This article is a revision of a paper presented at the Plenary Session, The Future of Sociology, Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, August 24, 1988, Atlanta, Georgia.
Rothenberg, Andrew Scott, Anne Scott, Robert Scott, William Sewell, Jr., Margaret Somers, Sheldon Stryker, and Charles Tilly.
Somewhat less obvious is the fact that society, in turn, has always had a hand in the molding of science. Shryock’s summary of his remarks at the spring meeting of the board of directors of the Social Science Research Council, March 1956.
This continuing interplay has had momentous consequences for modern civilization and merits serious investigation by historians and by social scientists at large. Shapiro, American Museum of Natural History; and Gordon R. The function of this group is exploratory in nature, since these fields are at present ill-defined and little cultivated.
Like Weber, Myrdal believed that objectivity is ideal to...
Sociologists, like other professionals and academic practitioners, have engaged in a collective project—“becoming a science.” This article traces the occupational and intellectual components of that project, focusing especially on the model of science employed, the limits of that model, and the limits of the science model in general.
The reason for his claim was, sociologists had to choose from the vast knowledge in sociology to be studied.
Inevitably, this will result value judgments to be made.
With this end in view, the Council and the National Research Council have appointed a joint committee to be concerned with the history and sociology of science. Their status in the American academic world is uncertain and somewhat confused, and their implications for history and for social science in general are not widely appreciated.
The other members of the Committee on the History of Science are: I. Corner, Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research; Henry Guer Iac, Cornell University; Mark H. The committee hopes to clarify some of these matters.