Teaching and Learning Guide for: ‘The Sociologies of Knowledge, Science, and Intellectuals: Distinctive Traditions and Overlapping Perspectives’
Authors: Wood Christine V. 
Published: January 2011

This guide accompanies the following article: Christine V. Wood, ‘The Sociologies of Knowledge, Science, and Intellectuals: Distinctive Traditions and Overlapping Perspectives’, Sociology Compass 4/10 (2010): 909–923, 10.1111/j.1751‐9020.2010.00328.x.

It offers a list of texts that one could use in developing a course in the sociology of scientific knowledge, in the sociology of knowledge in general, or in a more specialized course on the field of scholarly production, experts and intellectuals, and the social organization of the academic profession and research sciences.

Author’s introduction

Few review and teaching materials exist that collect the diverse research exploring the social and institutional context in which scholarly and scientific ideas are generated, legitimated, and diffused. By zeroing in on the social ‘field’ or ‘arena’ of scholarly production, which may include the sciences, humanities, and social sciences, sociologists are better able to delineate the distinct analytic traditions that have emerged in studying various orderings of certified knowledge – whether philosophical, humanistic, social scientific, or scientific – and their producers. Despite obvious overlaps, the sociologies of knowledge, science, and intellectuals owe their origins as sociological sub‐fields to distinctive theoretical and even methodological traditions. Considering intellectuals and experts as social groups working in specific social contexts, institutions, and making different kinds of claims to knowledge is different from studying the gestation of ideas and their content, whether these ideas are values, beliefs, assumptions, or scientific and academic theories. Within the sociology of knowledge, studies of the production of academic knowledge is a separate body of literature from studies of social cognition, collective memory, or the internalization of norms and values, and so some distinctions are necessary. In some sense, the sociology of knowledge as a grand project that could subsume the study of scientific knowledge and the study of intellectuals as a social class or group and of the academic professions. But many scholars draw boundaries between the sociologies of knowledge and science, owing to the empirical distinctions between an area of inquiry that subsumes the study of broad orderings of knowledge and a field that focuses on the distinct status and situation of natural and hard science in modern life – its content, institutional contexts, organization, normative structures, political conflicts, and applications. Depending on their research interests, scholars have drawn boundaries within the sub‐fields of science studies, for instance by delineating between the ‘political’ sociology of science and the ‘historical’ sociology of science, or by focusing on the interactions between political and social movements and science and academia. Depending on the interests of the professor and the degree of specialization of a course, this guide offers a list of texts that one could use in developing a course in the sociology of scientific knowledge, in the sociology of knowledge in general, or in a more specialized course on the field of scholarly production, experts and intellectuals, and the social organization of the academic profession and research sciences.

Author recommends

Following a chronology of sociological work on knowledge, science, and intellectuals, from the classical, 19th‐Century theory of Karl Marx and Max Weber through the early and mid‐20th‐Century is to trace a neat trajectory of sociological theory in its various incarnations – foundational, functionalist, structural, institutional, political, historical, and cultural. Many classical essays in the sociology of knowledge and science are dispersed among larger texts devoted to the essays of key sociological thinkers. Within the sociology of knowledge or science, numerous volumes exist that detail foundational and specialized approaches in the field.

For a primer in the modern sociologist’s treatment of science as a social institution, an excellent collection is Robert Merton’s The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, a compendium of essays from the thinker on science in modern societies, with attention paid to scientific institutions as they developed from the 17th‐Century through the 20th‐Centuries. What is most remarkable about Merton’s collection of essays is that it sets the framework for many core themes that would later be elaborated by sociologists on questions of science, including the relationship of science to other institutions and conflicts among scientists over the prioritization of some programs of research and discovery over others. In a thesis that explored the ‘interdependence’ of science and other institutional spheres in seventeenth century England, where modern science was just beginning, Merton explored the ‘interdependence’ of science and other institutional spheres, occupational, religious, economic, and militaristic. Aside from this essentially ‘macro’ view of science, Merton also wrote on the ‘Normative Structures of Science’, where he discussed a conflict between the governing ethos of science and the attitudes of others across institutional and social spheres. He wrote that a tenet in science is that all scientists should in their research ignore all considerations other than the advance of knowledge, the justification being that consideration of the practical or social uses of the knowledge increases the possibility for bias and error. Merton claimed that this attitude had furnished a basis of revolt against science – once the applications of the science are discovered, those authorities or groups who disapprove of that application will turn their antipathy toward the science itself. Finally, in an essay on ‘Priorities in Scientific Discovery’, Merton laid the groundwork for the ‘functionalist’ perspective of science. He argued that science operates with governing norms of priority and originality, which places pressure on scientists to assert their claims as original. When science as an institution is working efficiently, those who have best fulfilled their roles as scientists will have made genuinely original contributions to the common stock of knowledge, and are afforded rightful esteem and recognition. The focus on the judgment of originality and credibility in science has sparked a wave of new scholarship, which I outline in the course syllabus and essay.

