Murray S O
University of Toronto.
J Hist Behav Sci. 1988 Apr;24(2):135-51. doi: 10.1002/1520-6696(198804)24:2<135::aid-jhbs2300240202>3.0.co;2-2.
The gradual disenchantment of American sociologists with the validity of ethnographic reports is examined by tracing the reception of anthropological work from 1922-1951 in three leading sociological journals: The American Journal of Sociology, The American Sociological Review, and Social Forces. Although prominent American sociologists initially welcomed Boasian syntheses of Native American and of exotic foreign cultures in the 1920s and 1930s, by the 1940s they began to wonder if the earlier assertions of cultural anthropologists about these exotic cultures were as shakily based as were their later assertions about cultural patterns in the United States.
通过追溯1922年至1951年三部主要社会学杂志《美国社会学杂志》《美国社会学评论》和《社会力量》对人类学著作的接受情况，考察了美国社会学家对人种志报告有效性的逐渐醒悟。尽管20世纪20年代和30年代美国著名社会学家最初欢迎博厄斯学派关于美国原住民和异国文化的综合研究，但到了40年代，他们开始怀疑文化人类学家早期对这些异国文化的断言是否像他们后来对美国文化模式的断言一样缺乏坚实依据。
