scholarly journals Eduardo Mondlane and the social sciences

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-111
Author(s):  
Livio Sansone

Focusing on his life and academic production, especially the long eleven years that he spent in the United States, in this text I explore the complex relation between the first President of the Mozambique Liberation Front Eduardo Mondlane and the social sciences - the academic world of sociology and anthropology. I do so through an analysis of the correspondence between Mondlane and several social scientists, especially Melville Herskovits, the mentor for his master's and doctoral degrees in sociology, and Marvin Harris, who followed his famous study of race relations in Brazil with research in Lourenço Marques in 1958 on the system of social and race relations produced under Portuguese colonialism. My main argument is that his academic training bore on Mondlane's political style more than normally assumed in most biographical accounts.

1987 ◽  
Vol 8 (x) ◽  
pp. 251-261
Author(s):  
Richard C. Rockwell

This essay sets forth the thesis that social reporting in the United States has suffered from an excess of modesty among social scientists. This modesty might be traceable to an incomplete model of scientific advance. one that has an aversion to engagement with the real world. The prospects for social reporting in the United States would be brighter if reasonable allowances were to be made for the probable scientific yield of the social reporting enterprise itself. This yield could support and improve not only social reporting but also many unrelated aspects of the social sciences.


2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 710-734 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard Davis ◽  
Howard Davis ◽  
Sergey Erofeev

Abstract How far have social theorists in Russia engaged with the international academic world since the era dominated by Soviet-style historical materialism? Mainstream theories in sociology and ‘culturology’ use new vocabulary but remain loyal to ideological interpretations of society and culture. A minority of Russian sociologists have translated, adopted and critiqued Western ideas. Works by three such authors are explored and compared. This leads to consideration of the institutional development of the social sciences in post-Soviet Russia and their relative isolation from international trends, especially in the regions. The discussion highlights the limitations of old institutional hierarchies and suggests that there is new demand for internationally-trained social scientists to analyze and interpret the post-Soviet experience in innovative ways.


1933 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 222-227
Author(s):  
Arthur N. Holcombe

This is the latest and most comprehensive of the series of studies promoted or patronized by Mr. Hoover, which began in 1921 with the report on “Waste in Industry.” In September, 1929, the President called upon a group of leading social scientists to examine recent social trends with a view to preparing such a report “as might supply a basis for the formulation of large national policies looking to the next phase in the nation's development.” This was an ambitious undertaking, more ambitious than any of those which had preceded it. But the President believed firmly in the method of fact-finding by commission, as was demonstrated by the contemporaneous creation of the Wickersham Commission. This belief appeared to be justified by the accomplishments of previous commissions, especially the commission whose report on “Recent Economic Changes” was then approaching completion. Be that as it may, it was logical that the series of studies should culminate with a broader view of the great society which constitutes the American community. For the purpose of making this survey, President Hoover secured the services of six expert investigators whose past performances had gained for them the confidence of American students of the social sciences. Among them there was a thoroughly competent representative of political science. There was also assurance of adequate financial support. Thus the enterprise began with a good prospect of achieving whatever it might be practicable to achieve in the existing state of the social sciences.


2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (04) ◽  
pp. 859-866
Author(s):  
Kenneth E. Fernandez ◽  
Jason A. Husser ◽  
Mary G. Macdonald

ABSTRACTOrganizations conducting survey research have remained of vital importance to the social sciences. However, these organizations increasingly face new challenges and opportunities. Survey operations housed in universities and colleges may face special challenges. We present a poll of pollsters, an original survey of leaders of academic survey organizations in the United States. Results explore the various methods used by academic survey organizations and perceptions of challenges in today’s academic and research environments. Responses provide an overview of the career path of academic survey leaders and how those leaders understand the primary missions of their organizations. We conclude with a discussion relevant to social scientists interested in the dynamics of operating these important academic research centers.


1996 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark C. Schug

The author discusses the differing perspectives which the social sciences offer to young people to analyse problems. Perspectives from history, political science and geography are briefly discussed. The author stresses that the child's perspective of the social world differs from the ones offered by social scientists. Following a summary of the economic thinking of children and adolescents, the author stresses that economics also presents students with an important perspective through the application of economic principles involving choice, costs, incentives, rules, trade, and future consequences. These economic principles are explained by reference to an example of why the buffalo population in the United States nearly became extinct and why it is now recovering. The author concludes with suggestions for how teachers can bring an economic perspective into the classroom. Readers are provided with three ‘economic mysteries' as examples of classroom activities.