Given the status of ‘science and technology studies’ as an ever expanding interdisciplinary field, several recent volumes collect contemporary essays in the social studies of science. A notable volume that contains diverse theoretical and methodological writings in the social studies of science is the Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and Judy Wajcman (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007). Emphases on the political dimensions of scientific knowledge production are currently receiving a great deal of attention, with diverse research exploring the politics of nuclear proliferation, environmental justice movements, and the politics of gender and sexual difference in scientific and medical research. The New Political Sociology of Science: Institutions, Networks, and Power, edited by Scott Frickel and Kelly Moore, provides a good introduction (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2006). Other edited volumes are useful as introductory texts to core essays and readings in the sociology of knowledge. A nice volume that contains overlapping research in the sociologies of knowledge and science is Society & Knowledge: Contemporary Perspectives in the Sociology of Knowledge & Science, edited by Volker Meja and Nico Stehr (Transaction Publishers, 2005).

Sample syllabus

Since the sociologies of knowledge and science are such broad areas of research, the sample syllabus takes into account analysis of knowledge production in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities as well as the study of intellectuals as a group. For those that find the focus broad, recommended readings allow those with more interest in science and technology studies or in the study of expert communities to zero‐in on specific bodies of literature. This course could be framed broadly as a course on the social contexts of knowledge production – science, knowledge, and modern research and academic vocations. A basic goal of the class is to encourage students to think more reflexively about science and about their own work as social scientists, while also to promote ongoing research on the ever changing social contexts of the academic professions and knowledge production in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities.

This 10 week outline introduces theoretical texts and some exemplary case studies.

Week 1: Introduction:

This session is an introduction to the sociological study of knowledge production, science, and intellectuals as a group. The class should discuss short pieces as foundational texts, which may include Gramsci’s essay writing on intellectuals in Selections from the Prison Notebooks (New York: International Publishers, 1971); excerpts from Karl Mannheim’s Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1985), particularly those portions that deal with the social function of the intellectual and the ‘classless intellectual’; Max Weber’s essay ‘Science as a Vocation’ (Pp. 129–156 in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, edited by H. Gerth and C. W. Mills, New York: Oxford University Press, 1958); and some more contemporary piece, perhaps Merton’s essay ‘Paradigm for the Sociology of Knowledge’, a clarifying, comprehensive essay on the myriad topics that could be subsumed under the sociology of knowledge (in The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973). Given the breadth of Merton’s essay, which does not deal exclusively with scholarly and scientific knowledge, class discussion should devote attention to the distinctions among approaches that deal with intellectuals as a group, the social contexts of science, and the content of ideas.

Week 2: Classical foundations:

The second week should involve a more detailed emphasis on theoretical foundations in the sociology of knowledge and science. Though Weber’s essay on ‘Science as a Vocation’ has been introduced in the first week, the discussion should center more intensely on how the classical scholars handled questions about knowledge and intellectuals. Using Merton’s essay to frame the classical theorists’ take on science and knowledge, a comparison of the perspectives of Marx and Weber on knowledge and intellectuals should make for a lively discussion. Excerpts from Marx’s The German Ideology provide a good introduction to Marx’s views on the way the content of ideas are linked to material life. In Marx’s critique of the writings in political economy of his day, he argues that the content, form, and method of the writing on utilitarianism from the prominent bourgeois thinkers of the day were linked to concrete social and economic developments in Europe. To contrast Marx’s take that the content of political and economic writing reflected social and economic developments, Weber provides a more nuanced analysis of how the class interests of intellectuals influences the content of their ideas in his writing on how certain types of intellectuals influenced the ideological and ethical doctrines of major world religions, by advocating ideas that conformed to but were not directly influenced by their occupational class interests. Important to this discussion is to compare and contrast Marx and Weber and the extent to which each sees social class as shaping ideas.

Weeks 3–4: Social structure, function, and institutions:

The next several sessions deal with the various approaches to science and technology, knowledge, and intellectuals to emerge in the middle of the 20th‐Century. The first set of discussions should be on social structure and function – essentially, in discussion how sociologists’ have understood the influence of social structure on knowledge production and how scholars have theorized on the function or ‘role’ of scientists and intellectuals in the promotion of the social order. Again, Robert Merton provides a touchstone example of a ‘functionalist’ perspective on science, and a good example is his essay on ‘Priorities of Scientific Discovery’ (The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973). An exemplary text and enjoyable read is Florian Znaniecki’s Social Role of the Man of Knowledge (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, [1940] 1986). C. Wright Mills’s Sociology and Pragmatism: The Higher Learning in America is an exemplary and oft‐overlooked text on the growth of pragmatism and modern American sociology, a model of research design and a prescient analysis of how occupational and economic conditions, the changing demographic of the American university, and the content and function of elective curricula influenced the development of new areas of research in philosophy and the growth of modern sociology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969). This text could also be used to discuss the importance of institutional conditions in shaping academic disciplines and knowledge production. Key texts on the importance of institutions as portals and venues of intellectual activity and the social importance of scientists and intellectuals as institutional and bureaucratic actors include Lewis Coser’s Men of Ideas: A Sociologist’s View (New York: Free Press, 1965) and Edward Shils’s (1972) collection of essays, The Intellectuals and the Powers, and Other Essays (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Weeks 5–6: Politics and reflexivity:

