Encyclopedias, Handbooks, and Dictionaries

Encyclopedias, Handbooks, and Dictionaries Alan Sica, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract This article reviews revolutionary changes, which have occurred since 2000 regarding the creation and publication of reference books and online sources. Factors that have altered the way that such books, especially those pertaining to the social sciences, include the increased speed of composition due to word-processing technology, the downsizing of libraries as they switch from printed to electronic reference sources, and the increased pressure upon academics to publish rapidly, especially in Britain. The article also offers a concise history of social science reference works in several disciplines, beginning in the eighteenth century and ending with the present.

The Old World of Reference Publishing Historic Overview of Reference Works According to one informed estimate, if a copy of every important reference work known in Western history were set side by side in chronological order, some two miles of shelf space would be required for their display. Ever since Plato and Aristotle first called for the assembling of what they named ‘encyclopedia’ – a challenge quickly accepted by one of Plato’s nephews, Speusippus (d. 339 BC) – intellectuals have tried to summarize and codify what they knew, either for general literate audiences or for specialized groups of colleagues. Of these two miles of systematized learning, those volumes that treat the social sciences would appear in only the last several hundred yards of material, in the material produced since the Enlightenment, since the social sciences in their modern form are largely products of the Enlightenment. Clearly, social science was not part of the trivium/quadrivium arrangement of classical and renaissance learning, and official academic status was accorded these fields only during the last century in most research universities. The history of encyclopedias, handbooks, and dictionaries (designations which until at least the eighteenth century were used interchangeably) is distinguished not only by sheer quantity of printed material, but also by the quality of thinkers and writers who created and contributed to them. Pliny the Elder’s Natural History, for instance, served as a model of organizing such material for 1700 years after its appearance in AD 77, despite an odd mixing of fact and fancy throughout its 37 books. Francis Bacon devised in 1620, a huge encyclopedia of 130 sections that was never completed, but his mode of organizing knowledge was still consulted by Diderot and later compilers 130 years later. In 1817, Samuel Taylor Coleridge also put forth an ambitious reorganizing of all human knowledge, which he interestingly titled Encyclopædia Metropolitana. The urge, then, to systematize and rationalize both common and esoteric knowledge has been strongly and continuously in evidence for at least 2400 years in the West. Even in AD 551 when the love of knowledge and external conditions for its preservation reached an apparent nadir, Cassiodorus saw to it that the labors of the monastery he founded at Vivarium be dedicated principally to the preservation of worthwhile information, producing the 2-volume Institutes of Divine and

584

Secular Literature. Vincent of Beauvois has long been identified as the finest encyclopedist of the Middle Ages, producing his Speculum majus (The Greater Mirror) in 1244, made up of 10 000 chapters in 80 books, an achievement that held the field for sheer scope until the eighteenth century. Alphabetical as opposed to categorically arranged encyclopedias began to appear at the turn of the first millennium, though most have followed the latter rather than the former method of organization. And the first grouping of all knowledge within a format that is recognizably modern, along alphabetical lines, was the Grand Dictionnaire Historique produced by Louis Moreri in 1674. The audience for such a work was already developed, for his venture went through six editions in the following 17 years, followed by still more editions in English.

Growing Availability of Reference Works It was not always so difficult to name the leading works to which scholars or novices could turn when searching for basic information regarding the social sciences, especially if one strays beyond the confines of the English language. There was a time, of course, when dictionaries, handbooks, and encyclopedias (which in Greek means ‘general education’) could have been viewed as a special genre of scholarly display, with Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary (1755), Diderot’s Encyclopedia (1751), or Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary (1764) initially setting the tone for many modern versions that followed. As noted above, for some centuries prior to the Enlightenment, the words ‘dictionary’ and ‘encyclopedia’ were used synonymously, lacking precise meaning, e.g., when Rabelais around 1534 introduced the word into French literature, in Pantagruel: “he has opened for me the true well and abyss of encyclopedic knowledge” (The Complete Works of François Rabelais, University of California Press, 1991, p. 201). Though Rabelais meant simply ‘knowledge’ when using the term, within only 25 years a German, Paul Scalich, had published his Encyclopaedia, the scope of which conformed to today’s usage. Since then, of course, untold thousands of such works have appeared in every major language. But unlike scholarly articles and books, rolling off the presses with merciless regularity, substantial reference works have until recently been rarely enough published that they eluded the standard procedure of critical appraisal brought to

