Social Science Information

Full institutionalization of sociology, anthropology and political science occurred in Argentina in the late 1950s. While sociology started out as an established field having radically broken with the past of the discipline, both anthropology and political science established linkages with traditional versions of their fields. Although there were differences between them, the three disciplines evolved through a process of frequent crises, resulting mostly from military interventions at the national level. Institutionalization brought with it an expansion of the labor market and the opportunities for obtaining research funds, thus generating growing professionalization. This expansion as well as the response of social scientists to repression in universities was strongly related to links with foreign foundations and international organizations. Until 1983, the dramatic history of the social sciences was marked by disappearances (desapariciones) and exile. In recent years the three disciplines have grown and diversified.

The article analyzes the development of social sciences in Brazil from a historical-sociological standpoint as seen through the construction of three disciplines: sociology, anthropology and political science. Beginning with the political and cultural context and the pre-sociology “essayism” phase, the author outlines the initial foundation and institutionalization of the social sciences (1934-64), which started with the foundation of the University of São Paulo and ended with the military coup d’état in 1964. He then goes on to analyze the crisis of the “Populist Republic” and the impact of the ideological radicalization on the social sciences, with an emphasis on the paradox of their simultaneous professionalization and consolidation through research and teaching under the military dictatorship (1965-83). Finally, the author turns to the democratic transition that ended in the “New Republic” (1984-2003), stressing the nationalization of the social sciences and the parallel diversification and split between teaching and research. The analysis of the three historical periods addresses the dynamics of the social sciences and their relationship with the central and the federal states, the hierarchy of disciplines, the dominant topics and international exchange. In conclusion, the author raises the question that is fundamental for the future, that of the crisis of national and international funding for the social sciences.

Social sciences emerged in Chile during the mid-1950s in a context of social transformations that marked their foundation and consolidation as scientific disciplines. This article deals with the general background of the installation of these disciplines, particularly sociology, their later consolidation and the subsequent process of dismantling and re-composition, from the point of view of their institutionalization and internationalization. Like all research, this is a partial perspective, nurtured with the views of the generation that followed the foundational phase, which has its conceptual bases in what we have called the “social sciences development model” or project, and the contributions of a series of other authors. In the Chilean case, several authors agree on the identification of three periods in the development of social sciences, viewed as institutional milestones, even though we consider sub-periods within each one. A first period of creation, institutionalization and professionalization goes from the mid-1950s until 1973. A second period coincides with the military dictatorship (1973-89), during which the majority of social sciences had to abandon their home in universities. Such a loss was compensated by the creation of a variety of independent academic centers, which permitted a development of these disciplines associated with a growing process of thematic specialization. The third phase corresponds to the return of a democratic regime (1990-2003), a period in which social sciences again situated themselves preferably in universities, occasioning a new expansion of professional training programs and institutions. The article traces these phases in view of going beyond a history of the disciplines to develop an analytical perspective that accounts for the characteristics of the context, the institutional dimensions, the thematic contents and their role in society.

The article deals with the institutionalization of Mexican social sciences. The central hypothesis is that the state and the social sciences have always been related. Sometimes the link has been strong, at other times weaker, but it has never been absent. Mexico has had a relatively well-defined social policy of support for scientific activities. The most important institutions are sheltered by the state, at least in terms of budget. For this reason, the starting point of the institutionalization process in Mexico can be traced to the end of 1920s. Since then, strong institutions have been built. Without mentioning those dedicated to “hard research”, social science institutions have been important in discovering our past and understanding our present. The present study covers a period of 80 years, although the emphasis is on the period after 1939, the year in which the Social Sciences Research Institute of the National University (ISSUNAM) was founded.

In Uruguay, the development and institutionalization of the social sciences have been relatively delayed compared to other countries of the region. This fact contrasts with the socio-economic and sociopolitical development of the country, as well as with that of the professional branches of university education. The so-called formal foundational process of the social sciences effectively began in the 1970s, especially in history, economics and sociology. Political science and anthropology began to take shape only after the return to democracy in 1985. The military coup (1973-85) caused an interruption in the institutional status of the social sciences but did not entirely dismantle them. These sciences continued to develop in independent research centers, often receiving external funds. The exchange with foreign academic centers, especially the CLACSO and FLACSO nets, was germane to the process. With the return of democracy, the institutionalization process of the social sciences resumed and the link between the pre-dictatorship and post-dictatorship generations in these fields became more apparent. Simultaneously, the labor market for social scientists broadened and diversified.

Study abroad has long been a favorite strategy of the Latin American ruling classes for acquiring the credentials that will win them a choice position among the elites of their native country. The growth of the “globalization” theme has reinforced the importance of foreign study as a sort of attestation of one’s capacity for international mobility, thus increasing the interest of studies on the international circulation of academics, which enhance our understanding of the changes in science on a global scale. This article discusses the relative importance of the circulation of social science doctoral students and researchers inside and outside Latin America. It examines the statistics on the countries chosen by Brazilian doctoral candidates and shows that their choice of Latin American countries has dropped off in the last 15 years. This contrasts sharply with the importance of Santiago (Chile), headquarters of the CEPAL and home of the theories on development and dependence of Latin American countries. A study of the social trajectories of the economist Celso Furtado and the sociologist Fernando Henrique Cardoso makes it possible to analyze the social and cultural capital invested in the work of the CEPAL and the emergence of the theoretical tools constructed through the use of the concepts of development and dependence. However, Pinochet’s 1973 coup d’état seems to have tarnished Santiago’s appeal as one of Latin America’s top-ranking cosmopolitan centers.