Abstract
This embedded case study of the Chicago School of Civics and Philanthropy (CSCP) illustrates the development of disciplinary boundaries during a transitional period of professionalization in the social sciences, particularly for the fields of sociology and social work. Drawing on archival data (e.g., reports, scholarly and autobiographical writings, and correspondence) we first document sociological contributions of the community-based school, one of many progressive projects among social settlements and social gospelers of the day. Then using the lens of an intergenerational struggle reflective of the historical social movements of the period, we analyze the circumstances surrounding the 1920 merger of the CSCP with the University of Chicago. Succeeding their early social settlement mentors, Graham Taylor of the Chicago Commons and Jane Addams and Julia Lathrop of Hull House, a second generation of social reformer protégés became a formidable force in this disciplinary differentiation. This case can be read as a micro-level illustration of a much larger macro-level political contest as professional social scientists vied for control of the definition of social science and its applied mission. The "ghosts of sociologies past" still haunt the discipline today offering important lessons for sustaining a science that joins theory with action to solve social problems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In the embedded case study approach more than one unit of analysis or subunits of analysis are viewed as part of the larger case. While this case focuses primarily on one educational organization, it also includes analyses of the works, activities, writings and contributions of individuals associated with the Chicago School of Civics and Philanthropy (and other organizations) as separate units of analysis. Embedded strategies allow for focusing a case study inquiry, while simultaneously taking into account a more complex analysis drawing from multiple sources of data (Yin 2003: 42-45).
This differentiation included the splitting off of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections (NCCC) in 1872, the American Historical Association in 1884, the American Economics Association in 1885, the American Political Science Association in 1904, and finally the American Sociological Society (ASS) in 1905. A key debate in the formation of the American Sociological Society was the role of applied sociology, and indeed the emergence of a distinct field of social work would not follow until around 1917 with the founding of the National Social Workers Exchange (later the American Association of Social Work), and as late as 1927 the ASS would form its own section on Sociology and Social Work.
Lengermann and Niebrugge-Brantley (2002:7) point out that those seeking sociological knowledge in this early period of development would have as likely sought information from the social settlement as the university. Settlements in the US were first established in the late 1880s, whereas the Department of Sociology at the University of Chicago was established in 1892.
For more extensive historical treatment of the Progressive Era see, Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform (1955); Samuel P. Hayes, The Response to Industrialism (1957); Alan Trachtenberg, The Incorporation of America (2007); John H. Ehrenreich, The Altruistic Imagination (1985), pp. 19-42; Michael McGerr, A Fierce Discontent (2003); Steven L. Piott, American Reformers (2006).
For an alternative analysis of intergenerational solidarity in the creation of sociology see Nichols (1996). In this analysis two leading pioneers in sociology (Ross and Sorokin) both shared a vision for sociology as an empirical science while maintaining very different orientations to sociology. They nonetheless successfully collaborated and promoted sociology discipline-building in its early years.
A history of the Social Science Movement can be found in Lengermann and Niebrugge (2007), Haskell (2000), and Bernard and Bernard (1943) where the "hivings off" of the professional social science disciplines are described in detail. Sociology's professionalization was most clearly represented by the 1921 publication of Robert E. Park and Ernest Burgess's Introduction to the Science of Sociology. Known as the "green bible," this work provided a defining statement of the discipline and its subject matter. While its chapters were primarily composed of philosophical and theoretical statements, its emphasis was on distinguishing sociology as the "science of society." While social work would define its place of practice in the community and social service agencies, sociology would define its location in the academy, although only after some struggle, to demonstrate its unique domain of scientific-based knowledge production.
According to Lengermann and Niebrugge (2007) the natural history approach dominated sociology by the 1920s. It is a grand narrative that treats the history of American sociology as progressing through an internal logic of its own ideas and practices and one that developed exclusively in the academy. Examples of such histories of early American sociology include Albion Small's "Fifty Years of Sociology in the United States, 1865-1915 (1916) and Dorothy Ross' The Origins of American Social Science (1991).
Calhoun notes that advancing sociology as "an end in itself" did not go uncontested by the social reformers. In this period sociology was 90 % social reform and 10 % science: "Many academic sociologists articulated a commitment to science intended both to claim authority over and to secure independence from extra-academic reformers . . . "(2007:10-11).
