Advertisement

Influences of Organizational Research upon the Development of Sociology

  • Alfred McClung Lee

Abstract

Both “individual” and “organizational” research have grown with the sociological field. Both have made notable contributions to the field.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Only a few deceased sociologists are mentioned for purposes of suggestion.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Especially his The Sociology of Teaching (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1932), The Family: A Dynamic Interpretatio (New York: The Cordon Co., 1938), War in the Twentieth Century (With others, New York: The Dryden Press, 1940), The Veteran Comes Back (New York: The Dryden Press, 1944), and The Family, revised by Reuben Hill (New York: The Dryden Press, 1951).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    V. L. Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1930), vol. 3, pp. XXVII, 401–413; U. S. Federal Trade Commission, Efforts by Associations and Agencies of Electric and Gas Utilities to Influence Public Opinion (70th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Document 92 Part 71A, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1934), pp. 173, 393;Google Scholar
  4. 3a.
    R. S. Lynd, Knowledge for What? (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1939), chap. 1.Google Scholar
  5. 4.
    See esp. files of International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research (Mexico City, 1947 —) and Public Opinion Quarterly (Princeton, 1937 —).Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    See D. B. Lucas and S. H. Britt, Advertising Psychology and Research (New York: McGrawHill Book Co., 1950).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 6.
    See the author’s “Public Opinion in Relation to Culture”, Psychiatry, 8 (1945): 49–61, and “Sociological Theory in Public Opinion and Attitude Studies”, American Sociological Review, 12 (1947): 312–323.Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    An American euphemism for propagandists or sometimes for social strategists. See the author’s “Public Relations Counseling as Institutional Psychiatry”, Psychiatry, 6 (1943): 271–276, and “Techniques of Social Reform”, American Sociological Review, 9 (1944): 65–77.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    See the author’s “Implementation of Opinion Survey Standards”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 13 (1949–50): 645–652.Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    Knowledge for What? (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1939), p. 10.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    In Wilson Gee, ed., Research in the Social Sciences (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1929), p. 68.Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    “Organization for Research in the Social Sciences in the United States”, Unesco International Social Science Bulletin, Paris, 1 (1949): 99–107, p. 100 quoted.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    Walter H. Kohl, “The Human Element in Research and Industry”, Proceedings of the I. R. E., 39 (1951): 228–229, p. 228 quoted.Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    On this, see especially S. A. Stouffer and others, The American Soldier (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1949) chap. 1; Daniel Katz and others, Human Relations Program of the Survey Research Center (Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1950); Wilson Gee, Social Science Research Methods (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1950), chap. 12; and John McDonald, “The War of Wits:... the Story of the Rand Corporation”, Fortune, April 1951, pp. 99–102, 144, 147, 148, 150, 152, 156, 158.Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    R. S. Lynd, Knowledge for What? (Princeton University Press, 1939), p. 10.Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    Main Currents in American Tought (New York: Harcourt, Brac and Co., 1930), vol. 3, p. XXVII.Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    Theodor Abel, “The Operation Called Verstehen”, American Journal of Sociology, 54 (1948–49): 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 17.
    “Human Migration and the Marginal Man”, American Journal of Sociology, 33 (1927–28): 881–893, and “Cultural Conflict and the Marginal Man”, the introduction to E. V. Stonequist, The Marginal Man (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1937), pp. XIII—XVIII. See R. E. Park, Race and Culture (Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press, 1950), chaps. 26 and 28.Google Scholar
  19. 18.
    Quoted by C.H. Ward in his Builders of Delusion (Indianapolis: Boobs-Merrill, 1931), p. 223. This is recognized in his writings by Robert K. Merton, a group researcher. See “The Serendipity Pattern”, pp. 98–101 in his “Social Theory and Social Structure” (Glencoe, Ill., The Free Press, 1949).Google Scholar
  20. 19.
    “Magno Instauratio: Aphorisms Concerning the Interpretation of Nature and the Kingdom of Man”, no. XCVII, in Essays, sel. and ed. by R. F. Jones (New York: The Odyssey Press, 1937), p. 313.Google Scholar
  21. 20.
    As quoted by John Pfeiffer, “Scientist of Light and Weather”, New York Times Magazine, January 28, 1951, pp. 11, 33, on p. 33.Google Scholar
  22. 21.
    “Problem-Centering Vs. Means-Centering in Science”, Philosophy of Science, 13 (1946): 326–331, pp. 326–327 quoted.Google Scholar
  23. 22.
    “The Freedom of Science — Its Opportunities and Responsibilities”, Chemical and Engineering News, 27 (1949): 980–982, p. 980 quoted.Google Scholar
  24. 23.
    In a review of James B. Conant, Science and Common Sense (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1951), in New York Herald Tribune Book Review, February 18, 1951.Google Scholar
  25. 24.
    “Magna Instauratio: Aphorisms Concerning the Interpretation of Nature and the Kingdom of Man”, nos. XXXVIII-IXIX, in Essays, sel. and ed. by R. F. Jones (New York: The Odyssey Press, 1937), pp. 278–295, p. 278 quoted.Google Scholar
  26. 25.
    “The Art of Science: A Reply to Redfield”, American Journal of Sociology, 55 (1949–50): 1–9, p. 2 quoted.Google Scholar
  27. 26.
    “Problem-Centering Vs. Means-Centering in Science”, Philosophy of Science, 13 (1946): 326–331, p. 327 quoted.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 1951

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alfred McClung Lee

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations