Abstract:This thesis deals with Swedish politicians and their knowledge concerning migration policy. It investigates what knowledge the politicians have and from where they collect their knowledge on the mentioned topic. The study also investigates the politicians’ role as mediators of knowledge and the possible responsibilities connected to such a role.The main source for data has been interviews with six Swedish politicians, all members of parties, represented in the Swedish Parliament. To understand and be able to explain the results found, Sociology of Knowledge has been used as theoretical framework.The result of the thesis is that politicians in general, possess very little knowledge concerning migration policy. But, the current presence of the Swedish right wing party, Sverigedemokraterna, has changed the social code of the institutions that the politicians are members of and therefore many politicians have realized that they are in need of more knowledge, on the discussed topic. It was also found that the politicians have an important role as mediators of knowledge to the members of society. This role is connected to a responsibility of being correct and truthful in the statements made.

The discipline of International Relations is frequently depicted as an American dominated discipline. This disciplinary self-image has become so entrenched that it is rarely questioned and operates as a ‘quasi-fact’ within the field. However, the manner in which this widespread claim has been put forth is largely speculative. There is a surprising lack of data verifying the prominent notion, and indeed the ‘evidence’ that does exist is largely out-dated and methodologically problematic. As such, this thesis attempts to remedy this dearth of data by systematically investigating if and how the United States dominates the discipline of IR. Rather than speaking of a generic and ambiguous form of dominance this thesis begins by disaggregating the concept of dominance and stating the ways in which an actor can potentially dominate and how this can be measured. What this crucially means is that the US may dominate in some ways and not others. Through exploring twelve of discipline’s international journals over a ten-year period from 1999-2009, and four international conferences from 2005-2011 it becomes clear that the central issue is not whether the United States dominates the discipline but the degree and manner in which it does. Through demonstrating the numerous current trends and inclinations in the discipline a complex image of the IR emerges; an image that challenges a number of prevalent assertions about the disciplinary character of IR. The findings presented illustrate how the discipline of IR is more international and more diverse than is commonly perceived, and yet how the discipline of IR still experiences certain forms of American dominance. This thesis aims to highlight the importance of perspective and consequently how we need to be more nuanced and reflective in the ways we characterize the discipline’s dominance claims. Overall this thesis aims to highlight the many dynamics occurring at different levels of the discipline, all of which shape the contours of the field and IR’s relationship with the American academy.

A princípio, esta investigação versa sobre as teorias empiristas contemporâneas a partir do programa empirista estabelecido pelo filósofo da ciência Bas van Fraassen, a partir da década de 1980. Assim, o nosso problema de pesquisa parte do referido autor, em seus pontos fortes e fracos, para realizarmos um diálogo com concepções empiristas atualmente em desenvolvimento: o empirismo contextual crítico de Helen Longino e empirismo social de Miriam Solomon. Depois, traçamos um panorama da discussão entre filósofos e sociólogos da ciência, abrangendo o empirismo lógico e as várias propostas dentro da sociologia da ciência: o funcionalismo de Robert K. Merton, o Programa Forte, e as teorias microssociológicas de Karin Knorr-Cetina e Bruno Latour. Tal painel possibilita uma visão mais ampla dos fundamentos teóricos tanto do programa empirista de van Fraassen como das teorias empiristas de Longino e de Solomon. No mais, o exame da sociologia da ciência foi de grande valia pelos argumentos arregimentados em favor do caráter social do conhecimento: ponto este que é crucial na nossa defesa empirista. Em seguida, examinamos criticamente o projeto empirista de van Fraassen, para podermos cotejá-lo com as novas teorias empiristas de Longino e de Solomon, as quais também são analisadas nos seus pormenores. Então, com base nas questões específicas do empirismo de van Fraassen, verificamos de que forma as mencionadas teorias empiristas contribuem, ou até resolvem flancos teóricos do filósofo em tela. Por fim, elaboramos uma proposta empirista que tentou reunir de modo harmonioso e competente as teses mais importantes dos/as autores/as em questão, visando a construção de uma teoria da ciência empirista aplicada às ciências sociais, no caso, à teoria social atual. / Initially, this research deals with contemporary empiricist theories since the program established by the philosopher of science Bas van Fraassen, from the 1980s: constructive empiricism, empiricism as stance and structural empiricism. Thus, our research problem grounds on the author\'s strengths and weaknesses, to engage in a dialogue with empiricist conceptions currently under development: Helen Longino\'s critical contextual empiricism and Miriam Solomon\'s social empiricism. Then we draw an overview of the discussion between philosophers and sociologists of science, encompassing logical empiricism and the various proposals within the sociology of science: Robert K. Merton\'s functionalism, the Strong Program, and the micro-sociological theories of Karin Knorr-Cetina and Bruno Latour. Such a panel provides a broader view of the theoretical foundations of both the empiricist program of van Fraassen and the empiricist theories of Longino and Solomon. In addition, the examination of the sociology of science was of great value for the arguments put forward in favor of the social character of knowledge: this is a crucial point in our empiricist defense. Next, we critically examine van Fraassen\'s empiricist project so that we can compare it with the new empiricist theories of Longino and Solomon, which we analyze in detail. Then, based on the specific questions of van Fraassen\'s empiricism, we see how the aforementioned empiricist theories contribute, or even resolve the theoretical shortcomings in his views. Finally, we elaborated an empiricist proposal that tried to gather in a harmonious and competent way the most important theses of these philosophers, aiming at the construction of a theory of science applied to the social sciences, in this case, to the current social theory.

O objetivo geral desse trabalho é analisar alguns aspectos da teoria do conhecimento e, principalmente, a questão das categorias do pensamento, tal como formulada por duas grandes tradições intelectuais: a filosofia kantiana e a sociologia durkheimiana. Na primeira parte de nosso texto tentamos reconstruir alguns dos argumentos apresentados por Kant na Crítica da Razão Pura. Nos debruçamos sobre as duas deduções kantianas das categorias e tentamos mostrar a existência de uma tensão interna em seu argumento. Na segunda parte de nosso texto, tentamos reconstruir a abordagem durkheimiana das categorias dividindo-a em três passos fundamentais: o argumento das representações coletivas, o argumento das classificações e, por fim, o argumento das categorias. Nesse caso, tentamos mostrar como aquela tensão no interior do argumento kantiano era desenvolvida por Durkheim de modo bastante original. Ao focar seu argumento no caráter extralógico das categorias kantianas, Durkheim parecia abrir o caminho uma abordagem original do conhecimento humano: a sociologia do conhecimento. / The aim of this text is to analyze some aspects of the theory of knowledge and the issue of categories of thought as formulated by two great intellectual traditions: the kantian philosophy and durkheimian sociology. In the first part of our text, we try to reconstruct some of the arguments presented by Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason. We look back on the two kantian \"deductions\" of categories and try to show the existence of an internal tension in this argument. In the second part of our text, we try to reconstruct Durkheim\'s account of categories by dividing it into three main steps: the argument of collective representations, the argument of classifications and, finally, the argument of the categories. In this case, we try to show how that tension inside the kantian argument was developed by Durkheim\'s in a quite original form. By focusing its argument in the extra-logic character of the kantian categories, Durkheim seemed to open the way to an original approach to human knowledge: the sociology of knowledge.

