Advertisement

Kuhn and Social Science

  • William Outhwaite
Chapter
Part of the St Antony's Series book series (STANTS)

Abstract

Hermínio Martins’ essay on ‘The Kuhnian “revolution” and its implications for sociology’ (in Imagination and Precision in the Social Sciences—essays in memory of Peter Nettl, edited by Stein Rokkan, A. H. Hanson and Tom Nossiter, London, Faber and Faber, 1972, pp. 13–58) was one of the first such assessments and was deservedly influential. This chapter examines the impact of Kuhn’s work on the self-understanding of social scientists, from the 1968 years (when it was used, for example, to mark the difference between Marxist and ‘bourgeois’ social science) to the present, when it continues to shape discussions of the classification of the sciences (another theme in Martins’ own wide-ranging work).

References

  1. Adorno, T.W., H. Albert, R. Dahrendort, J. Habermas, H. Pilot, and K.R. Popper. 1971. Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie. Neuwied: Luchterhand. Translated by Glyn Adey and David Frisby as The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology, London, Heinemann, 1976.Google Scholar
  2. Barkin, J.S. 2010. Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International Relations Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blackmore, J. 1999. Boltzmann and Epistemology. Synthese 119: 157–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blaug, M. 1975. Kuhn Versus Lakatos, or Paradigms Versus Research Programmes in the History of Economics. History of Political Economy 7 (4): 399–433. Reprinted in Gutting (1980); page reference is to the reprint.Google Scholar
  5. Böhme, G. 1980. Alternativen der Wissenschaft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  6. Böhme, Gernot, et al. 1972. Alternativen in der Wissenschaft. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 1 (4, Oct.): 302–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ———. 1973. Die Finalisierung der Wissenschaft. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 2 (2, Apr.): 128–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 1978. Die gesellschaftliche Orientierung des wissenschaftlichen Fortschritts. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  9. Bottomore, T. 1975a. Sociology as Social Criticism. London: George Allen and Unwin. Republished (Routledge Revivals) in 2010.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 1975b. Competing Paradigms in Macrosociology. In Annual Review of Sociology, ed. A. Inkeles, J. Coleman, and N. Smelser, 191–202. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews.Google Scholar
  11. Bottomore, T.B., and Maximilien Rubel. 1956. Marx: Selected Writings in Sociology & Social Philosophy. London: Watts; Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1963.Google Scholar
  12. Bourdieu, P. (2001) 2004. Science of Science and Reflexivity. Cambridge: Polity Press and Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Campos, Â. 2016. SPRU History Project. A Report on its Qualitative Angle. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/about/history
  14. Carroll, M.P. 1972. Considerations on the Analysis of Variance Paradigm in Sociology. The Pacific Sociological Review 15 (4): 443–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chartier, R. 2009. Au Bord de la Falaise. 2nd ed. Paris: Albin Michel.Google Scholar
  16. Drieschner, M. 1996. Die Verantwortung der Wissenschaft. Ein Rückblick auf das Max-Planck-Institut zur Erforschung der Lebensbedingungen der wissenschaftlich technischen Welt (1970–1980). Accessed January 13, 2016. http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/philosophy/staff/drieschner/beding.htm, earlier version published in Wissenschaft und Öffentlichkeit, ed. T. Fischer and R. Seising, 173–198. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
  17. Duhem, P. 1906. La Théorie Physique: son Objet, et sa Structure. Paris: Chevalier & Rivière.Google Scholar
  18. Eckberg, D.L., and L. Hill, Jr. 1979. The Paradigm Concept and Sociology: A Critical Review. American Sociological Review 44 (6): 925–937. Reprinted in Gutting (1980).Google Scholar