Among the inner circle of Jane Addams' friends were Julia Lathrop, Florence Kelley, Lillian Wald, and Alice Hamilton, first generation college-educated women who shared Addams' vision for social service, democracy, reform, and collective action. This cohort also extended to other settlement leaders including Graham Taylor of Chicago Commons, and Mary McDowell, who after a short stint at Hull House became the head resident of the University of Chicago Settlement in the meat packing district of the city. All of these associates developed strong friendships and cooperative working groups, endorsing one another's projects and serving on boards and committees together.
Addams was influenced by and influenced the early Chicago School pragmatists, a uniquely American philosophy reflected in the works of John Dewey, George H. Mead, William James, and W.I. Thomas. Addams' critical pragmatism was of a more radical variety, particularly in her forceful advocacy for minorities without power or voice, and in her rejection of a hierarchical social science inaccessible to the public. This stance is further supported in Joslin's (2004) biography of Jane Addams' life as a writer. She quotes from letters between Addams and her "sociological godfather" Professor Richard Ely, a social reform economist at the University of Wisconsin. Discussing her book, Newer Ideals for Peace, Addams chose to resist Ely's admonitions to use scholarly footnotes. In response to his review Addams' states that she assumed "the book was to be kept popular and colloquial in style rather than exact and scholarly" (Letter from Addams to Ely, quoted from Jane Addams Papers, October 15, 1906, 4-1478).
Addams insisted that settlements were not merely "sociological laboratories" to inform science, but rather represented genuine relations with people living side by side in a community. She wrote in Hull-House Maps and Papers, "by virtue of its very locality… [the settlement] …has put itself into a position to see, as no one but a neighbor can see, the stress and need of those who bear the brunt of the social injury. . . (Addams 1970[1895]: 183-184).
Breckinridge’s masters and Ph.D. degrees were in political science and she also completed a law degree. Her transcript showed only three courses in sociology (Coghlan 2005). Two of her mentors were Laurence Laughlin in political economy and Ernst Freund in political science. Frequently sociology developed out of departments or studies in political economy but at the University of Chicago these were separate departments from the beginning. Abbott took her Ph.D. in political economy where her mentors were Laughlin and Thorstein Veblen. Apparently Laughlin, while politically conservative had a reputation as supportive of female graduate students (Fitzpatrick 1990:49).
Household Administration began with courses in “Sanitary Science” located in the Department of Sociology and taught by Marion Talbot. The Department of Household Administration was formed as a separate entity in 1904 incorporating both the teaching of courses and research in areas that have evolved today into public health and home economics, as well as sociology and “women’s issues.”
Deegan (1990:46) argues that the early statistical work of Mead and Henderson, which was associated with social problems and reform, was "forgotten" along with the work of the women. Henderson, for example, was a collector of statistics on prisoners, delinquents, and other “derelicts.”
This division of labor seemingly prevailed at Chicago until Ogburn’s faculty appointment in 1927, although this was not the case at other schools. For example, at Columbia, led by Mayo-Smith and Giddings, faculty and students were engaged in quantitative research much earlier although both schools labeled their respective cities as “the natural laboratory for social science” (Tolman 1902a:806; Tolman 1902b:116; Oberschall 1972:212-213
Seth Coven (as quoted in Bulmer, Bales and Sklar 1991:375) noted that Charles Booth's primary assistants and writers for Life and Labour were women (Clara Collet, Jesse Argyle, and Beatrice Potter). Consistent with this early gendered division of labor in social science, most retrospective histories of the discipline seem to trace its ascendance through the theoretical work of male sociologists (for example, Schwendinger and Schwendinger 1974; Hinkle 1980; Turner and Turner 1990; Ritzer 2010) giving little mention to women's contributions to early social science survey work.
In a discussion of the influence of this early research program spawned by Maps and Papers and the women in this network, Deegan (1990:47) notes that between 1885 and 1935 the American Journal of Sociology Index reveals over fifty articles written by Hull House residents. Similarly, Bulmer et al. suggest that the social settlements served as "ad hoc graduate schools" in social science research and policy for its residents (1991: 28).
Deegan (1990: 112) notes that these studies were a part of a larger series of studies conducted on the stockyard district under the auspices of George H. Mead and Charles Henderson as board members of the University of Chicago Settlement.
The notorious Bemis affair and similar university "purgings" of its more radical social reform professors (cf. Furner 1975), as well as her own persecution as a pacifist against the war no doubt informed her stance.
The name was changed in 1917 to the New York School of Social Work which remained independent, although closely associated with the Russell Sage Foundation, until its affiliation with Columbia University in 1940.
Not only were the women denied full-time teaching positions, but Deegan reports that in 1908, Henderson, with the support of Small and Vincent, attempted to secure funding for a statistical laboratory in the department of sociology with John Koren from the Bureau of the Census as its head. Koren recommended Abbott to fill the position which she did but as Henderson’s “associate,” and the laboratory was never officially recognized as part of the department of sociology (Deegan 1990:86-87).
The relationship between the new School of Social Service Administration and the University is less than transparent between 1920 and 1924. Piecing together various records, it seems that the old CSCP was accepted by the University with conditions that were to be in place for a period of 5 years. Scholars refer to this period as “experimental” (Wade 1964:185) or as the school’s passing an “apprenticeship” (Costin 2003:66). The initial contract signed between the University and Board of the CSCP stipulated that benefactors of the school must provide a $25,000 per year subsidy for 5 years. Apparently this sum was guaranteed by Charles W. Folds, a member of the CSCP trustees, by the Jewish Associated Charities, and by Mr. Rosenwald of the University Board of trustees (EGAP Box 3, F11; Wade 1964:177). Fitzpatrick states simply that “the necessary money was quickly raised” (1990:199). While Abbott is usually named as the School’s first Dean, in fact the school was managed by a male dean (L.C. Marshall, head of the School of Commerce and Administration, later economics) between 1920 and 1924 when Abbott was named. It was at that time, also, that the University Board of Trustees voted to make the School of Social Service Administration a permanent part of the University and Abbott was assured by the president that they would not have to worry about funding or the future of the School (Fitzpatrick 1990:214).
Dorothy Ross (1998) provides similar quotes from the women of Hull House that reveal their light-hearted banter and dismissal of the abstract male sociologists at the University of Chicago. In a letter dated February 19, 1895 to Ely describing recent lectures given by Dr. John Graham Brooks of Cambridge, Addams writes: "Such a man makes us very discontented with the Chicago University men" (Reel 2, JAP). Similarly, in a letter written to Addams from Kelley (August 28, 1899) after a visit to Chicago, and in reference to an upcoming American Social Science Association meeting, she writes "Perhaps I might get an idea there. I did not get a decimal fraction of one in the University" (JAP, Series 1, Swarthmore College Peace Collection), Reel 3, JAP.
Bulmer (1984) goes so far as to say that “The changing character of American sociology and political science in the 1920s may be traced in the grants which Chicago social scientists obtained from the Memorial” (138). No doubt, the Chicago School of Sociology owes its legacy to this period and to funding of the Rockefeller Memorial, but other departments benefited as well.
The authors provide evidence for the ongoing relevance of exclusionary practices in sociology by examining the failure of men sociologists to cite feminist work. They further note that while the journal Gender and Society ranks 16 among social science journal citations demonstrating its influence in the social sciences it ranks 43 out of 93 journals in sociology based on the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) database. They state further that "Feminist teaching about the pervasive institutional force of gender is bearing fruit, at least among those exposed to the new paradigm, but here the highest-status institutions lag behind" (2007:476).
References
Archival Resources
Chicago Historical Museum, (cited as CCC)-Chicago Commons Collection.
Harvard University, Schlesinger Library, Totenberg, A. M. (1974). Women reformers from the settlement movement 1889–1925. Thesis presented to the Committee on Degrees in Social Studies, Radcliffe College: Boston MA.
Newberry Library Archives, (cited as GTP) - Graham Taylor Papers.
University of Chicago Regenstein Library, Special Collections Research Center, (cited as EGAP) - Edith and Grace Abbott Papers.
University of Illinois at Chicago, Richard Daley Library, Special Collections, (cited as EGAC) - Edith and Grace Abbott Collection, (cited as LTP) - Lea Demarest Taylor Papers.
Articles and Books
Abbott, E. (1931). Social welfare and professional education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Addams, J. (1892). A new impulse to an old gospel. Forum, XIV, 350–354.
Addams, J. (1902). Democracy and social ethics. NY: MacMillan Co.
Addams, J. (1970 [1895]). The settlement as a factor in the labor movement. In Hull-House Maps and Papers (pp. 183–206). North Stratford, NH: Ayer Company.
