DOCSLIB.ORG

Sociology: Proscience Or Antiscience? Author(S): Randall Collins Source: American Sociological Review, Vol

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sociology: Proscience Or Antiscience? Author(S): Randall Collins Source: American Sociological Review, Vol Sociology: Proscience or Antiscience? Author(s): Randall Collins Source: American Sociological Review, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Feb., 1989), pp. 124-139 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095666 Accessed: 02/06/2009 08:18 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Sociological Review. http://www.jstor.org SOCIOLOGY: PROSCIENCE OR ANTISCIENCE?* RANDALL COLLINS Universityof California-Riverside Criticisms of the scientific status of sociology possess some validity when applied against narrowlypositivist interpretationsof sociological methodsand metatheory, but do not underminethe scientific project offormulating generalized explanatory models. (1) Critics allege that sociology has made no lawful findings; but valid general principles exist in many areas. (2) Situational interpretation,subjectivity, reflexivity, and emergence are alleged to undermine explanatory sociology, but these topics themselves can be explained by a widened conception of science that allows informal procedures in theorizing aimed at maximizing explanatory coherence. (3) Thefact that intellectualdiscourse itself is a historicallychangeable social product does not invalidate objective explanatory knowledge. (4) The historicist claim that there can be no principles that hold across particular times and places is invalid and rests upon a confusionof underlyinggenerative principles with the complexities of the empirical surface of history. (5) Metatheoretical criticism of the concept of causality does not underminea sophisticatedconception of scientific sociology. Sociological knowledge can and does advance, but it depends upon building the coherence of theoretical conceptions across different areas and methods of research. In recent years there have been a variety of sociological knowledge. But the overall thrust assaults on the conception of sociology as a of the criticisms, that sociology has and can science. These include the following themes. have no scientific validity, I believe is wrong. (1) Sociology has failed to produce valid To be sure, science is not the only valid mode findings or lawful generalizations. (2) Deter- of discourse, or of knowledge. Sociology, ministic laws do not exist because social like many other intellectual disciplines, can action consists of situational interpretation, be concerned with empirical descriptions based on human subjectivity, reflexivity, and including both contemporary social condi- creativeness. (3) We are locked in a world of tions and historical sequences; it can discuss discourse; society itself is a kind of text that moral issues, propose or excoriate policies for we read in different ways at different times. practical action, and compare existing condi- (4) The foregoing position is often connected tions against ideals; its can discuss founda- to historicism, the claim that only historical tional, methodological, and other metatheo- particularsexist, and no general laws can be retical issues. But the core activity that gives found that apply at all times and places. (5) the field of sociology its intellectualjustifica- Finally, there are various technical criticisms tion is the formulation of generalized explan- of scientific methods and metatheory, espe- atory principles, organized into models of the of the conception of causality. The cially underlyingprocesses that generate the social philosophy of science today is in a postposi- world. It is these that determine how tivist mode; and a scientifically oriented particularconditions result in particularkinds sociology, it is said, is intellectually out of of outcomes. It is these generalized explana- date. tory modes that constitute a science. The various criticisms are not necessarily I will attempt to show that none of the united. Some of them include important difficulties raised the points that contribute to the widening of by antiscience argu- ments prevent sociology from formulating valid generalized explanatory modes. We * I am indebtedto Paul DiMaggio, Richard have the basic structures of several such Campbell, Robert Hanneman,Arthur Stinch- models already, in areas ranging from micro- combe, and JonathanTurner for commentson an sociology, through formal organizations, to earlierdraft of this paper. macrosociology. It is not inevitable that 124 American Sociological Review, 1989, Vol. 54 (February:124-139) PROSCIENCEOR ANTISCIENCE? 