This qualitative study explores how sociology is legitimated among established Finnish and Swedish sociology professors, who are conceived as a scientific elite. Drawing on a Bourdieusian framework, the analysis traces the discourses that define legitimate sociology in these two national contexts, and the relations between those discourses. While the scientific elite of Finnish and Swedish sociology share four discourses – the Excellence, Humboldtian, Emancipatory and Policy discourses – the relative value of each differs between the different national contexts. The Excellence discourse dominates in the Finnish data, while the Humboldtian discourse is dominant in the Swedish data. The emphases on the other two discourses also vary: in Finnish interviews, the Policy discourse holds a strong position, while the Emancipatory discourse is articulated only with nostalgia; in Swedish interviews, the Emancipatory discourse is strong and the Policy discourse is weak. The results show that different national contexts produce variations in sociology’s internal dynamics.
AbbottA (2007) For humanist sociology. In: ClawsonD (ed.) Public Sociology: Fifteen Eminent Sociologists Debate Politics and the Profession in the Twenty-First Century. Oakland: University of California Press, pp.195–209.
2.
AbendG (2006) Styles of sociological thought: Sociologies, epistemologies, and the Mexican and US quests for truth. Sociological Theory24(1): 1–41.
AlastaloM (2005) Metodisuhdanteiden mahti: Lomaketutkimus suomalaisessa sosiologiassa 1947–2000. Tampere: Vastapaino.
5.
AlasuutariP (1995) Researching Culture: Qualitative Method and Cultural Studies. London: SAGE.
6.
AlasuutariP (1996) Toinen tasavalta: Suomi 1946–1994. Tampere: Vastapaino.
7.
AlbertM (2003) Universities and the market economy: The differential impact on knowledge production in sociology and economics. Higher Education45(2): 147–182.
8.
AllardtE (1993) Scandinavian sociology and its European roots and elements. In: NedelmannBSztompkaP (eds) Sociology in Europe: In Search of Identity. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp.119–141.
9.
AuranenONieminenM (2010) University research funding and publication performance: An international comparison. Research Policy39(6): 822–834.
10.
BannisterRC (1987) Sociology and Scientism: The American Quest for Objectivity, 1880–1940. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
11.
BecherT (1989) Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines. Milton Keynes: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University.
12.
BourdieuP (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
BourdieuP (1984) Homo Academicus. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
14.
BourdieuP (1996) The Rules of Art. Cambridge: Polity Press.
15.
BourdieuP (1999) The specificity of the scientific field. In: BiagioliM (ed.) The Science Studies Reader. New York: Routledge, pp. 31–50.
16.
BourdieuPWacquantL (1999) On the cunning of imperialist reason. Theory, Culture and Society16(1): 41–58.
17.
BurawoyM (2004) For public sociology. American Sociological Review70(1): 4–28.
18.
ChouliarakiLFaircloughN (1999) Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
19.
DahlströmE (1994) Contemporary Swedish sociology: A personal view. Acta Sociologica37(1): 75–92.
20.
EskolaA (1992) Sosiologian uudistuminen 1950-luvulla. In: AlapuroRAlestaloMHaavio-MannilaEAllardtEHaatanenPEskolaAStolte-HeiskanenV (eds) Suomalaisen sosiologian historia. Helsinki: WSOY, pp. 241–281.
21.
EvansMS (2009) Defining the public, defining sociology: Hybrid science – public relations and boundary-work in early American sociology. Public Understanding of Science18(1): 5–22.
22.
FridjonsdottirK (1991) Social science and the ‘Swedish model’: Sociology at the service of the welfare state. In: WagnerPWittrockB (eds) Discourses on Society: The Shaping of the Social Science Disciplines. Dordrecht: Springer, pp.247–270.
23.
GeunaAMartinBR (2003) University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva41(4): 277–304.
24.
GordonTLahelmaE (2004) Vertaileva ja poikkikulttuurinen tutkimus. In: AlapuroRArminenI (eds) Vertailevan tutkimuksen ulottuvuuksia. Helsinki: WSOY, pp.97–111.
25.
