Sociological Forum

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 155–177 | Cite as

Why the social sciences won't become high-consensus, rapid-discovery science

  • Randall Collins


A research front of rapid discovery, leaving a trail of cognitive consensus behind it, is characteristic of natural sciences since about the 17th century in Europe. The basis of this high-consensus, rapid-discovery science is not empiricism, since empirical research existed in the natural sciences before the 17th century. The key is appropriation of genealogies of research technologies, which are pragmatically manipulated and modified to produce new phenomena; high consensus results because there is higher social prestige in moving ahead to new research discoveries than by continuing to dispute the interpretation of older discoveries. The social sciences have not acquired this pattern of rapid discovery with high consensus behind the research front. Their fundamental disability is not lack of empirical research, nor failure to adhere to a scientific epistemology, nor the greater ideological controversy that surrounds social topics. What is fundamentally lacking in the social sciences is a genealogy of research technology, whose manipulation reliably produces new phenomena and a rapidly moving research front. Unless the social sciences invent new research hardware, they will likely never acquire much consensus or rapid discovery. Possibilities may exist for such development stemming from research technologies in microsociology and in artificial intelligence.

Key words

science research technology networks methodology 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Clayman, Stephen E. 1993 “Booing: The anatomy of a disaffiliative response.” American Sociological Review 58:110–130.Google Scholar
  2. Cole, Stephen 1983 “The hierarchy of the sciences.” American Journal of Sociology 89:111–39.Google Scholar
  3. Cole, S., J. R. Cole, andJ. Dietrich 1978 “Measuring the cognitive state of a scientific discipline.” In Y. Elkanaet al. (eds.),Toward a Metric of Science. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Collins, Harry M. 1974 “The TEA set: Tacit knowledge and scientific networks.” Science Studies 4:165–186.Google Scholar
  5. Collins, Randall 1975 Conflict Sociology: Toward an Explanatory Science. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Collins, Randall 1987 “A micro-macro theory of creativity in intellectual careers: The case of German idealist philosophy.” Sociological Theory 5:47–69.Google Scholar
  7. Collins, Randall 1989 “Toward a theory of intellectual change: The social causes of philosophies.” Science, Technology and Human Values 14:107–140.Google Scholar
  8. Collins, Randall 1992 “Can sociology create an artificial intelligence?” In Randall Collins, Sociological Insight, 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Collins, Randall 1993 “Maturation of the state-centered theory of revolution and ideology.” Sociological Theory 11(March):117–128.Google Scholar
  10. Cozzens, Susan E. 1989 “What do citations count? The rhetoric-first model.” Scientometrics 15:437–447.Google Scholar
  11. Dictionary of Scientific Biography 1981 New York: Scribner's.Google Scholar
  12. Etzioni, Amitai 1975 A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  13. Frede, Michael 1987 Essays in Ancient Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Griffith, Belver C. 1988 “Derek Price's puzzles: Numerical metaphors for the operation of science.” Science, Technology and Human Values 13:351–360.Google Scholar
  15. Goldstone, Jack A. 1991 Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gregory, Stanford 1983 “A quantitative analysis of temporal symmetry in microsocial relations.” American Sociological Review 48:129–135.Google Scholar
  17. Gregory, Stanford, Stephen Webster, andGang Huang 1993 “Voice pitch and amplitude convergence as a metric of quality in dyadic interviews.” Language and Communication 13:195–217.Google Scholar
  18. Grimshaw, Allen D., ed. 1990 Conflict Talk. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hargens, Lowell andWarren O. Hagstrom 1982 “Scientific consensus and academic status attainment patterns.” Sociology of Education 40:24–38.Google Scholar
  20. Ho Peng Yoke 1985 Li, Qi, and Shu. An Introduction to Science and Civilization in China. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jones, Alexander 1991 “The adaptation of Babylonian methods in Greek numerical astronomy.” Isis 82:441–453.Google Scholar
  22. Latour, Bruno 1987 Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Latour, Bruno 1988 The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Leydesdorff, Loet andOlga Amsterdamska 1990 “Dimensions of citation analysis.” Science, Technology and Human Values 15:305–335.Google Scholar
  25. Lipset, Seymour Martin 1960 Political Man. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  26. Moore, Barrington, Jr. 1966 Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  27. Morell, Virginia 1993 “Anthropology: Nature-culture battleground.” Science 261(24 September):1798–1802.Google Scholar
  28. Mulkay, Michael 1985 The Word and the World. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  29. Needham, Joseph 1959 Science and Civilization in China, Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Neugebauer, O. 1957 The Exact Sciences in Antiquity. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  31. Paige, Jeffery 1975 Agrarian Revolution. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  32. Price, Derek J. de Solla 1986 Little Science, Big Science, and Beyond. (1961). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rosenberg, Alexander 1992 Economics: Mathematical Politics or Science of Diminishing Returns? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, andGail Jefferson 1974 “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation.” Language 50:696–735.Google Scholar
  35. Shapin, Steven andSimon Schaffer 1985 Leviathan and the Air-Pump. Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Sivin, Nathan 1969 Cosmos and Computation in Early Chinese Mathematical Astronomy. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  37. Skocpol, Theda 1979 States and Social Revolutions. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Turner, Stephen P. andJonathan R. Turner 1990 The Impossible Science. An Institutional Analysis of American Sociology. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Wagner, David G. andJoseph Berger 1984 “Do sociological theories grow?” American Journal of Sociology 90:697–728.Google Scholar
  40. Welch, Holmes andAnna Seidel 1979 Facets of Taoism. Essays in Chinese Religion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Whitley, Richard 1984 The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  42. Willer, David 1987 Theory and the Experimental Investigation of Social Structures. New York: Gordon & Breach.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Randall Collins
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of California, RiversideRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations