The Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods
The Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods
复制标题
DOI：
10.1108/09504120510587535
复制
发表时间：
2005-04
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Guha
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Guha
尽管社会学作为一门狭窄的学科，还没有达到它在30年前所承诺的突出地位，但社会科学的广泛范围渗透到整个现代学术生活中。这种学术优势反映在自塞利格曼和约翰逊（1930 - 1935）以一项杰出的、至今仍很有用的奖学金开始滚动以来，已经出现了大量的百科全书和其他参考工具。社会科学的主要研究者是Smelser和Baltes（2001）。Borgatta和蒙哥马利（2000）是我所知道的最大的社会学百科全书，但也有几个更温和的收藏-我的图书馆使用马吉尔等人。（1995年）。社会科学的重要性很大程度上在于从研究项目中产生统计信息。最近有一本关于社会科学研究方法的百科全书可以推荐（刘易斯‐Beck et al.，2004年）（RR 2005/131），还有许多关于统计和研究方法的通用手册。社会科学的哲学基础也许已经被它们直接的研究应用所掩盖。我的图书馆委员会拒绝了我听说为此目的推荐的《哲学百科全书》（克雷格，1998年）（RR 2004/304（电子版））的购买，但还有许多其他参考工具可用，无论是印刷版还是在线版。我饶有兴趣地注意到，新版《西方哲学简明百科全书》（Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy，Ree and Urmson，2005）即将出版，但Sage营销部门显然存在这样一个问题：在社会科学信息需求旺盛的情况下，如何才能将另一部百科全书挤进拥挤的市场？他们得出的结论是，有一个连贯的理论语料库，这是独特的社会科学，而不是形成更广泛的哲学领域的一部分，或独特的社会学，人类学，政治学，经济学等个别学科，因此，社会理论百科全书将是一个有效的项目。我不完全相信他们是正确的，我也不完全相信编辑已经成功了。诚然，哲学不仅仅是道德和政治思想，但这里所介绍的至少有一些内容可以很好地融入现代西方哲学的百科全书。另一方面，声称已经为社会科学揭示了一个连贯的现代理论体系，这一点被编辑似乎实际上忽视了经济学的事实所削弱。经济理论是一个非常枯燥的话题。如果我在编辑一部百科全书，我个人会像躲避瘟疫一样避开它，但我不会声称结果涵盖了整个社会科学。即使在其狭窄的领域内，这本书也奇怪地缺乏历史视角。可以说，第一个试图实施基于社会理论的变革的人是梭伦，他根本没有被提及。当然，柏拉图需要的不仅仅是索引中的一些小的交叉引用。即使我们假设社会科学在19世纪真正起飞，也令人惊讶的是没有找到JS穆勒的条目（这本书直接从罗伯特默顿跳到C。赖特米尔斯），甚至杰里米边沁。同样，从四页加一栏关于尼尔·斯梅塞尔的参考书目直接跳到了两整页关于多萝西·斯密的文章，根本没有关于亚当·斯密的条目--他是任何人都能想象到的有影响力的社会理论家。
Although sociology, as a narrow discipline, has not reached the prominence it promised 30 years ago, the broad spectrum of the social sciences permeates the whole of modern academic life. This academic predominance is reflected in the extraordinary range of encyclopedias and other reference tools that have become available ever since Seligman and Johnson (1930‐1935) started the ball rolling with an outstanding, and still useful, piece of scholarship. Pride of place for the social sciences in general currently goes to Smelser and Baltes (2001). Borgatta and Montgomery (2000) is the largest recent encyclopedia of sociology I know of, but there are several more modest collections–my library uses Magill et al.(1995). Much of the importance of the social sciences lies in the production of statistical information from research projects. There is a recent encyclopedia of social science research methods that can be recommended (Lewis‐Beck et al., 2004)(RR 2005/131), and there are numerous general encyclopedias of statistics and research methodology. The philosophical basis of the social sciences has, perhaps, been overshadowed by their immediate research applicability. My library committee turned down the purchase of the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Craig, 1998)(RR 2004/304 (electronic version)) that I have heard recommended for this purpose, but there are numerous other reference tools available, both in print and online. I note with interest that there is a new edition of the Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy (Ree and Urmson, 2005) due out soon.The question that obviously arose in the Sage marketing department was, given a buoyant demand for social science information, how could another encyclopedia be squeezed into the overcrowded market. The conclusion that they came up with was that there is a coherent corpus of theory which is unique to the social sciences, rather than forming part of the more general field of philosophy or being unique to the individual disciplines of sociology, anthropology, political science, economics, etc., and, therefore, that an encyclopedia of social theory would be a valid project. I am not fully convinced that they were correct, and I am not fully convinced that the editor has succeeded. There is, it is true, much more to philosophy than just moral and political thinking, but some at least of what is presented here could fit quite properly into an encyclopedia of modern western philosophy. On the other hand the claim to have uncovered a coherent body of modern theory for the social sciences is undermined by the fact that the editor seems to have virtually ignored economics. Economic theory is a quite extraordinarily arid topic. I would personally avoid it like the plague if I was editing an encyclopedia, but then I would not claim that the result covered the whole of the social sciences. Even within its narrower field this book is curiously lacking in a historical perspective. It could be claimed that the first person to attempt to implement changes based on social theories was Solon, who does not get a mention at all. Certainly Plato needs more than a few minor cross‐references in the index. Even if we assume that the social sciences really took off in the nineteenth century, it is astonishing to find no entries for JS Mill (the book jumps straight from Robert Merton to C. Wright Mills) or even for Jeremy Bentham. Similarly there is a jump straight from four pages plus a column of bibliographical notes on Neil Smelser over to two whole pages on Dorothy Smith, with no entry at all for Adam Smith–as influential a social theorist as anyone could imagine.