Addams, J. (2004 [1935]). My friend, Julia Lathrop. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Addams, J. (2008 [1910]). Twenty years at Hull-House. Mineola, NY: Dover.
Always, J. (1995). The trouble with gender: tales of the still-missing feminist revolution in sociological theory. Sociological Theory, 13, 209–28.
Baehr, P. (2002). Founders, classics, canons. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Bernard, L. L., & Bernard, J. (1943). Origins of American sociology. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
Blasi, A. J. (Ed.). (2005). Diverse histories of American Sociology. Boston: Brill.
Breckinridge, S. P., & White, L. D. (1968 [1929]). Urban growth and problems of social control. In T. V. Smith, L. D. White (Eds.) Chicago: An experiment in social science research (pp. 194–219). New York: Greenwood Press.
Bulmer, M. (1984). The Chicago school of sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bulmer, M., Bales, K., & Sklar, K. (1991). The social survey in historical perspective 1880–1940. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Burawoy, M. (2005a). 2004 Presidential address: for public sociology. American Sociological Review, 70(1), 4–28.
Burawoy, M. (2005b). Third-wave sociology and the end of pure science. American Sociologist, 36(3–4), 152–165.
Burawoy, M. (2007). The field of sociology: Its power and its promise. In D. Clawson et al. (Eds.), Public sociology: Fifteen eminent sociologists debate politics and the profession in the twenty-first century (pp. 241–258). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Calhoun, C. (2007). Sociology in America: An introduction. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Sociology in America: A history (p. 1038). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Carson, M. (1990). Settlement folk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chambers, C. A. (1986). Women in the creation of the profession of social work. The Social Service Review, 60(1), 1–33.
Clark, R., & Nunes, A. (2008). The face of society: gender and race in introductory sociology books revisited. Teaching Sociology, 36(3), 227–239.
Coghlan, C. L. (2005). ‘Please don't think of me as a sociologist:’ Sophonisba Preston Breckinridge and the early Chicago school. The American Sociologist, 36(1), 3–22.
Collins, P. H. (2007). Pushing the boundaries or business as usual? Race, class, and gender studies and sociological inquiry. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Sociology in America: A history (pp. 572–604). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Conway, J. (1971–1972). Women reformers and American culture, 1870–1930. Journal of Social History, 5(2), 166–177.
Costin, L. (2003). Two sisters for social justice: A biography of Grace and Edith Abbott. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Daniels, A. K. (1975). Feminist perspectives in sociological research. Sociological Inquiry, 45, 340–382.
Davis, A. F. (1964). Settlement workers in politics, 1890–1914. The Review of Politics, 26(4), 505–517.
Davis, A. F. (1984). Spearheads for reform: The social settlements and the progressive movement. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Deegan, M. J. (1981). Early women sociologists and the American sociological society: the patterns of exclusion and participation. The American Sociologist, 16(1), 14–24.
Deegan, M. J. (1990). Jane Addams and the men of the Chicago school, 1892–1918. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
Deegan, M. J. (Ed.). (1991). Women in sociology. New York: Greenwood Press.
Deegan, M. J. (1995). The second sex and the Chicago school: Women's accounts, knowledge, and work 1945-1960. In G. A. Fine (Ed.), A second Chicago school? The development of a postwar American sociology (pp. 332–364). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Diner, S. J. (1975). Department and discipline: the department of sociology at the University of Chicago. Minerva, 13(4), 514–553.
Diner, S. J. (1980). A city and its universities: Public policy in Chicago, 1892–1919. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Ehrenreich, J. H. (1985). The altruistic imagination: A history of social work and social policy in the United States. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Ewing, J. W. (1955). Graham Taylor: Educator in “Life Rather than Literature.” Unpublished BD Thesis, Chicago Theological Seminary.
Feagin, J. R., & Vera, H. (2001). Liberation sociology. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press.
Ferree, M. M., & Hall, E. J. (1990). Visual images of American society: gender and race in introductory sociology. Gender and Society, 4(4), 500–533.
Ferree, M. M., Khan, S. R., & Morimoto, S. A. (2007). Assessing the feminist revolution: The presence and absence of gender in theory and practice. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Sociology in America: A history (pp. 438–479). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fish, V. K. (1985). Hull House: Pioneer in urban research during its creative years. History of Sociology, 6(1), 33–54.
Fish, V. K. (1986). The Hull-House circle: Women's friendships and achievements. In J. Sharistanian (Ed.), Gender, ideology, and action (pp. 185–227). NY: Greenwood Press.
Fitzpatrick, E. F. (1990). Endless crusade: Women social scientists and progressive reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
Folbre, N. (1998). The “sphere of women” in early twentieth-century economics. In H. Silverberg (Ed.), Gender and American social science (pp. 33–60). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Furner, M. O. (1975). Advocacy and objectivity: A crisis in the professionalization of American social science, 1865–1905. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.
Gordon, L. (1995). Pitied but not entitled. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Greek, C. E. (1992). The religious roots of American sociology. New York: Garland.
Gross, N. (2004). Perspectives: Newsletter of the ASA Theory Section, 27(3), 1–20.
Hall, E. J. (1988). One week for women? Teaching Sociology, 16(4), 431–442.
Haskell, T. L. (2000). The emergence of professional social science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hayes, S. P. (1957). The response to industrialism 1856–1914. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Henking, S. (1992). Protestant religious experience and the rise of American sociology. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 28, 325–339.
Henking, S. (1993). Sociological Christianity and Christian sociology: the paradox of early American sociology. Religion and American Culture, 3(1), 49–67.
Hinkle, R. C. (1980). Founding theory in American sociology. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Hofstadter, R. (1955). The age of reform. New York: Vintage Books.
Hull-House Residents. (2004 [1895]). Hull-House maps and papers. North Strafford, NH: Ayer Co.
Jaggar, A. (2008). Just methods: An interdisciplinary feminist reader. Bolder: Paradigm Publishers.
Joslin, K. (2004). Jane Addams: A writer's life. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Leighninger, L. (2000). Creating a New Profession. Alexandria: Council on Social Work Education.
Lengermann, P., & Niebrugge, G. (2007). Thrice told: Narratives of sociology's relation to social work. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Sociology in America: A history (pp. 63–114). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lengermann, P., & Niebrugge-Brantley, G. (1998). The women founders: Sociology and social theory, 1830–1930. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Lengermann, P., & Niebrugge-Brantley, G. (2002). Back to the future: Settlement sociology, 1885–1930. The American Sociologist, 33(3), 5–20.
Lubove, R. (1975). The professional altruist. New York: Atheneum.
MacLean, V. M., & Williams, J. E. (2005). Sociology at women's and black colleges, 1880s to 1940s. In A. J. Blasi (Ed.), Diverse histories of American sociology (pp. 260–316). Boston: Brill Publishers.
McAdam, D. (2007). From relevance to irrelevance: The curious impact of the sixties on public sociology. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Sociology in America: A history (pp. 411–426). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McGerr, M. (2003). A fierce discontent. New York: Oxford University Press.
Miller-Bernal, L. (2000). Separate by degree: Women students' experiences in single-sex and coeducational colleges. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Muncy, R. (1991). Creating a female dominion in American reform 1890–1935. New York: Oxford University Press.
Naples, N. (2003). Feminism and method: Ethnography, discourse analysis, and activist research. New York: Routledge University Press.
Nichols, L. T. (1996). Intergenerational solidarity in the creation of science: The Ross-Sorokin Correspondence, 1921–1931. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 32(135–150).
Nichols, L. T. (Ed.). (2005). Special issue on public sociology. The American Sociologist, 36(3–4).
Nichols, L. T. (2007). Public sociology: The contemporary debate. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Oberschall, A. (1972). The institutionalization of American sociology. In A. Oberschall (Ed.), The establishment of empirical sociology (pp. 187–251). New York: Harper and Row.
Piott, S. L. (2006). American reformers, 1870–1920. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Platt, J. (1994). The Chicago school and firsthand data. History of the Human Sciences, 7(1), 57–80.
Queen, S. A. (1981). Seventy-five years of American sociology in relation to social work. The American Sociologist, 16(1), 34–37.
Raushenbush, W. (1979). Robert E. Park: Biography of a sociologist. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Ritzer, G. (2010). Sociological theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rosenberg, R. (1982). Beyond separate spheres. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ross, D. (1991). The origins of American social science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ross, D. (1998). Gendered social science knowledge: Domestic discourse, Jane Addams, and the possibilities of social science. In H. Silverberg (Ed.), Gender and American social science (pp. 235–264). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rousmaniere, J. P. (1970). Cultural hybrid in the slums: the College woman and the settlement house, 1889–1894. American Quarterly, 22(1), 45–66.
