Richard P. Whitley – författare

This book, which represents probably the most comprehensive discussion of the emergence of modem social science yet produced, is of far more than merely historical interest. The contributors set out to rewrite the history of the social sciences and to show the limitations of conventional conceptions of their development. These tasks they accomplish with great success and much distinction. Yet in so doing they contribute in a direct way to our understanding of the relation between social analysis and the nature of human societies today. The brilliant and distinctive perspective of the papers in this collection is to demonstrate, with many specific examples, that social science and modem institutions have helped shape each other in mutual interplay. Modem systems are in some part con­ stituted through the reflexive incorporation of developing social science knowledge; on the other hand, the social sciences organise themselves in terms of a continuing reflection upon the evolution of those systems. Such a perspective, as Wagner and Wittrock in particular make clear, does not in any way either impugn the status of knowledge claims made within social science or destroy the independent reality of social institutions. The book questions the notion that the institutionalising of the social sciences can be understood as a process of their increasing autonomy from extemal social connections. ''Autonomy'' forms a mode of legitima­ tion and a basis of power rather than a distinctive phenomenon as such.

This book, which represents probably the most comprehensive discussion of the emergence of modem social science yet produced, is of far more than merely historical interest. The contributors set out to rewrite the history of the social sciences and to show the limitations of conventional conceptions of their development. These tasks they accomplish with great success and much distinction. Yet in so doing they contribute in a direct way to our understanding of the relation between social analysis and the nature of human societies today. The brilliant and distinctive perspective of the papers in this collection is to demonstrate, with many specific examples, that social science and modem institutions have helped shape each other in mutual interplay. Modem systems are in some part con­ stituted through the reflexive incorporation of developing social science knowledge; on the other hand, the social sciences organise themselves in terms of a continuing reflection upon the evolution of those systems. Such a perspective, as Wagner and Wittrock in particular make clear, does not in any way either impugn the status of knowledge claims made within social science or destroy the independent reality of social institutions. The book questions the notion that the institutionalising of the social sciences can be understood as a process of their increasing autonomy from extemal social connections. 'Autonomy' forms a mode of legitima­ tion and a basis of power rather than a distinctive phenomenon as such.

practice, some of which is translated into the standard forms of public discourse, in publication, and then retranslated by readers and adapted again to local practice at self-selected other sites. Less may be left implicit, and additional personal and contextual information is carried, by the "informal" methods of communication which mediate local projects and international publication. But both methods of communication are screens as well as conduits of information. History and Background of the Volume When the planning of this volume began in the spring of 1977, it seemed a natural part of the mandate for the Yearbook. There had also been a number of more specific calls for deeper studies of research in social and historical context (3). These calls can be seen as giving permission and legitimacy to ask questions otherwise seen as irrelevant, or even disrespectful, and as attempts to develop new perspectives from which to ask and to answer them. The implied and expressed irreverence toward traditions and institutions of great respect may have prolonged this process of initial apologetics. In any case, in May 1977 the theme of 'The Social Process of Scientific Investigation' was proposed to the Editorial Board for Volume IV as "the heart of the subject. " That is, the ethnographic and detailed historical study of actual scientific activity and thinking at or close to the work site.

practice, some of which is translated into the standard forms of public discourse, in publication, and then retranslated by readers and adapted again to local practice at self-selected other sites. Less may be left implicit, and additional personal and contextual information is carried, by the "informal" methods of communication which mediate local projects and international publication. But both methods of communication are screens as well as conduits of information. History and Background of the Volume When the planning of this volume began in the spring of 1977, it seemed a natural part of the mandate for the Yearbook. There had also been a number of more specific calls for deeper studies of research in social and historical context (3). These calls can be seen as giving permission and legitimacy to ask questions otherwise seen as irrelevant, or even disrespectful, and as attempts to develop new perspectives from which to ask and to answer them. The implied and expressed irreverence toward traditions and institutions of great respect may have prolonged this process of initial apologetics. In any case, in May 1977 the theme of 'The Social Process of Scientific Investigation' was proposed to the Editorial Board for Volume IV as "the heart of the subject. " That is, the ethnographic and detailed historical study of actual scientific activity and thinking at or close to the work site.