A princípio, esta investigação versa sobre as teorias empiristas contemporâneas a partir do programa empirista estabelecido pelo filósofo da ciência Bas van Fraassen, a partir da década de 1980. Assim, o nosso problema de pesquisa parte do referido autor, em seus pontos fortes e fracos, para realizarmos um diálogo com concepções empiristas atualmente em desenvolvimento: o empirismo contextual crítico de Helen Longino e empirismo social de Miriam Solomon. Depois, traçamos um panorama da discussão entre filósofos e sociólogos da ciência, abrangendo o empirismo lógico e as várias propostas dentro da sociologia da ciência: o funcionalismo de Robert K. Merton, o Programa Forte, e as teorias microssociológicas de Karin Knorr-Cetina e Bruno Latour. Tal painel possibilita uma visão mais ampla dos fundamentos teóricos tanto do programa empirista de van Fraassen como das teorias empiristas de Longino e de Solomon. No mais, o exame da sociologia da ciência foi de grande valia pelos argumentos arregimentados em favor do caráter social do conhecimento: ponto este que é crucial na nossa defesa empirista. Em seguida, examinamos criticamente o projeto empirista de van Fraassen, para podermos cotejá-lo com as novas teorias empiristas de Longino e de Solomon, as quais também são analisadas nos seus pormenores. Então, com base nas questões específicas do empirismo de van Fraassen, verificamos de que forma as mencionadas teorias empiristas contribuem, ou até resolvem flancos teóricos do filósofo em tela. Por fim, elaboramos uma proposta empirista que tentou reunir de modo harmonioso e competente as teses mais importantes dos/as autores/as em questão, visando a construção de uma teoria da ciência empirista aplicada às ciências sociais, no caso, à teoria social atual. / Initially, this research deals with contemporary empiricist theories since the program established by the philosopher of science Bas van Fraassen, from the 1980s: constructive empiricism, empiricism as stance and structural empiricism. Thus, our research problem grounds on the author\'s strengths and weaknesses, to engage in a dialogue with empiricist conceptions currently under development: Helen Longino\'s critical contextual empiricism and Miriam Solomon\'s social empiricism. Then we draw an overview of the discussion between philosophers and sociologists of science, encompassing logical empiricism and the various proposals within the sociology of science: Robert K. Merton\'s functionalism, the Strong Program, and the micro-sociological theories of Karin Knorr-Cetina and Bruno Latour. Such a panel provides a broader view of the theoretical foundations of both the empiricist program of van Fraassen and the empiricist theories of Longino and Solomon. In addition, the examination of the sociology of science was of great value for the arguments put forward in favor of the social character of knowledge: this is a crucial point in our empiricist defense. Next, we critically examine van Fraassen\'s empiricist project so that we can compare it with the new empiricist theories of Longino and Solomon, which we analyze in detail. Then, based on the specific questions of van Fraassen\'s empiricism, we see how the aforementioned empiricist theories contribute, or even resolve the theoretical shortcomings in his views. Finally, we elaborated an empiricist proposal that tried to gather in a harmonious and competent way the most important theses of these philosophers, aiming at the construction of a theory of science applied to the social sciences, in this case, to the current social theory.

O objetivo geral desse trabalho é analisar alguns aspectos da teoria do conhecimento e, principalmente, a questão das categorias do pensamento, tal como formulada por duas grandes tradições intelectuais: a filosofia kantiana e a sociologia durkheimiana. Na primeira parte de nosso texto tentamos reconstruir alguns dos argumentos apresentados por Kant na Crítica da Razão Pura. Nos debruçamos sobre as duas deduções kantianas das categorias e tentamos mostrar a existência de uma tensão interna em seu argumento. Na segunda parte de nosso texto, tentamos reconstruir a abordagem durkheimiana das categorias dividindo-a em três passos fundamentais: o argumento das representações coletivas, o argumento das classificações e, por fim, o argumento das categorias. Nesse caso, tentamos mostrar como aquela tensão no interior do argumento kantiano era desenvolvida por Durkheim de modo bastante original. Ao focar seu argumento no caráter extralógico das categorias kantianas, Durkheim parecia abrir o caminho uma abordagem original do conhecimento humano: a sociologia do conhecimento. / The aim of this text is to analyze some aspects of the theory of knowledge and the issue of categories of thought as formulated by two great intellectual traditions: the kantian philosophy and durkheimian sociology. In the first part of our text, we try to reconstruct some of the arguments presented by Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason. We look back on the two kantian \"deductions\" of categories and try to show the existence of an internal tension in this argument. In the second part of our text, we try to reconstruct Durkheim\'s account of categories by dividing it into three main steps: the argument of collective representations, the argument of classifications and, finally, the argument of the categories. In this case, we try to show how that tension inside the kantian argument was developed by Durkheim\'s in a quite original form. By focusing its argument in the extra-logic character of the kantian categories, Durkheim seemed to open the way to an original approach to human knowledge: the sociology of knowledge.

