The Sociologies of Knowledge, Science, and Intellectuals: Distinctive Traditions and Overlapping Perspectives

Abstract

This article reviews sociological approaches to the production, evaluation, and diffusion of knowledge in the arena of scholarly production – the sciences, social sciences, and humanities. At first glance, sociological approaches to scholarly knowledge production seem to congeal around the hard sciences, on the one hand, and philosophy, on the other. I eschew this polarization and construct an analytic frame of reference for analyzing the sociological dimensions of scholarly production more generally. This article maps successive phases of sociological approaches to scholarly production, by overlaying and distinguishing among theories in the sociology of knowledge, sociology of science, and sociology of intellectuals. I analyze classical theorists’ emphases on class analysis and the social function of intellectuals; mid‐century adaptations of functionalism, social structure theory, and institutional theory to analyze intellectual and academic life; critical and reflexive theories, including feminist critiques of science and knowledge; recent emphases on how social movement politics and social networks influence intellectual change; theories of the university as a professional arena and a field of culture production; and studies of knowledge‐making practices in group research situations. In addition to arguing for more theoretical and methodological precision in analyses of scholarly and scientific knowledge‐making, I conclude with cautionary tales and future prospects for sociological studies of modern academic life.

Bifurcated Conversations in Sociological Studies of Religion and Gender

“…Second, our data suggest that feminist sociology’s successes have potentially come at the price of parochialization, which is in line with studies of intellectual knowledge production and subfield integration (Frickel and Gross 2005; Leahey and Moody 2014; Wood 2010). Our study sheds light on the development of an intellectual field and charts how a critical body of scholarship interacts with mainstream disciplinary concerns.…”

“…We developed an analytical approach that is sensitive to differences between a feminist lens and the study of gender, thus addressing a tension between the claim that the feminist revolution is “missing” even as gender scholarship has expanded. We identify a process of bifurcated knowledge that divides subdisciplines and intellectual networks, a mechanism shown to sustain subdisciplinary boundaries (Fuller 2016; Graff 2015; Scheff 2015), thereby linking the missing feminist revolution to studies of intellectual knowledge production, subfield integration, and domain spanning (Leahey and Moody 2014; Wood 2010). Thus, our findings regarding insular scholarly networks also will be of interest to a range of critical scholars who are tentative about engaging with other subfields.…”