Abstract
Our inquiry begins with an observation by historian M.D. King, put forth in 1971 and then widely ignored:
The sociologist…must discover the sources of scientific authority and the manner of its exercise…. Science is acclaimed and patronized to the extent that its intellectual authority…is acknowledged. The failure to give due priority to the problem of cognitive authority wielded by scientists has vitiated much of the sociology of science of the last three decades (1).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
M.D. King, ‘Reason, Tradition and the Progressiveness of Science’, History and Theory 10(1971),3–32.
Max Weber, Economy and Society, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978, p. 53.
For a parallel discussion of the concept of “cultural authority,” cf. Paul Starr, The Social Transformation of American Medicine, New York: Basic, 1982, pp. 9–17.
Barry Barnes and David Edge (ed.), Science in Context, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1982, p. 2.
Cf. National Academy of Sciences, Scientific Communication and National Security, Washington: National Academy of Sciences Press, 1982.
Robert K. Merton with Thomas F. Gieryn, ‘Institutionalized Altruism: The Case of the Professions’, in Merton, Social Research and the Practicing Professions, Cambridge: Abt Books, 1982, pp. 124–126.
Emile Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, New York: Free Press, 1984.
Kai Erickson, Wayward Puritans, New York: Wiley, 1966.
Harriet Zuckerman, ‘Deviant Behavior and Social Control in Science,’ in E. Sagarin (ed.), Deviance and Social Change, Beverly Hills: Sage, 1977, p. 91.
Marcia Angell, ‘Review of: Broad and Wade, Betrayers of the Truth’, Science 219 (25 March 1983), 1417.
William Broad and Nicholas Wade, Betrayers of the Truth, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982, p. 220.
Leslie Hearnshaw, ‘Balance Sheet on Burt’, Supplement to the Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 33 (1980), 7.
Harold Garfinkel, ‘Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies’, American Journal of Sociology, 61 (1956), 423.
Nicholas Wade, ‘IQ and Heredity: Suspicion of Fraud Beclouds Classic Experiment’, Science 194 (26 November 1976), 918.
Leslie Hearnshaw, ‘Obituary: Emeritus Professor Sir Cyril Burt (1883–1971)’, BBPS 25 (January 1972), 33.
Hearnshaw, op.cit., 1979, p. 180.
H.J. Eysenck, ‘Letter’, BBPS 30 (January 1977), 22.
Raymond B. Cattell, ‘Letter’, BBPS 31 (January 1978), 18.
Sheila Franglen, ‘Letter’, BBPS 33 (May 1980), 223.
Oliver Gillie, Tetter’, BBPS 30 (July 1977), 257.
Leslie Hearnshaw, ‘Letter’, BBPS 30 (January 1977), 22–23.
Kevin Connolly, ‘Introduction,’ Supplement to the Bulletin of The British Psychological Society 33 (1980), i. (our emphasis)
Oliver Gillie, ‘Burt: The Scandal and the Cover-up’, Supplement to the Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 33 (1980), 11.
Graham R. Skanes, ‘Letter’, BBPS 31 (May 1978), 201.
W. Anthony Norton, ‘Letters’, BBPS 33 (May 1980), 222.
For a sociology of the hereditarian/environmentalist dispute over IQ, cf. Jonathan Harwood, ‘The Race-Intelligence Controversy: A Sociological Approach I — Professional Factors’, Social Studies of Science 6 (1976), 369–94
Harwood, ‘The Race-Intelligence Controversy: A Sociological Approach II — External Factors’, Social Studies of Science 7 (1977), 1–30.
Quotation in Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man, New York: Norton, 1981, p. 235.
M. G. Armstrong, ‘Letter’, BBPS 31 (July 1978), 269.
G. Nigel Gilbert and Michael Mulkay, Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984, Chapter 5.
Bernard Rimland and Harry Munsinger, ‘Burt’s I.Q. Data’, Science 195 (1977), 248.
John Raven, ‘Letter’, BBPS 33 (April 1980), 135.
Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2nd ed. 1970, p. 160.
“For the young scientist about to embark on a research career [the Burt Affair] should be read as a cautionary tale.” Robert M. Farr, ‘Some Observations on the Nature of Probity in Science: The Case of Sir Cyril Burt’, Supplement to the Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 33 (1980), 36.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1986 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gieryn, T.F., Figert, A.E. (1986). Scientists Protect their Cognitive Authority: The Status Degradation Ceremony of Sir Cyril Burt. In: Böhme, G., Stehr, N. (eds) The Knowledge Society. Sociology of the Sciences, vol 10. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4724-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4724-5_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-277-2306-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-4724-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive