texts and motives on authors' views of their surrounding "reality." Con-
sequently, they often tend to emphasize a particular and limited view of
that situation as universal and exclusively correct. The perspectives and
kinds of insight so developed inevitably tend to be highly restricted as a
result. While attainment of absolute objectivity is clearly impossible, greater
awareness of these contextual limitations is both feasible and vital to mak-
ing the social sciences a more viable factor in constructive social change;
hence this book, which contains the analyses of a wide variety of social
scientists, focusing on a number of aspects of the manner in which profes-
sional ideology affects the discipline.

The contributions to follow relate to five general topic areas: major the-
oretical issues relating to major terminology; the research process as ide-
ology; the political context of changing ideology; major factors influencing
the academic setting; and the relationship between personal biography and
professional ideology.

The introduction by Drs. Kinloch and Mohan distinguish among the
major concepts ideology, myth, and science, highlighting their central dif-
ferences and similarities, varying functions, and relation to the social sci-
ences. They conclude that scientific consensus combined with maximum
academic diversity is vital to the general improvement of knowledge.

The next two contributions focus on the manner in which ideology in-
fluences the research process. Dr. Koch is particularly concerned with the
manner in which the investigator's presumed familiarity with the surround-
ing social world, a kind of "spontaneous sociology," represents a poten-
tially major obstacle to the development of "sociological knowledge." He
concludes that the researcher's need to objectify his research results and
academic position is vital to avoid related "ideological traps." In a different
vein, Professor Becker outlines the manner in which sociology has neglected
to study discontinuous change due to data scarcity, low problem awareness,
and, in particular, its positivist bias. Consequently, our understanding of
modern social change as a complex process has been severely limited.
Clearly, both everyday and scientific ideology may have a major impact on
the research process.

Professional ideologies are particularly influenced by the political envi-
ronments in which they emerge and flourish. In this regard, Dr. Pirttilä and
Mr. Nuotio provide detailed insight into the changing nature of Finnish
sociology in the context of the welfare state. They delineate its shift from
"soft academic instrumentalism," dominant during the period of the ex-
panding welfare state in the 1960s and 1970s, to its present "fragmented
reflexivity," typical of a more pragmatic, academically diverse situation.
They conclude that the role of the social scientist in modern society is
becoming increasingly complex and uncertain. In the case of Poland, Dr.
Sokolowski offers a fascinating study of the manner in which political,
cultural, and cognitive factors influence "narratives of economic develop-

-2-