Specialization and Recombination of Specialties in the Social Sciences

Mattei Dogany, National Center for Scientic Research, Paris, France

2001 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
This article is reproduced from the previous edition, volume 22, pp. 1485114855, 2001, Elsevier Ltd.

Abstract

The multiplication of scientic activities has brought a division of labor. The history of scientic advancement is a history of
concatenated specialization. There is more communication between specialties belonging to different disciplines than between
specialties within the same discipline. Specialization within disciplines, accompanied by their fragmentations, is the rst process.
Recombination of specialties across disciplinary borders is the second. Such a recombination has been called hybridization. A
hybrid is a combination of two branches of knowledge. Many of the most creative specialties are hybrid specialties. Recom-
bination of specialties appears in the borrowing of concepts, theories, and methods. The citation patterns in academic publi-
cations permit the analysis of the process of specialization and recombination by interferences of disciplines. A distinction is
needed between interdisciplinary amalgamation and hybridization. Diminishing marginal returns have been perceived in the
core of disciplines and a high productivity at their margins. This phenomenon has been called the paradox of density.

Specialization is an old phenomenon, observed as early as Specialization

Auguste Comte. Recombination of specialties is also an old
trend: Robert Merton noticed it in the early 1960s: the inter-
stices between specialties become gradually lled with new
cross-disciplinary specialties (Merton, 1963: p. 253). The
multiplication of scientic activities and the growing
complexity of knowledge have brought a division of labor,
visible in increasing expertise in all domains. The history of
scientic advancement is a history of concatenated specializa-
tion. In spite of this evidence, even since the social sciences
began to develop, scholars have repeatedly expressed appre-
hension about the increasing fragmentation of knowledge
through specialization (Smelser, 1967: p. 38).
Fragmentation and specialization are the two faces of the same
coin. This double process is a condition of scientic advancement.
The term discipline is inherited from the vocabulary of the
nineteenth century and is understood as a branch of instruction
for the transmission of knowledge and as a convenient mapping
of academic administration. In all universities, teaching, recruit-
ment, promotion, peer review, and nancing are still organized
along disciplinary lines, but the great scientic laboratories and
the most creative research centers are anchored on specialties,
which in many cases cross the borders of formal disciplines, or are
located at the interstices between disciplines. In the sociology of
science the term discipline is dened as a cluster of specialties
(Crane and Small, 1992: p. 198), the specialty being the main
source of academic recognition and of professional legitimation
(Zuckerman, 1988: p. 539).
In the natural sciences, specialization is celebrated as a mark
of competence. Each contemporary natural science from
astronomy to zoology is a conglomerate of dozens of specialties.
Only in some social sciences, particularly in sociology, political
science, psychology, and anthropology, does one hear
complaints and lamentations about the fragmentation of the
discipline into specialties. The word crisis appears in the title of
many books and articles about the identity and the contours of
these disciplines (Horowitz, 1993; Turner and Turner, 1990). In
reality, such crises are symptoms of growth and expansion.
y
Deceased.
Analysis means breaking things into parts. All sciences have
made progress, from the sixteenth century on, by internal
differentiation and cross-stimulation among emergent
specialties. Each specialty developed a patrimony of knowl-
edge. With the growth of these patrimonies specialization
became a necessity. Increasing specialization has led to the
creation of subdisciplines. A specialty requires a high quali-
cation in a delimited domain. The process of specialization
has tended to disjoin activities which had previously been
united, and to separate scholars belonging to the same formal
discipline, but who are interested in different elds. Special-
ties are considered as parts of a larger discipline but the
modern scholar normally does not attempt to master his
discipline in its entirety. Instead he limits his attention to one
eld, or perhaps two (Somit and Tanenhaus, 1964: p. 49).
Each formal discipline gradually becomes unknown in its
entirety. No theory can any longer encompass the whole
territory of a discipline. Talcott Parsons was the last sociolo-
gist to attempt such a theory. As a discipline grows, its prac-
titioners become specialized and must neglect other areas of
the discipline. It is for this reason that scissiparity, the
amoeba-like division of a discipline into two, is a common
process of fragmentation. Specialization provides researchers
with methods so that they need not develop them anew.
Renements in methods are more easily transmitted among
specialists. Specialization within disciplines is visible in
national and international professional meetings. Everyone
who has participated at a gathering of several thousand
people has noticed the absence of coherence: 2030 panels
may run simultaneously, most of them mobilizing only
a handful of people. The plenary sessions attract only a small
minority, with most participants uninterested in issues
encompassing the entire discipline.
