Search

This paper examines the Chicago sociologist William F. Ogburn's (1886–1959) views about technological unemployment, which were intimately connected to his analysis of the social impacts of technological developments and resulting social problems due to cultural lag. We trace the development of his views as seen through his well‐known 1922 book, Social Change with Respect to Culture and Original Nature, his important contributions to the President's Research Committee on Social Trends (1933), and his lesser‐known pamphlets designed for a broader audience—Living with Machines (1933), You and Machines (1934), and Machines and Tomorrow's World (1938). He used these pamphlets to educate the public about the dangers of new machines and technological unemployment. In doing so, he drew upon sociological analysis in his professional scholarly writings and his long‐standing personal interests in social betterment and social reform. Our analysis also calls into question the adequacy of existing scholarship on Ogburn that has emphasized his commitment to a statistical, dispassionate, and "objectivist" approach to social science research. We call for a revised, richer, and more complex view of Ogburn's work and legacy as one of the nation's leading social scientists during the first half of the 20th century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editors discuss articles in the issue on topics including human well-being, social change and modernization.

During the 1960s, a growing contingent of left-leaning voices claimed that the social sciences suffered mistreatment and undue constraints within the natural science--dominated federal science establishment. According to these critics, the entrenched scientific pecking order in Washington had an unreasonable commitment to the unity of the sciences, which reinforced unacceptable inequalities between the social and the natural sciences. The most important political figure who advanced this critique, together with a substantial legislative proposal for reform, was the Oklahoma Democratic Senator Fred Harris. Yet histories of science and social science have told us surprisingly little about Harris. Moreover, existing accounts of his effort to create a National Social Science Foundation have misunderstood crucial features of this story. This essay argues that Harris's NSSF proposal developed into a robust, historically unique, and increasingly [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Harry Alpert (1912-1977), the US sociologist, is best-known for his directorship of the National Science Foundation's social science programme in the 1950s. This study extends our understanding of Alpert in two main ways: first, by examining the earlier development of his views and career. Beginning with his 1939 biography of Emile Durkheim, we explore the early development of Alpert's views about foundational questions concerning the scientific status of sociology and social science more generally, proper social science methodology, the practical value of social science, the academic institutionalisation of sociology, and the unity-of-science viewpoint. Second, this paper illuminates Alpert's complex involvement with certain tensions in mid-century US social science that were themselves linked to major transformations in national science policy, public patronage, and unequal relations between the social and natural sciences. We show that Alpert's views about the intellectual foundations, practical relevance, and institutional standing of the social sciences were, in some important respects, at odds with his NSF policy work. Although remembered as a quantitative evangelist and advocate for the unity-of-science viewpoint, Alpert was in fact an urbane critic of natural-science envy, social scientific certainty, and what he saw as excessive devotion to quantitative methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article proposes that the postwar National Science Foundation (NSF) debate constituted a critical, transitional episode in American social science and partisan politics. I show that by responding to powerful conservative critics in the scientific and political communities, the Social Science Research Council's (SSRC's) leading scholars (re)asserted a contested scientistic strategy—to advance the social sciences by following the natural sciences. Further, I reconstruct a wider and longer framework of analysis in order to recover central challenges to the scientistic strategy raised by prominent liberal scholars who rejected the associated commitments to value neutrality and disinterested professionalism. In developing this framework for understanding the contrasting fortunes of each strategy, this article argues that the NSF debate has a deep historical significance—for the social sciences, for American liberalism, and for the nation. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Project Camelot, a military-sponsored, social science study of revolution, was cancelled in 1965 amidst international and national discussion about the study's political implications. Subsequently, Camelot became the focus of a wide-ranging controversy about the connections between Cold War politics, military patronage, and American social science. This paper argues that following Camelot's demise, efforts to rethink the politics--patronage--social science nexus became an important part of what historian Peter Novick has called 'the epistemological revolution that began in the 1960s'. Novick claims that 'strictly academic' considerations provided the categories of analysis that challenged the scholarly mainstream's commitment to objectivity and related ideals, like value-neutrality and professional autonomy. In contrast, my analysis--which discusses post-WWII military patronage for the social sciences, Camelot's origins and cancellation, the ensuing controversy, and some long-term implications of this controversy--underscores the centrality of political developments and political concerns in that epistemological revolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents an introduction to the April 2001 issue of the journal "Social Studies of Science."

Nodamura Virus (NoV) is a nodavirus originally isolated from insects that can replicate in a wide variety of hosts, including mammals. Because of their simplicity and ability to replicate in many diverse hosts, NoV, and the Nodaviridae in general, provide a unique window into the evolution of viruses and host-virus interactions. Here we show that the C-terminus of the viral polymerase exhibits extreme structural and evolutionary flexibility. Indeed, fewer than 10 positively charged residues from the 110 amino acid-long C-terminal region of protein A are required to support RNA1 replication. Strikingly, this region can be replaced by completely unrelated protein sequences, yet still produce a functional replicase. Structure predictions, as well as evolutionary and mutational analyses, indicate that the C-terminal region is structurally disordered and evolves faster than the rest of the viral proteome. Thus, the function of an intrinsically unstructured protein region can be independent of most of its primary sequence, conferring both functional robustness and sequence plasticity on the protein. Our results provide an experimental explanation for rapid evolution of unstructured regions, which enables an effective exploration of the sequence space, and likely function space, available to the virus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]