Social science and Sozialwissenschaft: Categorical and institutional boundaries of knowledge

Sonnert, Gerhard

doi:10.1002/jhbs.21909

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 63 publications

(66 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As we have seen, psychology shares its vocabulary with biology more than with any other subject, a result that is consistent with Simonton’s ( 2015 , p. 339) finding that psychology’s position in the HoS is “most proximate to biology.” A significant part of psychology may be transitioning toward becoming a part of biology. Such a tendency is encouraged by the fact that major anglophone granting agencies favor subjects perceived as sciences as opposed to social sciences or humanities (Sonnert 2018 , pp. 185–189).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The outcome may be that those who work in psychology departments will increasingly be seen as belonging to a fragmented discipline (Balietti et al 2015 ; Benjafield 2017 ) that occupies the space between biology and sociology, but not as a coherent subject. Interestingly, the pressure for psychology to become a biological science may not be as pronounced in, for example, the German version of psychology, because the “institutional landscape of research funding is quite different in Germany” (Sonnert 2018 , p. 189) than it is in anglophone countries. The implication is that psychology’s position in the HoS may vary depending on the linguistic and cultural context.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Vocabulary sharing among subjects belonging to the hierarchy of sciences

Benjafield

2020

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To what extent do the vocabularies of mathematics, computing, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, economics, political science, philosophy, and linguistics overlap? To explore this question, samples of the anglophone vocabularies of these subjects were created using the Oxford English Dictionary (Benjafield in Scientometrics 118:1051–1064, 2019. 10.1007/s11192-019-03021-2). The first part of this study compared the vocabularies of the five empirical members of Comte’s hierarchy of the sciences (HoS) plus psychology (i.e., astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology). The results were generally consistent with the existence of an empirical HoS. For example, each subject shared its vocabulary the most with another subject adjacent to it in the hierarchy (i.e., astronomy with physics, physics with chemistry, biology with chemistry, psychology with biology, sociology with psychology). The second part of this study examined patterns of sharing between mathematics, computing, economics, political science, philosophy, linguistics and the six members of the empirical HoS. Among the most interesting results was the high degree of vocabulary sharing between mathematics, philosophy, and linguistics. Indeed, it turns out that all subjects share their vocabularies with all other subjects, to varying degrees. It was suggested that, in addition to comparing subjects in terms of a linear HoS, similarities between subjects should be examined independently of their position on the HoS.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vocabulary sharing among subjects belonging to the hierarchy of sciences

Benjafield

2020

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This may add to the burden of proof for those legitimizing difference in status and hierarchy. More specifically, if expectations of justice exist, then equity is the default, and social systems (including education, workplaces) may incur the burden of proof for deviating from it (see Sonnert 2018). A burden of proof for gender hierarchies may exist in scientific fields because these fields are high cost, rely on public funding, have an ethos of universalism, 12 and garner support (in part) through an argument about being "open to talent" (Fox 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publications about Women, Science, and Engineering: Use of Sex and Gender in Titles over a Forty-six-year Period

Fox

Rueda

Sonnert

et al. 2021

Science, Technology, & Human Values

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article focuses on key features of the use of sex and gender in titles of articles about women, science, and engineering over an important forty-six-year period (1965–2010). The focus is theoretically and empirically consequential. Theoretically, the paper addresses science as a critical case that connects femininity/masculinity to social stratification; and the use of sex and gender as an enduring, analytical issue that reveals perspectives on hierarchies of femininity/masculinity. Empirically, this article identifies the emergence, development, and stabilization of published articles about women, science, and engineering that use sex and gender in their titles. The distinctive method involves search, retrieval, and review of 23,430 articles, using intercoder reliabilities for inclusion/exclusion. This results in a uniquely specified and comprehensive set of articles on our subject and the identification of titles with sex and gender. Findings point to (1) the growth of gender titles, (2) their increase in every field, (3) differing concentrations of sex and gender titles in journals, (4) a span of telling topic areas, and (5) higher citation rates of gender, compared to sex, titles. Broader implications appear in reasons for the growth of gender titles, meanings of topic areas that occur, insights into social inequalities and science policies, and emerging complexities of nonbinary categories of sex/gender.

show abstract

“…Mit seiner Unterscheidung der »Literary intellectuals at one pole-at the other scientists, and as the most representative, the physical scientists« (Snow, [1959] 2005, S. 4) verortet der Literat und Wissenschaftler die zwei Kulturen einmal innerhalb und einmal außerhalb der Wissenschaft. So geschieht es im angloamerikanischen Raum bis heute, denn dort werden semantisch die »Sciences« von den »Humanities« unterschieden (Sonnert, 2018). Einmal mehr zeigt sich daran die Kontingenz der Grenzverläufe, denn im deutschsprachigen Raum gelten die »Humanities« als Geisteswissenschaften.…”

Section: Ausdifferenzierung Der Wissenschaftunclassified

Disziplinierung durch Methode

Kressin¹

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

10 »People experience material objects directly via perception (audibly, visually, tactilely, proprioceptively, or via smell and taste) or indirectly through conceptual information (e.g., conversation, diagrams, or texts)« (Taylor, Stoltz und McDonnell, 2019, S. 1). 12 Ich verstehe und verwende die Begriffe der Repräsentation und Rekontextualisierung weder synonym noch atonym. Stattdessen begreife ich die Rekontextualisierung als eine spezifische Form der Repräsentation, typisch für Bildungskontexte. 5 Im Englischen firmiert diese Erwartung unter dem Begriff der »employability« der BA-Absolvent:innen (exemplarisch http://www.ehea.info/pid34423/employability.html, letzter Zugriff: 22.04.2020). 15 Was natürlich kontextabhängig sehr verschieden definiert werden kann und viel Raum für machtpolitische Manöverclassification struggle -innerhalb der Wissenschaft bietet. Genau dies beschreibt Gieryn mit seinem Konzept der »boundary-work«.

show abstract

Social science and Sozialwissenschaft: Categorical and institutional boundaries of knowledge

Cited by 5 publications

References 63 publications

Vocabulary sharing among subjects belonging to the hierarchy of sciences

Vocabulary sharing among subjects belonging to the hierarchy of sciences

Publications about Women, Science, and Engineering: Use of Sex and Gender in Titles over a Forty-six-year Period

Disziplinierung durch Methode

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About