In recent years sociologists of sciences have become more interested in scien­ tific elites, in the way they direct and control the development of sciences and, beyond that, in which the organization of research facilities and resources generally affects research strategies and goals. In this volume we focus on scientific establishments and hierarchies as a means of bringing aspects of these concerns together in their historical and comparative contexts. These terms draw attention to the fact that much scientific work has been pursued within a highly specific organizational setting, that of universities and aca­ demic research institutes. The effects of this organizational setting as well as its power relations, and its resources in relation to governmental and other non-scientific establishments in society at large, deserve closer attention. One significant aspect of scientific establishments and hierarchies and of the power relations impinging upon scientific research, is the fact that the bulk of leading scientists have the professional career, qualifications and status of a professor. As heads or senior members of departments, institutes and laboratories, professors form the ruling groups of scientific work. They are the main defenders of scientific - or departmental - autonomy, accept or resist innovations in their field, play a leading part in fighting scientific controversies or establishing consensus. Even where research units are not directly controlled by professors, authority structures usually remain strongly hierarchical. These hierarchies too deserve attention in any explora­ tion of the social characteristics of scientific knowledge and its production.

In recent years sociologists of sciences have become more interested in scien­ tific elites, in the way they direct and control the development of sciences and, beyond that, in which the organization of research facilities and resources generally affects research strategies and goals. In this volume we focus on scientific establishments and hierarchies as a means of bringing aspects of these concerns together in their historical and comparative contexts. These terms draw attention to the fact that much scientific work has been pursued within a highly specific organizational setting, that of universities and aca­ demic research institutes. The effects of this organizational setting as well as its power relations, and its resources in relation to governmental and other non-scientific establishments in society at large, deserve closer attention. One significant aspect of scientific establishments and hierarchies and of the power relations impinging upon scientific research, is the fact that the bulk of leading scientists have the professional career, qualifications and status of a professor. As heads or senior members of departments, institutes and laboratories, professors form the ruling groups of scientific work. They are the main defenders of scientific - or departmental - autonomy, accept or resist innovations in their field, play a leading part in fighting scientific controversies or establishing consensus. Even where research units are not directly controlled by professors, authority structures usually remain strongly hierarchical. These hierarchies too deserve attention in any explora­ tion of the social characteristics of scientific knowledge and its production.

The prevailing view of scientific popularization, both within academic circles and beyond, affirms that its objectives and procedures are unrelated to tasks of cognitive development and that its pertinence is by and large restricted to the lay public. Consistent with this view, popularization is frequently portrayed as a logical and hence inescapable consequence of a culture dominated by science-based products and procedures and by a scientistic ideology. On another level, it is depicted as a quasi-political device for chan­ nelling the energies of the general public along predetermined paths; examples of this are the nineteenth-century Industrial Revolution and the U. S. -Soviet space race. Alternatively, scientific popularization is described as a carefully contrived plan which enables scientists or their spokesmen to allege that scientific learn­ ing is equitably shared by scientists and non-scientists alike. This manoeuvre is intended to weaken the claims of anti-scientific protesters that scientists monopolize knowledge as a means of sustaining their social privileges. Pop­ ularization is also sometimes presented as a psychological crutch. This, in an era of increasing scientific specialisation, permits the researchers involved to believe that by transcending the boundaries of their narrow fields, their endeavours assume a degree of general cognitive importance and even extra­ scientific relevance. Regardless of the particular thrust of these different analyses it is important to point out that all are predicated on the tacit presupposition that scientific popularization belongs essentially to the realm of non-science, or only concerns the periphery of scientific activity.

