TEKNİSYENLER, DANIŞMANLAR VE ANLAM ÜRETENLER OLARAK SOSYAL BİLİMCİLER

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, sosyal bilim bilgisinin toplumun yapısındaki rolü hakkında, temel bilimsel yaklaşımlardan üç başlık halinde bahsedeceğiz.(1) Sosyal bilimciler – bu her zaman kasıtlı bir seçim olmamasına rağmen- onların rolünü pratik bilginin üreticisi olarak tanımlayan 3 modelden birini takip etme eğilimindedir. Basit olması adına biz bu üç modeli ‘’ Teknisyen Modeli’’, ‘’Danışman Modeli’’ ve ‘’Anlam Üretenler Modeli’’ olarak adlandıracağız. (2) Sosyal bilimcinin çalışma alanının özel ve sınırlı bir bakış açısı benimsemesi, sosyal araştırmanın gereğindendir; (zira) kullanışlı bilgi karmaşık bir konudur. Böylece bu gereklilik bir soruyu, en azından sosyal bilimciler arasında geniş bir şekilde desteklenen bir görüşü ortaya koyar. Sosyal bilim bilgisinin sınırlı ‘gücü’ hakkında sorulduğunda cevap sıklıkla sosyal bilim bilgisinin pratik kullanışlılığının ve yeterliliğinin,  sosyal fenomenin gerçekte ne kadar karmaşık olduğunu, tüm bu karmaşıklığı kavrama işlevi olduğudur.(3) Sosyal bilimciler genelde toplum üzerinde sahip oldukları marjinal entelektüel etkiden yakınma eğilimindedirler ve onlar sözde iki kültür sınıflandırmasına, birçok topluma girdiği görülen doğa bilimleri ve teknolojide olduğu şekliyle nasıl ve ne zaman başarı ve ün kazanabilecekleri endişesiyle, büyük bir düşmanlıkla bakarlar. Fakat bu endişe, sosyal bilimlerin aktüel gücünü özellikle zihniyet oluşturucu veya anlam üretici gücünü hafife alır görünmektedir.

Keywords

• Bilgi sosyolojisi,girişim kapasitesi,uzmanlık

SOCIAL SCIENTISTS AS TECHNICIANS, ADVISORS AND MEANING PRODUCERS

Abstract

In this paper, we are addressing three issues that are at the core of scholarly reflections about the societal role of social science knowledge: (1) Social scientists tend to follow – although this is not always a deliberate choice – one of three models that describe their role as the producers of practical knowledge. For the sake of simplicity we have called the three models the “model of the technician”, the “model of the advisor” and the “model of the meaning producer”. (2) Due to the need for social inquiry to adopt a particular, restrictive perspective of its domain, useful knowledge is a complicated matter. Hence the need to put into question a widely supported notion at least among social scientists: When asked about the reasons for the limited “power” of social science knowledge the response frequently is that the adequacy and practical usefulness of social science knowledge is a function of its capturing the full complexity of what indeed are complex social phenomena. (3) Social scientists often tend to lament the marginal impact their intellectual efforts have on society, and they look with great envy across the divide of the so-called two cultures, wondering how and when they will be able to achieve the same kind of success and prestige the natural sciences and technology appear to enjoy in most societies. However, this unhappy view systematically understates the actual power of social science knowledge, in particular its role as a mind maker or meaning producer.

Keywords

• sociology of knowledge,capability approach,expertise

References

1. Adolf, Marian, and Nico Stehr. 2014. Knowledge. London: Routledge.
2. Braun, Dietmar. 1999. “Interests or Ideas? An Overview of Ideational Concepts in Public Policy Research.” In Dietmar Braun and Public Policy and Political Ideas, edited by Dietmar Braun and Andreas Busch, 11–29. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
3. Burke, Kenneth. 1945. A Grammar of Motives. New York: Prentice-Hall.
4. Carolan, Michael S. 2006. “Science, Expertise, and the Democratization of the Decision-Making Process.” Society and Natural Resources 19: 661–668.
5. Collins, H. M. 1992. Changing Order. Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6. Comte, Auguste. 1855. Social Physics: From the Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte. New York: Calvin Blanchard.
7. Elias, Norbert. 1971. “Sociology of Knowledge: New Perspectives.” Sociology 5: 149–168.
8. Elias, Norbert. [1970] 1973. “Dynamics of Consciousness Within That of Society.” In Transactions of the 7. World Congress of Sociology. Varna, September 14–19, 1970. Volume IV, 375–383. Sofia: International Sociological Association.