HallonstenOHuganderO (2014) Supporting ‘future research leaders’ in Sweden: Institutional isomorphism and inadvertent funding agglomeration. Research Evaluation23(3): 249–260.
26.
HeilbronJ (2004) A regime of disciplines: Towards a historical sociology of disciplinary knowledge. In: CamicCJoasH (eds) The Dialogical Turn: New Roles for Sociology in the Postdisciplinary Age. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, pp.23–42.
27.
HeiskalaRKantolaA (2010) Vallan uudet ideat: hyvinvointivaltion huomasta valmentajavaltion valvontaan. In: PietikäinenP (ed.) Valta Suomessa. Helsinki: Gaudeamus, pp.124–148.
28.
KaukonenE (1984) Suomalainen sosiologia tieteentutkimuksen valossa. Sosiologia21(2): 128–138.
29.
KettunenP (2001) The Nordic welfare state in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of History26(3): 225–247.
30.
KroppKBlokA (2011) Mode-2 social science knowledge production? The case of Danish sociology between institutional crisis and new welfare stabilizations. Science and Public Policy38(3): 213–224.
31.
LamontM (2000) Comparing French and American Sociology. Tocqueville Review21(1): 109–122.
32.
LarssonA (2008) Textbooks, syllabuses and disciplinary formation in Sweden. Current Sociology56(2): 235–251.
33.
LarssonAMagdalenićS (2015) Sociology in Sweden: A History. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
34.
LarssonAWisselgrenP (2006) The historiography of Swedish sociology and the bounding of disciplinary identity. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences42(2): 159–176.
35.
LempiäinenK (2003) Sosiologian sukupuoli: Tutkimus Helsingin ja Tampereen yliopistojen sosiologian kurssikirjoista. Tampere: Vastapaino.
36.
LepeniesW (1988) Between Literature and Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
LjungbergDJohanssonMMcKelveyM (2010) Polarization of the Swedish university sector: Structural characteristics and positioning. In: McKelveyMHolménM (eds) Learning to Compete in European Universities: From Social Institution to Knowledge Business. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp.128–159.
38.
MagdalenićS (2004) Gendering the Sociology Profession: Sweden, Britain and the US. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International.
39.
MünchR (1993) The contribution of German social theory to European sociology. In: NedelmannBSztompkaP (eds) Sociology in Europe: In Search of Identity. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp.45–67.
40.
NowotnyH (1991) Knowledge for certainty: Poverty, welfare institutions and the institutionalization of social science. In: WagnerPWittrockBWhitleyR (eds) Discourses on Society: The Shaping of the Social Science Disciplines. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp.23–44.
41.
PuuronenV (2005) Suomalaisen sosiologian paradigmoja 1960-luvulta nykypäivään. Sosiologia42(1): 50–62.
42.
Stolte-HeiskanenV (1992) Sosiologia vakiintuneena tieteenä. In: AlapuroRAlestaloMHaavio-MannilaEAllardtEHaatanenPEskolaAStolte-HeiskanenV (eds) Suomalaisen sosiologian historia. Helsinki: WSOY, pp.287–330.
43.
TittleCR (2004) The arrogance of public sociology. Social Forces82(4): 1639–1643.
44.
TurnerJH (2005) Is public sociology such a good idea?American Sociologist36(3–4): 27–45.
45.
UKÄ (2011) Statistical database. Swedish Higher Education Authority. Available at: http://statistik.uka.se/(accessed 2 October 2018).
46.
Vipunen (2016) Statistical database. Ministry of Education and Culture and National Board of Education. Available at: http://vipunen.csc.fi/(accessed 2October 2018).
47.
WagnerPWittrockB (1991) Analyzing social science: On the possibility of a sociology of social sciences. In: WagnerPWittrockBWhitleyR (eds) Discourses on Society: The Shaping of the Social Science Disciplines. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp.3–24.
48.
WagnerPWittrockBWollmannH (1991) Social science and the modern state: Policy knowledge and political institutions in the United States. In: WagnerPWeissCWittrockBWollmannH (eds) Social Science and Modern States: National Experiences and Theoretical Crossroads. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.28–87.
