Studies of Social Sciences and Humanities

LSE Blog: Impact of Social Sciences

2012-01-05T02:43:00.000-08:00

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/

The Impact of Social Sciences blog is a hub for researchers, administrative staff, students, think-tanks, government, and anyone else interested in maximising the impact of academic work in the social sciences and other disciplines.

Open Letter: SSH for the future of Europe

2011-12-21T09:01:00.000-08:00

An Open Letter to the European Commissioner for Research and Innovation,
Maire Geoghegan-Quinn.

A sustained and substantial European investment in cutting-edge Socio-economic Sciences and the Humanities (SSH) can unlock new knowledge and insights that are necessary for Europe

to overcome inequality, exclusion and poverty and to adapt to demographic change (migration, ageing, gender relations etc.);
to develop resilient institutions that can strengthen sustainable growth, innovation processes, and social and political participation;
to exploit cultural diversity as a source for creativity, adaptive capabilities and social innovation;
to advance our understanding of cognitive processes and create educational opportunities in inclusive and democratic societies;
to understand the complexity of value systems, worldviews and behavioural patterns, and address issues of openness or resistance to change and
to move towards successful intercultural dialogue and global diplomacy

If you agree with the need for SSH to produce policy-oriented research for Europe, and if you wish to see a strong SSH-programme under the new European Framework Programme Horizon 2020 (2014-2020) you are invited to read the Open Letter to the Commissioner and sign it!

New Book

2011-12-21T08:34:00.000-08:00

Social Knowledge in the Making

EDITED BY CHARLES CAMIC, NEIL GROSS, AND MICHÈLE LAMONT

See also Q&A with editors @ Inside Higher Education

Over the past quarter century, researchers have successfully explored the inner workings of the physical and biological sciences using a variety of social and historical lenses. Inspired by these advances, the contributors to Social Knowledge in the Making turn their attention to the social sciences, broadly construed. The result is the first comprehensive effort to study and understand the day-to-day activities involved in the creation of social-scientific and related forms of knowledge about the social world.

The essays collected here tackle a range of previously unexplored questions about the practices involved in the production, assessment, and use of diverse forms of social knowledge. A stellar cast of multidisciplinary scholars addresses topics such as the changing practices of historical research, anthropological data collection, library usage, peer review, and institutional review boards. Turning to the world beyond the academy, other essays focus on global banks, survey research organizations, and national security and economic policy makers.Social Knowledge in the Making is a landmark volume for a new field of inquiry, and the bold new research agenda it proposes will be welcomed in the social science, the humanities, and a broad range of nonacademic settings.

Coming up: The Social Life of Methods CRESC Conference

2010-08-16T12:22:00.000-07:00

The programme is now online: http://www.cresc.ac.uk/events/conference2010/programme.html

International KWALON Conference 'Is Qualitative Data Analysis Software really comparable?'

2009-10-30T11:47:00.000-07:00

April 22-23, 2010
University for Humanistics, Utrecht, The Netherlands

"In this 2-day conference we want to explore the use of analysis software in a more methodological sense. The main theme of the conference is the intertwinement of qualitative data analysis, the use of software and the person analyzing. To that end, we've invited developers and users of qualitative analysis software to reflect on the use of CAQDAS. Developers of data analysis software will be presenting the results of their participation in an experiment we designed for them. Users of software present their experiences in working with software.

Press the link for further information about the Conference.
Paper proposals can be submitted untill November 15, 2009. See the Call for Papers link above for further information. Registration for the Conference is open now and can be done with the online registration form above. The Conference fee is 165 Euro for Early Birds (untill November 30, 2009), and 225 Euro from December 1, 2009 onwards."

For a European Research Space in Social Sciences

2009-10-29T07:08:00.001-07:00

"Our network aims at analysing the conditions of possibility and realisation of an European space of research in the social sciences. The first objective is to describe the barriers which impede the emergence of such a transnational, multidisciplinary space. Our team plans to achieve the task by a systematically comparative approach of the history of the social sciences within each of the represented national contexts. Intercultural divergences and convergences prevailing within the European space will be identified; obstacles and filters slowing down if not blocking the free circulation of ideas will be delineated."
More info @ http://www.espacesse.org/en/index.php

European Evaluation Fever hitting France

2009-10-15T13:05:00.000-07:00

The french journal BMS just published interesting comments on the situation and ongoing debates in France concerning the evaluation and assessment criteria for social sciences.

http://bms.revues.org/index3023.html

The new role(s) of social sciences

2009-10-07T08:52:00.001-07:00

New issue of Science, Technology & Innovation Studies deals with the roles of social scientists and their expertise in participatory policy making.

It contains the following articles, free download here: http://www.sti-studies.de

__ Priska Gisler/Silke Schicktanz
Introduction: Ironists, reformers, or rebels? Reflections on the role
of the social sciences in the process of science policy making

__ Gabriele Abels
Organizer, observer and participant. What role for social scientists
in different pTA models?

__ Maud Radstake/Annemiek Nelis/Eefje van den Heuvel-Vromans/Koen Dortmans
Mediating online DNA-Dialogues. From public engagement to
interventionist research

__ Kevin Burchell
A helping hand or a servant discipline? Interpreting non-academic
perspectives on the roles of social science in participatory
policy-making

CRESC Conference 2010 CFP: The Social Life of Methods

2009-10-06T10:31:00.000-07:00

http://www.cresc.ac.uk/events/conference2010/callforpapers.html

6th Annual Conference 2010: The Social Life Of Methods
31 August - 3 September, St Hugh's College Oxford

CFP

During the past century and longer, social scientific methods have come to be extensively deployed in government, administration and business, as well as in academic research. Maps, enumerations, surveys, interviews, indicators, software and visualizations proliferate. The aim of this conference is to consider how we can best understand the agency of social science methods in both shaping, and themselves being affected, by economic, social and cultural change, both historically and in the current context when digitalization poses specific challenges to established repertoires of social science methods.

Mindful of the ideas developed within Science and Technology Studies, which show how objects in the natural and medical sciences can be social agents, we seek to broaden this agenda to focus more particularly on methods within the social sciences and humanities. Papers are invited from interdisciplinary audiences addressing the following issues:

Is it useful to explore how agency can be located in certain kinds of social scientific methodological repertoires?
What kinds of methods succeed and which fail? What are the respective powers of different sorts of qualitative and quantitative forms of analysis? How can we explain why certain sorts of methods become hegemonic in certain domains, and what consequences follow from this?
What is the role of the visual in social science methods? How is this changing?
With the proliferation of digital data, are we currently seeing a crisis of standard social science methods based around the sample survey and the interview, and what does this portend for our understanding of socio-cultural change? Does the idea of a descriptive turn offer a useful way of grasping the role of these new methods?
What is the transformative and critical potential of social science research methods, both historically and today?

We are interested in using reflecting theoretically about how actor network theory, genealogy, complexity theory, feminist theory, anthropological studies of expertise, ecological studies of knowledge, political economy and field analysis can be used to understand and illuminate these issues. There will be four themes which will structure the sessions of the conference:

1: The device: what kinds of device have come to play an important historical role, and which have failed? How can we better understand the histories of nations, social groups, individuals and organizations through a focus on devices?
2: The challenge of digital data: what is the implication of the proliferation of digital information for the ordering of economic, social, political and cultural knowledge?
3: Envisaging the visual: how have visual methods historically competed with textual and numerical methods, and how far is their role changing in the current context?
4: Transformative practice: history, discipline and movements: how can methods be mobilized to critique and challenge dominant methodological repertoires, focusing especially on the role of historical analysis, ethnographic, feminist, and subaltern methods?

Please submit either (a) proposal for individual papers, or (b) panel proposal including 3 papers by the end of February 2010.

CRESC Conference Administration, 178 Waterloo Place, Oxford Road, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, Tel: +44(0)161 275 8985 / Fax: +44(0)161 275 8985

Conference: The Future of Social Sciences and Humanities, Oct 22-23 2009, Brussels

2009-10-06T10:27:00.000-07:00

http://www.iccr-international.org/events/2009/2009-10-2223.html

At the final conference of the SSH-FUTURES project commissioned by DG Research in the 6th Framework Programme in Brussels in October a workshop will be held on the topic of ‘The Future of Social Sciences and Humanities’. The conference will be a two-day event held. On the first day, the members of the SSH-FUTURES consortium will present the results of their study and discuss potential recommendations and conclusions. The second day will be devoted to the results of similar projects.

The main objective of the workshop is to discuss:

the achievement of Social Sciences and Humanities so far,
the potential of inter- and transdisciplinary research,
facilitators for and barriers to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the Social Sciences and Humanities,
the expectations of policy makers, NGOs and other funding organizations of the Social Sciences and Humanities and their potential to respond to these expectations.

Social Technology Workshop, Amsterdam

2009-10-06T10:18:00.000-07:00

It was a very inspiring workshop. The concept of "social technology" still offers a lot of possibilities when it comes to the framing of the study the practices and impact of social sciences and humanities with an STS perspective.

Watch out for comments on the workshop by Bus van Heur and Paul Wouters
http://socialtechnology.wordpress.com/

Enacting social sciences and humanities within contemporary science policy landscape

2009-09-13T09:57:00.000-07:00

Report
Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic; May 21–22, 2009

We observe – and experience – today science policies intervening intimately into scientific lives. While the timing and scope differ for countries the general tendency is clear: science policies strive to measure impact and effectiveness of research, enhance and channel mobility of researchers, stimulate collaborations and knowledge transfer between the academy and industry. Like other neoliberal policies science policy pretends to be apolitical and care solely about “excellence” and “effectiveness”. The aim of the workshop was to disclose and analyse the politics - of knowledge and social order - implicated in the policy interventions by starting from the observation that while the measure and quality criteria employed are most often formulated as universal for science as a whole many of them prioritise the model of knowledge production and career in (certain) natural sciences and technical disciplines.
Following on previous workshops aimed at studying social sciences and humanities (SSH) from STS perspective we focused at treatment of social sciences and humanities (SSH) within science policies in different contexts. This dimension emerged as important for understating the contemporary enactments of SSH. The goal of the workshop is to map the diversity – or uniformity – of policy treatments of SSH in different countries; to investigate some of the implications these polices have for knowledge production and research careers in SSH; and to think about implications current polices have for so called “knowledge society” we are living in.
It was obvious from all the presentations that SSH have a highly ambiguous position within contemporary science policy strategies. On one hand they are rather invisible as science policies, modelled very strongly in accordance to the socio-epistemic patterns of natural science and technical disciplines, are most often presented as universally applicable to any scientific disciplines. On the other hand, however, they are highly visible as they do not easily fit this seemingly universal framework (SSH researchers protesting to science policies; partial adjustments for SSH in research assessment criteria) and they are also subject to policy measures in some countries and on the EU level in the form of special programmes (e.g. “2007 Year of Humanities” in Germany).

