The Sociology of Scientific Disciplines: On the Genesis and Stability of the Disciplinary Structure of Modern Science

Abstract

The ArgumentThis essay attempts to show the decisive importance of the “scientific discipline” for any historical or sociological analysis of modern science. There are two reasons for this:1. A discontinuity can be observed at the beginning of modern science: the “discipline,” which up until that time had been a classificatorily generated unit of the ordering of knowledge for purposes of instruction in schools and universities, develops into a genuine and concrete social system of scientific communication. Scientific disciplines as concrete systems (Realsysteme) arise as a result of (a) the communicative stabilization of “scientific communities” at the end of the eighteenth century and the formation of “appropriate” roles and organizational structures (in universities); (b) the structural differentiation of the new scientific disciplines from the established professions (law, theology, medicine) in Europe; (c) the formation of scientific communication in the standardized form of scientific publication; the distinction of the separate action-type “scientific research” and the differentiation of these two elementary acts of all future scientific endeavor in relation to each other.2. The scientific discipline as primary unit of the internal differentiation of science has, since its genesis, been stabilized by two conditions: (a) The fact of a science differentiated into a plurality of (competing, mutually stimulating) disciplinary perspectives becomes the chief causal factor underlying the developmental dynamism of modern science; (b) Similar to the way in which the discipline functions as a cognitive address within the system of science, science also links the discipline up as a structural unit (utilized in both systems) with curricular structures in the system of education — i.e., it is stabilized by the central system/environment relation of science.

Ideas and perspectives: Strengthening the biogeosciences in environmental research networks

“…The growing recognition of biological and geological complexities facilitated the division, but so too did scientific reductionism and the departmentalization of university faculties. Many academics welcomed the narrowing of scope and the close-knit academic communities brought about by departments (Stichweh, 1992). Despite exceptions, even today the mainstreams of biology and geology remain formally separated by university departments, professional societies, funding streams, and journals.…”

Dilemas e perspectivas da abordagem sociológica dos desastres naturais

“…Apesar de não existirem critérios formais para a definição de uma disciplina científica (Lemaine et al, 1976), as disciplinas constituem a unidade primária de diferenciação interna do sistema de ciência (Stichweh, 1992). As disciplinas científicas podem ser caracterizadas como organizações sociais especializadas em identificar e resolver problemas dentro de culturas epistêmicas institucionalizadas academicamente (Cetina, 1999).…”

Transdisciplinarity and Information Systems: IT Governance in the Digitalisation of Healthcare

“…Stichweh [5], argues that disciplines shape scientific research by forming the primary institutional and cognitive units in academia, on which the internal differentiation of science into specialized curricula, professions and research is based. A common pattern of members communicating within their community, sharing basic assumptions and examples regarding meaningful problems, standards for reliable and valid methods, and also looking out for what is considered a good solution to a problem is noted.…”