雖然知識社會學發展到了當代，出現了各種研究取向，但是對於權力與知識間關係的研究，可以說是當代知識社學地圖中的新地標。本文一方面打算深入分析權力與知識兩者間關係的議題，另一方面則是試圖從知識與社會兩個面向切入將之相較於以「社會存在/結構決定知識」的古典理論，並找出知識社會學的從古典到當代發展在研究取向上所作轉變之關鍵為何。 由於研究權力與知識間關係之流派甚多，故而本文選擇兩位深具代表性的社會學家為分析對象，Elias與Foucault。在兼具一般性與特殊性的雙重目的下,本文則是分別以四個面向開展對於這兩位知識社會學家其學說的分析:知識的界定、所使用的歷史方法或觀點、權力與知識的關係，及其對於社會所採取的思考觀點。

<p>This thesis is an exploration into the socialization of researchers as it takes place in various research practices. Using a lifeworld-perspective, a qualitative interview-study with doctoral students from different academic milieus is conducted. The organizational context of the study is the academic department as it is experienced, apprehended and constructed by the doctoral student.</p><p>The “societal” context is described and discussed in a brief analytical exposé of Swedish science policy in the last decade of the twentieth century. Questioning the political reliance on a systems-perspective, and the shortcomings of system theory for the understanding of research practices in different academic milieus, a lifeworld-theoretical turn is suggested.</p><p>A lifeworld-perspective is formulated in a meta-theoretical discussion focusing on the concepts of <i>practice</i>, <i>time</i> and <i>language</i>. Jürgen Habermas’ critique of phenomenological lifeworld-perspectives is the point of departure and theoretical inputs are derived from the sociology of knowledge, the sociology of scientific knowledge and phenomenological sociology. The solution is found in an integrative model of socialization as continual synchronization of subjective systems of coordinates and socio-cultural networks. Mediating between subjective consciousness and inter-subjective knowledge is language, and this is manifested in concrete practices observed in “real-time”.</p><p>The empirical study reveals some influences of the system on the lifeworld. “Inside” the lifeworld, however, the interviewees mostly use their departments as frames of reference in their descriptions and discussions. A more elaborate exploration of the life-world results in an understanding of socialization in terms of <i>positioning</i>. This concept denotes the ways in which the interviewees describe themselves, their socio-cultural surroundings and themselves in relation to these milieus. At any given moment, positioning can be understood as a “co-construction” of subjective position and socio-cultural milieu. Positioning is thereby the empirical correlate to synchronization, and socialization can be “read off” from the ways in which doctoral students position themselves “here and now”. Problematic, though, is that “doctoral student”, and especially “female doctoral student”, are found to be vague and vulnerable categories with no clear meanings for the socialised nor for the socio-cultural environment. In a more speculative manner, these difficulties of positioning are put in relation to “scientist” as a vague category. If “scientist” cannot be defined, how then can we know what “scientists in the making” are?</p><p>This thesis offers an insight into the plural “realities” of doctoral students in different academic milieus. It offers a lifeworld-perspective on socialization and is thereby relevant for discussions of post-graduate education among scholars as well as among policy makers.</p>

