims to reconstruct Simmel's spatial theory and his observations of spatial relations. The German sociologist engaged with spatiality in a threefold way. First, he tried to provide a systematic social theory of space; second, analyzing spatial relations was important for his diagnosis of modernity; third, he dealt with the subjective constitutions of space in his shorter, essayistic writings. This paper argues that the importance of the third strand for a sociological understanding of space has seldom been recognized in sociology. In addition, it also shows that despite the diversity in perspectives, there is an underlying coherence to Simmel's theory of space. As a result, it becomes evident that Simmel was not only ground-breaking in conceptualizing space from a sociological point of view, but that his theory of space continues to be inspirational and relevant to this day for interpreting the entanglement of social and spatial relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper charts the changing intersections between sociology and science and technology studies (STS) using computational textual analysis. We characterize this "quali-quantitative" approach as a Big Data method, as this calls attention to the commixture of textual and numeric data that characterizes Big Data. The term Big Data, too, calls attention to the increasing privatization of both data and data analytics tools. The data mining was done using a commercial analytics tool, IBM SPSS Modeler, that to the best of our knowledge has not yet been used for STS or sociological research. The identification of intersections occurred as part of a larger project to analyze political-economic and epistemic changes within STS, focusing on academic publishing. These epistemic changes were identified qualitatively, through 76 interviews with STS scholars, and quantitatively, through a computational analysis of three decades of STS journals (1990–2019). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The bibliography of this paper is provably the most unspeakable, out of fashion, no longer necessary or relevant set of references ever published in a sociology journal. They are not the least cited, but the most forgotten. These books and articles were at one point quite famous among publishing sociologists but have since suffered near-complete extinction. The explanations of these famous works' unlikely demise reflect the mechanisms and history of the maintenance and change of the discipline, such as obliteration by incorporation, topical and epistemological shifts in the field, founder-selection, the effects of reputation entrepreneurship, and the shifting of what is intellectually unspeakable. I give this index of the forgotten some face-validity by reviewing exegetical work on "forgotten" sociologists and by conducting qualitative analysis (autopsies) of the biggest falls in conversation with the history of sociology and the sociology of science. Finally, I provide an online tool for further investigation into events in sociology's citation history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper traces the growth of sociology in India through three phases. The first phase, it argues, begins in the 30s with the slow consolidation of the discipline. In this phase, sociology was associated with the Indological perspective and the social was perceived in culturist terms and analysed through the prism of the past, in and through Sanskrit texts. In the second phase, which begins in the early 60s, when University education expands in India, this indigenous perspective is re‐framed. There is a shift from textual studies to empirical investigation and the village becomes the site for studying Indian civilization. This paper makes a detailed analysis of the social anthropological perspective of M.N. Srinivas whose theories on village and caste influenced the sociological imagination in this phase. The third phase starts in the late 70s with the growth of social movements of the subalterns which challenge the received culturist nationalist sociological imagination. Today sociology together with other social sciences are at crossroads in India due to the impact of neoliberalism. The latter has encouraged privatisation of education, decreased state funding in material and human resources and an increased state control on academia. All three have affected the autonomy of the teachers and as well the University system and thus the efforts to chart a new sociological imagination in which the Indian social is perceived in global comparative terms. It is difficult to assess which turn sociology in India will take in these circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This contribution to the symposium focuses on those facets of Martin Bulmer's work that sought to analyse the role of race and ethnicity in the development of sociological research. It highlights, in particular, his continuing interest through much of his scholarship with the work of the Chicago School and of key figures within it in the development of both conceptual and empirical research agendas in this field. This interest was intimately linked to his long-standing curiosity about the origins of sociological research and the links between sociology and social and public policy. The paper also explores Bulmer's engagement with questions about race and ethnicity. It also highlights his contribution to the development of the journal Ethnic and Racial Studies as a key forum for the publication of empirical and theoretical research on race and ethnic issues, linking the contributions of diverse national scholarly traditions together. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper is a contribution to a sociological reading of a decisive moment in the history of Austrian and Viennese sociology: the early 20th century. In this early period of its establishment, the Austrian (and especially Viennese) sociology is known for its intellectual vitality, the diversity of its competing circles, its methodological innovations. At the same time, sociology appeared as a highly fragmented scientific field with dominant strands, today on the fringes of the discipline, and with peripheral and marginalized trends and positions, appreciated today as pioneers of modern sociology. By applying a topographic approach, the paper elaborates specific characteristics of this field, including the different degree of institutionalization in and outside the Universities, in connection with political and ideological struggles for discursive hegemony, or the deep gap between theoretical and empirical approaches, related to the effects of multidimensional and intersectional marginalization on protagonists of the sociological field who are today recognized as important innovators. With its focus on the material dimension of knowledge production and its particular attention to places and the localization of actors, methods, and thoughts, and the related (unequal) positions in the social field of science, the paper aims to contribute to a critical understanding of processes of marginalization as a constitutive, and driving, element in science history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper adds to a vital international tradition of discussing the history of sociological theory by empirically investigating its structure, dynamics, and relationships. Our primary contribution to this tradition is to bring to the conversation a greater level of comparative and historical scope, a more systematic quantitative methodology, and a degree of reflexivity and synthesis. To do so, we examine some 670 editions of sociological-theory books geared toward students, published in English, German, and French between 1950 and 2020. Our empirical analysis highlights patterns, trends, and relationships among the theorists featured in these books, the narratives and approaches that define their visions of sociological theory, and the characteristics of the authors who wrote them. Our findings reveal some key intellectual as well as sociological factors associated with the changing composition of the canon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The main purpose of this article is to provide some guidance and inspiration for the teaching of the classics in sociology by taking a close look at the way in which Robert K. Merton taught this topic at Columbia University. The course was entitled "History of Sociological Theory (Sociology 150)" and was given between 1958 and 1968. With the help of archival material, the article reconstructs what Merton said during his lectures, which texts he assigned, what kind of tests he gave, and what type of paper the students should write. Merton did not want the students to only study the texts of the classics but also try to figure out how these went about their research and were able to formulate their theories. This meant that he emphasized how the classics approached such activities as problem-finding, problem-solving and looking for strategic research sites. In the concluding section, the broad approach to theory in Merton's teaching is contrasted to the more narrow one he presented in Social Theory and Social Structure. Positive and negative aspects of Merton's approach to the classics are also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I describe the gradual monetization of the university and its implications for the discipline of sociology. I suggest that not only is money a guiding force for the decisions that university administrators, faculty and students make but that it is also a metaphor for the changes and challenges faced by sociologists today. The second part of the paper identifies strategies for grant success based on approaches that are common in the natural sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Current Sociology is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In 1938, Joseph Oldham, a leading British Christian ecumenist, formed a discussion group that came to be known as the Moot. The Moot met in a retreat setting for several long weekends each year until early 1947, its discussions carefully organized and convened by Oldham. More than anything else, the discussions of the Moot revolved around the topic of order and, more particularly, around the problem of how order might be restored in British society and culture in the context of a 'world turned upside down'. Oldham and most members of the group sought a central place for Christian ideas and ideals in British social life. A striking feature of the Moot was the intellectual stature and the diversity of interests of its members. Among its 16 or so regular members were Oldham (1874-1969), his close friend T.S. Eliot (1888-1963) and Karl Mannheim (1893-1947). Among the later 'visitors' to Moot meetings was Michael Polanyi (1891-1976), who first came to the 20th Moot meeting in June of 1944. This article presents several papers that were produced for the Moot discussion of 15-18 December 1944 by Eliot, Mannheim and Polanyi. These papers have intrinsic and historical interest, and are published together for the first time here. The initial paper, written by Eliot, treats the role in society of 'the clerisy' - a term borrowed from Samuel Taylor Coleridge that points to an intellectual elite or vanguard. Eliot requested that Oldham solicit responses to his paper from Mannheim and Polanyi. Mannheim's response was a set of detailed answers to four questions that Eliot posed at the end of his essay. Polanyi's response was a short, coherent essay, which he identified as 'my own position with respect' to Eliot's discussion; his essay outlines a brief account of the role of the clerisy in science. Eliot wrote short comments on the responses of both Mannheim and Polanyi. These five pieces, which have a natural unity, should be of interest to anyone working in the history of social thought. We have abridged only Mannheim's lengthy response and have eliminated a few lines of illustrative material from Eliot's reply to Mannheim, but these excisions in no way detract from the clarity of the authors' perspectives in this rich trilogue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examine how mainstream