International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 7

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.41023-8

Encyclopedias, Handbooks, and Dictionaries

bear on most nonreference works. And they are hardly the innocent, bland summaries, which the naive reader might take them to be. Each new entry into this crowded market must either claim to bring together for the first time a body of knowledge which to that point had not been assembled by quite the same rules as those which constitute the ‘new’ rubric, or it must offer some other, less lofty advantage, such as lower price or ease of use. All of this is currently going in the world of social science publishing, and at an unprecedented rate, mostly owing, one suspects, to the huge composing advantages supplied by personal computers. The positive result of the new technology lies in the superabundance of suddenly available reference resources, some of which will surely define for the first time entire realms of intellectual inquiry. A less sanguine prospect, however, is the burden this torrent of innovative materials places on those who most evaluate or use them. As the range of choices widens, the provision of usable criticism becomes ever more costly, and probably less reliable. This was not always the case, at least regarding the social sciences. A fairly limited selection of well-known reference tools were at the disposal of researchers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which gave this growing general zone of study a tidy coherence that today is all but gone. And whereas such an orderly presentation of knowledge, then common to a given discipline or subdiscipline, might today seem either unnecessary or epistemologically indefensible, for the founders of the social sciences (Geisteswissenschaften) 100 years ago, the task of proving to more established disciplines that intellectual coherence indeed existed within their upstart fields became a truly vital effort at self-preservation.

Systemization of Reference Works Within what we could now broadly call sociology, for example, systematizations appeared fairly early. This is interesting for a number of reasons, not least of which is the fact that sociology as a discipline was defined and taught (particularly in the U.S.) some time before its sister disciplines within the social sciences. It often played the role of avant-garde as this new way of carving up the academic world began rearranging disciplinary boundaries. While many of today’s practitioners are familiar, at least with the titles, of the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences and The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, or Robert E.L. Faris’s (Ed.) Handbook of Modern Sociology (1964) or Neil Smelser’s (Ed.) Handbook of Sociology (1988), most are not aware of this genre’s substantial tradition, especially as produced in Europe. It is now commonly supposed that Faris’ was the first handbook of American sociology to be published, since it was widely distributed at the time and was fortunate in appearing just as sociology became a ‘growth industry’ on campuses worldwide. But even some reviewers at the time knew better, e.g., Joseph Gittler’s opening line in his review: “With the plethora of new handbooks, reviews, and compendia in sociology, one wonders whether there is a need for yet another one” (Gittler, 1965: p. 335). But it must have seemed like much less of a ‘milestone in the field of sociology’ – as the publisher had characterized the Handbook through its mailed advertisements to American Sociological Association (ASA) members – if one considers the substance of the reviews it

585

received. The book was probably taken as a handy cribbing device for grad students and young instructors, glanced at perfunctorily, then parked on the shelf with similar volumes which Rand McNally had become good at marketing. As Gittler was hinting, the history of sophisticated handbooks that sought to introduce audiences to new trends of analysis is in fact long and distinguished, though it is quite true that only few of them were in English. Carl von Rotteck and Carl Welcker edited the Staats-Lexikon oder Encyclopädie der Staatswissenschaften (1834–43), the oldest I have found, adding up to 15 volumes at 800 pages each. (Even though the social sciences hardly existed at that time, formally speaking, the subject matter in the Encyclopädie, as well as the other sources named below, included much of what we would now recognize as such.) In 1852 and 1853, Charles Coquelin oversaw production of the Dictionaire de L’economie Politique in 2 volumes (1858 pages). Meanwhile in Italy, Gerolamo Boccardo brought out Dizionario della economnia politica e del commercio: Cosi teorico come practico (1857) in 4 volumes and 2800 pages, an equally lavish item. The predecessor to Weber’s famous Grundriss der Sozialökonomik was Gustav Schoenberg’s Handbuch der politischen oekonomie (1882–85) in 3 volumes. Surely the most important of these early handbooks was edited by Conrad et al., Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften (1895), an enormous work in 7 volumes and about 6000 pages. Supplements were added in 1895 and 1897 of 2000 pages, and later editions (1898 and 1909–11) included two versions of Weber’s famous Agrarverhältnisse im Altertum (first translated in 1976 as The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations), the initial version 27 pages long, the second 136 pages. Ludwig Elster, part of Conrad’s team, published a shorter version of the monumental work in only 2 volumes (1898), merely 2100 pages in length. The French were not idle, with Léon Say and Joseph Chailley’s Nouveau Dictionnaire d’Economie Politique (1891/1892), amounting to 2-fat volumes of 2800 pages, and a supplement in 1900 of 271 more. Finally, the famous Robert Harry Inglis Palgrave edited Dictionary of Political Economy (1894, 1900–1901), which in its last version came to 3 volumes and 2500 pages. This was soon followed in 1897 by William D.P. Bliss’ Encyclopedia of Social Reform, 1 volume of 1439 pages (1908). What all this shows is that the notion of social science compendia has been around quite a while, and that most of the nineteenth-century European models were enormous publishing achievements. With the new century, ambitions and costs both shrank considerably.