Abstracts of presentations:
1. Claire Donovan (Research School of Social Sciences, The Australian National University):
The Governance of Social Science and Humanities Research in Australia

At the turn of the 19th century, due to the centrality of progressive social planning in driving its public policy, Australia was dubbed the ‘world’s social laboratory’. In the 21st century this is but a dim and distant memory. The rise of technocratic forms of governance has relegated the social sciences and humanities (SSH) to the periphery of Australia’s public policy planning, and to the outer margins of its government’s science and innovation portfolio. This paper is concerned with the contingent ‘otherness’ of SSH research in contemporary Australian public policy and science governance, and the place of interpretive SSH research in particular.
One case study is presented: direct ministerial intervention in the award of Australian Research Council (ARC) grants to SSH researchers. Narratives of this dilemma are used to reveal competing traditions of science governance, and underlying beliefs about the legitimacy and relevance of SSH research. These traditions provide a backdrop to examine the creation of Australia’s National Research Priorities, and the construction of science and innovation policies aimed at evaluating research ‘quality’ and ‘impact’. The paper examines the ‘otherness’ of SSH within these policy processes. It also reflects on the success and failure of various strategies designed by the SSH community to promote the value of its research to government, particularly ‘non-scientific’ ways of knowing

2. Tereza Stöckelová (Institute of Sociology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic)
The concept of academic and societal impact in the Czech science policy

The paper discusses science policy for SSH in the Czech Republic with the focus on the concept of “impact” inscribed into the criteria of research evaluation. I look first at the development of the system of research evaluation since it was introduced in 2004, changes in values ascribed to different types of scientific outputs and the position of SSH within the system. I discuss the culmination of the effort in creation of a special “National reference frame of excellence” into which some of the SSH disciplines were assigned, while others remained to be evaluated according to the same criteria as natural and technical sciences. I discuss argumentation for this exemption of some but not all of the SSH disciplines. I argue that the introduction of this kind of classification reinforces the hegemony of conceiving impact in terms of internationality, commercialization and technologization (the hegemony by which some of the SSH disciplines are granted an exception) rather than opening up imagination for other, more diverse modes of thinking about it.

3. Katja Mayer and Veronika Wöhrer (University of Vienna)
Relevance and Impact of SSH in the Austrian Context

This contribution attempts to shed a different perspective on Austrian policy discourses related to programs focusing on SSH, which were recently established: There is a program for SSH run by the Ministry of Science and Research (BMWF), there are attempts to foster SSH research in the biggest Austrian research foundation for basic research (Austrian Science Fund, FWF) and there are other founding institutions, like the research funding body of the City of Vienna (Vienna Science and Technology Fund, WWTF), which occasionally run programs dedicated to SSH. We intend to read and analyse related documents in search for rhetorics of impact and relevance assigned to SSH. Our main interest is to find out what perceptions of societal relevance and economic, social or academic impact of SSH are inscribed in these initiatives.
Furthermore we ask: how are concepts of impact and relevance of SSH to Austrian society shaped by qualitative and quantitative criteria? Does a turn to quantitative criteria constitute circumvention of missing concepts of quality? But we assume that in such attempts of quantitative commodification nevertheless certain perceptions of “quality” are inscribed, but not necessarily made explicit.

We argue on the basis of the following documents, which give an overview on the main institutions of Austrian science policy: 1) Austrian Federal Ministry of Science and Research, Programme on SSH; 2) SSH Calls of The Vienna Science and Technology Fund WWTF; 3) “Discussion Paper concerning The Situation and Problems of SSH” of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF); 4) “Structure of SSH in Austria”, Report on behalf of the Austrian Council for Research and Technology Development (RFTE).

4. Alice Červinková (Institute of Sociology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic):

In my presentation I will focus on analysing a part of the document National politics of Research, Development and Innovations, specifically on the part devoted to social sciences and humanities titled “Priorities for the development of Czech society”, which is now undergoing the comment and approval procedure.
The document suggests five areas of concern: 1. Governance and administration; 2. Human potential of the CR, its reproduction and development; 3. Competitiveness of Czech society; 4. Czech identity and surrounding world; and finally 5. Technologies and methods. Whereas the fourth priority concerning Czech identity is indicated to be a more separate area of concern (of the humanities), the other areas are indicated to be interlinked in a synergic way and come under the concern of social sciences.
I raise two concerns in my presentation. First, I will look into the anticipated synergies between the priorities: How are the synergies constructed in the document? What are the expectations placed on social sciences in this respect? How should they contribute to the construction of these synergies? I will also look into the separation of the priority Czech identity and surrounding world and will be concerned with the question what arguments have been developed to detach this area from the other priorities.
The document introduces the concept of evidence based-policies into the area of social sciences and humanities? Evidence-based policies constitute not only a methodological approach but also have an important impact on the enactment of the relationship between social scientists, policy makers and society. My second concern is related to this: What are the expectations and assumptions behind this introduction? What kind of social science approaches will be prioritised and regarded as useful and what approaches might be marginalised?

Epistemic Vehicles in the Human Sciences 24 - 25 July Vienna

2009-07-25T06:20:00.000-07:00

http://www.univie.ac.at/iwk/epistemic_vehicles.html
Tagung in englischer Sprache.

Symposion des Max-Planck-Instituts für Wissenschaftsgeschichte (Berlin) in Kooperation mit dem Institut für Wissenschaft und Kunst
Konzept und Koordination: Andreas Mayer (Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Berlin)

Tagungsort: Heiligenkreuzer Hof, 1010 Wien
Lageplan

Die internationale Tagung befasst sich mit der Eigenlogik der konkreten Medien, die in der Wissensvermittlung der Humanwissenschaften seit ihrer Entstehung im 19. Jahrhundert zum Einsatz kommen: Neben der Geschichte des Buches und der Printmedien gilt es an Beispielen aus verschiedenen Disziplinen (Philologie, Psychologie, Psychoanalyse) die Rolle von visuellen Technologien (Photographie, Film) und von wissenschaftlichen Ausstellungen vergleichend zu analysieren.
Die Tagung findet im Gedenken an Lydia Marinelli (1965-2008) statt, die eine der originellsten HistorikerInnen und KuratorInnen ihrer Generation war. Von ihrer Arbeit werden sicher in erster Linie ihre Ausstellungen im Gedächtnis bleiben sowie ihre innovativen und anregenden Versuche, der Geschichtsschreibung der Psychoanalyse neue Impulse zu geben. Darüber hinaus haben ihre Arbeiten aber auch Implikationen für die grundsätzlichere Frage, auf welche Weise Wissen in den Humanwissenschaften erzeugt und weitergegeben wird. Zu einer Zeit, als die Wissenschaftsgeschichte sich meist entlang disziplinärer Grenzen bewegte oder sich als Exegese von Texten verstand, bedeutete es einen neuartigen Ansatz, die Psychoanalyse vom Buch und von anderen Medien aus zu denken. Auch Marinellis Analysen zur Rolle visueller Technologien sowie zur Funktion des Archivs und des Museums bei der Weitergabe psychoanalytischen Wissens stellten eine Herausforderung für die Ideengeschichte traditionellen Typs dar.

Humanities vs Social Sciences

2009-07-07T10:21:00.000-07:00

3/932007 PhD Comics

Workshop Social Technology

2009-04-24T05:17:00.001-07:00

Amsterdam, 2 October 2009

Sponsored by The Netherlands Graduate School of Science, Technology and
Modern Culture (WTMC)

Call for participants

This one-day workshop will be held in Amsterdam, 2 October 2009. Papers
will be pre-circulated and a respondent assigned for each contribution.
If you are interested in submitting a paper, please send an abstract,
400 – 600 words, before 30 May 2009, to

Topic

In this workshop, we seek to address two deeply ingrained aspects of
current Science and Technology Studies: the focus on material
technology, and the idea that all technology is social. Devices,
machines, artifacts take central place in STS, in keeping with the
common sense meaning of the word ‘technology’. Combined with STS's
traditional focus on natural science and medicine, this has resulted in
a relative neglect of technologies that stem from the social sciences,
in which material devices are less prominent. Moreover, through the
influence of actor-network theory in particular, the idea has taken
root that material technology forms the glue of our society (the
'missing masses'), as well as being its main source of change. Material
technology is considered to be at the heart of society, and the
dichotomy of the social and the technological is rejected: all
technology is social, and society is technological through and through.

We wish first of all to redress the imbalance inherent in the material
view of technology. The social sciences produce great numbers of
graduates each year, skilled in technologies that are to a large extent
intangible: psychotherapy, focus groups, various types of interview,
techniques of human resource management, and many others. Such
practices have of course been the subject of historical and
sociological study, often from a Foucauldian perspective. However,
applying the conceptual resources of STS may bring into better view the
socio-material construction processes involved in practical social
science, its particular affordances and trade-offs, and embeddedness in
technoscientific networks.

Secondly, we want to problematize the popular 'dissolution of the
social': the widely accepted proposition that the category of 'the
social' is at best increasingly irrelevant, and at worst a fundamental
mistake. Rethinking old dichotomies such as that of nature and culture,
or the material and the social, has been of tremendous importance in
reflecting on our current ways of living. However, the fact that it is
no longer acceptable as a theoretical resource, does not make the
social any less interesting as an empirical phenomenon. The
distinctiveness of people and their interactions is still invoked,
produced, repressed, and utilized in many technological assemblages,
not only those stemming from the social sciences.

We propose the term 'social technology' to cover these issues, and
intend to bring together a number of scholars from Science and
Technology Studies and the Social Sciences to discuss them.

The workshop will be the occasion to address the following questions,
through theoretical and conceptual reflections and empirically-oriented
contributions: What is the current scope of technology studies and to
what extent can it embrace social technologies? Which social
technologies are especially prominent in contemporary culture, and how
can we study these? Does a reframing of ‘technology’ enable STS to
better explore the workings of social science and humanities? How can
the term social technology allow a study of human qualities, without
assuming a priori a human essence?

Papers that compare the role of predominantly material technologies in
building and stabilizing 'collectives' with the role of social
technologies are also welcome, as are papers that address social
technologies as (1) technologies from the social sciences, (2)
technologies that consist entirely or predominantly of human action
(polling, rhetoric, and psychotherapy are examples of social technology
in this sense) or (3) technologies for the creation and maintenance of
groups.

Costs

Thanks to generous support from WTMC, there is no registration fee.
Some funding is available to cover travel to the workshop.