125 sociology must be a scientific failure, nor has vided that they are not unequals in power or it failed. Those who attack scientific sociol- competitorsfor scarce resources. Variations ogy typically fight against a caricature of on this principle have been formulated "positivism" at its narrowest. On the other numerous times, based on a wide range of hand, many practitionersof allegedly scien- research. Homans (1950) stated the basic tific sociology have assumed just those point, drawing upon studies of informal narrowconceptions of method and substance groups in industrial settings, as well as that make them vulnerableto the antipositivist anthropological research and experimental attack. small groups. Durkheim ([1912] 1954), in In what follows, I will deal in turn with the analyzing the central dynamic of religious major criticisms of sociological science but rituals, seized on the similar principle that also suggest what we can learn from the intensely focused interactionproduces moral antiscience critiques. The flux of situational solidarity and conformity to the group's interactions,human subjectivity and reflexive- symbols; Goffman (1967 pp. 1-136) extended ness, the dynamism and episodic movement this model to sociable conversations. The of macrostructures,are all part of sociology's famous Asch (1951) experiments demon- subject matter. It has been the merit of some strated the effect of group cohesion upon of the antiscience positions to bring these to pressures for conformity even in visual our attention, and even to explore their perception. Symbolic interactionist theory pattern; but this exploration has made it converges on the same point: if a person's possible to formulate these processes more concepts are derived from the stance of a generally and hence to widen the realm of generalized other based on his or her social explanatory models which are the core of experience, then what individuals think must scientific sociology. be influenced by their patternsof interaction. Research on self-conceptions (M. Rosenberg THE ALLEGED FAILURE OF 1979; R. Turner 1978) can be regarded as a SOCIOLOGICALRESEARCH variant on this principle, demonstratingthe influence of group membershipand solidarity One line of attack dismisses sociology upon beliefs about oneself; in another appli- because we have no findings. After almost cation, expectation states research (Berger, 100 years of research, we still have come up Wagner, and Zelditch 1983) shows the effects with no valid generalizations, no laws of of group pressuresupon task performance(as sociology. This criticism is often made by did W.F. Whyte's famous Street Corner outsiders to our discipline; for instance, Society, 1943). Studies of networks (Bott Alasdair MacIntyre(1984) uses it as grounds 1971) provide the equivalent formulation: for his argumentthat there can be no secular, network cohesion results in homogeneous nontraditionalbasis of morality; Alexander attitudes. The coherence among these various Rosenberg (1980) argues that since the social kinds of theory and research constitutes sciences have, and can have, no laws, any strong evidence that the interaction- sociological explanation must come from a density/solidarity/conformity principles are sociobiological level of determinism. Sociol- true. ogists themselves sometimes also make the (ii.) Human cognitive capacity is limited; same dismissal, usually in the context of a accordingly, the more complex or uncertaina discussion of alternative metatheories (e.g., situation, the more that participantsfall back Spencer 1987). upon a taken-for-grantedroutine and focus But the charge that sociology knows on the particular area that presents the most nothing, that we have no valid generaliza- dramatic problems. There has been a great tions, is patently untrue. Let us review a few deal of convergence on this principle from of these, starting from the microlevel and very different points
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Philosophy, Science, Antiscience the Institute of Philosophy Summer School 2020 Zagreb, 15-17 June 2020
    Philosophy, Science, Antiscience The Institute of Philosophy Summer School 2020 Zagreb, 15-17 June 2020 MONDAY 9.30-10.00 Registration 10.00-13.00 Course 1 Dr. Luka Boršić (Institute of Philosophy, Zagreb) Anti-Aristotelianism and the Emergence of Modern Science 13.00-16.00 Break 16.00-19.00 Course 2 Professor Robert J. Hankinson (University of Texas at Austin) Physics, Mathematics, and Explanation in Aristotle TUESDAY 10.00-13.00 Course 3 Dr. Ivana Skuhala Karasman (Institute of Philosophy, Zagreb) Astrology: From Science to Pseudoscience 13.00-15.00 Break 15.00-18.00 Course 4 Professor Jure Zovko (Institute of Philosophy, Zagreb / University of Zadar) Does Relativism Threaten the Sciences? WEDNESDAY 10.00-13.00 Course 5 Dr. Marija Brajdić Vuković (Institute of Social Research, Zagreb) What is an Expert? Scientific and Public Controversies 13.00-15.00 Break 15.00-18.00 Course 6 Professor Luca Malatesti (University of Rijeka) Science in the Courtroom. Some Conceptual and Methodological Issues in Transferring Neuropsychological Science in the Insanity Defence 18:00-18:30 Break 1 18.30-20.00 Closing Lecture Professor Darko Polšek (Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Zagreb) Science: Good, Bad and Bogus (New Challenges!) 2 COURSE 1 Anti-Aristotelianism and the Emergence of Modern Science INSTRUCTOR Dr. Luka Boršić (Institute of Philosophy, Zagreb) ABSTRACT We are going to inquire into the changes of paradigm that happened notably in the 16th century and which prepared the ground for the emergence of modern science. In more detail we are going to explore the texts of three Renaissance philosophers: Mario Nizolio (De veris principiis), Frane Petrić (Francesco Patrizi, Discussiones peripateticae) and Jacopo Mazzoni (In universam Platonis et Aristotelis philosophiam praeludia).
