Search results

This paper seeks to argue that sociology is in need of reconstruction on a theoretical and conceptual foundation of cybernetics, specifically, managerial cybernetics and to show how this hitherto unsuccessful task might be brought about.

The approach is one of a rigorous and deep querying of the reasons for the lack of successful fit heretofore between sociology and cybernetics. By taking a critical, historical and philosophical approach to the development of sciences it opens possibilities for the reconstruction of sociology as a “new science” based on the foundation of cybernetics, specifically the managerial cybernetics of Stafford Beer.

The work argues that the appropriate conceptual foundation for the social sciences is the realm of communication and control, ideas that were given a rigorous formulation in cybernetics, information theory and systems thinking since the 1940s. Many people have seen the prima facie appropriateness of these ideas for the study of human society and numerous attempts have been made to apply them. Almost, all of these efforts have been failures, at least from a sociological point of view. The paper suggests that the problem with all such previous attempts is that they consisted of too direct an application of cybernetics to sociology, entailing a metaphoric reduction that threatened the intellectual integrity of the discipline. Work in the history of sciences suggests that, whereas deep theoretical, foundational work may well be achieved for a realm in the abstract, so to speak, it is when attempts are made to apply these results to more phenomenal domains, to which in principle they are deemed appropriate and relevant, that problems of an apparent “lack of fit” arise. It has been found that a group of intermediating concepts is necessary to draw the two domains together in a workable fit. This process has been called “finalization of science”.

Of immediate value is the reconstruction of sociology as a cybernetically informed science of society that actually delivers theoretical, analytical, research and practical results.

The paper represents a highly original synthesis drawn from the history and philosophy of science development to yield immediate and useful results.

The current crisis of sociological theory is due to our failure to do sociology as a positive science‐our failure to accept both explanation and prediction as the goal of theorizing, and to use predictive power as the primary criterion for assessing theories. It is argued that sociology as a positive science can advance sociological theory. It is also argued that a positive science of sociology is possible by correcting four major fallacies‐i.e., fallacies concerning controlled experiments, realism of assumptions, subjectivity, and complexity.

The existence of hierarchies based on reputation in modern science is indisputable. A set of common scientific journals is often assumed to be instrumental in the formation of these hierarchies. However, the character of the hierarchies, how monolithic/pluralistic they are and the functions of this differentiation have been discussed and caused controversy. The article brings together results from a survey of 788 Danish researchers, mainly from the social sciences, concerning their assessments of the most influential researchers and most important journals. The rankings indicate a pluralistic picture and only a moderate degree of consensus among researchers. Comparisons with (the few) other surveys and with citation data do not suggest this to be a peculiarity of Danish social scientists, however.

Data sharing is key for replication and re-use in empirical research. Scientific journals can play a central role by establishing data policies and providing technologies. The purpose of this paper is to analyses the factors which influence data sharing by investigating journal data policies and the behaviour of authors in sociology.

The web sites of 140 sociology journals were consulted to check their data policy. The results are compared with similar studies from political science and economics. A broad selection of articles published in five selected journals over a period of two years are examined to determine whether authors really cite and share their data and the factors which are related to this.

Although only a few sociology journals have explicit data policies, most journals make reference to a common policy supplied by their association of publishers. Among the journals selected, relatively few articles provide data citations and even fewer make data available – this is true both for journals with and without a data policy. But authors writing for journals with higher impact factors and with data policies are more likely to cite data and to make it really accessible.

No study of journal data policies has been undertaken to date for the domain of sociology. A comparison of authors’ behaviours regarding data availability, data citation, and data accessibility for journals with or without a data policy provides useful information about the factors which improve data sharing.

Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.

The theory of autopoietic social systems (Luhmann) is used as an explanatory framework for such historico‐sociological puzzles as the origins of social crisis, totalitarianism, the appearance of the crowd, the mass extermination of internal enemies (scapegoats), and the modern emergence of sociology itself. All of these seemingly incompatible phenomena have a connection with one particular emotion, namely, alienation, which is utilized as an integrative concept. On the basis of an elaboration of the concept of systems medium, social crisis is analysed as being solicited by a reduced availability of whatever systemic medium is most important in a given society.

Delves into history to find out if sociological knowledge can be applied successfully to policy making. Explains that society is based on the use of multiple knowledge structures and belief systems. Cites examples of centres which were set up in the USA to improve understanding and knowledge in a specific area, which could then contribute towards policy making and, ultimately, improved practice. Discusses the application of knowledge at various points in history, indicating that ruling elites are not motivated by knowledge (intellect) but by sentiment, and that this is still the case today. Refers to various literary works on sociological practice. Advocates that modern social research should be driven by policy issues and that sociologists should seize the opportunity, presented by decentralization, to become policy makers in their own communities.

The paper argues in favor of reestablishing sociological or social economics as a legitimate discipline of economic science. Conspires toward undertaking analyses of the social co‐determination of economic behaviors, variables and systems. Suggests the need for incorporation of sociological/social economics in the existing semi‐official (JEL) taxonomy of economic fields and subjects. The argument for sociological economics can be made on two grounds: ontological or empirical‐historical and epistemological or theoretical‐methodological ones. The article bases the argument for sociological economics on the former, i.e., the empirical‐historical social co‐determination of the economy. The relations of sociological economics to sociology of economics are specified and the implications of sociological/social economics for modern economic science are also discussed.

FOR the student who has to choose a field of study in which to learn and exercise his bibliographic skills Sociology affords an interesting and attractive challenge. Indeed, to understand his chosen profession it must necessarily be placed within its social context. Most students at some stage of their development reflect on the social problems that beset the human situation, and some, as the mass media would have us believe, are anxious to remould the “sorry scheme of things” as represented by the existing social structure.

This note is written in the spirit of Becker's dictum that “methodology is too important to be left to methodologists” (Becker, 1970: 3). The methodology I wish to examine is the influential realist approach to social science, which has recently been held up as a panacea for many sociological ills. As an approach with its own specificity it has developed since the mid‐1970s, making important and influential contributions to a wide range of concerns, suggesting that it is more than just another in the series of intellectual fads by which many sociologists have been seduced (Outhwaite, 1987). However, realism, like many other intellectual projects which attempt to operate at the interface of theory and practice, has been subject to the constraints of current institutional arrangements.