Location

The workshop will be hosted by the Virtual Knowledge Studio for the
Humanities and Social Sciences, Amsterdam.

Organisers

Maarten Derksen (University of Groningen, The Netherlands) –
m.derksen@rug.nl Signe Vikkelsø (Copenhagen Business School, Denmark) –
ssv.ioa@cbs.dk Anne Beaulieu (Virtual Knowledge Studio, The
Netherlands) – anne.beaulieu@vks.knaw.nl

Timeline

Deadline for submissions: 30 May 2009
Announcement of paper acceptance: end of June 2009
Deadline for full papers: 22 August 2009
Workshop: 2 October 2009

Two Reflexivities in Current Social Science: Remarks on an Absent Debate

2009-03-31T05:00:00.000-07:00

Andreas Langenohl (Deutschland):
Zweimal Reflexivitaet in der gegenwaertigen Sozialwissenschaft: Anmerkungen zu einer nicht gefuehrten Debatte

http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs090297

Langenohl, Andreas (2009). Zweimal Reflexivität in der gegenwärtigen Sozialwissenschaft: Anmerkungen zu einer nicht geführten Debatte [25 Absätze]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(2), Art. 9, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs090297.

WORKSHOP May 2009 CFP

2009-03-11T10:10:00.000-07:00

Enacting social sciences and humanities within contemporary science policy landscape
CALL FOR PAPERS

Venue: Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
Date: May 22–23, 2009
Deadline for applications and abstracts: April 10, 2009
Deadline for papers: May 15, 2009.
http://www.sshstudies.net

Science has always been entangled with politics. Since WWII the political influence on science has been taking a form of an ever stronger policy intervention. While the timing and scope differ for countries the general tendency is clear: science policies strive to measure impact and effectiveness of research, enhance and channel mobility of researchers, stimulate collaborations and knowledge transfer between the academy and industry. Like other neoliberal policies science policy pretends to be apolitical and care solely about “excellence” and “effectiveness”. We would like to disclose and analyse the politics - of knowledge and social order - implicated in the policy interventions by starting from the observation that while the measure and quality criteria employed are most often formulated as universal for science as a whole many of them prioritise the model of knowledge production and career in (certain) natural sciences and technical disciplines. We want to take up the double marginality of social sciences and humanities (SSH) – with regard to the modern objectivist pretension to exact and causal knowledge on one hand and the neoliberal pretension to instrumental and marketable knowledge on the other – as a standpoint from which we could analyse the dominant science imaginaries and practices.

The goal of the workshop is to map the diversity – or uniformity – of policy treatments of SSH in different countries; to investigate some of the implications these polices have for knowledge production and research careers in SSH; and to think about implications current polices have for so called “knowledge society” we are living in. We want to focus specifically on two dimensions of science policies. First, we want to analyse the concept of “impact”, both academic and societal, implied in science policies and the possibilities of assessing it. To give an example, in the Czech Republic only technological outputs count as a legitimate form of societal (non-academic) impact of science which has implications for SSH as its articulations in society take different forms. Second, we want to look into research priorities – how they are constructed and legitimated, and to what sort of society SSH are encouraged to contribute. We invite papers based on empirical study including auto-ethnography.

We would like to arrange a meeting of collective in situ thinking. In order to keep the space for discussions during the workshop, we ask participants to send in advance a paper (5-10 pages) including a brief sketch of science policies in their countries concerning SSH with a focus on “impact” and “research priorities” and a short “case study” discussing one issue in greater detail. Participants from the same country can coordinate a partially shared paper or one of them can look at EU policy. Abstracts containing contact address should be sent to policies@sshstudies.net to the organisers of the workshop Alice Červinková and Tereza Stöckelová (Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences, Czech Republic), Katja Mayer and Veronika Wöhrer (University of Vienna, Austria) who are associated in http://www.sshstudies.net .

We would like to prepare a special issue with contributions of participants including collective conclusions (may we arrive at them).

Venue: Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
Date: May 22–23, 2009
Deadline for applications and abstracts: April 10, 2009
Deadline for papers: May 15, 2009.

Session Report EASST/4S 2008 Rotterdam

2008-12-02T08:01:00.000-08:00

(The following text is taken from the paper "Acting with Social Sciences and Humanities" in EASST Review FEB. 2009 - full text is available here: http://www.easst.net/review/feb2009/mayer or here to discuss: http://www1.svt.ntnu.no/forum/easst/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=46 )

Our section comprised of 3 sessions and a total of 13 presentations. In order not to impose a “grand narrative” on the quite heterogeneous set of lectures, I will be following the order of appearance, to open up the broad range of subjects that were addressed. But let me introduce you to the different session beforehand: In the first session “Impact, Co-Shaping and Reflexivity” the presentations analysed what happens with knowledge developed in the social sciences and humanities when it goes beyond the (core) scientific community: how it is used, translated, and made sense of e.g. in the conduct of psychological experiments (Derksen). Some papers focused on the role of social sciences in research projects or institutions they themselves are involved in (Bister, Dunn), or focused on social sciences within multidisciplinary research sites (Dunn) resp. in science communications (Phillips) and in the media and public debates (Plesner).

The second session “(Politics of) Methods and Complicity" was dedicated to methodological issues and their relevance in regard to research politics and research outcomes. The papers focused on performativity and aesthetics of social science methods (Mayer), elaborated on the role and position of a researcher being simultaneously inside and outside his/her field of study (Wöhrer, Stegmaier), and/or included further reflections on political implications of different methodological and theoretical approaches (Mager).

The papers of the third session, called “Inter-Disciplines”, dealt with different aspects of disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity. One paper focused on perceptions and enactment of /inter/disciplinarity in a contemporary sociology department (Červinková/Stöckelová), two concentrated on cross-disciplinary collaborations (Connor, Dormans) and a further paper was on historical developments of interdisciplinary and participatory social research (Lezaun).

Another perspective on our section reveals roughly 2 main strands of presentations: some of us were on the one hand researchers reflecting on their own practice as (social) scientists or STS researchers; on the other hand some were researchers studying SSH as a full fledged empirical field.

Our first session was opened by Milena Bister (University of Vienna, Austria) and her reflections on the research setting in a STS project investigating informed consent to tissue donation at a university hospital in Austria. Stepping in this particular space of negotiation between biomedicine and society, her team of STS researchers actually came to parallel some of their methods (acts and movements in the hospital) with those of the biomedical project partners. For instance they as well had to ask for the patients’ consent to the social science interviews just as the biomedical team did for tissue donation. Bister showed that by exploring the realm of bioethics in acting with the whole procedure – proposing to the ethics committee, designing the IC form, conducting IC with the patients right after the biomedical IC, interviewing the patients - her team actually co-shaped and reinforced the dominant practices of informed consent, despite their overall critical standpoint.

Caroline Dunn (University of Melbourne, Australia) introduced us to the often-conflicting imaginations of the Other in her research about community attitudes towards forestry industry, which is part of a 7 year project at the co-operative research center. In reflecting ethnographically her own status in the complex meshwork of funders, forestry practioners as participants and other researchers in such an interdisciplinary collaboration, Dunn experienced the potential of negotiating the aims of her social scientific inquiry. By asking collaborators what they expect of her study, she positioned herself as well as her study horizontally within the collective knowledge production process. By letting her own status be questioned by other participants, Dunn could engage in new perspectives and develop otherwise ignored research questions.

Ursula Plesner (University of Roskilde, Denmark) argued in line with Latour (2005) and Lynch (2000) that reflexivity should be given back to actors, rather than being drawn upon as a routine methodological duty and feigned enhancement of validity. Plesner presented empirical materials of interviews with journalists and social scientists from her study on communication of social scientific knowledge via mass media. She marked out the fact that interviewer and interviewees are competent lay audiences for one another. Showing that the concept of “lay sociological imaginations” (Mesny 1998) can be used as a heuristic tool to understand the production of intimacy in interviews with fellow sociologists and journalists. Plesner proposed that we leave the normative concerns related to ‘studying down’, and use active interview techniques (Holstein, Gubrium) when we “study sideways”, conceiving of interviews as bilateral “meaning-making occasions”.

Louise Phillips (University of Roskilde, Denmark) brought with her transcriptions of meetings in a Danish research and development consultancy. The researcher-consultants in the consultancy under study attempt to operate on the basis of dialogic principles in the sense that they view the communication of knowledge as knowledge-sharing, interaction, dialogue or negotiation rather than the one-way, unilinear transmission of expert knowledge to a less knowledgeable target-group. In analysis of the transcriptions, Phillips applied an integrative approach combining dialogic communication theory and STS – to address the questions: What happens to social scientific knowledge when it is communicated dialogically? How are different knowledges produced, negotiated, challenged and transformed in the meeting between social scientific knowledges and other knowledge forms and the meeting between the researchers and other participating actors?

Maarten Derksen (University of Groningen, The Netherlands) presented a study of 'machinations' (Latour, 1988) in psychology, part of a larger project on social technology conducted together with Anne Beaulieu. Noting that studies of technology usually focus on machines, he argued that it has become urgent to explore the engineering of human behavior. His analysis focused on priming studies and automaticity theory, attempts to construct subjects as machines, not under the control of a free, rational self. Derksen showed that priming research nevertheless produces excess subjectivity, resistance to machination, and proposed this as a general feature of machinations in the social sciences

Our second session started with my presentation (Katja Mayer, University of Vienna, Austria) about the usage of network diagrams in the context of Social Network Analysis. With focusing on their embedding in and capacity of coupling with scientific as well as popular visual cultures, but also on the material and corporeal dimensions of the imaging process, I illustrated what I call the “epistemological desire of being touched by- and touching” objects of research. Traveling fingers on social topographies, rhetoric precision via metaphors to circumscribe pictorial ambivalences, ergonomic standardizations in color schemes, are enacting and animating social structures, and therefore should be regarded as authentic practices to produce scientific validity. I concluded that in studying scientific practices the body is not to be blinded out as automatism, rather it should be considered as present criterion and constant involvement.

Peter Stegmaier (University of Nijmegen, Netherlands) tackled his role as “embedded” social scientist in the Centre for Society and Genomics in Nijmegen. With its mission to understand and improve the interaction between genomics researchers and various other societal actors, this institution employs Stegmaier to carry out a “meta-project” on what is considered to be the framework approach of the center, namely, ELSA (for ethical, legal, social aspects of) Genomics. He described himself as a “re-informant” who cooperates with and studies the social scientist-managers and -researchers in this facility. “While the informant informs a stranger/outsider about an unknown world of insiders, the re-informant/outsider informs the insiders about their known world. The re-informant shows the unknown or neglected dimensions/aspects, and questions insider perspectives through estrangement.”, as Stegmaier phrased it. He observed the institution’s own condition of doing research and outreach and he pointed to unknown or neglected dimensions/aspects, and questioned self-evident perspectives through professionalized “estrangement” (Hirschauer 1994; Hirschauer/Amann 1997). With a reflexive, ethnographic approach Stegmaier sought to know “something from the inside and outside at the same time” (Hirschauer 1994).

