Disciplinary Boundaries and the Rhetoric of the Social Sciences

Poetics Today ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Fuller
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Disciplinary Boundaries ◽  
The Social

Stabilizing American Society: Kenneth Boulding and the Integration of the Social Sciences, 1943–1980

2010 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Fontaine
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
World War ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Main Determinant ◽  
Disciplinary Boundaries ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Scientific ◽  
American Society ◽  
The Right

ArgumentFor more than thirty years after World War II, the unconventional economist Kenneth E. Boulding (1910–1993) was a fervent advocate of the integration of the social sciences. Building on common general principles from various fields, notably economics, political science, and sociology, Boulding claimed that an integrated social science in which mental images were recognized as the main determinant of human behavior would allow for a better understanding of society. Boulding's approach culminated in the social triangle, a view of society as comprised of three main social organizers – exchange, threat, and love – combined in varying proportions. According to this view, the problems of American society were caused by an unbalanced combination of these three organizers. The goal of integrated social scientific knowledge was therefore to help policy makers achieve the “right” proportions of exchange, threat, and love that would lead to social stabilization. Though he was hopeful that cross-disciplinary exchanges would overcome the shortcomings of too narrow specialization, Boulding found that rather than being the locus of a peaceful and mutually beneficial exchange, disciplinary boundaries were often the occasion of conflict and miscommunication.

Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Gabrielle Watson
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Academic Interest ◽  
Disciplinary Boundaries ◽  
A Value ◽  
The Social ◽  
Penal Institutions ◽  
Justice Practice

Respect is a value whose importance in contemporary criminal justice many would endorse in principle. It is well established that every person, by virtue of his humanity, has a claim to respect that need not be negotiated and cannot be forfeited. Rich and ongoing debates about respect beyond criminal justice—notably, in philosophy and elsewhere in the social sciences—indicate that scholarly interest in respect surpasses disciplinary boundaries, that it is of considerable explanatory and normative scope, and that it matters. It is curious, then, that despite academic interest in the democratic design of penal institutions in recent decades, respect is more akin to a slogan than a foundational value of criminal justice practice.

Poiein—Political Infinitive

PMLA ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 123 (1) ◽  
pp. 223-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stathis Gourgouris
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Presidential Address ◽  
Literary Studies ◽  
Literary Study ◽  
American Universities ◽  
Research Framework ◽  
Disciplinary Boundaries ◽  
The Arts ◽  
The Social

From a certain standpoint, Marjorie Perloff's lament, in her 2006 MLA Presidential Address, that literary study has been relegated to a secondary position in the research framework of our profession has merit. This standpoint, however, rests on a retrospective (if not nostalgic) comparison of today's institutional parameters with the enviable autonomy that literary study once enjoyed, a self-authorization that demarcated not merely the practice of literary study (or literary criticism) but even what we might call a literary way of thinking. This was how the institution of theory in American universities took hold, and it is elementary to recall that many other disciplines, principally in the social sciences but also in the arts, conceded to literary studies the vanguard of the methodological and epistemological reconfigurations of their own disciplinary boundaries. Anthropologists, historians, film critics, and art historians, who suddenly acceded to the position of theorist, came to regard literary studies as an inventory for whatever new terms or concepts they deemed necessary in unsettling their own disciplinary givens.

scholarly journals Conclusion

2021 ◽  
pp. 555-564
Author(s):  
Matthew T. Lee ◽  
Laura D. Kubzansky ◽  
Tyler J. VanderWeele
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Disciplinary Boundaries ◽  
Collective Work ◽  
The Social ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Interdisciplinary Scholarship ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Coherent Body ◽  
Specific Expertise

The chapters in this volume affirm the value not only of specialized, discipline-specific research on the nature of well-being—its antecedents, and its consequences—but also of synthesizing interdisciplinary scholarship into a coherent body of research findings, theoretical explanations, and policy recommendations regarding well-being. Each of the 20 chapters makes a contribution to more than one scholarly discipline, and many bridge the social sciences and the humanities. In some cases, a disciplinary expert engaged with the methods or findings of an outside discipline. Other chapters were co-authored by scholars in the both humanities and social sciences. Still others were written by interdisciplinary experts. Beyond the individual chapters, the volume as a whole informs the meta-conversation about how scholars might draw on their specific expertise to transcend disciplinary boundaries and contribute to the collective work of conceptualizing and measuring well-being in ways that effectively advance our understanding of and ability to improve population health. In other words, we believe bringing together work from across often siloed disciplines will provide important insight regarding how individuals and social organizations can pursue the good life and build better societies. We hope that readers will appreciate each individual chapter on its own terms while also gaining a broader awareness of how the study of well-being might benefit from more sustained interdisciplinary dialogue. Ultimately, we hope our volume will encourage further efforts at synthesis by identifying and then building on areas of emerging consensus (see, for example, ...