The prevailing view of scientific popularization, both within academic circles and beyond, affirms that its objectives and procedures are unrelated to tasks of cognitive development and that its pertinence is by and large restricted to the lay public. Consistent with this view, popularization is frequently portrayed as a logical and hence inescapable consequence of a culture dominated by science-based products and procedures and by a scientistic ideology. On another level, it is depicted as a quasi-political device for chan­ nelling the energies of the general public along predetermined paths; examples of this are the nineteenth-century Industrial Revolution and the U. S. -Soviet space race. Alternatively, scientific popularization is described as a carefully contrived plan which enables scientists or their spokesmen to allege that scientific learn­ ing is equitably shared by scientists and non-scientists alike. This manoeuvre is intended to weaken the claims of anti-scientific protesters that scientists monopolize knowledge as a means of sustaining their social privileges. Pop­ ularization is also sometimes presented as a psychological crutch. This, in an era of increasing scientific specialisation, permits the researchers involved to believe that by transcending the boundaries of their narrow fields, their endeavours assume a degree of general cognitive importance and even extra­ scientific relevance. Regardless of the particular thrust of these different analyses it is important to point out that all are predicated on the tacit presupposition that scientific popularization belongs essentially to the realm of non-science, or only concerns the periphery of scientific activity.

This volume of the Sociology of the Sciences Yearbooks stems from our experience that collaborations between non-scientists and scientists, often initiated by scientists seeking greater social relevance for science, can be of major importance for cognitive development. It seemed to us that it would be useful to explore the conditions under which such collaborations affect scientific change and the nature of the processes involved. This book therefore focuses on a number of instances in which scientists and non-scientists were jointly involved in the genera­ tion of scientific results at the "interface" of science and society. Despite the considerable variety of cases reported here, a number of questions are central. Under what conditions do such cooperative processes occur? What perceptions of social relevance and what sorts of col­ laborations with non-scientific groups are involved? How is this collaboration achieved, and through what forums? How can insights into its conditions and mechanisms stabilize such cooperations over a longer period of time? If they are stabilized, do they really affect science, or do they mainly function to shield the rest of the science system against external influences? These questions are pertinent both to intellectual problems in the sociology of science and to the practical concerns of modern science policies. The significance of relations between knowledge producers and knowledge consumers and interest in how these relations affect science and society have changed considerably in recent decades.

This volume of the Sociology of the Sciences Yearbooks stems from our experience that collaborations between non-scientists and scientists, often initiated by scientists seeking greater social relevance for science, can be of major importance for cognitive development. It seemed to us that it would be useful to explore the conditions under which such collaborations affect scientific change and the nature of the processes involved. This book therefore focuses on a number of instances in which scientists and non-scientists were jointly involved in the genera­ tion of scientific results at the "interface" of science and society. Despite the considerable variety of cases reported here, a number of questions are central. Under what conditions do such cooperative processes occur? What perceptions of social relevance and what sorts of col­ laborations with non-scientific groups are involved? How is this collaboration achieved, and through what forums? How can insights into its conditions and mechanisms stabilize such cooperations over a longer period of time? If they are stabilized, do they really affect science, or do they mainly function to shield the rest of the science system against external influences? These questions are pertinent both to intellectual problems in the sociology of science and to the practical concerns of modern science policies. The significance of relations between knowledge producers and knowledge consumers and interest in how these relations affect science and society have changed considerably in recent decades.

This volume of the Sociology of the Sciences Yearbooks stems from our experience that collaborations between non-scientists and scientists, often initiated by scientists seeking greater social relevance for science, can be of major importance for cognitive development. It seemed to us that it would be useful to explore the conditions under which such collaborations affect scientific change and the nature of the processes involved. This book therefore focuses on a number of instances in which scientists and non-scientists were jointly involved in the genera­ tion of scientific results at the "interface" of science and society. Despite the considerable variety of cases reported here, a number of questions are central. Under what conditions do such cooperative processes occur? What perceptions of social relevance and what sorts of col­ laborations with non-scientific groups are involved? How is this collaboration achieved, and through what forums? How can insights into its conditions and mechanisms stabilize such cooperations over a longer period of time? If they are stabilized, do they really affect science, or do they mainly function to shield the rest of the science system against external influences? These questions are pertinent both to intellectual problems in the sociology of science and to the practical concerns of modern science policies. The significance of relations between knowledge producers and knowledge consumers and interest in how these relations affect science and society have changed considerably in recent decades.