    [Show full text]
  • Demystifying the Placebo Effect
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 9-2018 Demystifying the Placebo Effect Phoebe Friesen The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2775 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] DEMYSTIFYING THE PLACEBO EFFECT by PHOEBE FRIESEN A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2018 © 2018 PHOEBE FRIESEN All Rights Reserved ii Demystifying the Placebo Effect by Phoebe Friesen This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ___________ ____________________________________ Date [Peter Godfrey-Smith] Chair of Examining Committee ___________ ____________________________________ Date [Nickolas Pappas ] Executive Office Supervisory Committee: Peter Godfrey-Smith Jesse Prinz John Greenwood THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii ABSTRACT Demystifying the Placebo Effect by Phoebe Friesen Advisor: Peter Godfrey-Smith This dissertation offers a philosophical analysis of the placebo effect. After offering an overview of recent evidence concerning the phenomenon, I consider several prominent accounts of the placebo effect that have been put forward and argue that none of them are able to adequately account for the diverse instantiations of the phenomenon. I then offer a novel account, which suggests that we ought to think of the placebo effect as encompassing three distinct responses: conditioned placebo responses, cognitive placebo responses, and network placebo responses.
    [Show full text]
  • Identification and Operationalization of the Major Risk Factors for Antisocial and Delinquent Behaviour Among Children and Youth Research Report: 2012-3
    www.publicsafety.gc.ca/ncpc www.securitepublique.gc.ca/cnpc IdentIfIcatIon and operatIonalIzatIon of the Major Risk factors for antIsocIal and delInquent BehavIour aMong chIldren and Youth research report: 2012-3 NatioNal Crime PreveNtioN CeNtre / CeNtre NatioNal de PréveNtioN du Crime Acting to prevent crime Agir pour prévenir IdentIfIcatIon and operatIonalIzatIon of the Major Risk factors for antIsocIal and delInquent BehavIour aMong chIldren and Youth research report: 2012-3 Report submitted to Public Safety Canada’s National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC) by David M. Day & Sonya G. Wanklyn Ryerson University Toronto, Ontario published by: National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC) Public Safety Canada Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0P8 visit the public safety website and add your name to the ncpc Mailing list: www.publicsafety.gc.ca/ncpc catalogue number: PS4-161/2012E-PDF IsBn: 978-1-100-20345-4 © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2012 This material may be freely reproduced for non-commercial purposes provided that the source is acknowledged. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Public Safety Canada. La présente publication est aussi disponible en français. Elle s’intitule : Détermination et définition des principaux facteurs de risque du comportement antisocial et délinquant chez les enfants et les jeunes. table of contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................1 Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Formalist and Relationalist Theory in Social Network Analysis
    Formalist and Relationalist Theory in Social Network Analysis Emily Erikson Yale University 17 March 2011 Draft Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Peter Bearman, Scott Boorman, Richard Lachmann, David Stark, Nicholas Wilson, the participants of Boston University’s Society, Politics & Culture Workshop, and Yale University’s Comparative Research Workshop for their helpful comments. s Abstract: There is a widespread understanding that social networks are relationalist. In this paper, I suggest an alternative view that relationalism is only one theoretical perspective in network analysis. Relationalism, as currently defined, rejects essentialism, a priori categories, and insists upon the intersubjectivity of experience and meaning, as well as the importance of the content of interactions and their historical setting. Formalism is based on a structuralist interpretation of the theoretical works of Georg Simmel. Simmel based his theory on a Neo-Kantian program of identifying a priori categories of relational types and patterns that operate independently of cultural content or historical setting. Formalism and relationalism are therefore entirely distinct from each other. Yet both are internally consistent theoretical perspectives. The contrast between the two plays out in their approaches to culture, meaning, agency, and generalizability. In this paper, I distinguish the two theoretical strains. 