Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Soziologie, Ergonomie, Arbeitswissenschaft: Auseinandersetzung um eine Denkschrift der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft

Soziale Welt
32. Jahrg., H. 3 (1981), pp. 312-324
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40877321
Page Count: 13
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Soziologie, Ergonomie, Arbeitswissenschaft: Auseinandersetzung um eine Denkschrift der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft
Preview not available

Abstract

In a General Statement on the Status of Work-Centered Medicine and Ergonomy, several exponents of these specialized branches of the so-called "science of work" (Arbeitswissenschaft) among other things offer comments on the relationship between their own conception of scientific analysis and that which they attribute to sociologists, notably to their competitors in the field like industrial sociologists. In brief, sociologists are accused of getting lost in case studies, submitting to ideological influence, and of practising chauvinism vis-a-vis adjacent disciplines. These accusations have prompted rejoinders from several sides. Many sociologists were particularly grieved by the fact that the volume in question was published by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft which distributes a very large part of public funds for academic research. Apart from specific refutations which are addressed to some of the objections in the General Statement, discussants refer to shortcomings on the opposing side, look into die questionable potential of a general science of work, and speculate on the implications which the General Statement might have on research politics (including the allocation of funds).

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
[312]
    [312]
  • Thumbnail: Page 
313
    313
  • Thumbnail: Page 
314
    314
  • Thumbnail: Page 
315
    315
  • Thumbnail: Page 
316
    316
  • Thumbnail: Page 
317
    317
  • Thumbnail: Page 
318
    318
  • Thumbnail: Page 
319
    319
  • Thumbnail: Page 
320
    320
  • Thumbnail: Page 
321
    321
  • Thumbnail: Page 
322
    322
  • Thumbnail: Page 
323
    323
  • Thumbnail: Page 
324
    324