Being a gender researcher herself Veronika Wöhrer (University of Vienna, Austria) found herself in conflicting attributions towards her own role in her investigation of international co-operations between gender researchers of four different national communities. In her presentation Wöhrer explored the ambivalence/mutuality of proximity and distance to the protagonists as “complicity” (Marcus 1998) and showed how she was constructed as Other by her “co-researchers” (Kitzinger /Wilkinson 1996;). In the awareness that they were sharing the same scientific field, she was perceived differently in each context, i.e. as “rich Westener”, “experienced gender researcher”, “poor student” or “badly prepared foreigner”, which brought her to re-conceptualize her own assumptions about the respective “others” in the different field sites. She argues for more explicit reflections of one's own entanglements with the field, especially when researching (social) scientists, to contribute to what Bourdieu called a "reflexive sociology" (Bourdieu 1988).

Drawing on recent work in Actor-Network Theory (Law 2004, Mol 2002), Astrid Mager (University of Vienna, Austria) reflected on the different methods employed in her study on online health information and how they differently enacted “the web”. Taking in the standpoint of website providers the web was shaped as a network of clear-cut websites understood as coherent information packages linked to a specific actor. Taking in the standpoint of users the web was performed as assemblage of disconnected pieces of information organized around specific issues primarily by the search engine Google. Mager further asked what the political implications of the various methods chosen are in terms of “ontological politics” (Mol 2002). She elaborated that focusing on website providers tends to enact the web as a de-central actor-network that may strengthen the rhetoric of democracy widely attached to the web especially in its early days. Following users, in contrast, shapes the web as a Google-organized space that may underline the imagination of Google as an information monopolist increasingly spreading in public discourses. Mager concluded by arguing that it is thus central to think about the divergent politics pushed forward when choosing one method or another.

Alice Červinková and Tereza Stöckelová (Academy of Sciences Prague, Czech Republic) gave account of their long-term study in a department of sociology. They described the “inter/disciplinary hybrids” of social anthropology (SA) and gender studies (GS) that are partially connected to the “mother” discipline of sociology. Following Strathern (2007) they argued that disciplines are always interdisciplinary and identify three logics of this "hidden" interdisciplinarity. The logic of administration keeps SA and GS interlinked with sociology because of the lack of admissible senior professors who have to be formally "borrowed" from sociology; the logic of trajectory is embodied in researchers identities who often have degree in sociology and are not ready to completely disconnect from it (they are “boundary subjects”); and the logic of discipline allows for disciplinary ordering and cleansing, for keeping certain topics, epistemologies, ontologies and politics (especially in case of gender studies) out/on the margin of "proper" sociology, while guarding a partial control over them and mobilizing them as “sociology” when convenient.

During his presentation, Conor Douglas (University of York, UK and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada) reframed the question “How to integrate qualitative social scientific results into the development of a new prescribing algorithm for the anticoagulation drug warfarin?” into “How and why does social scientific knowledge matter in a multidisciplinary research project on pharmacogenetics?” He argued that while the project’s social science component implied the collection of “bio-narratives” of patients to effectively develop a way for understanding how patients make sense of their medical treatment that these findings may not be able to be readily integrated into the overall project organization. It is a challenge for social scientists involved in multidisciplinary research to reflect on what they are effectively doing in the research process, and for investigators to critically examine their own social science knowledge production processes in the same way that we in STS are accustomed to examining conventional technoscientific knowledge production.

Javier Lezaun (University of Oxford, UK) introduced us to MS Balao, a large cargo ship that was partly designed as a platform for experiments in the democratization of work, under the auspices of the Work Research Institute in Oslo from 1968-1978. Lezaun showed how the ship was treated as socio-technical experiment in offshore shipboard democracy. Essential social and spatial requirements for democratic work were built into the technological conditions and physical arrangements of the ship. The experiment included “onboard” social scientists who in the process of conducting their research learned that hierarchical forms of organization and communication were also inherent in their research practice, and concluded that they had to open up their “expertise” to other contributors, hence performing a democratization of research as well.

Stefan Dormans (Virtual Knowledge Studio, Amsterdam, the Netherlands) presented a project on ICT-enabled collaborations, so called collaboratories, in the domain of social history. The various collaborations under study revolve around geographically dispersed groups of experts who aggregate and co-create specific datasets for international comparative research. In his own project, Dormans tries to combine the traditional ethnographic role of the observer with an active role as participant in a more design-oriented approach. Besides writing a critical analysis on the collaboratories, he also actively participates in their development. However, as discussed during the presentation, this double role challenges the ethnographers fear of ‘going native’ and, since the project started fairly recently, it is still difficult to see if this combination of distance and engagement is a feasible one.

ABSTRACTS for Session: Acting with Social Sciences and Humanities at 4S/EASST Joint Meeting Rotterdam 2008

2008-08-02T12:38:00.000-07:00

Download the full session info here.
Download session schedule here.

SESSION I: IMPACTS, USES AND POLITICS
SATURDAY, 23 AUG 2008 1st Sessions: 8:30 – 10:30
Room: T3-05

Welcome and Introduction

Milena Bister (Vienna) – Enacting Informed Consent through Social Science Research
Carolyn Dunn (Melbourne) – Making Sense of Social Research in Forestry
Ursula Plesner (Roskilde) – Studying sideways – reflexivity in research interviews with sociologists and journalists
Louise Philips (Roskilde) – Communicating Social Scientific Knowledge Dialogically: An Integrative Approach

Maarten Derksen (Groningen) – Machines and machinations, part 2

Discussion

SESSION II: (PERFORMATIVITY OF) METHODS AND COMPLICITY
SATURDAY, 23 AUG 2008 2nd Sessions: 11:00 – 12:40
Room: T3-20

Katja Mayer (Vienna) – Social Network Diagrammatics
Peter Stegmaier (Nijmegen) – Embedded Observation between (Re-) Construction and (Re-) Conceptualisation of Organised Visions
Veronika Wöhrer (Vienna) – Complicity and Ambivalence. Questioning the Boundaries of a Research Field
Astrid Mager (Vienna) - Acting with the Web. How to handle Multiplicity in the Context of Online Health Information
John Law (Lancaster) - Collateral Realities /cancelled
Discussion

SESSION III: INTER-DISCIPLINES
SATURDAY, 23 AUG 2008 3rd Sessions: 13:30 – 15:30
Room: T3-05

Alice Červinková and Tereza Stöckelová (Praha) – Inter/disciplinarity in social sciences: Distributed sociology and boundary subjects

Stefan Dormans (Amsterdam) – Social-technological aspects of collaboratory projects in social and economic history

Conor Douglas (York) – Reflexive Engagement of the Social Sciences Component of Multidisciplinary Health Research: The Case of Pharmacogenetics

Thomas König (Vienna) – Historical research on Social sciences and What We Can Learn from It

Javier Lezaun (Oxford) – Underground Skills: The Socio-Technical System in the Other Tradition
Discussion

CfP: Scientific self-description by socialist societies

2008-04-17T06:02:00.000-07:00

Call for papers for the annual symposium of Collegium Carolinum in 2008, Nov.
20-23

Scientific self-description by socialist societies: social science and
ethnology/ethnography in East Central and Southeast Europe, 1945-1989

Ulf Brunnbauer, Claudia Kraft, Martin Schulze Wessel

In the state socialist countries of Eastern Europe, social science and ethnology/ethnography were of eminent importance for political reasons: they were repositories of knowledge for the self-description of the respective societies; by making available social and cultural analyses they served the purpose of exerting political control and prescribing directions of development; they were among the most important scientific instruments of state socialism for rationalizing its own existence. Ethnography was often given the task of visualizing a popular “socialist culture,” whereas sociologists were to detect “deviant” behavior. In some countries however, these disciplines also offered a vehicle for professional criticism of certain developments in the socialist societies, such as the goal of social equality remaining unattained. The relationship between social sciences and the communist regimes was therefore ambivalent, not least because unbiased examination of social and cultural life could not fail to point out striking differences between political pretension and social reality. By generating relevant data using methods such as ethnological field research, large-scale interviewing and recollection-compiling projects, and opinion polls which documented not only societal structures and professional strata, but in a growing proportion also changes in attitudes and
values, these disciplines were of great importance not only for describing societal reality, but also for exerting influence on it.

This year’s annual symposium of the Collegium Carolinum will be devoted to the history of social science and ethnology/ethnography throughout East Central and Southeast European nations for the period 1945-1989. Comparative approaches and analyses of international interactions, which may also include he history of these scientific disciplines in the Soviet Union, are welcome.

The symposium is planned to predominantly address the following questions:
– What scientific cultures did emerge in these two disciplines during the period of state socialism?
– Which pre-revolutionary traditions did the disciplines continue?
– In what measure did international scholarly communication both among East European nations themselves and between East and West exist?
– How and to what extent were the disciplines controlled politically?
– What was the relationship between theoretical and empirical approaches?
– What attention did sociological and ethnographical/ethnological research enjoy beyond the specific, informed public of their own disciplines?