2 Since its inception in the 1930s, social network research has become an increasingly vibrant part of sociology inquiry. The field has grown tremendously over the last few decades: new journals and conferences have been created, programs and concentrations in social network analysis have been created in institutions in both North America and Europe, and large numbers of scholars have been attracted to the field from across a wide disciplinary array, including sociology, anthropology, management sciences, computer science, biology, mathematics, and physics.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring the Operationalization Phase of Theory Building from Three Different Perspectives Greg G. Wang the University of Texa
    1 Exploring the Operationalization Phase of Theory Building from Three Different Perspectives Greg G. Wang Review and comply Refereed Research th Roundtable with APA 6 edition The University of Texas at Tyler guidelines prior to ~SAMPLE PAPER~ submitting your final Russell F. Korte University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Keywords: theory-building, operationalization, application of theory, theory testing In applied theory building research, a central mission is to conduct research that both advances an academic discipline and enlightens practice in a professional domain (Van de Ven, 2007). Therefore, a goal of theory building research in HRD is to advance the knowledge of HRD and contribute to the practice of HRD (Storberg-Walker, 2003). Recent increased effort in HRD theory building methodology research reinforces and typifies HRD as a discipline moving toward this direction (Lynham, 2002; Storberg-Walker, 2003, 2007; Torraco, 2002; Wang & Swanson, 2008). A number of studies have proposed theory building research methods in social sciences and organizational settings (Dubin, 1978, 1983; Lynham, 2002; Van de Ven, 2007; Weick, 1995). In general, all theory building methods follow three key phases of theory development. They are (1) conceptual development, (2) operationalization, and (3) application or testing. A number of recent studies have discussed the first phase, conceptual development (Storberg-Walker, 2007). However, very little literature was found addressing the operationalization and application phases of theory development. This research round table is an initial effort to fill that gap Copyright © 2010 Greg G. Wang & Russell F. Korte Problem Statement and Research Questions 2 The dearth of literature on the operationalization and application of theory may not only impede HRD theory development research, but also reduce the utility of theory for practice.
    [Show full text]
  • A Practical Approach to Recording Unstructured Field Observations
    The 3 Cs of Content, Context, and Concepts: A Practical Approach to Recording Unstructured Field Observations 1 Michael D. Fetters, MD, MPH, MA ABSTRACT 2 Ellen B. Rubinstein, PhD, MA Most primary care researchers lack a practical approach for including field obser- 1Mixed Methods Program, Department of vations in their studies, even though observations can offer important qualitative Family Medicine, University of Michigan insights and provide a mechanism for documenting behaviors, events, and unex- Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan pected occurrences. We present an overview of unstructured field observations 2Department of Sociology and Anthro- as a qualitative research method for analyzing material surroundings and social pology, North Dakota State University, interactions. We then detail a practical approach to collecting and recording Fargo, North Dakota observational data through a “3 Cs” template of content, context, and concepts. To demonstrate how this method works in practice, we provide an example of a completed template and discuss the analytical approach used during a study on informed consent for research participation in the primary care setting of Qatar. Ann Fam Med 2019;17:554-560. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2453. INTRODUCTION linical observation is a method well known to primary care physi- cians. It is the rare physician who takes a patient’s words at face Cvalue without also using contextual clues, such as the patient’s appearance and behavior, to construct a picture of the patient’s health.1 Indeed, medical education has recently highlighted the need for physicians to be more observant through innovative curricula that teach observa- tional skills by examining art.2,3 Field observations offer insight into behaviors and the environment4 and can play an important role in primary care research.