The prevailing view of scientific popularization, both within academic circles and beyond, affirms that its objectives and procedures are unrelated to tasks of cognitive development and that its pertinence is by and large restricted to the lay public. Consistent with this view, popularization is frequently portrayed as a logical and hence inescapable consequence of a culture dominated by science-based products and procedures and by a scientistic ideology. On another level, it is depicted as a quasi-political device for chan­ nelling the energies of the general public along predetermined paths; examples of this are the nineteenth-century Industrial Revolution and the U. S. -Soviet space race. Alternatively, scientific popularization is described as a carefully contrived plan which enables scientists or their spokesmen to allege that scientific learn­ ing is equitably shared by scientists and non-scientists alike. This manoeuvre is intended to weaken the claims of anti-scientific protesters that scientists monopolize knowledge as a means of sustaining their social privileges. Pop­ ularization is also sometimes presented as a psychological crutch. This, in an era of increasing scientific specialisation, permits the researchers involved to believe that by transcending the boundaries of their narrow fields, their endeavours assume a degree of general cognitive importance and even extra­ scientific relevance. Regardless of the particular thrust of these different analyses it is important to point out that all are predicated on the tacit presupposition that scientific popularization belongs essentially to the realm of non-science, or only concerns the periphery of scientific activity.

In recent years sociologists of sciences have become more interested in scien­ tific elites, in the way they direct and control the development of sciences and, beyond that, in which the organization of research facilities and resources generally affects research strategies and goals. In this volume we focus on scientific establishments and hierarchies as a means of bringing aspects of these concerns together in their historical and comparative contexts. These terms draw attention to the fact that much scientific work has been pursued within a highly specific organizational setting, that of universities and aca­ demic research institutes. The effects of this organizational setting as well as its power relations, and its resources in relation to governmental and other non-scientific establishments in society at large, deserve closer attention. One significant aspect of scientific establishments and hierarchies and of the power relations impinging upon scientific research, is the fact that the bulk of leading scientists have the professional career, qualifications and status of a professor. As heads or senior members of departments, institutes and laboratories, professors form the ruling groups of scientific work. They are the main defenders of scientific - or departmental - autonomy, accept or resist innovations in their field, play a leading part in fighting scientific controversies or establishing consensus. Even where research units are not directly controlled by professors, authority structures usually remain strongly hierarchical. These hierarchies too deserve attention in any explora­ tion of the social characteristics of scientific knowledge and its production.

practice, some of which is translated into the standard forms of public discourse, in publication, and then retranslated by readers and adapted again to local practice at self-selected other sites. Less may be left implicit, and additional personal and contextual information is carried, by the "informal" methods of communication which mediate local projects and international publication. But both methods of communication are screens as well as conduits of information. History and Background of the Volume When the planning of this volume began in the spring of 1977, it seemed a natural part of the mandate for the Yearbook. There had also been a number of more specific calls for deeper studies of research in social and historical context (3). These calls can be seen as giving permission and legitimacy to ask questions otherwise seen as irrelevant, or even disrespectful, and as attempts to develop new perspectives from which to ask and to answer them. The implied and expressed irreverence toward traditions and institutions of great respect may have prolonged this process of initial apologetics. In any case, in May 1977 the theme of ''The Social Process of Scientific Investigation'' was proposed to the Editorial Board for Volume IV as "the heart of the subject. " That is, the ethnographic and detailed historical study of actual scientific activity and thinking at or close to the work site.