Disciplines fragment along substantive, epistemological,
methodological, theoretical, and ideological lines. To those in
the eld, the theoretical and ideological divisions are likely to
seem more important than to others. Ralph Turner gives
a description of this process in sociology, based on his expe-
rience as Editor of an important journal: In the 1930s and

International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 23 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.03065-8 225
226 Specialization and Recombination of Specialties in the Social Sciences
1940s the aspiration to be a general sociologist was still real-
istic. There was a sufciently common body of core concepts
and a small enough body of accumulated research in most
elds of sociology that a scholar might make signicant
contributions to several, and speak authoritatively about the
eld in general. It is difcult to imagine the genius necessary for
such accomplishments today (Turner, 1991: p. 70).
The division of disciplines into specialties should be
distinguished from their fragmentation into schools and sects.
The term school refers to a group of scholars who stress
a particular aspect. The proponents of a school are emotionally
committed to their approach. A school is simultaneously
a subdivision of a eld and a species of cult or sect (Smelser,
1967: pp. 67). While the multiplication of specialties is
related to the maturation of the discipline, the presence of
numerous schools in a discipline generally be tokens a relative
scientic immaturity (Smelser, 1967: pp. 67). The same
diagnosis is formulated by Gabriel Almond who, by crossing
two dimensions, an ideological one and a methodological one,
described four types of schools in political science (Almond,
1990: p. 15). These types are not determined by the process
of specialization.
Various authors stress the importance of the patrimonys
expansion for subsequent fragmentation. As disciplines grow,
they fragment and most parts become the patrimonies of
individual subelds; a rare few are passed down in the patri-
mony of several formal disciplines and become the classics. For
Randall Collins, the increasing specialization in sociology
could be explained by the growth in scale in the profession
during the late twentieth century: How does one make oneself
visible when the sheer number of competitors increases? The
eld differentiates into various specialties. Instead of seeking
recognition in the larger eld, one opts for a smaller arena
within which the discourse and the search for originality and
for allies can go on (Collins, 1986: p. 1340). A process of
differentiation without integration is visible across disciplinary
borders. Specialists seem scarcely to recognize the names of
the eminent practitioners in specialties other than their own
(Collins, 1986: p. 1340).
Another scholar who emphasizes the importance of
specialties in the organization of scientic communities is
Harriet Zuckerman: Much historical and sociological
evidence suggests that specialties have been prime audiences
for many scientists: they are the explicit and tacit audiences
the reference groups to which they address their work, just as
they are the prime sources of wherewithal and rewards for that
work (Zuckerman, 1988: p. 539). As in some cathedrals,
there are more ceremonies in the chapels than under the
principal nave.
Specialties versus Disciplines
Analyzing the relationships between specialties within disci-
plines and between specialties across disciplines, two kinds of
disciplines can be perceived: restricted disciplines, such as
most physical sciences, which would be expected to exhibit
a high degree of linkage between different research areas within
the discipline, but less linkage to other disciplines, and
unrestricted sciences, such as most social sciences, which would
be likely to exhibit relatively diffuse links among research areas
both within and outside the disciplines (Crane and Small,
1992: p. 200).
Depending on the denition we adopt, there are in the
social sciences between 12 and 15 formal disciplines, but
dozens of specialties, sectors, elds, and subelds. In sociology,
for instance, there are some 50 specialties, as indicated by the
list of research committees of the International Sociological
Association. There are as many in the International Political
Science Association. Most of these groups cooperate to
a limited extent within their respective discipline.
There is more communication between specialties
belonging to different disciplines than between specialties
within the same discipline. Sociometric studies show that
many specialists are more in touch with colleagues who belong
ofcially to other disciplines than with colleagues in their own
discipline. The invisible college described by Robert Merton
and other sociologists of science is an eminently interdisci-
plinary institution because it ensures communication not only
from one university to another and across all national borders,
but also, and above all, between specialists attached adminis-
tratively to different disciplines. The networks of cross-
disciplinary inuence are such that they are obliterating the
old classication of the social sciences.
The division of disciplines into subelds tends to be
institutionalized, as can be seen in the organization of large
departments in many American and European universities.
Another good indication of the fragmentation of the disci-
pline is the increasing number of specialized journals. In the
last two decades several hundred specialized journals in
English relevant to social sciences have been launched. Most
of these new journals cross the borders of two or three disci-
plines. Some other new journals have appeared in French and
German. European unication has had an impact on the
development of cross-national journals focusing on special
elds. Specialization has consequences on the role of national
professional associations and on the general journals. The size
of specialties varies greatly: Egyptology and biosociology are
small specialties; socialization and clientelism are very large.