  19. Effrat, A. 1972. Power to the Paradigms: An Editorial Introduction. Sociological Inquiry 42: 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elias, N., H.G. Martins, and R. Whitley, eds. 1982. Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  21. Fischer, M., and P. Hoyningen-Huene, eds. 1997. Paradigmen. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  22. Fleck, L. 1935. Entstehung und Entwicklung einer Wissenschaftlichen Tatsache: Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv. Basel: B. Schwabe. English translation: (1979) Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, ed. T.J. Trenn and R.K. Merton. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Forman, Paul. 1971. Weimar Culture, Causality, and Quantum Theory, 1918–1927: Adaptation by Weimar Physicists to a Hostile Intellectual Environment. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 3: 1–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Friedrichs, R.W. 1970. A Sociology of Sociology. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  25. Giegel, Hans-Joachim. 1977. Gesellschaftiche Bedingungen des Theorienpluralismus in der Gesellschaftswissenschaft. In Hubig and von Rahden, pp. 216–232.Google Scholar
  26. Golinsky, J. 2011. Thomas Kuhn and Interdisciplinary Conversation: Why Historians and Philosophers of Science Stopped Talking to One Another. In Integrating History and Philosophy of Science. Problems and Prospects, ed. S. Mauskopf and T. Schmaltz. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 263: 13–28.Google Scholar
  27. Gouldner, A. 1965. Enter Plato: Classical Greece and the Origins of Social Theory. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 1970. The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  29. Greshoff, R. 2010. Die Theorievergleichsdebatte in der Deutschsprachigen Soziologie. In Soziologische Kontroversen, ed. G. Kneer and S. Moebius, 182–216. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  30. Greshoff, R., Lindemann, G., and Schimank, U. 2007. Theorienvergleich und Theorienintegration: Disziplingeschichtliche und Methodische Überlegungen zur Entwicklung eines Paradigmenvermittelnden ‘Conceptual Framework für die Soziologie. Oldenburg: Diskussionspapiere/Arbeitsgruppe Soziologische Theorie, 1. https://www.uni-oldenburg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/sowi/ag/ast/download/dp/ast-dp-1-07.pdf
  31. Gunnell, J. 2014. Social Inquiry after Wittgenstein and Kuhn: Leaving Everything as It Is. New York: Columbia Univeristy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gutting, G., ed. 1980. Paradigms and Revolutions: Appraisals and Applications of Thomas Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  33. Habermas, J. 1968. Erkenntnis und Interesse. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. English translation Knowledge and Human Interests. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  34. Habermas, Jürgen, and Niklas Luhmann. 1971. Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie: Was leistet die Systemforschung? Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  35. Halfpenny, P. 1982. Positivism and Sociology: Explaining Social Life. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  36. Hieber, L. 1975. Zum Konzept der Wissenschaft. Leviathan 3: 449–472.Google Scholar
  37. Hindess, B., and P. Hirst. 1977. Mode of Production and Social Formation: An Auto-Critique of Pre-Capitalist Modes of Production. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hubig, C., and Wolfert von Rahden, eds. 1977. Konsequenzen Kritischer Wissenschaftstheorie. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  39. Hübner, K., N. Lobkowicz, H. Lübbe, and G. Radnitzky, eds. 1976. Die Politische Herausforderung der Wissenschaft, Gegen eine Ideologisch Verplante Forschung. Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe.Google Scholar
  40. Kelvin, W.T. 1904. Baltimore Lectures on Molecular Dynamics and The Wave Theory of Light. London: C. J. Clay and Sons; Baltimore: Publication agency of the Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  41. Kuhn, T.S. 1970. Reflections on My Critics. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave, 231–278. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. ———. 2000. Rationality and Theory Choice. In Kuhn, The Road Since Structure. Philosophical Essays 1970–1993. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lakatos, I. 1970. Falsification and the Methodology of Science Research Programmes. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave, 91–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leeming, W. 1997. Revisiting Finalization. Social Science Information 36 (3): 387–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Leendertz, A. 2010. Die Pragmatische Wende: Die Max-Planck-Gesellschaft und die Sozialwissenschaften 1975–1985. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  46. ———. 2013. ‘Finalisierung der Wissenschaft’. Wissenschaftstheorie in den politischen Deutungskämpfen der Bonner Republik. Mittelweg 36, 22 (4): 93–121.Google Scholar
