On the origins of the methodology of social knowledge in Russia: A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky and contemporary discussions

The article considers those aspects of the development of sociological knowledge in Russia that were determined by the scientific and organizational activities of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky (1863-1919). His contribution to the development of the Russian social and humanitarian thought is associated mainly with the development of the foundations of history, historiography and source studies, which is widely admitted in scientific works. However, Lappo-Danilevskys contribution to the development of sociology, to the identification of the specifics of its subject and to the creation of a model of systemic courses on the historical reconstruction of sociological knowledge are still widely discussed. The authors consider the creative component of Lappo-Danilevskys legacy and the strategy he developed for creating an interdisciplinary methodology for social sciences. The article aims at describing his contribution to the institutionalization of Russian sociology, which allows not only to clarify the origins of social knowledge in Russia, but also to actualize Lappo-Danilevskys legacy. The authors pose new questions and problematize the research potential of the works of Russian scientists at the turn of the 20th century, which has prospects for supplementing the history and methodology of sociology. The description of the activities of Lappo-Danilevsky - from the development of the institutional foundations of Russian sociology to the clarification of the methodological principles of social knowledge - raises the question of the influence of positivism and neo-Kantianism on the scientific community. On the other hand, the study of the scientific and organizational activities of Lappo-Danilevsky allow to expand the field of history and methodology of sociology by supplementing it with a description of the institutionalization of sociology in Russia. The study of the foundations of sociological knowledge emphasizes three points: creation of methodology, separation from related disciplines, and acceptance of the historical component in the development of academic sociology. The article also mentions contemporary discussions which consider the sociological legacy of Lappo-Danilevsky not only as a historical reconstruction of the development of social knowledge, but also in the interdisciplinary perspective of contemporary sociology.

Sociology Engaged in Social Justice

This article expands on my presidential address to further bolster the case that sociology has, from its inception, been engaged in social justice. I argue that a critical review of our discipline and our Association’s vaunted empiricist tradition of objectivity, in which sociologists are detached from their research, was accomplished by a false history and sociology of sociology that ignored, isolated, and marginalized some of the founders. In the past half-century, scholar-activists, working-class sociologists, sociologists of color, women sociologists, indigenous sociologists, and LGBTQ sociologists have similarly been marginalized and discouraged from pursuing social justice issues and applied research within our discipline. Being ignored by academic sociology departments has led them to create or join homes in interdisciplinary programs and other associations that embrace applied and scholar-activist scholarship. I offer thoughts about practices that the discipline and Association should use to reclaim sociology’s social justice tradition.

Women, the Early Development of Sociological Research Methods in Britain and the London School of Economics: A (Partially) Retrieved History

Histories of sociology have concentrated on the development of theory rather than methods. This article examines the work of five women researchers associated with the London School of Economics in the early 20th century to highlight an aspect of this neglected history: the development of research methods. Mildred Bulkley, Maud Davies, Amy Harrison, Bessie Hutchins and Varvara De Vesselitsky all carried out empirical research on the sociology of work, women and the household deploying multiple research methods, including surveys, interviews, observations, covert ethnography and diaries and schedules for recording household diets and finances. Their work combined a sensitivity to social context and lived experience within a framework integrating the drive to social reform with a focus on scientific sociology. Very little of this work is known today. An awareness of it changes our understanding of disciplinary history, particularly with respect to the provenance of research methods, and their role in establishing academic sociology.

“Building the New Jerusalem in Canada’s Green and Pleasant Land”: The Social Gospel and the Roots of English-Language Academic Sociology in Canada, 1889-1921

According to the conventional account of the history of English-Canadian sociology, the discipline was established in the 1920s at McGill, followed by developments at Dalhousie, Toronto and elsewhere. I dispute this account by documenting the substantial institutional footprint of so-called “social gospel” sociology in Canada’s Protestant universities and religious colleges, 1889-1921: courses taught; faculty appointments made; programs established. Between 1889 and 1921, 28 men, many of them clerics, taught sociology for two years or more in one of Canada’s English-language universities or Protestant denominational colleges. By 1921, 11 institutions offered sociology courses, 7 institutions had made a dedicated faculty appointment in sociology, and 8 institutions offered a program in sociology. In most cases, their teaching reflected the political – but not theological – principles of the social gospel. I argue that these men are the true pioneers of Canadian sociology and that we should rewrite the first chapter of Canadian sociology to give them their due.