This thesis is an exploration into the socialization of researchers as it takes place in various research practices. Using a lifeworld-perspective, a qualitative interview-study with doctoral students from different academic milieus is conducted. The organizational context of the study is the academic department as it is experienced, apprehended and constructed by the doctoral student. The “societal” context is described and discussed in a brief analytical exposé of Swedish science policy in the last decade of the twentieth century. Questioning the political reliance on a systems-perspective, and the shortcomings of system theory for the understanding of research practices in different academic milieus, a lifeworld-theoretical turn is suggested. A lifeworld-perspective is formulated in a meta-theoretical discussion focusing on the concepts of practice, time and language. Jürgen Habermas’ critique of phenomenological lifeworld-perspectives is the point of departure and theoretical inputs are derived from the sociology of knowledge, the sociology of scientific knowledge and phenomenological sociology. The solution is found in an integrative model of socialization as continual synchronization of subjective systems of coordinates and socio-cultural networks. Mediating between subjective consciousness and inter-subjective knowledge is language, and this is manifested in concrete practices observed in “real-time”. The empirical study reveals some influences of the system on the lifeworld. “Inside” the lifeworld, however, the interviewees mostly use their departments as frames of reference in their descriptions and discussions. A more elaborate exploration of the life-world results in an understanding of socialization in terms of positioning. This concept denotes the ways in which the interviewees describe themselves, their socio-cultural surroundings and themselves in relation to these milieus. At any given moment, positioning can be understood as a “co-construction” of subjective position and socio-cultural milieu. Positioning is thereby the empirical correlate to synchronization, and socialization can be “read off” from the ways in which doctoral students position themselves “here and now”. Problematic, though, is that “doctoral student”, and especially “female doctoral student”, are found to be vague and vulnerable categories with no clear meanings for the socialised nor for the socio-cultural environment. In a more speculative manner, these difficulties of positioning are put in relation to “scientist” as a vague category. If “scientist” cannot be defined, how then can we know what “scientists in the making” are? This thesis offers an insight into the plural “realities” of doctoral students in different academic milieus. It offers a lifeworld-perspective on socialization and is thereby relevant for discussions of post-graduate education among scholars as well as among policy makers.

Today’s Chinese ethno-nationalism exploits nativist ancestral claims back to antiquity to legitimize its geo-political occupation of the entire territory of modern China, which includes areas where many non-Han people live. It also insists on the inseparability of the non-Han nationalities as an integrated part of Zhonghua minzu. This dissertation traces the origin of this nationalism to the two major waves of scientific investigation in the fields of paleoanthropology and anthropology in the Chinese frontier during the first half of the twentieth century. Prevailing theories and discoveries in the two scientific disciplines inspired the ways in which the Chinese intellectuals constructed their national identity. The first wave concerns the international quest for human ancestors in North China and the northwestern frontier in the 1920s and 1930s. Foreign scientists, such as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Amadeus Grabau, Roy Chapman Andrews, and Davidson Black, came to China to search for the first human fossils. With the discovery of Peking Man, they made Beijing one of the most prestigious places for the study of human paleontology and popularized the evolutionary Asiacentric theory that designated Chinese Central Asia and Mongolia as the cradle of humans. Inspired by the theory and the study of the Peking Man fossils, Chinese intellectuals turned Peking Man into the first Chinese and a common ancestor of all humans. In the second wave, from the late 1930s to the early 1950s, Chinese anthropologists like Rui Yifu, Cen Jiawu, Fei Xiaotong, and Li Anzhai made enormous efforts to inscribe the non-Han people of the southwestern frontier into the genealogy of the Chinese nation (Zhonghua minzu). Their interpretations of the relationship between the Han and the non-Han and between the frontier and the center were influenced by various Western anthropological theories. However, their intensive studies of the southwestern non-Han societies advocated the ethnic integration and nationalization of China’s southwestern frontier. By linking the two waves of scientific endeavor, this dissertation asserts that the Chinese intellectual construction of modern Chinese ethnogenesis and nationalism was not a parochial and reactionary nationalist “invention” but a series of indigenizing attempts to appropriate and interpret scientific theories and discoveries. / History