Between Statistics, Demography, and Monographic Research: GH. Retegan (1916–1998), A(Nother) Sociologist Without A Sociology

C. Doboș
{"title":"Between Statistics, Demography, and Monographic Research: GH. Retegan (1916–1998), A(Nother) Sociologist Without A Sociology","authors":"C. Doboș","doi":"10.2478/subbs-2020-0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract By exploring the professional trajectory of sociologist Gheorghe (George) Retegan (1916–1998), this article addresses the epistemological and personal reconfigurations of the field of social sciences in post-war Romania, highlighting the complex relations and professional rivalries in the field after the Second World War, and their consequences for social knowledge. My study explores Retegan’s published and unpublished works, archival documents, and an interview that Z. Rostás conducted with Retegan in the 1990s. I analyse three research ventures relevant for understanding Retegan’s professional trajectory and methodological choices: the 1948–1950 family budget research that Retegan coordinated at the Central Institute for Statistics; the 1957–1959 monographic research he coordinated at the Institute for Economic Research; and his “farewell” to sociology and specialization in demography beginning in the 1960s. My article documents Retegan’s remarkable capacity to develop research by way of formulating new questions, methodologies, and techniques, on the basis of the main elements of empirical research he learned during his training in sociology under the supervision of Anton Golopenția. Retegan’s contributions to the field of empirical social research suggest how a context that was generally unfavourable for the development of social sciences (1948–1965) could be used in a creative way for the study of the social world. Epistemologically, the survival and even innovation of empirical research under unfavourable ideological and political conditions made possible the rehabilitation of sociology as a discipline in the much more favourable context of the second half of the 1960s.","PeriodicalId":53506,"journal":{"name":"Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Sociologia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Sociologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/subbs-2020-0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract By exploring the professional trajectory of sociologist Gheorghe (George) Retegan (1916–1998), this article addresses the epistemological and personal reconfigurations of the field of social sciences in post-war Romania, highlighting the complex relations and professional rivalries in the field after the Second World War, and their consequences for social knowledge. My study explores Retegan’s published and unpublished works, archival documents, and an interview that Z. Rostás conducted with Retegan in the 1990s. I analyse three research ventures relevant for understanding Retegan’s professional trajectory and methodological choices: the 1948–1950 family budget research that Retegan coordinated at the Central Institute for Statistics; the 1957–1959 monographic research he coordinated at the Institute for Economic Research; and his “farewell” to sociology and specialization in demography beginning in the 1960s. My article documents Retegan’s remarkable capacity to develop research by way of formulating new questions, methodologies, and techniques, on the basis of the main elements of empirical research he learned during his training in sociology under the supervision of Anton Golopenția. Retegan’s contributions to the field of empirical social research suggest how a context that was generally unfavourable for the development of social sciences (1948–1965) could be used in a creative way for the study of the social world. Epistemologically, the survival and even innovation of empirical research under unfavourable ideological and political conditions made possible the rehabilitation of sociology as a discipline in the much more favourable context of the second half of the 1960s.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
统计学、人口学和专题研究之间:GH。Retegan(1916-1998),没有社会学背景的(非)社会学家
摘要通过探索社会学家盖奥尔基·雷特根(1916-1998)的职业轨迹,本文论述了战后罗马尼亚社会科学领域的认识论和个人重构,强调了第二次世界大战后该领域的复杂关系和职业竞争,以及它们对社会知识的影响。我的研究探索了雷特根已出版和未出版的作品、档案文件,以及Z·罗斯塔斯在20世纪90年代与雷特根进行的一次采访。我分析了三个与理解雷特根的职业轨迹和方法选择相关的研究项目:雷特根在中央统计研究所协调的1948年至1950年的家庭预算研究;他在经济研究所协调的1957年至1959年的专题研究;以及他从20世纪60年代开始对社会学和人口学专业化的“告别”。我的文章记录了Retegan在Anton Golopenția的监督下接受社会学培训期间所学到的实证研究的主要元素的基础上,通过制定新的问题、方法和技术来发展研究的非凡能力。雷特根对实证社会研究领域的贡献表明,如何以创造性的方式利用一个普遍不利于社会科学发展(1948–1965)的背景来研究社会世界。在认识论上,实证研究在不利的意识形态和政治条件下的生存甚至创新,使社会学作为一门学科在20世纪60年代后半叶更有利的背景下得以复兴。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Sociologia
Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Sociologia Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊最新文献
Science and Social Knowledge or What We Do Not Know About What We Believe We Know Searching for Authenticity: Critical Analysis of Gender Roles and Radical Movements in Personal Development Practices in Contemporary Society Pros and Cons of Online Social Support Exchange on Social Networking Sites: A User’s Perspective Deindustrialization and the Real-Estate– Development–Driven Housing Regime. The Case of Romania in Global Context Balancing Efficiency and Personal Time Requirements for Human Resources Professionals after Telecommuting
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1