    [Show full text]
  • The Journal of Microsociologies a “Confronting the State One on One” “Confronting the Cooley-Mead Address Deception Debate
    2008 Photograph by Patricia G. Steinhoff September • olume 71 • Number 3 V Journal of the American Sociological Association The Journal of Microsociologies A “Confronting the State One on One” Cooley-Mead Address Deception Debate Social Psychology Quarterly September 2008 Vol. 71 No. 3 pp. 209–320 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY Periodicals postage paid (ISSN 0190–2725) at Washington, DC and 1430 K Street NW, Suite 600 additional mailing offices Washington, DC 20005 Prices subject to change. Applied Social Psychology and Managing Understanding Social Problems Buunk and Linda Steg, Abraham P. Rothengatter Talib 360 pp. 978-0-521-86979-9: Hb: $130.00: 978-0-521-69005-8 Pb: $49.00: Climate, and Culture Affluence, Evert Van de Vliert 256 pp. 978-0-521-51787-4: Hb: $85.00: Culture and Psychology Transmission Cultural and Social, Developmental, Psychological, Methodological Aspects Ute Schönpflug 520 pp. 978-0-521-88043-5: Hb: $99.00: 978-0-521-70657-5 Pb: $36.99: econd Edition! 185.00: Hb: 978-0-521-85259-3: 526 pp. 978-0-521-85259-3: Hb: 185.00: Clinical and Educational Applications Carl Haywood and H. Lidz Carol S. 420 pp. 978-0-521-84935-7: Hb: $79.00: 978-0-521-61412-2 Pb: $27.99: Dynamic Assessment in Practice Jutta Heckhausen and Heinz Heckhausen $ S Motivation and Action from Cambridge University Press University from Cambridge Kory Floyd Kory 240 pp. 978-0-521-73174-4: Pb: $24.99: Communicating Affection Behavior and Interpersonal Social Context Culture, Class, and Child Rearing in Class, Culture, Societies Diverse Jonathan Tudge 328 pp.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise and Domestication of Historical Sociology
    The Rise and Domestication of" Historical Sociology Craig Calhoun Historical sociology is not really new, though it has enjoyed a certain vogue in the last twenty years. In fact, historical research and scholarship (including comparative history) was central to the work of many of the founders and forerunners of sociology-most notably Max Weber but also in varying degrees Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Alexis de Tocqueville among others. It was practiced with distinction more recently by sociologists as disparate as George Homans, Robert Merton, Robert Bellah, Seymour Martin Lipset, Charles Tilly, J. A. Banks, Shmuel Eisenstadt, Reinhard Bendix, Barrington Moore, and Neil Smelser. Why then, should historical sociology have seemed both new and controversial in the 1970s and early 1980s? The answer lies less in the work of historical sociologists themselves than in the orthodoxies of mainstream, especially American, sociology of the time. Historical sociologists picked one battle for themselves: they mounted an attack on modernization theory, challenging its unilinear developmental ten- dencies, its problematic histori<:al generalizations and the dominance (at least in much of sociology) of culture and psycllology over political economy. In this attack, the new generation of historical sociologists challenged the most influential of their immediate forebears (and sometimes helped to create the illusion that historical sociology was the novel invention of the younger gener- ation). The other major battle was thrust upon historical sociologists when many leaders of the dominant quantitative, scientistic branch of the discipline dismissed their work as dangerously "idiographic," excessively political, and in any case somehow not quite 'real' sociology. Historical sociology has borne the marks of both battles, and in some sense, like an army always getting ready to fight the last war, it remains unnecessarily preoccupied with them.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 104 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 104 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 142 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 1996 No. 76 Senate The Senate was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Monday, June 3, 1996, at 1:30 p.m. House of Representatives WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 1996 The House met at 2 p.m. and was THE JOURNAL COMMUNICATION FROM THE called to order by the Speaker pro tem- The SPEAKER pro tempore. The CLERK OF THE HOUSE pore [Ms. GREENE of Utah]. Chair has examined the Journal of the The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- f last day's proceedings and announces fore the House the following commu- to the House his approval thereof. nication from the Clerk of the House of Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Jour- Representatives: DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER nal stand as approved. PRO TEMPORE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, pur- Washington, DC, May 28, 1996. The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- suant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a Hon. NEWT GINGRICH, fore the House the following commu- vote on agreeing to the Speaker's ap- The Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, nication from the Speaker: proval of the Journal. Washington, DC. DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to the per- WASHINGTON, DC, The SPEAKER pro tempore. The May 29, 1996. mission granted in Clause 5 of Rule III of the question is on the Chair's approval of Rules of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Concerning the Unity of Knowledge and the Aim of Scientific Inquiry: a Critique of E.O
    Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2014 Concerning the Unity of Knowledge and the Aim of Scientific Inquiry: A Critique of E.O. Wilson's Consilience Worldview Carmen Maria Marcous Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES CONCERNING THE UNITY OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE AIM OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY: A CRITIQUE OF E.O. WILSON’S CONSILIENCE WORLDVIEW By CARMEN MARIA MARCOUS A Thesis submitted to the Department of Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2014 Carmen Maria Marcous defended this thesis on March 26, 2014. The members of the supervisory committee were: Michael Ruse Professor Directing Thesis Piers Rawling Committee Member Fritz Davis Committee Member James Justus Committee Member The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the thesis has been approved in accordance with university requirements. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1 2. BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Social Thinking®: Science, Pseudoscience, Or Antiscience?
