Institutional Logics and the Limits of Social Science Knowledge

2020 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-213
Author(s):  
Jessica Blatt

As someone whose training is in political science and who writes about the history of my own discipline, I admit to some hesitation in recommending future avenues of research for historians of education. For that reason, the following thoughts are directed toward disciplinary history broadly and social science history specifically. Moreover, the three articles that contributors to this forum were asked to use as inspiration suggest that any future I would recommend has been under way in one form or another for a while. For those reasons, I want to reframe my contribution as a reflection on a particular mode of analysis all three authors employed and how it may be particularly useful for exploring the questions of power, exclusion, and race- and gender-making in the academy that are present in all three articles and that explicitly animate two of them.

1982 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 267-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Scott Smith

Despite the emergence of social science history, the profession remains organized around the study of periods in the history of societies. Departments of history still structure their curricula mainly along national and temporal lines, and the same principle of socialization thereby defines most academic positions (Darnton, 1980). To judge by the sessions of the annual meetings of the Social Science History Association (SSHA), those sympathetic with that orientation focus on topics, approaches, and methodologies. Only one association network, that for the study of Asia, mentions a locale in its title, and none specifies a particular time period. This article will examine the findings and implications of social science history for one well-established national/period field, that of early American history.


1991 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-200
Author(s):  
Eric Monkkonen

In this issue of Social Science History we begin a special series of articles surveying the impact and use of historical research and reasoning in the other social sciences—anthropology, economics, geography, political science, and sociology. The authors of the essays have been asked to analyze their disciplines so that readers will get a sense both of major issues and research directions and of influences. In addition, they have been asked to include in their references older important works as well as more recent ones, so that those in other disciplines may use the essays as bibliographic sources. After the series is completed, we expect to publish an expanded version of it as a separate book.


1990 ◽  
Vol 84 (2) ◽  
pp. 587-607 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Farr ◽  
John Gunnell ◽  
Raymond Seidelman ◽  
John S. Dryzek ◽  
Stephen T. Leonard

In the December 1988 issue of this Review, John Dryzek and Stephen Leonard argued the need for “context-sensitive” histories of the discipline of political science. In their view, disciplinary history must guide practical inquiry if it is to be most useful. The course of their argument draws the criticisms of three political scientists concerned about the history of political science—James Farr, John Gunnell, and Raymond Seidelman. Dryzek and Leonard respond to their critics and underscore their own rationale for enhanced interest in the history of the discipline.


2008 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margo Anderson

Visual and oral, video and audio evidence are brought to bear to examine the history of the U.S. census and the practice of social science history. The article explores how artists have appropriated and depicted census taking in America and how census takers used “artistic” forms of evidence to advertise and promote the census and explicate census results to the public. The article also suggests how social science historians have understood and used the new electronic environment of the Internet and the World Wide Web to present their data and findings.


2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 83-98
Author(s):  
Réka Brigitta Szaniszló

The concept of diaspora has already appeared in the first translation of the Bible, in the 300s BC. However, the meaning behind the concept is hard to define. Numerous definition attempts occurred throughout the years since there is a scientific interest in this topic, but none of them is substantial. Further issues arise if we take into consideration the fact that basically every social science (history, sociology, cultural anthropology, jurisprudence, economics, political science, international relations, etc.) use the diaspora terminology without a consistent, reliable definition. Therefore, the disciplines include different attributes to the concept of diaspora which leads to a scientific chaos in this field. The paper aims to gather and demonstrate all social sciences approach to the diaspora concept and conclude the common diaspora attributes with the intention to create a comprehensive, interdisciplinary and steady diaspora definition.


2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 535-563
Author(s):  
Susan Boslego Carter

Multidisciplinary conversations are tough. Language, habits of thinking, and styles of presentation and criticism differ profoundly across disciplines. Academic rewards to multidisciplinary research are unpredictable. Yet year after year, for 40 years running now, the Social Science History Association (SSHA) has hosted increasingly large, multidisciplinary conferences that attract scholars from a diverse set of academic fields and geographic regions. By fostering debate in an atmosphere of civility, respect, and inclusiveness, the SSHA has become a premiere venue for introducing the latest in social scientific topics, methods, and data. Here I salute the founders and guardians of the culture responsible for this impressive achievement with a multidisciplinary foray into the history of America's chop suey craze of the early twentieth century. Like the remarkable history of the SSHA, the history of chop suey illustrates the importance of civility, respect, and democratic inclusiveness in fostering innovation. It is a story that celebrates the rewards to institutions that promote such virtues.


2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 575-581
Author(s):  
Lynn Hollen Lees

Social historians formed an important part of the Social Science History Association from its early days, and they widened its intellectual space beyond initial emphases on political history and quantitative methods. Lee Benson and other faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as well as Charles and Louise Tilly, were particularly influential in attracting a broad mix of scholars to the group. The openness of the association and its interdisciplinarity appealed to younger scholars, and those interested in the “new urban history” were early recruits. A growing number of women, many of whom were social historians, participated in the first conventions and newly organized networks.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document