The New World of Reference Publishing Recent Changes in Reference Publishing In the dozen years since the first version of this article was written, the world of reference volumes has undergone a revolution more profound than any in living memory, and perhaps more radical in its ultimate effect than any since Diderot released his ‘long-delayed Prospectus’ for the Encyclopédie in 1750 (Furbank, 1992: p. 74). Diderot, of course, did not invent the idea of a scholars’ encyclopedia, but he improved existing models to such an extent that his, in print to this day, is regarded as ‘the first.’ The sea-change that recently overtook reference work production is of an even greater magnitude than that registered by the appearance of Diderot’s great work – so

586

Encyclopedias, Handbooks, and Dictionaries

great, in fact, that the Era of the Reference Book as known to scholars of the past 200 years may be at its end. That The International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, was initially to be marketed exclusively in an electronic edition, whereas its first version was also available as a set of books, hints at some of these changes, although it is certainly a pertinent observation that this decision was rescinded and the current work has been made available in both hard copy and electronic formats. Several disparate forces conjoined to alter the nature of social science reference works such that the very idea of ‘reference’ has inalterably shifted from one format, accepted for centuries, to another that is truly new. Prior to the global adoption of Wikipedia, Google Scholar, Google Books, and their many offspring, reference works were typically compiled over many years, the creative province of expert scholars and scientists, offered mainly in printed form as books, very costly to produce, and rarely revised. Cheap word-processing and its ultimate gift to writers, the ‘copy and paste’ function, has made it easy to borrow creatively from a world of source material, including even plagiarizing oneself for disparate occasions. Naturally, these technical changes have sped up and simplified production by a very large factor.

The Shift toward Electronic Libraries Though the beloved 11th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (1910) did not include an article about its own origins and greatness, the same cannot be said for its replacement, the selfreflexive Wikipedia. As the entry for Wikipedia says about itself: it was “launched on January 15, 2001 . [its] departure from the expert-driven style of encyclopedia building and the presence of a large body of unacademic content received extensive attention in print media.” Meanwhile, Google Books, launched in October 2004 amidst great ambivalence and anxiety from publishers, authors, and scholars, had by March 2012 scanned over 20 million books into its globalized database. What began with obliging help from only a handful of major research libraries in the Anglophone world soon grew into a surprising flood of participating institutions. This development also contributed to the wholesale destruction of printed materials in libraries pressed, as they always are, for space, since once a book was scanned by Google Books, it was assumed to be forever available in that form. The fact scanning a book is not always done perfectly (omitted pages, blurred images, lack of color reproduction, etc.), or that not everyone has access to printers should they need a paper copy, has not stopped libraries from ridding themselves of their printed books at an astonishing rate, including, of course, their reference materials. In fact, discarding ‘old’ reference materials became a priority among avant-garde officials at large libraries, ever hungry for more shelf space. Only a Don Quixote fighting for the printed form could object to this apparently ‘rational’ welcoming of digitization and few have appeared to rescue ‘old’ books from landfills across the country.

Digitization of Content and Labor While Wikipedia developed its early articles by importing into its site the nonpareil 11th edition of the Britannica, Google

Books originated no new content, instead scanning millions of volumes at scores of worksites into a form that allows readers selective, and often very limited, access to pages within scanned volumes, and to search for terms within each book. Despite legal battles in the U.S. and abroad (especially in France), the ‘googlization’ of everything in print proceeds apace. Books still under copyright, however, cannot be read or searched in their entirety, which causes endless frustrations for scholars looking for material sequestered from their sight. This becomes particularly distressing when university libraries discard their printed volumes or fail to buy them to begin with, relying on ‘someone else’ to supply needed materials to their researchers. Thus, the ancient ‘problem of the commons’ has surfaced in a new form peculiar to academic libraries, and especially as it pertains to reference materials. Yet aside from technical changes of speed and access introduced through the Internet, other alterations of reference materials occurred as libraries worldwide cut their labor costs by firing or ‘repurposing’ reference librarians en masse. These trained professionals, often women and stereotypically maternal and catholic in their approach to helping all library patrons, had been the foundation of public and university libraries for at least 125 years, ever since communities and campuses collectively decided that any town worth its name must have a library staffed by helpful, literate librarians. That career as such is almost gone. In its place, at even the finest university libraries, one discovers that ‘the reference desk’ is either absent entirely in lieu of self-service computers by the dozen, or is staffed by a transient young person without special knowledge who simply ‘googles’ any question put to them. So, instead of a mature librarian with proper educational credentials finding answers to questions by means of large, expensive, and trusted reference volumes, well thumbed and well known to their users, a young, inexpensive (even unpaid) amateur refers to computerized reference sources just as any citizen might who has access to their own computer.