    Behav Analysis Practice DOI 10.1007/s40617-016-0108-1 DISCUSSION AND REVIEW PAPER Social Thinking®: Science, Pseudoscience, or Antiscience? Justin B. Leaf1 & Alyne Kassardjian1 & Misty L. Oppenheim-Leaf2 & Joseph H. Cihon1 & Mitchell Taubman1 & Ronald Leaf1 & John McEachin1 # Association for Behavior Analysis International 2016 Abstract Today, there are several interventions that can be has been utilized by behaviorists and non-behaviorists. This implemented with individuals diagnosed with autism spec- commentary will outline Social Thinking® and provide evi- trum disorder. Most of these interventions have limited to no dence that the procedure, at the current time, qualifies as a empirical evidence demonstrating their effectiveness, yet they pseudoscience and, therefore, should not be implemented with are widely implemented in home, school, university, and com- individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, espe- munity settings. In 1996, Green wrote a chapter in which she cially given the availability of alternatives which clearly meet outlined three levels of science: evidence science, pseudosci- the standard of evidence science. ence, and antiscience; professionals were encouraged to im- plement and recommend only those procedures that would be Keywords Applied behavior analysis . Evidence based . considered evidence science. Today, an intervention that is Social behavior . Social thinking . Autism commonly implemented with individuals diagnosed with au- tism spectrum disorder is Social Thinking®. This intervention In 1996, Green wrote a seminal chapter entitled, Evaluating Claims about Treatments for Autism.Inthischapter,Green * Justin B. Leaf described three levels of science (i.e., science, pseudoscience, [email protected] and antiscience) which can be utilized as a guide to evaluate treatments for individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum Alyne Kassardjian disorders (ASD).
    [Show full text]
  • Zachary James Van Winkle Curriculum Vitae
    Zachary James Van Winkle Curriculum Vitae Contact Information University of Oxford – Department of Sociology Manor Road, Oxford OX1 3UQ United Kingdom Phone: +44 (0) 1865 81921 Fax: +44 (0) 1865 286171 E-Mail: [email protected] Academic Positions since 9/2018 Postdoctoral Fellow in Sociology & Social Demography University of Oxford Department of Sociology Chair of Department: Prof. Dr. Christiaan Monden since 9/2018 Non-Stipendiary Research Fellow in Sociology University of Oxford Nuffield College since 6/2015 Associate Member WZB Berlin Social Science Center Research Group Demography and Inequality Head of Unit: Prof. Dr. Anette Fasang 9/2015 – 9/2018 Research Associate Humboldt-University Berlin Department for Social Sciences Chair of Microsociology: Prof. Dr. Anette Fasang 10/2011 – 8/2015 Statistics Teaching Assistant Humboldt-University Berlin Department of Social Sciences Chair of Empirical Social Research: Prof. Dr. Johannes Giesecke 12/2012 – 6/2013 Research Assistant Humboldt-University Berlin Institute for Educational Science Employer: Prof. Dr. Bernhard Streitweiser Visiting Positions 5/2018 – 6/2018 University of Amsterdam Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences Programme Group: Institutions, Inequalities and Life Courses Host: Prof. Dr. Thomas Leopold Updated: 5.12.2018 Page 1 2/2018 – 4/2018 Princeton University Office of Population Research Host: Prof. Dr. Dalton Conely 8/2017 – 10/2017 Stockholm University Linnaeus Center on Social Policy and Family Dynamics in Europe, SPaDE Department Head: Prof.
    [Show full text]