A segment which drifts away from the main body of the
discipline has to reach a certain critical size before being
recognized. Some of them enjoy a relative autonomy within
the discipline.
A distinction has to be drawn between specialization within
a formal discipline and specialization at the intersection of
several monodisciplinary subelds. The latter can occur only
after the former has become fully developed.
Recombination of Specialties across Disciplines
Specialization within disciplines, accompanied by their frag-
mentation, is the rst process. Recombination of specialties
across disciplinary borders is the second. In the history of
science a twofold process can be seen: on the one hand,
a fragmentation of formal disciplines and, on the other, a cross-
disciplinary recombination of the specialties resulting from
fragmentation. The new eld may become independent, like
social psychology, or may continue to claim a dual allegiance,
like historical sociology. In the latter case, librarians are not
 Specialization and Recombination of Specialties in the Social Sciences
sure whether to place a work in the category of history or of
sociology.
Such a recombination has been called hybridization (Dogan
and Pahre, 1990: p. 63). A hybrid is a combination of two
branches of knowledge. Jean Piaget suggested a different
analogy: genetic recombination (Piaget, 1970: p. 524). The
reasons for hybridization are clear enough: specialization leaves
gaps between disciplines; specialties ll the gaps between two
existing elds. Many of the new specialties are to a large degree
hybrid specialties. The phenomenon is even more obvious in
the natural sciences, e.g., in the awards of the Nobel prizes.
Some scholars recommend an interdisciplinary approach.
Such a recommendation is not realistic because it overlooks the
process of specialization. Research enlisting several disciplines
involves in fact a combination of segments of disciplines, of
specialties, and not whole disciplines. The fruitful point of
contact is established between sectors, and not along disci-
plinary boundaries. Considering the trends in the social
sciences, the word interdisciplinarity appears inadequate since
it carries a hint of superciality and dilettantism, and conse-
quently should be avoided and replaced by hybridization of
specialties. Different disciplines may proceed from different
foci to examine the same phenomenon. This implies a division
of territories between disciplines. In contrast, hybridization
implies an overlapping of segments of disciplines, a recombi-
nation of knowledge in new specialized elds. Innovation in
each discipline depends largely on exchanges with other elds
belonging to other disciplines.
When old elds grow they accumulate such a mass of
material in their patrimony that they split up. Each fragment of
the discipline then confronts the fragments of other elds across
disciplinary boundaries, losing contact with its siblings in the
old discipline. A sociologist specialized in urbanization has less
in common with a sociologist studying elite recruitment than
with a geographer interested in the distribution of cities; the
sociologist studying social stratication has more in common
with his colleague in economics analyzing income inequality
than he does with a fellow sociologist specialized in organiza-
tions; psychologists studying child development are much more
likely to be interested in developmental physiology or in the
literature on language acquisition than they are in other
branches of psychology. A political scientist researching political
socialization reads more sociological literature on the agents of
socialization (family, church, school, street-corner society,
cultural pluralism, etc.) than literature in political science on
the Supreme Court, legislative processes, party leadership, or the
recruitment of higher civil servants. Those working on
the subeld of international relations in the nuclear age have
little recourse to the classical literature in political science, but
rather to economics, technology, military strategy, diplomatic
history, game theory, nuclear physics, and engineering.
Most hybrid specialties and domains recognize their gene-
alogical roots: political economy, political sociology, social
geography, historical sociology, genetic demography, psycho-
linguistics, social anthropology, social ecology, biogeography,
and many others. Some hybrid sciences do not indicate their
liation in their name: cognitive science, paleoarcheology.
Eight social sciences also have roots in the natural sciences:
demography, geography, psychology, anthropology, linguis-
tics, archeology, criminology, and cognitive science. The hybrid
227
specialties branch out in turn giving rise, at the second gener-
ation, to an even larger number of hybrids.
Recombination of specialties appears in the borrowing of
concepts, theories, and methods (Dogan, 1996). Concepts are
vehicles for communication between specialties belonging
formally to different disciplines. Concepts are not equally
important in all specialties. For instance, alienation is more
frequently used in social psychology than in political economy,
segregation more in urban studies than in comparative politics,
and charisma more in political sociology than in social ecology.