The following thematic fields of the two scientific disciplines are to be thoroughly discussed at the symposium:
– Labor / Labor force
– Social inequality, Societal differentiation
– Inner security / Crime/ “Deviant” behavior
– Generations / Youth / Family / Sexuality
– Migration (both within a given nation and cross-border)
– Interethnic/interdenominational relations
– Gender

What we want to learn more about are traditions of thinking or concepts and methods developed with regard to the thematic fields mentioned above. We want to be able to make statements regarding similarities or dissimilarities in the history of social science and ethnology/ethnography across the whole range of East Central and Southeast European nations, even in comparison with the Soviet Union. Another question to be tackled is the role of intellectual contacts and exchanges across national borders and even between the two blocs , fitting examples being the support extended to scholars from state socialist countries by
Western funding institutions (such as the Ford Foundation) as early as the 1950s, or transnational scientific communication established in the framework of
international symposiums, international learned societies or by way of contacts with the respective exile communities.
The final question we shall try to answer concerns the stance of social and cultural sciences in East Central and Southeast Europe regarding the communist past of their own disciplines. Are there paradigms that appear worth maintaining, regardless of the fact that before 1989 the disciplines were politically controlled?
What importance do data accumulated by social sciences and ethnology/ethnography in the past have for social and cultural research today?
Since social and cultural sciences accumulated knowledge in a nationally-controlled environment with the aim of controlling society and making the communist dream come true, the projected symposium will act as a complement to the one organized by Collegium Carolinum in 2007 under the heading “Concepts about Future Developments and National Planning under Socialism: Czechoslovakia 1945-1989 in an East Central European perspective”.
Travel and hotel expenses will be refunded by Collegium Carolinum. Papers presented will be published in the book series “Bad Wiesseer Tagungen des Collegium Carolinum”. Conference languages will be German and English, projects for papers, however, may be submitted in Czech or Slovak as well.
Proposals – preferably not longer than a single page – must by submitted by June 15, 2008 to:
Christiane Brenner
Collegium Carolinum
Hochstraße 8
81669 Muenchen
Germany
Christiane.Brenner@extern.lrz-muenchen.de
www.collegium-carolinum.de

Call for Papers: ACTING WITH SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

2008-01-07T10:28:00.000-08:00

We are currently looking for contributors in our proposed panel at the 2008 Meeting of 4S and EASST (August 20-23, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. http://4sonline.org/meeting.htm

Abstract: max 400 words + short CV
Deadline: February 4th
Address: acting [at] sshstudies.net

Session Chairs:
Katja Mayer
Tereza Stöckelová
Veronika Wöhrer

Call for Abstracts for the Session
"Acting with Social Sciences and Humanities"

At the 2008 Annual Meeting of the Society for the Social Studies of Science (4S) and the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST)
August 20-23, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
http://4sonline.org/meeting.htm

Science and Technology Studies (STS) have a long tradition of research on scientific cultures and practices. However, this kind of research has until now mainly concentrated on engineering, the natural and medical sciences. Social sciences and humanities (SS&H) have been largely left out, even if these scientific fields contribute equally to enacting the world (Law, Urry 2004) and may be appropriated by society even faster, though in a more invisible way (Mesny 2000). SS&H disciplines co-shape policies, markets, media, biographies or ethics, by their research (with its specific concepts and methodologies) but also through the huge quantity of university degrees that are completed every year in these fields.
Even though SS&H have been object of scientific reflection, e.g. in the form of sociology of sociology, this sort of research is hardly recognized in STS mainstream discourse (as represented by the leading journals and conferences). By its focus on engineering, the natural and medical sciences, STS in fact reproduces the hegemony of these fields as “the science”, the same hegemony that characterises much of the current discourse in science policy and scientific journalism.
SS&H have experiences in “acting with” their research objects and the sponsors and users of the research. Concerning the constitution of and relations with research objects and participants, there seems to be a lot to learn and to reflect from SS&H and their exploration. We think that it is therefore fruitful and necessary for STS to focus also on these disciplines, which seem so “close” but nevertheless form an underexposed field of STS research.
We want to focus in this session on methodological issues and elaborate on the role and position of the researcher in a field perceived as closely related to “one’s own”. Besides dealing with reflexivity, impact and complicity as examples for this, we would like to encourage reflection on the notions of discipline and inter-disciplinarity.
Therefore one aim of this session is to bring together and discuss thematic and methodological aspects of researching SS&H from versatile perspectives. Otherwise it shall be a starting point for further discussions and networking, but also for developing more sustained academic debates of the SS&H field.
Hence if you would like to participate in the panel: Acting With Social Sciences and Humanities, please send your abstracts (max. 400 words) and CV until Feb 4th 2008 to the following address: acting =at= sshstudies.net and indicate, whether you prefer a presentation or a discussion setting.

References:
Law, John, John Urry. 2004. Enacting the social. Economy and Society 33(3): 390–410.
Mesny, Anne (1998): Sociology for Whom? The Role of Sociology in Reflexive Modernity, in: Canadian journal of sociology 23(2-3): 159-178.

Workshop Report

2007-12-17T16:43:00.000-08:00

Report of Workshop series 2007.
PDF

List by Elisabeth Simbürger (Sociology)

2007-12-17T02:21:00.000-08:00

Bibliography selection Elisabeth Simbuerger

Alvesson, M. and Skoeldberg, K. 2000: Reflexive Methodology. New Vistas for Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

Archer, M. 2003. Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Archer, M. 2007. Making our Way through the World: Human Reflexivity and Social Mobility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ashmore, M. 1989. The Reflexive Thesis. Wrighting Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. London: The University of Chicago Press.

Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. J. D. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. University of Chicago: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P. 1993. Sociology in Question. London : Routledge.

Burawoy, M. 1998. “Critical Sociology: A Dialogue between Two Sciences”. Contemporary Sociology 27(1): 12-20.
Friedrichs, R. W. 1970. A Sociology of Sociology. New York: The Free Press.

Burawoy, M. 2005. ‘2004 American Sociological Association Presidential address: For public sociology’. The British Journal of Sociology 56 (2): 259-294.

Fuller, S 1988. Social Epistemology. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Fuller, S. W. 2006. The New Sociological Imagination. London: Routledge.

Gibbons, M. and Limoges, C. and Nowotny, H. and Schwartzmann, S. and Scott, P. and Trow, M. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.

Gouldner, A. W. 1970. The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. London: Heinemann.

Gouldner, A. W. 1973. For Sociology. London: Allen Lane.

Horowitz, I. L. 1970. “Mainliners and Marginals: The Human Shape of Sociological Theory”. In L. T. Reynolds and J. M. Reynolds (eds.) 1970. The Sociology of Sociology. Analysis and Criticism of the Thought, Research, and Ethical Folkways of Sociology and Its Practitioners. New York: David McKay Company: 340-370.

Horowitz, I. L. 1994. The Decomposition of Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lepenies, W. (ed.) 1981. 4 volumes. Geschichte der Soziologie: Studien zur kognitiven, sozialen und historischen Identitaet einer Disziplin. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Letherby, G. 2000. “Dangerous liaisons: auto/biography in research and research writing”. In G. Lee-Treweek and S. Linkogle (eds.) 2000. Danger in the field. Risk and ethics in social research. London: Routledge.

Lynd, R. 1964. Knowledge for What? The Place of Social Science in American Culture. New York: Grove Press.

May, T. 2001. Social Research. Issues. Methods and Process. Third Edition. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

May, T. (ed.) 2002. Qualitative Research in Action. London: Sage.

Mills, C. W. 2000 (1959). The Sociological Imagination. Fortieth Anniversary Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pullen, E. 1999. Feminism and Sociology: Processes of Transformation. Thesis, Department of Sociology: University of Warwick

Reynolds, L. T. and Reynolds, J. M. (eds.) 1970. The Sociology of Sociology. Analysis and Criticism of the Thought, Research, and Ethical Folkways of Sociology and Its Practitioners. New York: David McKay Company.

Rojek, C. and Turner, B. 2000. “Decorative Sociology: Towards a Critique of the Cultural Turn”. The Sociological Review 629-648.

Scott, J. [2005]. “Sociology and its Others: Reflections on Disciplinary Specialisation and Fragmentation”, Sociological Research Online 8 (3). Online.Available from: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/pughwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk:80/10/1/scott.html [accessed 22/03/06].

Smith, D. 1974. “Women’s Perspective as a Radical Critique of Sociology”. Sociological Inquiry 44 (1): 7-13.

Stanley, L. and Wise, S. 1993. Breaking Out Again. Feminist Ontology and Epistemology. New Edition. London: Routledge.

Stanley, L. 1990. “Feminist praxis and the academic mode of production: an editorial introduction”. In L. Stanley (ed.) Feminist Praxis. Research, Theory and Epistemology in Feminist Sociology. New York: Routledge: 3-19.

Stanley, L. and Wise, S. 1990. “Method, methodology and epistemology in feminist research processes”. In L. Stanley (ed.) Feminist Praxis. Research, Theory and Epistemology in Feminist Sociology. New York: Routledge: 20-60.

Wise, S. and Stanley, L. [2003]. “Review Article: “Looking back and looking forward: some recent feminist sociology reviewed”,Sociological Research Online 8 (3). Online.Available from: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/8/3/wise.html [accessed 20/02/06].

Woolgar, S. (ed.) 1988. Knowledge and Reflexivity. New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Sage.

List by Tereza Stöckelova

2007-10-25T03:32:00.000-07:00

Aagaard-Hansen, Jens. 2007. The Challenges of Cross-disciplinary Research. Social Epistemology Vol. 21, No. 4, October–December 2007, pp. 425–438.

Goode, Jackie. 2006. Research Identities: Reflections of a Contract Researcher. Sociological Research Online, 11, 2.
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/11/2/goode.html

Schaffer, Simon. 1994. From physics to anthropology - and back again.
Prickly Pear Pamphlet, no.3. Cambridge: Prickly pear press.

Anthony King. 2007. The Sociology of Sociology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 2007; 37; 501

Law, John. 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge.

Law, John, John Urry. 2004. Enacting the social. Economy and Society 33(3): 390–410.

Javier Lezaun (2007) A market of opinions: the political epistemology of focus groups. The Sociological Review 55 (s2), 130–151.

Mesny, Anne. 1998. Sociology for whom? The role of sociology in reflexive modernity. Canadian journal of sociology 23(2-3): 159-178.

Mesny, Anne. 1998. The appropriation of social science knowledge by „lay people“: the development of lay sociological imagination? Dissertation thesis, University of Cambridge.

Robbins, Derek. 2007. Sociology as Reflexive Science: On Bourdieu’s Project. Theory, Culture & Society 2007 (SAGE, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Singapore),
Vol. 24(5): 77–98

Piercing the reality: http://piercingthereality.wordpress.com/

List by Nicolas Langlitz

2007-10-21T11:15:00.000-07:00

· Martin Kusch, Sociology of Philosophy (2000)

· Kusch, Psychologism

· Garcia, Philosophy and its History (1992) [Differenzierte Gegenposition zu historischem Kontextualismus]

· Mittelstrass, Die Philosophie und ihre Geschichte (1991): Geschichte der Argumente, keine externen Faktoren!

· “For Hire: Resolutely Late Modern,” in Richard Fox, ed., Recapturing Anthropology, Working in the Present , Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. [Observations on the hiring of new faculty in American anthropology departments]

· ULRICH JOHANNES SCHNEIDER, Situation der Philosophie, Kultur der Philosophen. Über die neudeutsche Universitätsphilosophie .Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, H. 1/1996, 149-159

· Schneider, Philosophie und Universität. Historisierung der Vernunft im 19. Jahrhundert (1999)

· Collins, Randall. 1998. The Sociology of Philosophies. A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Belknap: Harvard University Press.

· Boyer, Dominic. 2001. Foucault in the Bush. The Social Life of Post-Structuralist Theory in East Berlin’s Prenzlauer Berg. Ethnos 66 (2):207-236.