The Shift toward Quanity Abundance of Reference Materials Moreover, and perhaps just as important over the last dozen years, academics and their publishers (most noticeably in the United Kingdom) have fallen under increasing pressure to ‘produce’ published works on an unforgiving timetable. The conventional ‘factory speed-up’ in manufacturing has spread to the ‘academic factory.’ This form of ‘labor discipline’ as applied to professors originated during the regime of Margaret Thatcher, who disliked the pampered ‘chattering classes,’ and wished to put them on a work schedule not unlike those applied to ordinary white-collar laborers in other ‘industries.’ British publishers responded to the resulting scholars’ need to write ever more, and ever more swiftly, by issuing ‘print on demand’ monographs at extraordinary prices, hoping to sell most of them to libraries in North America, a far larger market than the United Kingdom’s. Along with this manufactured pressure for scholars to publish rapidly, and for publishers to meet their sales goals in an ever-shrinking market for scholarly monographs, a number of well-known British publishers (followed hesitantly by their American counterparts) began to

Encyclopedias, Handbooks, and Dictionaries

issue dozens of handbooks, companions, encyclopedias, and dictionaries of social science material. This concatenation of forces produced an avalanche of reference materials the like of which had never been seen in libraries prior to about 2000. It would require dozens of pages even to list all the handbooks, companions, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and guides, which have been ‘cranked out’ since 2000. When offered in printed form, their high prices and physical heft have consigned them almost exclusively to libraries rather than individuals. Few are offered in affordable paperback format. No one knows how often they are now consulted, given that the students and scholars educated over the last 20 years or so have become almost entirely reliant upon online sources of ready information. In today’s campus phraseology, the notion of ‘trudging’ to the ‘brick and mortar’ library, ‘hauling down’ a ‘fat tome,’ which claimed when published to offer authoritative overviews of a given topic, is as alien to today’s students as learning Latin or Greek. Since many of these reference volumes to not circulate, the articles of interest must be photocopied, another ancient technology happily superseded by ubiquitous printers connected to billions of personal computers all over the planet. Since there are no longer any clearly superior or inclusive reference sources in the social sciences as there once were (e.g., The Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 1933; The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 1968), it becomes difficult to identify those of particular merit for several reasons. The standard production format for today’s reference volumes usually prohibits long-term investment of time or money, since revisions of those that sell well must occur rapidly. Editors at publishing companies which specialize in reference volumes typically seek academic advice when identifying a marketable topic. They then select a fairly senior or visible specialist in that area, pay them a very modest amount when gauged by the time they will likely invest in the project, and then leave it up to the volume editor(s) to find subeditors or authors for particular areas that need to be covered.

Influence on Authorship Authors of the actual articles, which usually vary from 500 to 1500 words in a dictionary-like volume, all the way to 10 000 words or more for chapters in a handbook, are often paid little or nothing, it being assumed that they (being often younger scholars) need to publish rapidly, so will eagerly agree to work for free merely to get into print. This means, of course, that the most qualified scholars, those who have been working the longest on a given topic – unless, of course, it is brand new, or seems to be – are not as often found in such handbooks or guides as one might wish they were. The obvious trade-off lies between rapidly written pieces by junior scholars and researchers versus the work of seasoned experts whose presence in such volumes would require more time and money than the publisher is willing to invest. One such volume before me now, published in 2012 and aimed at the U.S. market, features two editors – Associate Professor (UK) and Professor (UK) – and authors from the following ranks: Postdoctoral Fellow (Australia), Assistant Professor (US), Postdoctoral Fellow (UK), Assistant Professor (US), Associate Professor (UK), Professor (UK), Senior Lecturer (UK), Lecturer (UK), doctoral student