There are very few general theories accepted by the majority
of scholars in any discipline; the best known theories are
specialized theories: they are what Robert Merton calls middle-
range theories, which do not encompass an entire discipline,
but only a part of it. A specialized theory can cross several
disciplines with a minimal effort of adaptation. For instance
rational choice considered by some as a theory and by others
as a school or sect is, except for some stylistic features, basi-
cally the same in political science, in sociology, and in
economics. The theory of methodological individualism does
not change on moving from one discipline to another. Two to
three dozen theories peregrinate freely among formal disci-
plines. The high interdisciplinary mobility of specialized
theories and of specialized concepts, and also of research
methods, gives some centripetal orientation to the wide range
of social sciences. The cross-disciplinary diffusion of concepts
and theories is in fact a diffusion among specialties belonging
to different disciplines.
Methodology divides some disciplines as much as ideolo-
gies, and at the same time builds bridges between specialties
across the disciplinary borders. The scholars who practice factor
analysis understand each other well no matter what their of-
cial disciplinary afliation, but most of them encounter some
difculties in communicating, within their discipline, with their
colleagues who do not practice quantitative methods. In some
departments methodological controversies generate factions,
which may or may not coincide with divisions between
specialties.
The citation patterns in academic publications permit us to
measure empirically the degree of coherence of a discipline, the
relations between specialties within disciplines, and the inter-
ferences of disciplines. If specialists in a given subdiscipline
tend to cite mostly, or exclusively, specialists of the same
subdiscipline, and if relatively few authors cite across the
borders of their subdiscipline, then the formal discipline
presents a low degree of internal coherence. In this case the real
loci of research are the specialties. If, on the contrary, a signi-
cant proportion of authors cross the borders of specialties, then
the discipline as a whole appears more or less as an integrated
territory (Dogan, 1997). Political scientists have borrowed in
the 1930s from law, in the 1950s from sociology and law, and
in the 1970s from sociology, philosophy, economics, history,
and psychology. According to Craig Calhoun, Sociology is
neither the most open nor the most insular of social sciences
(Calhoun, 1992: p. 143). A study of patterns of citation during
the period 193675 has found that sociologists cited 58% of
the time articles in sociology journals, political scientists cited
41% of the time scholars from their own discipline, anthro-
pologists referred 51% of the time to their colleagues,
psychologists 73% to their own kin, and 79% of the
228 Specialization and Recombination of Specialties in the Social Sciences
economists did the same (Rigney and Barnes, 1980: p. 117). In
each social science a signicant proportion of theoretical,
methodological, and substantive communication has been
with other disciplines, the most open being, in the late twen-
tieth century, political science and the most autarchic
economics.
In an analysis of journals identied as belonging to soci-
ology and economics, a signicant shift has been found from
sociology to interdisciplinary sociology and from economics
to interdisciplinary economics, between 1972 and 1987. The
criteria for trade between disciplines was the proportion of
citing references in journals of the respective discipline (Crane
and Small, 1992: pp. 204205). An analysis by the same
authors in terms of clusters of references shows a clear increase
in interdisciplinary relationships.
Most social scientists are specialists contributing primarily
to their own subdiscipline. For instance, the Handbook of Soci-
ology edited by Neil Smelser (1988) is divided into major
specialties, without an overarching structure. Smelser is aware
of this heterogeneity. Noting that Talcott Parsons had exag-
gerated the internal unity of the discipline, which if applied
today would appear almost ludicrous (p. 12), he writes: there
appears to be no present evidence of an overarching effort at
theoretical synthesis . and little reason to belief that such an
effort is on the horizon, adding that we have by now gone
too far down the road of specialization and diversication
(p. 12). The ship of sociology is already built with watertight
compartments. If the borders between specialties within disci-
plines are hermetic, in exchange, paradoxically enough, the
frontiers between formal disciplines are open.
A distinction is needed between interdisciplinary amal-
gamation and hybridization by recombination of specialties
belonging to different disciplines. A unied social science was
visible only in the early phase of the development of social
sciences, when disciplines were not yet differentiated. Hybrid-
ization of specialties came much later, after the maturation of
the process of internal fragmentation of disciplines. The word
interdisciplinary is appropriate only for a certain phase of social
sciences at the beginning of the twentieth century; it becomes
misleading when it is used to describe contemporary trends,
because at the end of the twentieth century only specialties are
overlapping, not entire disciplines.
Some may confound recombination and synthesis.
A synthesis brings a new interpretation, a personal or stylis-
tic achievement. The difference is most clear in history.
