Samfundsvidenskabernes sociologi

Inden for de senere år har studier inden for STS-traditionen taget samfundsvidenskabelige praksisformer som deres forskningsobjekt. I antologien Social Knowledge in the Making (Camic, Gross og Lamont red. 2011) præsenterer forfatterne således en række empiriske studier af de konkrete praksisser, hvorigennem viden om den sociale verden produceres. Disse studier repræsenterer et ”turn to practice” i forhold til tidligere sociologiske studier af samfundsvidenskaberne, der overvejende har fokuseret på samfundsvidenskabernes relationer til nationalstaten, på det man kunne kalde nationale samfundsvidenskaber og på de institutionelle eller organisatoriske rammer for samfundsvidenskabelig forskning.

Arbejdsgruppen begrænser sig ikke til nogen af de ovennævnte retninger men beskæftiger sig med den meget brede vifte af institutioner og organiserings- og praksisformer, der er knyttet til produktionen af samfundsvidenskabelig viden. Vi skal bl.a. se på, hvordan forskningspolitiske tendenser gennem de seneste årtier har påvirket samfundsvidenskaberne, hvordan rummet af samfundsvidenskabelige synspunkter har ændret sig over de sidste femten år, og hvordan man kan studere produktionen af europæiske spørgeskemaundersøgelser. Arbejdsgruppen inviterer alle med interesse i sociologiske studier af samfundsvidenskaberne til at præsentere deres forskning og ser i øvrigt frem til en konstruktiv (og venskabelig) diskussion.

Der vil være mulighed for at deltage i arbejdsgruppen med et arbejdspapir, en mundtlig præsentation eller uden præsentation. Der er afsat 30 minutter til hver præsentation inklusiv diskussion, og i udgangspunktet accepteres præsentationer og papirer på både dansk og engelsk. Gruppens arbejdssprog fastlægges endeligt, når de sidste abstracts er modtaget. Abstracts bør følge retningslinjerne for kongressen (http://sociologikongres.au.dk/arbejdsgrupper/) og sendes til Lasse Johansson (lassegj@gmail.com) senest 16. december 2011.

Udviklingstendenser i forsknings- og universitetspolitik de seneste årtier har været vækst, stigende orientering mod erhvervsrelevans og mod muligheder for kommerciel udnyttelse, forskydning fra basismidler mod ekstern finansiering og såkaldt konkurrenceudsatte midler samt afskaffelse af internt demokratiske styreformer til fordel for en topstyret bestyrelses-  og chefstyremodel. I forskningspolitikken er samfundsvidenskaberne (sammen med humaniora) i denne proces i nogen grad blevet henvist til en birolle på grund af de svagere muligheder for kommerciel udnyttelse af forskningsresultater, en marginalisering som dog på den anden side er modvejet af indtægter gennem stigende kandidatproduktion. Artiklen analyserer disse udviklingstendenser og diskuterer, hvad de kan forventes at betyde for samfundsvidenskabelig forskning med hensyn til forskydninger mellem fagområder, emneprioriteringer, kognitive orienteringer og varetagelse af de basale funktioner vedrørende oplysning, demokrati og kultur, som samfundsvidenskaber traditionelt har været tillagt.

(Mit paper er manus til et bidrag til antologien: Jan Faye og David Budtz Petersen (red.): ”Hvad er videnspolitik” (foreløbig titel, under udg.).)

This presentation analyzes recent developments in the space of social scientific views in Denmark by pursuing two overall questions. First, what are the main oppositions structuring the space of social scientific views in respectively 1995 and 2009? That is to say, what are the main disagreements between social science researchers in 1995 and 2009? And second, how are these views or disagreements associated with institutional affiliation, research areas, training and academic prestige? The analysis is based on the Bourdieusian notion of field and uses specific multiple correspondence analysis (specMCA) to address the above questions. To think the social world in terms of fields is to think relationally. Instead of studying for example populations or individuals, the analysis of fields takes the relations between objective positions and subjective dispositions as its object of analysis. SpecMCA dovetails with this approach because it is essentially a “relational technique,” as Bourdieu puts it (Bourdieu 1992). The present analysis uses data from two surveys conducted among social science researchers in Denmark in 1995 and 2009 (Andersen 1997 [DDA-5304]; Kropp 2011) to construct two spaces of social scientific views – one for each year. Variables on institutional affiliation, research areas, training and academic prestige are then projected into the spaces in order to identify homologies between these variables and the social scientific views. Finally the analysis points to differences and similarities between the 1995 and 2009 spaces.

The social science disciplines are strongly differentiated on an epistemological level and in problem choice. One can say that the social sciences are characterised by a number of different epistemological styles or ways of legitimising social scientific knowledge production and that different scientific problems and social institutions is allocated to different social sciences disciplines. This paper looks in to how these different epistemological styles and choice of scientific problems are not only internal principals of differentiation, but also constitutes important relations to other power full societal interests. I thus argue that we can understand the social sciences as a field of force and struggle, where different disciplines compete in producing legitimate representations of the social that also represent specific societal interests.

Using the language of Bourdieu and resent survey data, I construct a space of social scientific epistemological styles using multiple correspondence analysis. In to this space I project a number of supplementary variables representing problem choice and thus show how different epistemological styles are connected to specific societal interest, problems and institutions.

In this presentation we will introduce a newly established research programme in Denmark, Humanomics. The aims of the programme are (a) to map the content and context of the humanities in Denmark, and (b) to identify theoretical and methodological resources for developing an empirically-based philosophy of science. By looking at the structure and dynamics of the humanities at universities and other research institutions (e.g., museums, archives, cultural institutions), we seek to provide insight into which humanist theories, methods, concepts, etc. that are operative in today’s science system. The investigation of contemporary and historical knowledge production in the humanities is classified within three main areas: history of science, philosophy of science, and sociology of science. Indeed, by tracing the historical origins of the humanities, and examining their conceptual roots as well as their social network and structure, the research programme will map the humanities' complex topography in Denmark. The mapping exercise involves an investigation of the relationship and flow between research areas in the humanities, and between the humanities and its neighbouring disciplines. Research topics include the search for publication patterns, key-word analysis, major research areas, new and emerging subfields, co-investigator links, transdisciplinary collaborations, high-intensive research paradigms, etc. The programme will run from 2012-2015 and is meant to inspire cross-disciplinary discussion on how to track scientific activity and progress in the humanities. The aim of this presentation is to present the programme and collect ideas and recommendations from similar mapping exercises and surveys in the social sciences. A working paper will be circulated prior to the workshop.