· Michael Friedman (2000), A Parting of the Ways. Carnap, Cassirer, and Heidegger [History of the separation of continental and analytic philosophy]

Pre-Session Meeting, Thursday 21st of August, 9pm

2007-08-04T04:10:00.000-07:00

Hotel Bazar: Witte de Withstraat 16, 3012 BP ROTTERDAM
Tel +31-(0)10-2065151

http://www.bazarrotterdam.com/read/1/1446

Reservation is on the name: EASST Conference, 9pm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/b/b2/Rotterdam2.png
Metro from Campus: Red Line Kraligse Zoom to Beurs

Map:

maps.google.at

Upcoming Workshops

2007-07-18T08:22:00.000-07:00

Research on Social Sciences and Humanities:
Sharing Experiences and Discussing Methodological Approaches

Workshops in Vienna: October 18th-20th, 2007 and Prague: December 11th-13th, 2007

more info....

SSH Studies list by Nikola Langreither

2006-11-30T07:36:00.000-08:00

This list was compiled by Nikola Langreither
www.kulturwissenschaft.at/historische-anthropologie

ALZHEIMER-HALLER, Heidrun: Einleitung. In: Dies.: Frauen in der Volkskunde, in der Empirischen Kulturwissenschaft, der Europäischen Ethnologie/Ethnographie und Kulturanthropologie in Deutschland. Würzburg 1994, 7-18.

ANDRESEN, SÜNNE: Der Preis der Anerkennung. Frauenforscherinnen im Konkurrenzfeld Hochschule. Münster (Westfälisches Dampfboot) 2001.

ARNOLD, Markus/Roland FISCHER (Hg.): Disziplinierungen. Kulturen der Wissenschaft im Vergleich. Wien 2004.

AUSLANDER, Leora: Erfahrung, Reflexion, Geschichtsarbeit. Oder: Was es heißen könnte, gebrauchsfähige Geschichte zu schreiben. In: Historische Anthropologie, Jg. 3, 1995, Heft 2, 221-141.

BALDAUF, ANETTE/ANDREA GRIESEBNER/KLAUS TASCHWER: Auf der Suche nach möglichen Ursachen für die Unterrepräsentanz von Wissenschaftlerinnen im universitären Feld Österreichs. In: L'Hommme, Intellektuelle, Jg. 2, Heft 2, 1991, 77-97.

BECK, Stefan: Rekombinante Praxen. Wissensarbeit als Gegenstand der Europäischen Ethnologie. In: Zeitschrift für Volkskunde, Jg. 96, 2000, H. 2, 218-247.

BENDIX, Regina: Of Names, Professional Identities, and Disciplinary Futures. In: Journal of American Folklore, Jg. 111, 1998, Heft 441, 235-246.

Bimmer, Brigitte: Zum Selbst- und Fremdbild von Wissenschaftlerinnen. Erste Teilergebnisse einer empirischen Studie. In: Bock, Ulla/Anne Braszeit/Christiane Schmerl (Hg.): Frauen an den Universitäten. Zur Situation von Studentinnen und Hochschullehrerinnen in der männlichen Wissenschaftshierarchie. Frankfurt/M.-New York 1983, 153-169

BLOHM, Anne/Sabine GIESKE: Überlegungen zur volkskundlichen Frauenforschung - Etappen und Entwicklungen. In: Zeitschrift für Volkskunde, 90, 1994, 169-182.

BÖDEKER, Hans Erich/Peter H. REILL/Jürgen SCHLUMBOHM (Hg.):
Wissenschaft als kulturelle Praxis 1750-1900. (Vandehoeck & Ruprecht) 1999.

BOLLMANN, Stefan: Die Produktivität der Wissensarbeiter. In: Engelmann, Jan/Michael Wiedermeyer (Hg.): Kursbuch Arbeit. Ausstieg aus der Jobholder-Gesellschaft – Start in eine neue Tätigkeitskultur? Stuttgart-München 2000, 115-123.

BRENNER, Peter J.: Einleitung. Die „Lebenswelt“ der Literaturwissenschaft als Forschungs¬gegenstand. In: Ders. (Hg.): Geist, Geld und Wissenschaft. Arbeits- und Darstellungsformen von Literaturwissenschaft. Frankfurt a. M. 1993, 7-17.

BREUER, Franz/Jo REICHERTZ: Wissenschafts-Kriterien: Eine Moderation. In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research (On-line Journal), Jg. 2, 2001, Nr. 3. Unter: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs.htm; Zugriff: 28. 06. 2004, 40 Absätze.

BURCKHARDT-SEEBASS, Christine: Spuren weiblicher Volkskunde. Ein Beitrag zur schweizerischen Fachgeschichte des frühen 20. Jahrhunderts. In: Schweizerisches Archiv für Volkskunde, Bd. 87, 1991, 209-224.

CHARTIER, Roger: Der Gelehrte. In: Vovelle, Michelle (Hg.): Der Mensch der Aufklärung. Frankfurt a. M. 1998, 122-168.

COLE, Jonathan R./Harriet ZUCKERMAn: The Productivity Puzzle: Persistence and Chance in Patterns of Publication of Men and Women Scientists. In: Steinkamp, Majorie/Martin D. Maehr: Advances in Motivation and Achievement, Bd. 2, Women in Science. Greenwich 1985.

DASTON, Lorraine: Die moralischen Ökonomien der Wissenschaft. In: Daston, Lorraine: Wunder, Beweise und Tatsachen. Zur Geschichte der Rationalität. Frankfurt/M. 2001, 157-184.

DEISSNER, Vera: Zur Geschichte volkskundlicher Fachgeschichtsschreibung bis 1931. In: Zeitschrift für Volkskunde, Jg. 93, 1997, 57-76.

DRESSEL, Gert/Bernhard RATHMAYR (Hg.): Mensch – Gesellschaft – Wissenschaft. Versuche einer Reflexiven Historischen Anthropologie. Innsbruck 1999.

EGGMANN, Sabine: Der Blick auf das Eigene. Ein kulturwissenschaftlicher Zugang zur Kulturwissenschaft. In: Arnold, Markus/Gert Dressel (Hg.): Wissenschaftskulturen – Gelehrtenkulturen – Experimentalkulturen. Wien 2004, 127-136.

EISCH, Katharina: Immer anfangen. Überlegungen zu Feldforschung und volkskundli¬cher Identität. In: Schweizerisches Archiv für Volkskunde, Jg. 95, 1999, 61-72.

ENGLER, Steffani: Zum Selbstverständnis von Professoren und der illusio des wissenschaftlichen Feldes. In: Krais, Beate (Hg.): Wissenschaftskultur und Geschlechterordnung. Über die verborgenen Mechanismen männlicher Dominanz in der akademischen Welt. Frankfurt/M.-New York 2000, 121-151.

FELT, Ulrike: Scientific Citizenship. Schlaglichter einer Diskussion. In: Gegenworte, Frühjahr 2003, Heft 11, 16-20.

FELT, Ulrike: Über Nutzen und Handlungsräume der Wissenschaftsforschung. In: Arnold, Markus/Gert Dressel (Hg.): Wissenschaftskulturen – Gelehrtenkulturen – Experimentalkulturen. Wien 2004, 150-162.

FLECK, Christian (Hg.): Soziologische und historische Analysen der Sozialwissenschaften. Opladen-Wiesbaden 2000.

FLECK, Ludwik: Die Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung in die Lehre von Denkstil und Denkkollektiv. Frankfurt/M. 1980 (Orig. 1935).

FRIESE, Heidrun/Peter WAGNER: Der Raum der Gelehrten. Eine Topographie akademischer Praxis. Berlin 1993.

FUMAGALLI BEONIO BROCCHIERI, MARIATERESIA: Der Intellektuelle. In: Le Goff, Jacques (Hg.): Der Mensch des Mittelalters. Frankfurt a. M. 1996, 198-231.

GOGGIN, JACQUELINE: Challenging Sexual Discrimination in the Historical Profession: Women Historians and the American Historical Association 1890-1940. In: American Historical Review, June 1992, 769-802.

GRAW, ISABELLE: Es kann nur eine geben. Überlegungen zur Ausnahmefrau. In: sinn-haft, Nr. 11, zur masse, 2001; http://sinn-haft.action.at/nr_11_graw_ausnahmefrau.html; 1-5; Zugriff: 18.03.2002.

HAGNER, Michael (Hg.): Ansichtender Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Frankfurt/M. 2001.

HASENJÜRGEN, BRIGITTE: Winners and Losers. SozialwissenschaftlerInnen an der Hochschule. In: Fischer, Uta Luise u. a. (Hg.): Kategorie: Geschlecht? Empirische Analysen und feministische Theorien (= Geschlecht und Gesellschaft, 6). Opladen 1996, 41-55.

HEINDL, Waltraud/Marina TICHY (Hg.): „Durch Erkenntnis zu Freiheit und Glück ...“. Frauen an der Universität Wien (ab 1897). Wien 1990.

HUERKAMP, Claudia: Bildungsbürgerinnen. Frauen im Studium und in akademischen Berufen 1900 – 1945. Göttingen 1996.

INGRISCH, Doris/Elisabeth LICHTENBERGER-FENZ: Hinter den Fassaden des Wissens. Frauen, Feminismus und Wissenschaft – Eine aktuelle Debatte. Wien 1999.

INGRISCH, Doris: „Alles war das Institut!“ Eine lebensgeschichtliche Untersuchung über die erste Generation von Professorinnen an der Universität Wien. Wien 1992.

KLEINERT, SUSANNE/BERNHARD KRAMANN (Hg.): Frauen in der Wissenschaft in Deutschland und Frankreich. Opladen 1999

KOHLI, Martin: „Von uns selbst schweigen wir.“ Wissenschaftsgeschichte aus Lebensgeschichten. In: Lepenies, Wolf (Hg.): Geschichte der Soziologie. Studien zur kognitiven, sozialen und historischen Identität einer Disziplin., Bd. 1. Frankfurt/M. 1981, 428-465.

KONRAD, WILFRIED/WILHELM SCHUMM (Hg.): Wissen und Arbeit. Neue Konturen von Wissensarbeit. Münster (Westfälisches Dampfboot) 1999.

KRAIS, Beate: Das soziale Feld Wissenschaft und die Geschlechterverhältnisse. Theoretische Sondierungen. In: Krais, Beate (Hg.): Wissenschaftskultur und Geschlechterordnung. Über die verborgenen Mechanismen männlicher Dominanz in der akademischen Welt. Frankfurt/M.-New York 2000, 31-54.

LANG, Sabine/Birgit SAUER (Hg.): Wissenschaft als Arbeit – Arbeit als Wissenschaftlerin. Frankfurt/M.-New York 1997.

LEEMANN, REGULA JULIA (2000). Karriere von Akademikerinnen, Bedeutung von Networking und Mentoring als Instrumente der Frauenförderung an den Hochschulen. In Brigitte Gügler & Elisabeth Mauer (Hrsg.), Auftrag Gleichstellung an der Universität Zürich. Eine Querschnittsaufgabe in Reflexion und Arbeit (= Universelle 1) (S.23-33). Zürich: UniFrauenstelle.

LEGGEWIE, Claus: Mitleid mit den Doktorvätern oder: Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Biographien. In: Merkur. Deutsche Zeitschrift für europäisches Denken, Jg. 53, 2000, Heft 5, 433-444.

LELKE, Ina: Die Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften und die „arbeitende Geselligkeit“. In: Wobbe, Theresa (Hg.): Frauen in Akademie und Wissenschaft. Arbeitsorte und Forschungspraktiken 1700-2000. Berlin 2002, 65-91.

LINDNER, Rolf: „Lived Experience“. Über die kulturale Wende in den Kulturwissenschaften. In: Musner, Lutz/Gotthard Wunberg/Christina Lutter (Hg.): Cultural Turn. Zur Geschichte der Kulturwissenschaften. Wien 2001, 11-19.

LINDNER, Rolf: Die Stunde der Cultural Studies. Wien 2000.

LIST, Elisabeth/Herlinde STUDER (Hg.): Denkverhältnisse. Feminismus und Kritik. Frankfurt/M. 1993 (Orig. 1987).

Mahr, Bernd: Väter unter den Talaren. In: Kursbuch, 2000, Heft 140, Die Väter, 87-103.

Malli, Gerlinde: Angestellt auf Zeit – Marginalisierung im Universitätsbetrieb. In: Katschnig-Fasch, Elisabeth (Hg.): Das ganz alltägliche Elend. Begegnungen im Schatten des Neoliberalismus. Wien 2003, 166-170.

Marschik, Matthias: Über das Leben und Forschen in Nischen. In: Forum Sozialforschung (Hg.): Positionierung der außeruniversitären Sozialforschung. Wien 1999, 31-46.

MITTERAUER, Michael: Wege zu Geschichtsbewusstsein. Zwei Lebensgeschichten im Vergleich. In: Vranjes-Soljan, Bozena (Hg.): Zbornik Mirjane Gross. U povodu 75. redendana. Zagreb 1999, 425-443.

Mommsen, Hans: "Daraus erklärt sich, daß es niemals zuvor eine derartige Vorherrschaft alter Männer gegeben hat wie in der Zeit von 1945 bis in die 60er Jahre." In: Hohl, Rüdiger/Konrad H. Jarausch (Hg.): Versäumte Fragen. Deutsche Historiker im Schatten des Nationalsozialismus. Stuttgart 2000, 163-190.

MÜLLER, Albert: Alte Herren/Alte Meister. „Ego-Histoire“ in der österreichischen Geschichtswissenschaft. Eine Quellenkunde. In: Österreichische Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaften, Jg. 4, 1993, 120-133.

MÜLLER-FUNK, Wolfgang: Der Intellektuelle als Souverän. Essays. Wien 1995.

MUSNER, Lutz: Die neue Aristokratie des Geistes. In: Musner, Lutz: Kultur als Textur des Sozialen. Essays zum Stand der Kulturwissenschaften. Wien 2004.

NÖBAUER, Herta/Patricia ZUCKERHUT: Differenzen. Einschlüsse und Ausschlüsse – Innen und Außen – Universität und Freie Wissenschaft. Wien 2002.

NOWOTNY, Helga/Peter SCOTT/Michael GIBBONS: Wissenschaft neu denken. Wissen und Öffentlichkeit in einem Zeitalter der Ungewissheit. Weilerswist 2004.

Nowotny, Helga: Über die Schwierigkeiten des Umgangs von Frauen mit der Institution Wissenschaft. In: Hausen, Karin/Dies.: (Hg.): Wie männlich ist die Wissenschaft? Frankfurt a. M. 1986, 17-30.

Oberkofler, Gerhard (1999). Universitätszeremoniell. Ein Biotop des Zeitgeists. Wien: Passagen Verlag.

Rambach, Anne/Marine Rambach: Les intellos précaires. Paris 2002 (Orig. 2001).

Ritsert, Jürgen: Ideologie. Theoreme und Probleme der Wissenssoziologie (= Einstiege, 11/12). Münster (Westfälisches Dampfboot) 2002.

SCHUMACHER, Beatrice/Thomas BUSSET (Hg.): Traverse, „Der Experte“ – „L’Expert“, Bd. 23, 2001, Heft 2.

STICHWEH, Rudolf: Der Wissenschaftler. In: Frevert, Ute/Heinz-Gerhard Haupt (Hg.): Der Mensch des 20. Jahrhunderts. Frankfurt/M.-New York 1999, 163-196.
STICHWEH, Rudolf: Wissenschaft – Universität – Professionen. Soziologische Analysen. Frankfurt/M. 1994.

Strasser, Sabine/Eva Schliesselberger: Mutter oder Mentor? Zur Ambivalenz von Förderungsbeziehungen unter Frauen in der Wissenschaft. In: Perko, Gudrun (Hg.): Mutterwitz. Das Phänomen Mutter - eine Gestaltung zwischen Ohnmacht und Allmacht. Wien 1998, 212-246.

WEINGART, Peter: Wissenschaftssoziologie. Bielefeld 2003.

WINGENS, Matthias: Wissensgesellschaft und gesellschaftliche Wissensproduktion. In: Honegger, Claudia/Stefan Hradil/Franz Traxler (Hg.): Grenzenlose Gesellschaft? Verhandlungen des 29. Kongresses der Dt. Ges. für Soziologie in Freiburg i. Br. 1998, Teil 1. Opladen 1999, 433-446.

Studies on Philosophy

2006-09-26T08:57:00.000-07:00

(This list was compiled by Mathieu Doucet and Sergio Sismondo)

Collins, R. (1998). The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

Doucet, Mathieu (2003) The Philosopher's Laboratory: Towards a Sociology of Philosophical Knowledge and Practice. MA thesis, Queen's University.

Forguson, L. (2001). "Oxford and the 'Epidemic' of Ordinary Language Philosophy." the Monist 84: 325-345.

Healy, K. (2005). Specialization and Status in Philosophy. Tucson, AZ.

Kusch, M. (1995). Psychologism: a case study in the sociology of philosophical knowledge. London, Routledge.

Kusch, M., Ed. (2000). The Sociology of Philosophical Knowledge. Dordrecht, Kluwer.

Mason, J. A. (1999). The Philosophers Address: Writing and the Perception of Philosophy. New York, Oxford, Lanham, Boulder, Lexington Books.

Overall, C. (1996). Reflections of a Sceptical Bioethicist. Philosophical Perspectives on Bioethics. L. W. Sumner. Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

Rescher, N. (1993). "American Philosophy Today." Review of Metaphysics 46: 717-45.

Richardson, A. (1997). "Toward a History of Scientific Philosophy." Perspectives on Science 5: 418-451.

Rorty, R. (1982). Philosophy as a Kind of Writing: An Essay on Derrida. Consequences of Pragmatism. R. Rorty. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press: 90-109.
Comment: Rorty's work is a critique of philosophy, and it's at least provocative for sociological thinking.

Rosental, C. (2002). "Quelle logique pour quelle rationalité? Representations et usages de la logique en sciences sociales." Enquête 2: 69-92.

Rosental, C. (2003). La trame de l'évidence. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.

Sismondo, S. (2005). "Boundary Work and the Science Wars." Episteme 1(3): 235-248.

Abstract EASST Conference 2006 (Therese Garstenauer and Katja Mayer)

2006-08-25T10:39:00.000-07:00

To Study Soft Sciences

We are engaged in the field of “Wissenschaftsforschung”, roughly “the research of science/social studies of science” in German, where the term “Wissenschaft” encompasses the natural, technical and social sciences and the humanities that are all critical in (re)configuring humanness. The objects of research in SSS and STS are most often hard/natural sciences, technology and medicine, and all possible combinations of the three areas, but very rarely social sciences or the humanities.

The deliberate inclusion of social sciences and the humanities in SSS/STS will not only broaden the range of research topics, but also increase self-reflexivity when SSS/STS theories and methods are applied to “soft” research fields. In evaluating our experiences and findings – analyzing core SSS/STS journals, tracking papers on research in the “soft” sciences since 1996 and investigating the gaps in SSS/STS research topics – we conclude that “incorporating” the Other sciences into the body of research can contribute substantially to transcending dualisms that still exist.

2006-08-11T08:52:00.000-07:00

Bibliography: Social Studies of SS&H
(compiled by Therese Garstenauer and Katja Mayer)

Allmendinger, Jutta (2000). Soziologie, Profession und Organisation. In Jutta Allmendinger (Hrsg.), Gute Gesellschaft. Verhandlungen des 30. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Köln 2000 (S.21-25). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Comment: Erforschung von Soziologie

Bahrdt, Hans Paul (1971): Wissenschaftssoziologie – ad hoc. Beiträge zur Wissenschaftssoziologie und Wissenschaftspolitik aus den letzten zehn Jahren. Düsseldorf: Bertelsmann Universitätsverlag.
Comment: Über Soziologie/andere Wissenschaften und Gesellschaft – eher aperçuhaft, Zeitungskommentare. Populärsoziologisch.

Beaufaÿs, Sandra (2003). Wie werden Wissenschaftler gemacht? Beobachtungen zur wechselseitigen Konstitution von Geschlecht und Wissenschaft. Bielefeld: transcript.
Comment: Über Biochemie und Geschichte

Beaufaÿs, Sandra (2004, April). Wissenschaftler und ihre alltägliche Praxis: Ein Einblick in die Geschlechterordnung des wissenschaftlichen Feldes [22 Absätze]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 5(2)
Comment: Über Biochemie und Geschichte

Becher, Tony (2001): Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines. Open University Press
Comment: Academic Tribes and Territories maps academic knowledge and explores the diverse characteristics of those who inhabit and cultivate it.