Arnold J. Toynbees theory of history and Hobsbawns The Age
of Empire are syntheses. Fernand Braudels The Mediterranean
World is a recombination of segments of social sciences, largely
history and geography. Perry Andersons Lineages of the Abso-
lutist State is largely synthesis, whereas Karl Wittfogels Oriental
Despotism is largely recombination. The recombinations are
varied. Child development includes developmental physi-
ology, language acquisition, and socialization. Indo-European
studies encompass segments of historical linguistics, arche-
ology, prehistory, and botany. Scholars in criminology come
from subelds in law, sociology of deviance, social psychology,
endocrinology, urban studies, social economics, and ethno-
politics. The study of articial intelligence encompasses formal
logic from philosophy, grammar and syntax from linguistics,
and computer programing from computer science. Folklore
studies include sectors from historical linguistics, cultural
anthropology, social history, and comparative literature.
In one generation the number of social scientists has
increased 10-fold. Their status in the profession depends
mostly on their contribution to knowledge, and much less on
their performance as teachers. As teachers they are generalists,
as researchers, specialists. A strong feeling of diminishing
marginal returns is perceived among the mass of social scien-
tists. This phenomenon of saturation and overcrowding has
been called the paradox of density: the tendency of densely
populated disciplines to produce less innovation per head in
spite of the greater effort applied in these overcrowded
domains (Dogan and Pahre, 1990: p. 32). What is perceived by
some scholars as dispersion and disintegration should be
considered as manifestations of the growth of specialties,
resulting in the weakening of the saturated disciplinary core,
a process engendered by centrifugal and autonomous tenden-
cies of the specialties across disciplines. The recombination of
specialties across disciplines requires a remodeling of the
intellectual map of the behavioral social sciences.
Bibliography
Almond, G.A., 1990. Discipline Divided, Schools and Sects in Political Science. Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Calhoun, C., 1992. Sociology, other disciplines and the project of a general under-
standing of social life. In: Halliday, T.C., Janowitz, M. (Eds.), Sociology and Its
Publics: The Forms and Fates of Disciplinary Organization. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, pp. 137196.
Collins, R., 1986. Is 1980s sociology in the doldrums? American Journal of Sociology
91, 13361355.
Crane, D., Small, H., 1992. American sociology since the seventies: the emerging
identity crisis in the discipline. In: Halliday, T.C., Janowitz, M. (Eds.), Sociology and
Its Publics: The Forms and Fates of Disciplinary Organization. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, pp. 197234.
Dogan, M., 1996. Political science and the other social sciences. In: Goodin, R.,
Klingemann, H.D. (Eds.), A New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 97130.
Dogan, M., 1997. Les nouvelles sciences sociales: fractures des murailles dis-
ciplinaires. Revue Internationale des Sciences Sociales 153, 467482.
Dogan, M., Pahre, R., 1990. Creative Marginality: Innovation at the Intersections of
Social Sciences. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Horowitz, I.L., 1993. The Decomposition of Sociology. Oxford University Press,
New York.
Merton, R., 1963. The mosaic of the behavioral sciences. In: Merton, R.K.,
Berelson, B. (Eds.), The Behavioral Sciences Today. Basic Books, New York,
pp. 247272.
Merton, R. (Ed.), 1968. On sociological theories of the middle range. Social Theory and
Social Structure. Free Press, New York, pp. 3953.
Piaget, J., 1970. General problems of interdisciplinary research in UNESCO. In:
Piaget, J. (Ed.), Main Trends of Research in the Social and Human Sciences.
Mouton, Paris, pp. 467528.
Rigney, D., Barnes, D., 1980. Patterns of interdisciplinary citation in the social
sciences. Social Science Quarterly 61, 114127.
Smelser, N.J., 1967. Sociology and the other social sciences. In: Lazarsfeld, P.,
Sewell, W., Wilensky, H. (Eds.), The Uses of Sociology. Basic Books, New York,
pp. 344.
Smelser, N.J. (Ed.), 1988. Handbook of Sociology. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Somit, A., Tanenhaus, J., 1964. American Political Science, a Prole of a Discipline.
Atherton, New York.
Turner, R., 1991. The many faces of American sociology. A discipline in search of
identity. In: Easton, D., Schelling, C.S. (Eds.), Divided Knowledge across
Disciplines, across Cultures. Sage, London, pp. 5985.
Turner, S.P., Turner, J.H., 1990. The Impossible Science: An Institutional Analysis of
American Sociology. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Zuckerman, H., 1988. Sociology of science. In: Smelser, N.J. (Ed.), Handbook of
Sociology. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 511574.