Schwendinger, H., & Schwendinger, J. R. (1974). The sociologists of the chair. New York: Basic Books.
Scott, A. F. (2004). Introduction. In J. Addams (Ed.), My Friend Julia Lathrop (pp. ix–xxxii). Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Seigfried, C. H. (1996). Pragmatism and feminism: Reweaving the social fabric. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shoemaker, L. M. (1998). Early conflict in social work education. Social Service Review, 72(2), 182–191.
Silverberg, H. (Ed.). (1998). Gender and American social science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sklar, K. K. (1991). Hull-House maps and papers: Social science as women’s work in the 1890s. In M. Bulmer, K. Bales, & K. K. Sklar (Eds.), The social survey in historical perspective 1880–1940 (pp. 111–147). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sklar, K. K. (1995). Florence Kelley and the nation's work: The rise of women's political culture, 1830–1900. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Small, A. W. (1916). Fifty years of sociology in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 21(6), 721–864.
Smith, D. (1974). Women's perspective as a radical critique of sociology. Sociological Inquiry, 4(1), 1–13.
Sprague, J. (1998). (Re)making sociology: breaking the bonds of our discipline. Contemporary Sociology, 27(1), 24–28.
Sprague, J. (2005). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Rowand and Littlefield Publishers.
Stebner, E. J. (1997). The women of Hull House: A study in spirituality, vocation, and friendship. New York: State University of New York.
Swatos, W. H., Jr. (1984). Faith of the fathers: Science, religion, and reform in the development of early American sociology. Bristol, IN: Wyndham Hall Press.
Taylor, G. (1899). The social function of the church. The American Journal of Sociology, 5(3), 305–321.
Taylor, G. (1913). Religion in social action. New York: Dodd, Mead.
Taylor, G. (1930). Pioneering on social frontiers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Thomas, J. E., & Kukulan, A. (2004). Why don’t I know about these women? Teaching Sociology, 32(3), 252–263.
Tischler, H. L. (2011). Introduction to Sociology. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Tolman, F. L. (1902a). The study of sociology in institutions of learning in the United States, I. The American Journal of Sociology, 7(4), 797–838.
Tolman, F. L. (1902b). The study of sociology in institutions of learning in the United States, II. The American Journal of Sociology, 8(1), 85–121.
Trachtenberg, A. (2007). The incorporation of America. New York: Hill and Wang.
Trolander, J. (1987). Professionalism and social change: From the settlement house movement to neighborhood centers, 1886 to present. New York: Columbia University Press.
Turner, S. P., & Turner, J. H. (1990). The impossible science. Newbury Park: Sage.
Wade, L. C. (1964). Graham Taylor: Pioneer for social justice 1851–1938. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wade, L. C. (1967). The heritage from Chicago's early settlement houses. Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, 60(4), 411–441.
Williams, J. E., & MacLean, V. M. (2012). In search of the kingdom: The social gospel, settlement sociology, and the science of reform in America's progressive era. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, (forthcoming).
Woods, R. A. (1970 [1923]). The Neighborhood in Nation-Building. New York: Arno Press.
Woods, R. A., & Kennedy, A. J. (1970 [1911]). Handbook of settlements. New York: Arno Press.
Woods, R. A., & Kennedy, A. J. (1990 [1922]). The Settlement Horizon. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research, design and methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the anonymous reviewers and Lawrence Nichols for careful readings and helpful comments on early drafts of the paper. We thank the archivists who competently and patiently provided us with efficient services at the sites listed in the references. We acknowledge the support of the Middle Tennessee State University's Faculty Research and Creative Activity Committees, and Dean of the College of Graduate Studies Michael Allen and his staff for their generous support of this research. Two substantial grants for travel and archival work made this research possible.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
MacLean, V.M., Williams, J.E. “Ghosts of Sociologies Past:” Settlement Sociology in the Progressive Era at the Chicago School of Civics and Philanthropy. Am Soc 43, 235–263 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-012-9158-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-012-9158-1
Keywords
- Settlement sociology
- Feminist pragmatism
- Social gospel
- Graham Taylor Julia Lathrop
- Edith Abbott
- Sophonisba Breckinridge
- Chicago School of Civics and Philanthropy
- Public sociology
- Service sociology
- Social action research
- Sociological praxis
- Disciplinary boundaries
- Professionalization of science
- Intergenerational Relations in Science