How Robert M. MacIver was forgotten: Columbia and American sociology in a new light, 1929-1950

Hałas, Elżbieta

doi:10.1002/1520-6696(200124)37:1<27::aid-jhbs3>3.0.co;2-6

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Columbia Bureau of Applied Social Research (BASR), established in 1943 under the direction of Lazarsfeld, was at the leading edge of statistically oriented sociological research, operating with a high level of prestige and financial independence (McCaughey, 2003, pp. 372–375; Hałas, 2001, pp. 38–39).…”

Section: IIImentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Producing Parsons' reputation: Early critiques of Talcott Parsons' social theory and the making of a caricature

Owens

2010

J History Behavioral Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the critical responses to Talcott Parsons' first major work, The Structure of Social Action (1937), and his two subsequent books, Toward a General Theory of Action and The Social System (both 1951). Because Parsons' work was the subject of such virulent debate, we cannot fully understand Parsons' impact on the discipline of sociology without understanding the source and nature of those early criticisms. I trace the responses to Parsons, first through book reviews and private letters and then in the more substantial statements of C. Wright Mills, George Homans, and Alvin Gouldner, from the largely positive but superficial reception of Structure to the polemics that followed Parsons' 1951 works. In the late 1930s and 1940s, Parsons' reputation grew steadily but there remained no careful reception of Structure, fostering resentment toward Parsons in some quarters while precluding a sophisticated understanding of his work. After 1951, a few critics capitalized on that tension, writing sweeping rejections of Parsons' work that spoke to a much broader audience of sociologists. That dynamic, coupled with Parsons' own indifference toward his harshest critics, produced a situation in which many sociologists simply chose not to read Parsons in the 1950s and 1960s, reinforcing a caricature and distorting perceptions of Parsons' place in mid-twentieth-century American sociology.

show abstract

Section: IIImentioning

confidence: 99%

“…258–264). At Columbia, often considered a stronghold of quantitative statistical analysis, Robert MacIver and Robert Lynd (together with his wife, Helen Lynd) produced important ethnographic studies that stood as alternatives to the empirical fact‐gathering and data analysis characteristic of scientism (Hałas, 2001, p. 31; Bannister, 1987, pp. 70–72).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Producing Parsons' reputation: Early critiques of Talcott Parsons' social theory and the making of a caricature

Owens

2010

J History Behavioral Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is what I have referred to as the First Columbia School, as it became identified with the dominant leader Franklin H. Giddings. The focus of the department changed rather sharply after it was placed in the hands of Robert M. MacIver in 1929MacIver in (1882MacIver in -1970, a Scottish immigrant to Canada, who was, in fact, a critic of radical neo-positivism (Wallace, 1991: 340;Halas, 2001). Rather strangely, perhaps, Giddings's best doctoral graduate, William E Ogburn, was passed over for the chair position despite his already strong record of achievement, his willingness, and his propinquity at Barnard College and as a partial colleague of Giddings at Columbia (Wallace, 1991).…”

Section: Floyd Nelson House In the Context Of American Sociologymentioning

confidence: 99%

The myth about “myths of the Chicago School”: Evidence from Floyd Nelson house

Nock

2004

Am Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some important work (Bulmer, Harvey) in the history of sociology questions whether the Chicago School should be identified with qualitative as opposed to more quantitative, statistical, and correlational methods. This paper will examine whether this characterization is a "myth" or whether tbere was some real basis for this association of Chicago sociology with qualitative research and a broader epistemological stance critical of radical neo-positivism. It does so by utilizing Floyd Nelson House's The Development of Sociology (1936) as a primary source for answering these questions. House received his Ph.D. from Chicago in 1924Chicago in , taught there in 1925Chicago in -1926, and continued to identify himself as a Chicagoan after his appointment to the University of Virginia.Although his book provides a long historical survey, House paid ample attention to the development of American sociology. He frequently drew attention to the differences between Chicago sociology and that produced by the First Columbia School of Sociology founded by the radical neo-positivist Franklin H. Giddings. These differences focused on methods and epistemological stances. House identified himself as part of a Chicago "Group of Five" (including Park, Blumer, Eubank, and Bogardus) which questioned "concrete sociological research" in the absence of careful conceptualization. The contrast between Columbia and Chicago sociology in both descriptive and evaluative terms is, in fact, a leitmotif of what appears to be on the surface an impartial textbook. This paper concludes that the depiction of the Chicago School as welcoming to qualitative methods and much less inclined to radical neo-positivism than the First Columbia School is not a latter-day construction of neo or "wannabe" Chicagoans but has its roots in contemporary developments of the Chicago School in its heyday of the 1920s and 1930s. The Myth About Methods in Chicago SociologySeveral sociological historians of the Chicago School have suggested that it is wrong for sociological historians and commentators to associate a qualitative and non-statistical epistemological-methodological stance with Chicago sociology because this has led to a denial or denigration of that department's quantitative and statistical approaches. Martin Bulmer is probably the locus classicus of this in his important book The Chicago School of Sociology (1984) and a previous article (1981). He refers to "the neglect of this quantitative tradition in Chicago social science in the 1920s and 1930s" by sociological historians and to "the David'Nock has been (full) professor of sociology since 1986. His interests include the history of sociology/ social thought, classical theory, and sociology of knowledge. Nock63

show abstract

“…Aside from the fact that there was a close affinity between CCNY and Columbia University during this time (for reasons we have discussed and for others that will become apparent shortly), the prestige of Columbia's sociology department had been rising ever since the arrival of William Ogburn in 1928 (Turner & Turner, 1990, p. 49). Ogburn's strong emphasis on statistical technique offered a viable alternative to the University of Chicago's emphasis on problems-oriented research aimed at ameliorating any number of urban social ills (Halas, 2001). Gouldner's more quantitative, business background seemed a natural fit with Columbia's emphasis on "scientific" sociology.…”

Section: Gouldner and Columbia Sociologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Alvin W. Gouldner and industrial sociology at Columbia University

Chriss

2001

J History Behavioral Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alvin W. Gouldner (1920–1980) was a prolific sociologist of the post‐World War II era who spent the early part of his career (the 1950s) in the field of industrial sociology. A case study of Gouldner's early life and career is useful insofar as it intertwines with the development of industrial sociology as a distinct subfield within sociology. Through this analysis we are also better able to understand how and in what ways a burgeoning organizational studies program developed at Columbia University during the 1940s. This analysis of the historical and cultural contexts within which Gouldner came to prominence as an industrial sociologist at Columbia, and the intellectual program that resulted, can also help shed light on more recent trends in organizational studies. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

show abstract

How Robert M. MacIver was forgotten: Columbia and American sociology in a new light, 1929-1950

Cited by 15 publications

References 32 publications

Producing Parsons' reputation: Early critiques of Talcott Parsons' social theory and the making of a caricature

Producing Parsons' reputation: Early critiques of Talcott Parsons' social theory and the making of a caricature

The myth about “myths of the Chicago School”: Evidence from Floyd Nelson house

Alvin W. Gouldner and industrial sociology at Columbia University

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About