Abstract
The assumption that sociology is both cumulative and progressive is characteristic of most teaching and research. But such claims are doubtful given that merit is commonly awarded to work considered “original” even though such judgements are both subjective and the easier to make the less one knows of the discipline’s history. In addition, the fact that societies change makes it is easy to generate apparently “novel” findings, even though generating new data is not equivalent to adding to sociological understanding. The discipline is hamstrung by the prevalence of the fallacy of the latest word, coupled with the immediacy effect and the shortness of sociological memory. Finally, rejecting established perspectives in the name of “progress” is an established means of acquiring a reputation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This problem is then aggravated by national differences in sociological traditions.
- 2.
I remember, when undertaking my Ph.D., being quite neurotic about the extent to which my work would count as an “original contribution” to the discipline, more especially after I discovered that someone else was studying exactly the same topic as I was. And what was more, she was doing so as a full-time student, while I was working on my thesis in my spare time. However, I remember being somewhat reassured when a senior academic told me that it was unlikely, even if we studied the same topic, that we would come up with exactly the same observations, data or conclusions, and hence that the crucial criterion of novelty would in all probability be met in both cases. But then if the truth is that novelty can be generated so easily can it really be an indication of “progress” in disciplinary understanding?
- 3.
A different form of widely encountered faux novelty arises from the increased pressure to publish, for this can lead to research papers being submitted that effectively contain only minor changes from ones that have already been published.
- 4.
The fallacy of the latest word can be seen as a form of chronocentrism, that is, as “the belief that one’s own times are paramount, that other periods pale in comparison”. Wikipedia. Accessed 18 October 2018.
- 5.
This can be seen as part of what Abbott calls, “the ideology of cumulation”, or in simple terms, our need to believe that cumulation has occurred (2006, p. 65).
- 6.
While studying new social phenomena is not directly equatable with ignoring work undertaken in previous decades, it is almost certain to have this effect.
- 7.
Randall Collins (1998) makes a similar point about the significance of generations in understanding disciplinary change, identifying a period of around 33–35 years as the crucial accounting unit.
Bibliography
Abbott, A. (2001). The Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Abbott, A. (2006, Summer). Reconceptualizing Knowledge Accumulation in Sociology. The American Sociologist, 37, 57–66.
Abrams, P. (1981). The Collapse of British Sociology? In P. Abrams, R. Deem, J. Finch, & P. Rock (Eds.), Practice and Progress: British Sociology 1950–1980 (pp. 53–69). London: Allen & Unwin.
Campbell, C. (2015). The Curse of the New: How the Accelerating Pursuit of the New Is Driving Hyper-Consumption. In K. M. Ekstrom (Ed.), Waste Management and Sustainable Consumption: Reflections on Consumer Waste (pp. 29–51). London: Routledge.
Cerulo, K. A. (2016, September). Why Do We Publish? The American Sociologist, 47(2), 151–157.
Collins, R. (1998). The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Davis, J. A. (1994). What’s Wrong with Sociology? Sociological Forum, 9(2), 179–188.
Dean, D. G. (1989). Structural Constraints and the Publications Dilemma: A Review and Some Proposals. American Sociologist, 20(2), 181–187.
de Solla Price, D. (1986). Little Science, Big Science and Beyond. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Gans, H. (1992). Sociological Amnesia: The Noncumulation of Normal Social Science. Sociological Forum, 7(4), 701–710.
Hawthorn, G. (1976). Enlightenment and Despair. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Luce, R. D., Smelser, N., & Gerstein, D. (Eds.). (1989). Leading in Social and Behavioral Science. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Mannheim, K. (1993 [1952]). The Problem of Generations. In K. H. Wolf (Ed.), From Karl Mannheim (2nd expanded ed.). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Merton, R. (1984). The Fallacy of the Latest Word: The Case of Pietism and Science. American Journal of Sociology, 89(5), 1091–1121.
Molotch, H. (1994). Going Out. Sociological Forum, 9(2), 221–239.
Savage, M. (2009). Against Epochalism: An Analysis of Conceptions of Change in British Sociology. Cultural Sociology, 3(2), 217–238.
Scott, J. (2006). Social Theory: Central Issues in Sociology. London: Sage.
Reference Works
Wikipedia s.v. ‘Chronocentrism’.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Campbell, C. (2019). “Sociologists Eat Each Other”. In: Has Sociology Progressed?. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19978-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19978-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-19977-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-19978-4
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)