Alvin W. Gouldner’s The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology is a good introduction to a reflexive approach to knowledge production in the social sciences (New York: Avon, 1970). Gouldner analyzed the ‘presuppositions’ of two generations of social theorists, comparing the early 20th‐Century sociological preoccupations with social order with the more conflict‐laden approaches of the New Left generation. The book makes a rather convincing case about how scholars’ relations to resources and politics form the subtext of social theory. Other examples of the ‘politics’ of knowledge production and the social situation of the observer or abound, particularly in feminist theory, beginning with Dorothy Smith’s now‐dated essay ‘Women’s Perspective as a Radical Critique of Sociology’ (Pp. 21–34 in The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies, edited by S. Harding, New York: Routledge, 2004). A good way to trace the intellectual trajectory of feminist critiques of science and knowledge is by assigning selections from The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader. These texts will provide something of an antidote or contrast to the social structural or ‘functional’ perspectives. Also fitting for these discussion are a couple of texts that revived the analyses of the influence of intellectuals’ social class position on the content of ideas. Erik Olin Wright (1978) focused on intellectuals in late capitalism and György Konrad and Ivan Szelenyi (1979) analyzed the social position of intellectuals under Eastern European state socialism, in both cases melding political sociology with the sociology of knowledge. Discussions of the texts featured in these 2 weeks should provoke students to discuss whether the main imperative of the sociology of knowledge – the analysis of the social and material, or at least contextual, backdrop to knowledge claims – is in itself reflexive.

Weeks 7–8: Fields, new institutional analysis, social movements, and networks:

Among the most popular recent approaches in the sociology of knowledge are field analysis, network analysis, and new institutional approaches. Each of these could be said to be in some sense ‘macro’ as the focus is on how broader contexts and relationships influence the content and flow of ideas. Bourdieu’s Homo Academicus is a study of the relationships of status among French university professors and includes rigorous analyses of scholars’ career and family backgrounds as well as the relationships of academic disciplines to authorities in the university and the state (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988). Examples of how institutional conditions shape the development, structure, and composition of academic disciplines and departments have emerged in recent years, the most notable examples being Charles Camic’s essay (published in 1995 in Social Research) on how local institutional conditions and interdisciplinary interaction influenced the development of distinct analytic traditions in three early sociology departments and Mario Small’s essay (published in 1999 in Theory and Society) on how local institutional factors influenced differences in the content and structure of new African‐American studies programs. Excellent examples of the influence that social movements and collective action have on the formation of new academic disciplines include Fabio Rojas’s From Black Power to Black Studies: How a Radical Social Movement Became an Academic Discipline (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007) and Scott Frickel’s Chemical Consequences: Environmental Mutagens, Scientist Activism, and the Rise of Genetic Toxicology (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2004). Finally, Randall Collins’s mammoth The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change outlines a vast network analysis of philosophical production across historical periods (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000). The book is big, and an idea is to have students read the theoretical sections that explain the logic of a network analysis of philosophical production, and then to have students select individual chapters to read and present to the class.

Week 9: Culture and micro‐sociological analysis:

With the rise in importance of the sociology of culture in recent years, interested scholars have applied some of the research techniques developed in culture studies to analyze knowledge production. An exemplary study in this area is Karin Knorr‐Cetina’s Epistemic Culture: How the Sciences Make Knowledge, which is a micro‐sociological account of how scientists in high‐energy particle physics and molecular biology labs conduct their research (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999). If students are interested in the contexts of scientific knowledge production and laboratory life, students might compare Knorr‐Cetina’s analysis with earlier studies of the interactions of actors and artifacts in science labs, beginning with the work of Bruno Latour, perhaps starting with Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987).

Week 10: Using approaches in the sociology of science to analyze other kinds of knowledge production:

At the ‘cutting edge’ of research in the sociology of knowledge are attempts by scholars to adapt, or utilize, the theories and methods developed in science studies to analyze knowledge production in the social sciences and humanities. A good essay that draws on the work of Knorr‐Cetina is Gregoire Mallard’s ‘Interpreters of the Literary Canon and their Technical Instruments: The Case of Balzac Criticism’, published in the American Sociological Review in 2005. A more recent example examines how social science and humanities professors evaluate knowledge, borrowing from research in the social studies of science on consensus, evaluation, and credibility: Michele Lamont’s How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009). Students should assess how convincingly a research area that originated in social studies of science, like studies of how knowledge is prioritized and judged as ‘original’ or the use of technical instruments in the humanities, applies to knowledge contexts outside of the hard sciences.

Focus questions

 In what ways can the methods and theories of the sociology of science be adapted to analyze knowledge production in other areas, including the humanities and the social sciences? What sorts of processes and knowledge claims are specific to science?

 What makes an analysis reflexive? Is analyzing the material or institutional conditions that shape ideas or scientific production inherently critical or reflexive?

 Among the more recently popularized theoretical and methodological approaches to intellectual life, like Bourdieu’s ‘field’ analysis of the French university and Collins’s network analysis of philosophy, which is likely to be most transposable across diverse scientific and academic settings?