sociology has used race as an explanatory factor by examining papers in the American Sociological Review between 1937 and 1999. We find a dramatic increase in the likelihood that sociologists will take race into account, and we suggest that methodological innovations are largely responsible for creating an environment in which it is taken for granted that analysts in many fields will “control for race.” This pattern of usage may reinforce an implicit conception of racial differences that we call “broad but shallow,” in that race is expected to matter almost everywhere, but its effect can be neutralized by the addition of a control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of caste played a prominent role in the early American sociology of race and race relations. The concept was developed largely through case studies of racially segregated communities in the American Deep South during the 1930s. While the concept of caste was largely abandoned by the middle of the 1950s, elements of a caste theory remain useful for both understanding contemporary work on race relations and the development of the sociology of race. This paper proposes a revised and expanded conception of caste grounded in the Black-White dynamic of American race relations. This approach builds on the performance circuit framework of economic sociology, arguing that "caste" refers to the roles, rules, and etiquette that govern economic interaction and give them meaning. The expanded approach develops three premises that highlight the consequences of caste. First, the entanglement of occupational and social roles is a key component of a racialized caste system. Second, deeply rooted racial animus prevents the social cohesion necessary to transition out of an economy defined by caste. Finally, the precarity of nominal class advancement within the dominated caste inhibits organizing that might challenge the overall system. This reevaluation of the caste concept resolves many of the limitations of the original caste school and bridges the divide between cultural and economic-based analyses of race relations in the early days of the American social sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of TESAM Academy Journal is the property of Tesam Academy and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The history of sociology as a subfield has long aimed to describe the historical developments of the discipline, within which national traditions offer unique voices while also contributing to a global sociology. How do various sociological paradigms and national traditions approach social reality in similar and different ways? This paper examines Russian and Japanese contributions to the history of sociology by reviewing some of their major concepts and perspectives. On this basis, this paper seeks to probe into the past and present self‐understandings of the two sociological traditions, as well as their potentials for a more active role in global sociological discourse. Both countries have a history of protracted isolation, which has made them more or less invisible in the international sociological community. However, Russian and Japanese sociological traditions exist and are ready to be tapped, even as their production and mobilization of intellectual resources remain strongly embedded in their politics, cultures, and societies. A broader aim of this paper is to enhance mutual understandings and future collaborations between sociologists in Russia and Japan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is an investigation of attempts at endogenization and indigenization in the history of sociology in Japan. The author begins by presenting a short history of Japanese sociology. While the issues of endogenization and indigenization had been raised in the 1910s, imperialism and the militarization of the Emperor state and society blocked this form of development. Japanese social sciences have thus mainly followed the model of Western social sciences. The issue of indigenization gained attention after World War II and especially after the late 1960s, which was a time of reflection on the extreme influence of American sociology. In this context, this paper investigates the development of Kazuko Tsurumi's sociology, which is one of the best examples of work that deals with the issue of indigenization. Tsurumi analyzes social change from pre‐World War II to post‐World War II Japan by drawing on sociological functionalism. However, Tsurumi suggests that Kunio Yanagita's theory of folklore and ethnology provides a stronger explanatory framework than functionalism, and contends that Kumagusu Minaka has developed an approach rooted in East Asia. Tsurumi advances this indigenous development theory based on the work of Yanagita and Minakata, and at the same time internationalizes this theory. This paper concludes that Tsurumi's theory is an important medium between Western sociology and Eastern sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to examine the indigenization discourse in mainland China by charting its evolution in shifting historical contexts. Three phases are distinguished. In the 1980's, the idea of indigenization or "sinicization" was promulgated by Taiwanese and American Chinese social scientists. In taking up the idea, the early indigenization discourse in mainland China embraced rather than rejected positivism and modernity. The second phase is the 1990's to 2000's, when remarkable efforts at indigenization were made in the theory of social change, social psychology and post‐positivist philosophy. Yet these efforts did not constitute a pointed critique of Western social science. Most recently, there is a revival of interest in the indigenization idea, as evident in a major controversy over its adequacy and relevance in the Chinese context. While the call for indigenization is gaining currency, there is a concurrent trend of coalescence with the state‐sanctioned program of building "discursive power". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Between 1915 and the late 1930s W.I. Thomas developed a theory of human motivation steering a middle course between determinism (biological or social) and unfettered free will. The theory of the four wishes posited that all human beings, across time and place, are driven by a set of connected wishes mediated by the social and physical environment. These are the wish for new experience, the wish for security, the wish for recognition, and the wish for response. Between 1917 when Thomas first published the wishes and the early 1930s when the wishes fell out of use, they were the dominant micro theory of motivation invoked by sociologists in the United States (particularly those associated with the Chicago School). This paper explores the rise and fall of Thomas's wishes in the context of the sociology of ideas, with particular emphasis on fluctuations in Thomas's professional status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper discusses Liberalism after Communism by Jerzy Szacki, in the light of the commonly accepted research method (including by Szacki himself), and his idea of history and the general attitude towards the past. The paper focuses on how Szacki tackles the problem of transporting the liberal ideas onto the Polish ground after 1989; on how he discloses the dilemmas and restrictions of Polish liberalism; on the historical dimension of Polish liberalism; and on whether the liberal Weltanschauung is universal or incidental. In the end, the paper attempts to examine the problem of the liberal minimum in Szacki's analyses, in the context of the Polish raison d'état and the question of populism, as well as the current political crisis in Poland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Classical sociology has long served as a locus for the discipline's self-understanding, and is a phenomenon increasingly studied in its own right. The growing literature is synthesised in Peter Baehr's renowned framework for scrutinising reception and formation processes. By theorising on the trajectories of multiple classics, Baehr has helped pave the way for sociology's understanding of how classicality becomes established. This paper deploys this framework in order to appraise neglected work with classicality potential in early sociology, namely the bulky production of Sweden's main candidate for a classic, Gustaf F. Steffen (1864–1929), with special attention given to his magnum opus Sociology: A general theory of society (1910–1911). The analysis exposes some of the conceptual ambiguity in Baehr's framework, while proposing that both the notion of a 'classic' and the sole focus on reception and formation need to be expanded. This article also argues that our understanding of classicality could be advanced if we were to distinguish between author, text, and theory, since each of these plays different roles in reception, formation, and neglection processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the participation by sociologists in several major conferences, mostly held in New York, that focused on issues related to science, democracy and faith between the late 1930s and the early post-World War II period. These events offered sociologists an opportunity to showcase the discipline to leading scholars, public figures, and other intellectuals and public audiences outside the discipline. Amidst widespread uncertainty and a quest for answers to significant social and economic problems, sociologists revealed that they were no more adept than other intellectuals to provide definitive pathways out of potential catastrophe. At the same time, the conferences and related events demonstrated that sociologists had analytical tools and insights that could be useful in framing questions and orientations that were of interest not only to scholar bodies, but also served as potential reference points for social policy and community development. These activities, in helping to legitimize the discipline and reinforce the boundaries within which it operated, did so in a manner that also separated and privileged sociologists, as professionals or experts, from broader publics in ways that narrowed the discipline's main foci and lessened its capacity to adopt more democratic public roles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Socioloski Pregled is the property of Srpsko Sociolosko Drustvo and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Classical Theory courses in the U.S. present a history of our discipline grounded in the works of Durkheim, Marx, and Weber, defining "classic" by space and time, giving pre-World War II Europe credit for creating the foundation of contemporary sociology. While past critiques of this canon have argued for expanding the geographic bounds outside of Europe, these efforts still ground the origins of social theory in a time period of racial exclusion and segregation. We argue for a reckoning with the racial origins of the discipline in the United States in anti-Blackness and the legacies of racial exclusions. We must grapple with the histories of exclusion and segregation that continue to impact the discipline's present and futures. In this paper, we argue that the teaching of sociology's history should be through the "Foundations of Social Theory," a broad approach to teaching that rejects the ideas of both "classics" and a "canon." This approach roots theory in our history through core issues of study (e.g., the origins and consequences of capitalism) and directly addresses past racial and gendered exclusions by centering BIPOC intellectual contributions across time. By lifting the time and space restrictions, we open the doors to including voices omitted and repressed due to the exclusion of BIPOC people, especially Black women, from higher education in the U.S. This approach acknowledges the diverse histories and voices in our classrooms and profession, and highlights the relevance of social theory for our future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper discusses Liberalism after Communism by Jerzy Szacki in the light of the commonly accepted (including by Szacki himself) research method and his idea of history and the general attitude towards the past. The paper focuses on how Szacki tackles the problem of transporting the liberal ideas onto the Polish ground after 1989; on how he discloses dilemmas and restrictions of the Polish liberalism; on the historical dimension of the Polish liberalism; on whether the liberal Weltanschauung is universal or incidental. In the end, the paper attempts to look at the problem of the liberal minimum in Szacki's analyses in the context of the Polish raison d'état and of the question of populism, as well as the current political crisis in Poland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author of this paper discusses the current state of historical sociology in Russia reflected in the respective section of the Sociological studies journal. After noting the potentialities of the discipline, the author summarizes the overall output of the 20 years' long existence of this section. The basic preoccupation in the initial phase of the section's existence was to get - and convey to readers - a clear understanding of the essence and functions of contemporary historical sociology (HS in the text below), to introduce its potentialities to the Russian sociologist audience. However, even today there are few regular contributors, authors tend to delve into minor issues, and even resort to long surpassed views on the discipline. A most urgent issue for Russian historical sociology today is, according to the author, to draw lessons from Russia's recent centuries to understand the essence of Russia's present as it is penetrated by its past: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under the circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living" (K. Marx). This is the essence of the enigmas to be deciphered by historical sociologists. The author formulates some such enigmas (like the proverbial Russian rake repeatedly stepped-upon) observable in recent (as well as earlier) events in the country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the field of sociology, focusing on its development in Asia and the ongoing east-west relationship. Topics include the influence of colonialism on the field of sociology, the historiography of sociology, issues of Westernization, and a review of literature on the history of sociology in Asia.

This paper explores the development of academic sociology in Hong Kong since the expansion of higher education and increased student enrolment in the nineties. Colleges gained university titles and sociology departments matured as a result. I attempt to trace the current state of sociology in teaching programs and research directions. I conclude with a discussion of future developments with specific reference to the repositioning of Hong Kong within sociology as the former British colony continue to negotiate, navigate and grapple its relationship with Mainland China both as a productive site for sociological research and a reference point to be different in method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the book "Studies in Social and Political Theory," by Anthony Giddens. This book contains one paper on four myths in the history of sociology, two critiques of Emile Durkheim, and one discussion of suicide which in its earlier version dealt mainly with the French debate over the causes of suicide to which Durkheim's famous book was a contribution. The paper on the origins of sociology refutes several beliefs about the intellectual and political circumtances attending its birth. The thoroughly revised paper on suicide presents a theory that draws effectively on psychoanalysis. The longest and first essay in the book provides a superbly concise history of positivism and its philosophical and social scientific critics from Auguste Comte, a sociologist, to the recent demolition of the positivistic philosophy of science several sociologists. The interpretive practices of commonsense and the traditional methods of scholarship in history and the humanities remain, as they have always been in practice, is the major intellectual re source of sociology.

Through a detailed analysis of Alexander Szalai's career as a major transsystemic academic entrepreneur in the Kádár era, this paper has been written to discern and assess how such activities impacted the ways in which science and scholarship worked at both sides of the systemic divide (the "Iron Curtain"). The single most important finding is the emergence of transsystemic spaces (fields), the undoing of national and systemic boundaries. These transsystemic configurations tended to provide social (formal and informal) frameworks within which reputations are generated and distributed, reputational hierarchies are established and reproduced. For scholars in the East such transsystemic spaces brought with them a great deal of good news: they could mean increased freedom and/or an unbiased assessment and genuine acknowledgement for what one has accomplished. Transsystemic fields brought with them a whole array of new (kinds of) opportunities. Acting as a nod of networks that generated transsystemic spaces could yield increased reputation and power at home. As all structures in the social world, however, transsystemic spaces could enable as well as constrain, they could propel you to the skies and might also crush you. As any other resources constituting social capital in academia, the space spanning along transsystemic networks of scholars and scientists could also be weaponized for the wrong purposes: they could enable impostors to acquire a status and reputation way over and above the person's actual accomplishments, due to imperfect information available in foreign environments. Time would, of course, always show who they really are – but before that happens, they could bring havoc upon their field back home by distorted reputational hierarchies, by skewed distribution of competitive power between rivaling intellectual tendencies or "schools" and, eventually, by "paradigmatic" streamlining and contra-selection. This is, in a nutshell, what the story of A. Szalai shows. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)