9. Elster, John, ed. 1986. Rational Choice. New York: New York University Press.
10. Feyerabend, Paul. [1975] 2006. “How to Defend Society Against Science?” In The Philosophy of Expertise, edited by Evan Selinger and Robert P. Crease, 358–369. New York: Columbia University Press.
11. Galbraith, James K. 2014. The End of Normal. The Great Crisis and the Future of Growth. New York: Simon & Schuster.
12. Giddens, Anthony. 1987. “Nine Theses on the Future of Sociology.” In Social Theory and Modern Sociology, edited by Anthony Giddens, 22–51. Oxford: Polity Press.
13. Goldstein, Judith, and Robert Kephane, eds. 1993. Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change. Ithica, New York: Cornell University Press.
14. Grundmann, Reiner, and Nico Stehr. 2012. The Power of Scientific Knowledge. From Research to Public Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Gusfield, Joseph. 1975. Community: A Critical Response. New York: Harper & Row.
16. Hall, Peter. 1989. The Political Power of Economic Ideas: Keynesianism Across Nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17. Horkheimer, Max. 1937. “Traditionelle und kritische Theorie.” Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung 6: 245–294.
18. Horowitz, Irving L. 1970. “Social Science Mandarins: Policymaking as a Poltical Formula.” Policy Sciences 1: 339–360.
19. Horowitz, Irving L. 1971. The Use and Abuse of Social Science. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
20. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2012. Science and Public Reason. London: Routledge.
21. Keynes, John Maynard. 1936. General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Macmillan.
22. Kocka, Jürgen. 2005. “Vermittlungsschwierigkeiten der Sozialwissenschaften.” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschehen 34–35: 17–22.
23. Kynch, J., and Armatya Sen. 1983. “Indian Women: Survival and Well-Being.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 7: 363–389.
24. Luhmann, Niklas. 1977. “Theoretische und praktische Probleme deranwendungsbezogenen Sozialwissenschaften.” In Interaktion von Wissenschaft und Politik. Theoretische und praktische Probleme der anwendungsorientierten Sozialwissenschaften, edited by Wissensschaftszentrum, 16–39. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
25. Merton, Robert K. 1948. “The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.” The Antioch Review 8 (2 Summer): 193–210.
26. Mills, C. Wright. [1959] 1970. The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 34 N. Stehr and A. Ruser
27. Mirowski, Philip. 2002. Machine Dreams. Economics Becomes a Cyborg Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Popper, Karl. 1972. Objective Knowledge. An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
29. Robinson, James Harvey. 1923. The Humanizing of Knowledge. New York: Georg H. Doran
30. Sen, Armatya. 1980. “Equality of What?” In Tanner Lectures on Human Values, edited by Sterling M. McMurrin, 257–280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Sen, Armatya. 1993a. “Marktes and Freedoms: Achievements and Limitations of the Market Mechanism in Promoting Individual Freedoms.” Oxford Economic Papers 45: 519–541.
32. Sen, Armatya. 1993b. “Capability and Well-Being.” In The Quality of Life, edited by Martha C. Nussbaum and Armatya Sen, 30–53. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
33. Shils, Edward. 1977. “Science as Public Opinion.” Minerva 4 (3/4): 273–285.
34. Stehr, Nico. 1992. Practical Knowledge. Applying the Social Sciences. London: Sage.
35. Stehr, Nico. 2001. The Fragility of Modern Societies: Knowledge and Risk in the Information Age. London: Sage.
36. Stehr, Nico. 2015. “Democracy is not An Inconvenience.” Nature 525: 449–450.
37. Sugden, Robert. 1993. “Review: Welfare, Resources, and Capabilities: A Review of Inequality Reexamined by Amartya Sen.” Journal of Economic Literature 31 (4): 1947–1962.
38. Swidler, Ann. 1986. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies.” American Sociological Review 51: 273–86.
39. Tenbruck, Friedrich H. 1984. Die unbewältigten Sozialwissenschaften oder die Abschaffung des Menschen. Graz: Styria.
40. Veblen, Thorstein. [1906] 1919. “The Place of Science in Modern Civilisation.” In The Place of Science in Modern Civilisation and Other Essays, edited by Thorstein Veblen, 1–31. New York: The Viking Press.
41. Vorstand der Gesellschaft für Soziologie in der DDR. 1990. “Zur Lage der Soziologie in der DDR und im Prozess der Vereinigung der beiden deutschen Staaten.” Zeitschrift für Soziologie 19: 474–484.
42. Weaver, Warren. 1948. “Science and Complexity.” American Scientist 36: 536–544.
43. Weber, Max. [1904] 1949. The Methodology of the Social Sciences. Translated and edited by Edward. A. Shils and Henry A. Finch. With a Foreword by Edward A. Shils. New York: Free Press.
44. Weber, Max. 1930. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Talcott Parsons. New York: Routledge.
45. Weber, Max. 1946a. “The Man and His Work.” In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, edited by Hans H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, 3–76. New York: Oxford University Press.
46. Weber, Max. 1946b. “Science as Vocation.” In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, edited by Hans H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, 129–156. New York: Oxford University Press.
47. Weiss, Carol H. 1977. “Research for Policy’s Sake: The Enlightenment Function of Social Research.” Policy Analysis 3 (4 Fall): 531–545.
48. Whitehead, Alfred North. 1925. Science and the Modern World. New York: Free Press.
49. Wynne, Brian. 2005. “Reflexing Complexity Post-genomic Knowledge and Reductionist Returns in Public Science.” Theory, Culture & Society 22 (5): 67–94.