Bock, Ulla & Landweer, Hilge (1994). Frauenforschungsprofessuren. Marginalisierung, Integration oder Transformation im Kanon der Wissenschaften? Feministische Studien, 12(1), 99-109.
Comment: Organisatorisches, Institutionalisierung im Hinblick auf Frauenforschung

Bolte, Karl Martin & Neidhard, Friedhelm (Hrsg.) (1998). Soziologie als Beruf. Erinnerungen westdeutscher Hochschulprofessoren der Nachkriegsgeneration. Soziale Welt, Sonderband 11, Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Comment: Wissenschaftsgeschichte 20. Jh.: Soziologie

Bourdieu, Pierre (1988). Homo academicus. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.
Comment: Universitäres Feld Frankreich 1960er – 19070er Jahre

Bourdieu, Pierre (1993a). Narzißstische Reflexivität und wissenschaftliche Reflexivität. In Eberhard Berg & Martin Fuchs (Hrsg.), Kultur, soziale Praxis, Text. Die Krise der ethnographischen Präsentation (S.365-374). Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Comment: Über Reflexivität

Bühl, Walter L. (1974): Einführung in die Wissenschaftssoziologie. München: C.H. Beck
Comment: Spricht eher von Wissenschaft im allgemeinen

Burkart, Günter (2003, April). Über den Sinn von Thematisierungstabus und die Unmöglichkeit einer soziologischen Analyse der Soziologie [46 Absätze]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 4(2). Verfügbar über: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-03/2-03burkart-d.htm
Comment: Über Reflexivität

Collins, Randall (2000):The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Havard University Press
Comment: Randall Collins' extensive macrosociological structuralist reconstruction of schools of thought in philosophy.

Daston, Lorraine (Ed.) (1998): Naturwissenschaft, Geisteswissenschaft, Kulturwissenschaft: Einheit, Gegensatz, Komplementarität. Göttingen: Wallstein

Devereux, Georges (1973). Angst und Methode in den Verhaltenswissenschaften. München: Hanser. (Orig. 1967)
Comment: Über die Ängste von behavioral scientists, und wie produktiv damit umgegangen werden kann

Dressel, Gert & Langreiter, Nikola (2002b). Ist der Rand das Zentrum? “KulturwissenschaftlerInnen” positionieren sich. Historische Anthropologie, 10(1), 154-164.
Comment: Über österreichische KulturwissenschafterInnen.

Dressel, Gert & Langreiter, Nikola (2002c). Nie Zeit, nie frei – Arbeit und Freizeit von WissenschaftlerInnen. In Sabine Gruber, Klara Löffler & Klaus Thien (Hrsg.), Bewegte Zeiten. Arbeit und Freizeit nach der Moderne (S.121-138). München, Wien: Profil Verlag.
Comment: Über (u.a.) SS&H

Dressel, Gert & Langreiter, Nikola (2003). Immerhin Programm – Reflexivität in den Cultural Studies. In Christina Lutter & Lutz Musner (Hrsg.), Cultural Studies / Kulturwissenschaften – eine Zwischenbilanz für Österreich (S.143-160). Wien: Löcker.
Comment: Über Reflexivität

Dressel, Gert & Langreiter, Nikola (2003, Mai). Wenn “wir selbst” zu unserem Forschungsfeld werden [30 Absätze]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 4(2)
Comment: Über Reflexivität

Engler, Steffani (2001). “In Einsamkeit und Freiheit”? Zur Konstruktion der wissenschaftlichen Persönlichkeit auf dem Weg zur Professur. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag.
Comment: Auch über SS&H

Felt, Ulrike (et. al) (1995): Wissenschaftsforschung. Frankfurt: Campus
Comment: Kapitel über Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften

Felt, U. (2000): Die "unsichtbaren" Sozialwissenschaften: Zur Problematik der Positionierung sozialwissenschaftlichen Wissens im öffentlichen Raum. In: Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Sonderband 5, 177 - 212.

Fleck, Christian (Hrsg.) (1996). Wege zur Soziologie nach 1945. Autobiographische Notizen. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.
Comment: Wissenschaftsgeschichte: Soziologie

Fleck, Christian (Hrsg.) (2000a). Soziologische und historische Analysen der Sozialwissenschaften (Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Sonderband 5). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Comment:

Fleck, Christian (2000b). Auf der Suche nach Anomalien, Devianz und Anomie in der Soziologie. In Christian Fleck (Hrsg.), Soziologische und historische Analysen der Sozialwissenschaften (Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Sonderband 5) (S.13-53). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Comment: Wissenschaftsgeschichte: Soziologie

Franke, Bettina (2006): Soziologie an deutschen Universitäten. Gestern – heute – morgen. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaft.
Comment: Wissenschaftsgeschichte: Soziologie

Funken, Christiane (Hrsg.) (2000): Der Eigensinn der Soziologie. Zur Disziplinierung der Sozialwissenschaften, Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Comment: Organisatorisches? Soziologie

Goetting, Ann (1995): Individual voices, collective visions : fifty years of women in sociology. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Comment: Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Gender Studies: Soziologie

Hasenjürgen, Brigitte (1996). Soziale Macht im Wissenschaftsspiel. SozialwissenschaftlerInnen und Frauenforschung an der Hochschule. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.
Comment: Über SozialwissenschafterInnen

Arne Höcker, Jeannie Moser, Philippe Weber (Hg.) (2006) Wissen. Erzählen. Narrative der Humanwissenschaften. transcript

Hopf, Christel & Müller, Walter (1994). Zur Entwicklung der empirischen Sozialforschung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [The development of empirical social research in the Federal Republic of Germany]. ZUMA-Nachrichten, 35(18), 28-53.
Comment: Wissenschaftsgeschichte: Empirische Sozialforschung

Lamnek, Siegfried (Hrsg.) (1993): Ausbildung und Professionalisierung von Soziologinnen und Soziologen im europäischen Vergleich. Berlin: Edition Sigma.
Comment: Über Soziologie

Ernst Langthaler (2003, Mai). Geschichte(n) über Geschichte(n). Historisch-anthropologische Feldforschung als reflexiver Prozess [16 Absätze]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 4(2). Verfügbar über: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-03/2-03langthaler-d.htm
Comment: Über Reflexivität, Geschichte

Lepenies, Wolf (Hrsg.) (1981). Geschichte der Soziologie. Studien zur kognitiven, sozialen und historischen Identität einer Disziplin. 4 Bände. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.
Comment: Über Soziologie

Lichtenberger-Fenz, Brigitte/Doris Ingrisch (2000): Lust am Denken – Lust am Leben. Wissenschaft(erinnen) im Selbstportrait. Strasshof: Vier-Viertel-Verlag
Comment: Auch über SS&H, Autobiographien

Lindner, Rolf (1987). Zur kognitiven Identität der Volkskunde. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Volkskunde, 90(1), 1-19.
comment: Über Volkskunde

Susanne Lüdemann (2004) Metaphern der Gesellschaft. Studien zum soziologischen und politischen
Imaginären. Wilhelm Fink Verlag, München

Müller, Albert (2000). Grenzziehungen in der Geschichtswissenschaft: Habilitationsverfahren 1900-1950 (am Beispiel der Universität Wien). In Christian Fleck (Hrsg.), Soziologische und historische Analysen der Sozialwissenschaften (S.287-307). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
comment: Über Geschichte

Mruck, Katja & Breuer, Franz (2003, Mai). Subjektivität und Selbstreflexivität im qualitativen Forschungsprozess – Die FQS-Schwerpunktausgaben [30 Absätze]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 4(2), Art. 23. Verfügbar über: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-03/2-03intro-1-d.htm
Comment: Über Reflexivität

Parsons, Talcott; Shils, Edward & Lazarsfeld, Paul (1975). Soziologie – autobiographisch. Drei kritische Berichte zur Entwicklung einer Wissenschaft. Stuttgart: Enke.
Comment: Wissenschaftsgeschichte: Soziologie, Autobiographien von Stars

Pfadenhauer, Michaela (2004, Mai). Wie forschen Trendforscher? Zur Wissensproduktion ineiner umstrittenen Branche [41 Absätze]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 5(2).
Comment: Über Trendforschung

Reynolds, Larry T. (1970) (Hrsg.): The sociology of sociology: analysis and criticism of the thought, research, and ethical folkways of sociology and its practitioners. New York, NY: McKay.
Comment: Soziologie

Scheich, Elvira (1993): Naturbeherrschung und Weiblichkeit. Denkformen und Phantasmen der Naturwissenschaften, Pfaffenweiler (Centaurus-Verlag)
Comment: Einfluß der naturwissenschaftlich-technischen Konzepte auf sozialwissenschaftliche Ansätze, beispielsweise: Systemtheorie

Schönert, Jörg (Ed.) (2000): Literaturwissenschaft und Wissenschaftsforschung. DFG-Symposion 1998. Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler.
Comment: A book by German literature scholars titled “Wissenschaftsforschung und Literaturwissenschaft” from a conference about the possibilities and advantages of the involvement of social studies of science for literature studies, but it deals more with the history of literature studies.

Schweighofer-Brauer, Annemarie, Schroffenegger, Gabriela , Gnaiger, Andrea & Fleischer, Eva (Hrsg.) (2002): “Eigentlich lief alles nach Plan, bis …” Biographische Texte zu freien Wissenschaftlerinnen in Österreich. Innsbruck: Studien Verlag.
Comment: Auch über SS&H

Stehr, Nico/ René König (Hrsg.) (1975): Wissenschaftssoziologie. Sonderheft 18/1975 Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie.
Comment: Über unterschiedliche Wissenschaften (auch SS&H) oder Wissenschaft überhaupt

Wagner, Peter (et.al) (1991): Discourses on Society. The Shaping Of Social Science Disciplines. Dordrecht: Kluwer

Weischer, Christoph (2004): Das Unternehmen ‚Empirische Sozialforschung’. Strukturen, Praktiken und Leitbilder der Sozialforschung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. München: R. Oldenbourg.
Comment: Wissenschaftsgeschichte: Empirische Sozialforschung

Weingart, Peter(et al.)(1991): Geisteswissenschaften: Außenansichten. Frankfurt: Surhkamp
Comment: A book by Weingart et al. about external views on humanities

Williamson, Sarah/Frederick Klemmer (1997): Ethnographic fetishism or cyborg anthropology? Human Scientists, Rebellious Rats and their Mazes at El Delirio and in the Land of the Long White Cloud, in: Gary Lee Downey/Joseph Dumit (eds.): Cyborgs & Citadels. Anthropological Interventions in Emerging Sciences and Technologies. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press.
Comment:A paper by Sarah Williams, where she described her position as anthropologist of anthropology in a participating observation of a meeting of cyborg anthropology researches. Her paper sharpens the view on the problematics of field access.

Zimenkova, Tatjana (2006): Die Praxis der Soziologie: Ausbildung, Wissenschaft, Beratung. Eine professionstheoretische Untersuchung. Bielefeld: transcript.
Comment: Über Soziologie

Special Issues / Journals:

American Sociologist Vol 39 /2008