4 From Comparative Constitutional Law to Comparative Constitutional Studies

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hirschl Ran
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Interdisciplinary Approach ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Constitutional Change ◽  
Disciplinary Boundaries ◽  
The Social ◽  
Comparative Constitutional Law ◽  
Constitutional Jurisprudence

The chapter argues for an interdisciplinary approach to comparative constitutional inquiry that is methodologically and substantively preferable to doctrinal accounts. It suggests that for historical, analytical, and methodological reasons, maintaining the disciplinary divide between comparative constitutional law and other closely related disciplines that study various aspects of the same constitutional phenomena, artificially and unnecessarily limits our horizons and restricts the questions asked as well as the answers provided. Traditional disciplinary boundaries, both substantive and methodological, between comparative (public) law and the social sciences continue to impede the development of comparative constitutional studies as an ambitious, coherent, and theoretically advanced area of inquiry. By engaging in a dialogue with the social sciences, and political science in particular, comparative constitutional inquiries would go beyond the traditional realms of judicial review to consider extrajudicial factors such as judicial behaviour, the origins of constitutional change, constitutional design, and the real-life effects of constitutional jurisprudence.

Reflexivity and Queer Embodiment: Some Reflections on Sexualities Research in Ghana

2018 ◽  
Vol 120 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-119
Author(s):  
Ellie Gore
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Field Research ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Capital City ◽  
Politics Of Representation ◽  
Disciplinary Boundaries ◽  
Race And Class ◽  
The Social ◽  
Lgbt Activism

The ‘reflexive turn’ transcended disciplinary boundaries within the social sciences. Feminist scholars in particular have taken up its core concerns, establishing a wide-ranging literature on reflexivity in feminist theory and practice. In this paper, I contribute to this scholarship by deconstructing the ‘story’ of my own research as a white, genderqueer, masculine-presenting researcher in Ghana. This deconstruction is based on thirteen months of field research exploring LGBT activism in the capital city of Accra. Using a series of ethnographic vignettes, I examine questions of queer subjectivity, embodiment and self/Other dynamics in the research encounter. Specifically, I interrogate what a reflexive concern for power relations means when researchers share moments of commonality and difference with research participants, here in relation to axes of gender, sexuality, race and class. Finally, I explore the challenge of theorising resistance in light of feminist postcolonial critiques of the politics of representation. I conclude that it is only by locating these tensions and dissonances in the foreground of our inquiries that reflexivity becomes meaningful as a way of rendering knowledge production more accountable and transparent, of practising feminist solidarity, and of excavating our own queer research journeys.

Shaping the Future of Sociology: The Challenge of Interdisciplinarity beyond the Social Sciences

Sociology ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 51 (6) ◽  
pp. 1169-1185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Lyle
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Scientific Development ◽  
Sociological Research ◽  
Disciplinary Boundaries ◽  
Shared Spaces ◽  
The Social ◽  
Interdisciplinary Projects ◽  
Shared Commitment ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Effective Contribution

Despite the increasing push towards interdisciplinarity across the physical and social sciences, little is known about the realities of working across such diverse disciplinary boundaries. This article provides empirical insight into the challenges of collaboration from the perspective of a sociologist working on an interdisciplinary project focused on developing a medical device. Findings suggest the effective contribution of sociological research is affected by the framing of interdisciplinary projects. From the beginning, the project pursued a narrow framing focused on scientific development, pushing the sociological research outside the relevance of the project. Reframing is negotiated in shared spaces between disciplines, and fieldwork became important in reframing the project to include the sociological research. However, without commitment to addressing a societal problem, it was impossible for sociology to contribute effectively. Sociologists embarking on similar endeavours should ensure there is shared commitment towards a social issue to prevent the marginalization of sociological research.

Response to Ledford and Sperber

2003 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 375-381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus Kreuzer
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Electoral Politics ◽  
The Other ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Disciplinary Boundaries ◽  
The Social ◽  
Political Economies ◽  
Interdisciplinary Scholarship

Over the last decade, historians have made steady inroads into the frequently static social sciences as they are trying to understand the changing post-Cold War order and the even more rapidly changing global and domestic political economies. Such softening of disciplinary boundaries is also observable in the other direction. Jonathan Sperber's work on nineteenth-century electoral politics and Kenneth Ledford's study on German lawyers offer two examples among many of historians borrowing concepts and methods from the social sciences. Yet, these encouraging signs of disciplinary trespassing cannot mask the fact that these two disciplines continue only infrequently to publish in each others' journals, intelligently review each others' works, or jointly reflect on the payoffs of interdisciplinary scholarship. Given this limited dialogue, it is a particular pleasure to reply to two such thoughtful and constructive respondents. In subtly tackling the problems inherent in comparing, Kenneth Ledford ventures into the disciplinary borderlands of history and the social sciences while Jonathan Sperber stays more closely in the historical corner and — to use Ledford's apt characterization of his colleagues — “picks cautionary holes in the applicability” of comparisons.

Response to Eric Uslaner's review of A Culture of Corruption: Everyday Deception and Popular Discontent in Nigeria

2010 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 1176-1177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Jordan Smith
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Political Science ◽  
The Political ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Disciplinary Boundaries ◽  
The Social ◽  
Ordinary Citizens

I am grateful for Eric Uslaner's thoughtful review of my book. The exchange between us highlights for me, above all, the benefits of reading and conversing across disciplinary boundaries. Uslaner correctly notes that my book refers relatively little to a vast political science literature on corruption. My aim was to understand corruption in Nigeria as it is experienced by ordinary citizens, rather than to contribute to Western analytical debates about (possibly) more universal aspects of corruption and its consequences. But I certainly acknowledge and accept that my own analysis and understanding (as well as the larger contribution of my book) would have benefited from a deeper engagement with the political science literature on corruption. I would quibble with his contrast between anthropologists' “stories” and political scientists' “data.” To me, real people's lives and narratives are among the most powerful data in the social sciences—but that is why I am an anthropologist.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document