Author(s):  
Joy Rohde

Since the social sciences began to emerge as scholarly disciplines in the last quarter of the 19th century, they have frequently offered authoritative intellectual frameworks that have justified, and even shaped, a variety of U.S. foreign policy efforts. They played an important role in U.S. imperial expansion in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Scholars devised racialized theories of social evolution that legitimated the confinement and assimilation of Native Americans and endorsed civilizing schemes in the Philippines, Cuba, and elsewhere. As attention shifted to Europe during and after World War I, social scientists working at the behest of Woodrow Wilson attempted to engineer a “scientific peace” at Versailles. The desire to render global politics the domain of objective, neutral experts intensified during World War II and the Cold War. After 1945, the social sciences became increasingly central players in foreign affairs, offering intellectual frameworks—like modernization theory—and bureaucratic tools—like systems analysis—that shaped U.S. interventions in developing nations, guided nuclear strategy, and justified the increasing use of the U.S. military around the world. Throughout these eras, social scientists often reinforced American exceptionalism—the notion that the United States stands at the pinnacle of social and political development, and as such has a duty to spread liberty and democracy around the globe. The scholarly embrace of conventional political values was not the result of state coercion or financial co-optation; by and large social scientists and policymakers shared common American values. But other social scientists used their knowledge and intellectual authority to critique American foreign policy. The history of the relationship between social science and foreign relations offers important insights into the changing politics and ethics of expertise in American public policy.


2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marion Fourcade ◽  
Etienne Ollion ◽  
Yann Algan

In this essay, we analyze the dominant position of economics within the network of the social sciences in the United States. We begin by documenting the relative insularity of economics, using bibliometric data. Next we analyze the tight management of the field from the top down, which gives economics its characteristic hierarchical structure. Economists also distinguish themselves from other social scientists through their much better material situation (many teach in business schools, have external consulting activities), their more individualist worldviews, and their confidence in their discipline's ability to fix the world's problems. Taken together, these traits constitute what we call the superiority of economists, where economists' objective supremacy is intimately linked with their subjective sense of authority and entitlement. While this superiority has certainly fueled economists' practical involvement and their considerable influence over the economy, it has also exposed them more to conflicts of interests, political critique, even derision.


Author(s):  
Pablo Gonzalez ◽  
Xóchitl Chávez

Chicana/o ethnography is a subfield of Chicana/o anthropology and sociocultural anthropology. There are two ways of looking at the term Chicana/o ethnography: one, as the work conducted and written by self-identified Chicana/o anthropologists and social scientists; two, as the anthropological work produced on Chicanas/os and US-based ethnic Mexicans. Chicana/o ethnography emerges in the late 1960s with the Chicano Power movement in the United States. With the entry of Chicana/o PhDs in the social sciences and in particular anthropology during the 1960s, the field of cultural anthropology became the site of contested counter-narratives by racialized groups in the United States. Those self-identifying as Chicana/o and receiving degrees in the social sciences ushered in a critique of anthropology’s colonial and imperial legacy. In particular, conducting ethnographic fieldwork and writing ethnographies on US ethnic Mexicans by non-Mexicans came under scrutiny by Mexican Americans. Although there have been Mexican and Mexican American social scientists that have studied US Mexican communities since the late 19th century, the emergence of Chicana/o ethnography is situated out of political struggle both in Chicana/o communities and in universities throughout the United States. Since then, Chicana/o ethnography has evolved to include ethnographic studies on expressive culture and folklore, identity formation, transnational migration and communities, community studies, US-Mexico borderlands studies, social movements, and (il)legality and subject formation. Accordingly, this bibliography begins with initial texts and works that contested the ways in which anthropologists and social scientists initially viewed the US Mexican population and the politics of conducting research in Chicana/o communities. This bibliography emphasizes the field of Chicana/o anthropology as it pertains to the production of ethnographic work by Chicana/o anthropologists and the ethnographic work on Chicana/o communities, cultures, and experience. It does not encapsulate all of the ethnographic work conducted by Chicana/o social scientists in fields other than anthropology nor does it include all the ethnographic work conducted on Chicana/o lives by social scientists. Instead, it also incorporates several key works by social scientists that further the field of Chicana/o anthropology and sociocultural anthropology.


2015 ◽  
pp. 45-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Fourcade ◽  
E. Ollion ◽  
Y. Algan

In this essay, we analyze the dominant position of economics within the network of the social sciences in the United States. We begin by documenting the relative insularity of economics, using bibliometric data. Next we analyze the tight management of the field from the top down, which gives economics its characteristic hierarchical structure. Economists also distinguish themselves from other social scientists through their much better material situation (many teach in business schools, have external consulting activities), their more individualist worldviews, and their confidence in their discipline’s ability to fix the world’s problems. Taken together, these traits constitute what we call the superiority of economists, where economists’ objective supremacy is intimately linked with their subjective sense of authority and entitlement. While this superiority has certainly fueled economists’ practical involvement and their considerable influence over the economy, it has also exposed them more to conflicts of interests, political critique, even derision.


1979 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 9-30
Author(s):  
Louis Cimino ◽  
Don Zies

An indisputable characteristic of the development of the social sciences over the past two decades has been the growing federal involvement in many aspects of research and application. Whether we measure by the proportion of federal funding for basic and applied research, or by regulation of the research enterprise, or by development of substantive social programs, the, federal government has emerged as a (if not the) major patron of social science in the United States. In response, social scientists have begun to take an active interest in federal decision-making, and many new opportunities are emerging for social science input into the policy-making process.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document