Identities and Social Change in Britain since 1940: The Politics of Method
Identities and Social Change in Britain since 1940: The Politics of Method
复制标题
1940 年以来英国的身份和社会变迁：方法的政治
DOI：
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199587650.001.0001
复制
发表时间：
2010
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
M. Savage
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Savage
第一部关于英国社会科学研究方法发展的历史叙述文笔易懂而引人入胜，为英国过去70年来经历的巨大社会变革提供了新的视角《1940年以来英国的身份与社会变革》探讨了如何，在1940年至1970年之间，英国社会以深刻的方式打上了学术社会科学的烙印，这对我们如何看到我们自己。它侧重于如何采访方法和抽样调查黯然失色文学和社区研究作为一种手段，了解日常生活。这本书表明，这些方法是在非殖民化之后更广泛地重塑英国民族认同的一部分，在非殖民化中，理性的，管理的国家的措施使文学和浪漫的措施黯然失色。它还将社会科学方法的出现与受过教育的中产阶级中技术官僚和科学身份的加强以及挑战女性专业知识的男性权威的兴起联系起来。这本书是第一本广泛借鉴20世纪30年代至60年代存档的定性社会科学数据的书，它用这些数据对英国战后的社会变革进行了独特的、个人的和具有挑战性的描述。它还使用这些数据来进行一种新的社会科学历史社会学，强调知识形式的不连续性，并强调学科和机构如何为声誉而相互竞争。它强调社会科学形式的知识如何在这一时期使艺术和人文学科的知识黯然失色，这为今天的专业知识的作用提供了一个彻底的重新思考，这将激起社会科学家，人文学者和普通读者的兴趣。
First historical account of the development of social science research methods in Britain Accessibly and engagingly written Sheds new light on the huge social changes experienced in Britain over the last 70 years Identities and Social Change in Britain since 1940 examines how, between 1940 and 1970 British society was marked by the imprint of the academic social sciences in profound ways which have an enduring legacy on how we see ourselves. It focuses on how interview methods and sample surveys eclipsed literature and the community study as a means of understanding ordinary life. The book shows that these methods were part of a wider remaking of British national identity in the aftermath of decolonisation in which measures of the rational, managed nation eclipsed literary and romantic ones. It also links the emergence of social science methods to the strengthening of technocratic and scientific identities amongst the educated middle classes, and to the rise in masculine authority which challenged feminine expertise. This book is the first to draw extensively on archived qualitative social science data from the 1930s to the 1960s, which it uses to offer a unique, personal and challenging account of post war social change in Britain. It also uses this data to conduct a new kind of historical sociology of the social sciences, one that emphasises the discontinuities in knowledge forms and which stresses how disciplines and institutions competed with each other for reputation. Its emphasis on how social scientific forms of knowing eclipsed those from the arts and humanities during this period offers a radical re-thinking of the role of expertise today which will provoke social scientists, scholars in the humanities, and the general reader alike.