  47. Lehman, T., and R.T. Young. 1974. From Conflict Theory to Conflict Methodology: An Emerging Paradigm for Sociology. Sociological Inquiry 44: 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Martins, H.G. 1972. The Kuhnian ‘Revolution’ and its Implications for Sociology. In Imagination and Precision in the Social Sciences: Essays in Memory of Peter Nettl, ed. S. Rokkan, A.H. Hanson, and T.J. Nossiter, 13–58. London: Faber.Google Scholar
  49. Merton, R.K. 1945. Paradigm for the Sociology of Knowledge, Reprinted in (1973) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. University of Chicago Press, 7–40.Google Scholar
  50. Mullins, N.C. 1972. The Development of a Scientific Specialty: The Phage Group and the Origins of Molecular Biology. Minerva 10 (1, Jan.): 51–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. ———. 1973. Theories and Theory Groups in Contemporary American Sociology. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  52. Offe, C. 1977. Praxisbezüge der Sozialwissenschaft als Krisenwissenschaft. In Christoph Hubig and von Rahden, 216–251.Google Scholar
  53. Pfetsch, F.R. 1979. The ‘Finalization’ Debate in Germany: Some Comments and Explanations. Social Studies of Science 9 (1): 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Popper, Karl R. 1970. Normal Science and Its Dangers. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Príncipe, J., ed. 2015. Évora Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science: In Memoriam Hermínio Martins. https://dspace.uevora.pt/rdpc/handle/10174/16647
  56. Rainer Lepsius, M. 2008. Soziologie als Profession. Autobiographische Skizzen. In M. Rainer Lepsius. Soziologie als Profession, ed. Adalbert Hepp and Martina Löw, 83–150. Frankfurt and New York: Campus.Google Scholar
  57. Rasmussen, S.A. 1982. Finalization and Completed Theories. Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 13 (2): 359–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schäfer, W. 1983. Finalization in Science: The Social Orientation of Scientific Progress. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  59. Schroyer, T. 1984. On Finalization in Science. Theory and Society 13: 715–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shapin, S. 1995. Here and Everywhere: Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Annual Review of Sociology 21: 289–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sharrock, W., and R. Read. 2002. Kuhn. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  62. Sherman, L.W. 1974. Uses of the Masters. American Sociologist 9: 176–181.Google Scholar
  63. Shils, E. 1970. Tradition, Ecology and Institution in the History of Sociology. Daedalus 99: 760–825.Google Scholar
  64. Therborn, G. 1976. Science, Class and Society. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
  65. Trompf, G. 2011. The Classification of the Sciences and the Quest for Interdisciplinarity: A Brief History of Ideas from Ancient Philosophy to Contemporary Environmental Science. Environmental Conservation 38 (2): 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. van den Daele, Wolfgang, and Peter Weingart. 1975. Resistenz und Rezeptivitä t der Wissenschaft. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 4 (2, Apr.): 146–164. Translated in G. Lemaine, et al., eds. 1976. Perspectives on the Emergence of Scientific Disciplines. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  67. Walsh, D. 1972. Sociology and the Social World. In New Directions in Sociological Theory, ed. P. Filmer, M. Philipson, D. Silverman, and D. Walsh, 15–36. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  68. Wehrs, N. 2008. ‘Tendenzwende’ und Bildungspolitik. Der ‘Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft’ (BFW) in den 1970er Jahren. Potsdamer Bulletin für Zeithistorische Studien 42: 7–17.Google Scholar
  69. Weingart, P. 1983. Verwissenschaftlichung der Gesellschaft: Politisierung der Wissenschaft. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 12: 225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. ———. 1997. From “Finalization” to “Mode 2”: old wine in new bottles?’. Social Science Information 36 (4): 591–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Outhwaite
    • 1
  1. 1.Newcastle UniversityNewcastleUK

Personalised recommendations