Serendipities. Journal for the Sociology and History of the Social Sciences https://tidsskrift.dk/Serendipities <p><strong><em>Serendipities</em></strong> publishes three kinds of texts:</p> <p><em>Articles</em> reporting research results, developing theoretical arguments, or – at best – offering a combination of both. An article has to be concerned with the sociology and history of the social sciences and should demonstrate how it adds to our knowledge. This is best achieved when it is positioned in relation to the relevant literature from the field.</p> <p><em>Book reviews</em> should present and assess new publications relevant to the subject matter of the journal. There is no restriction with regard to the language of the reviewed publication. Moreover, it is the explicit aim of the editors that this section will function both as a forum for critical evaluation of new books and as a platform for those who are not able to read them in their original language.</p> <p>A third kind of text are various forms of <em>research materials</em>. These may be archival materials, i.e., items from the past that are deemed valuable enough to be made visible to the scientific community (e.g. letters, unpublished manuscripts, administrative documents etc.). These should be presented with short commentaries on the significance of the documents. Alternatively, using some of the functionalities offered by digitalisation, such materials might be contemporary reconstructions of past situations (e.g., visualizations), data sets, or similar.</p> <p>Furthermore, <em>Serendipities</em> will make use of some of the more adventurous features of the Web by encouraging discussions online.</p> The Editorial Board en-US Serendipities. Journal for the Sociology and History of the Social Sciences 2521-0947 <p>CC-BY-NC-ND</p> Sooryamoorthy: Sociology Global https://tidsskrift.dk/Serendipities/article/view/151337 <p>Review of Sooryamoorthy, R. (2022) Sociology Global: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives.</p> Charles Crothers Copyright (c) 2024 Charles Crothers https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 2024-12-18 2024-12-18 9 1 56 58 10.7146/serendipities.v9i1.151337 Camic: Veblen: The Making of an Economist Who Unmade Economics https://tidsskrift.dk/Serendipities/article/view/151568 <p>Not avaliable</p> Alex Thomas Copyright (c) 2024 Alex Thomas https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 2024-12-18 2024-12-18 9 1 59 68 10.7146/serendipities.v9i1.151568 Fontaine and Pooley (eds): Society on the Edge https://tidsskrift.dk/Serendipities/article/view/151569 <p>Not available</p> Benno Nietzel Copyright (c) 2024 Kristoffer Kropp; Benno Nietzel https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 2024-12-18 2024-12-18 9 1 69 72 #ThanksForTyping … and the fieldwork https://tidsskrift.dk/Serendipities/article/view/138589 <p>This article explores the role of social researchers’ wives in post-war British studies, in particular drawing on the diaries kept by the wives of two noted sociologists while their husbands, Peter Willmott and Dennis Marsden, were respectively undertaking studies in the working class communities of Bethnal Green and Salford. The wives – Phyllis Willmott and Pat Marsden, made contributions to the community studies in the mid 1950s/early 1960s, at the point where British sociology and social research was on the cusp of transition towards formalisation and professionalisation. The wives were co-opted into the academic endeavour. Their practices as part of their family lives became professionalised as they undertook knowledge gathering, bridging between community and scholarship for their husbands, and reflecting on their own practice. The paper enables contemporary social researchers to recognise the part played by the wives of major sociological figures in the establishment of the men’s reputations and the disciplinary enterprise of sociology.</p> Rosalind Edwards Val Gillies Copyright (c) 2024 Rosalind Edwards, Val Gillies https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 2024-12-18 2024-12-18 9 1 1 15 10.7146/serendipities.v9i1.138589 Differences in Social Science Reporting https://tidsskrift.dk/Serendipities/article/view/139666 <p>Public debate heavily relies on social scientific expertise as demonstrated by recent global events like the coronavirus pandemic. Social scientific knowledge is disseminated and discussed in the mass media, the main arena for the public understanding of social science. However, science communication research overlooks the significance of disciplinary differences in social science reporting while focusing on comparison with the natural sciences. To investigate the reporting of social sciences in the German press as societal communication, anthropology, sociology, and economics are compared within a distant reading approach. In the systematic sample (8,660 articles) over the previous 20 years, the absolute numbers for all disciplines are stagnant, but the share of reporting increases. The section distributions of the three disciplines are quite different but stable over time. In contrast, the sampled periodicals show only subtle differences in reporting. Dramatic events lead to a short-term increase in economics reporting. The combination of the metadata with the semantic structures of the text shows three distinct profiles of social science reporting. These findings reveal the varieties of social science reporting as an important feature in the societal role of the social sciences.</p> Jasper Korte Copyright (c) 2024 Jasper Korte https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 2024-12-18 2024-12-18 9 1 16 36 10.7146/serendipities.v9i1.139666 Edgar Zilsel ‘The Social Roots of Romantic Ideology’ (1933). A translation and commentary https://tidsskrift.dk/Serendipities/article/view/141281 <p>Edgar Zilsel (1891-1944) was an associate of the Vienna Circle and an Austro-Marxist. He is remembered for the so-called ‘Zilsel Thesis’, a historical reconstruction of the social and economic preconditions for the emergence of modern experimental science written in exile in the USA. His earlier work in Vienna on the cult of genius has recently been revisited by a number of scholars. The aim of this translation is to make one of his writings on this subject available to an Anglophone audience. Here he develops a genealogy of irrationalist ideology—one opposed to the rationalism of urban and commercial culture and to science—whose roots he traces to the German Romantic Movement. He offers a novel account of the interaction between Romantic writers, artists, and philosophers and wider currents of counter-revolutionary thought that emerged as a reaction to the French Revolution. The commentary seeks to contextualize the work as a critical, if indirect, contemporary engagement with fascism and points to its contemporary relevance.</p> Alan Scott Copyright (c) 2024 alan scott https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 2024-12-18 2024-12-18 9 1 37 43 10.7146/serendipities.v9i1.141281 The Social Roots of Romantic Ideology https://tidsskrift.dk/Serendipities/article/view/151776 <p>Not available</p> Edgar Zilsel Copyright (c) 2024 Edgar Zilsel https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 2024-12-18 2024-12-18 9 1 44 55 10.7146/serendipities.v9i1.151776