587

(Sri Lanka), private scholar (UK), and so on. Most of these writers are young, and wonderful as their work may well be, they are not recognized authorities on the topic in question. The standard response of reviewers when and if they evaluate such volumes is to say that ‘the chapters/entries are uneven in quality,’ as one would expect. And because such publications, rightly or wrongly, are regarded by administrators and other professional arbiters as not being peer-reviewed, they carry much less scholarly or reputational weight than more conventional publications. All of this notwithstanding, the flood of such books (in printed and electronic forms) shows no signs of retreating. It may be worthwhile to mention a few of the many hundred recently published reference sources, if for no other reason than to indicate the vast topical range they now cover. This broad landscape of coverage is as much due it seems to the business needs of publishers as to any actual or perceived need on the part of working researchers. Unlike with expensive monographs or other special volumes, library acquisitions of such volumes are seldom the result of faculty input; in fact, few faculties are aware what reference volumes their libraries acquires since their presumed market is the student body rather than professors. This means that libraries purchase such works either under ‘blanket order plans’ or randomly, as one or another subject bibliographer so chooses. The purchase prices are so high and the production costs so low that publishers can profit from relatively few sales, particularly given print-ondemand technology.

Main Publishers of Reference Works for the Social Sciences The main publishers today of reference works in the social sciences (and other areas of learning) are Ashgate (Surrey, UK and Vermont), Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, UK and New York City), Elsevier (Amsterdam and Oxford), Oxford University Press (Oxford, UK and New York City), Routledge (London and New York City), Sage (London) and Sage (California), and Wiley-Blackwell (Oxford, UK and Massachusetts). Among these several and more, hundreds of volumes have appeared in the last half-dozen years. For example, Sage has recently published ‘handbooks’ on the following topics: qualitative research (2011), grounded theory (2010), international higher education (2012), mix methods in social and behavioral research (2010), social psychology (2007), interview research (2012), action research (2007), social network analysis (2011), qualitative research (2005), organizational research methods (2009), persuasion (2012), intercultural competence (2009), quantitative methodology for the social sciences (2004), leadership (2011), organizational institutionalism (2008), social cognition (2012), interpersonal communication (2011), innovation in social research methods (2011), qualitative methods in health research (2010), punishment and society (2012), political communication (2012), sociology of religion (2007), and organization studies (2006), to name only a few from their complete list. Oxford and Cambridge have been creating handbooks and ‘companions’ for decades, long before Ashgate or Sage existed as reference publishers. Their imprimatur continues to lend to

588

Encyclopedias, Handbooks, and Dictionaries

their books a scholarly legitimacy, which may have outlived its actuality, given the ferocious competition among publishers for this market. Oxford’s famous handbook series, which varies somewhat in tone from Sage’s, includes treatments of political institutions (2008), comparative politics (2009), political economy (2008), international relations (2010), causation (2012), positive psychology (2011), law and politics (2010), public policy (2008), political methodology (2010), political psychology (2003), Internet studies (2013), leadership (2012), intergroup conflict (2012), sociology and organization studies (2010), corporate social responsibility (2009), stress, health, and coping (2010), organization theory (2005), history of consumption (2012), organizational psychology (2012; 2 volumes), gender and politics (2013), urban politics (2012), traumatic stress disorders (2012), and American bureaucracy (2012), again, the tip of a large iceberg. Cambridge University Press reference volumes have become indispensable in certain areas of research. The ‘companions’ series has become virtually a small world unto themselves, e.g., on science fiction, Kant, American novelists, atheism, utopian literature, gothic fiction, Jesus, Bob Dylan, Wittgenstein, and so on. Most are more firmly anchored in the humanities than the social sciences, although the companions to Tocqueville, Marx, Durkheim, Weber, Foucault, or Levi-Strauss each speak unambiguously to sociological interests. Cambridge also publishes handbooks, for instance, on ‘the study of mental health’ (2009). Less august British companies have also leapt into the reference book trade with some success. Ashgate has invested heavily in its ‘research companion’ series, covering avant-garde topics like critical geopolitics (2013), war (2012), political violence (2012), queer theory 2009), globalization of health (2012), heritage and identity (2008), modern warfare (2010), multiculturalism (2010), cosmopolitanism (2011), democratization in Europe (2013), and biosocial theories of crime (2011), a few among many others. It has obviously worked hard to distance itself from the output of its rivals, whose participation in this market has been much longer. The same can be said for Routledge, although an older company overall, has only recently begun to generate large and costly reference works whereas in its past, serious monographs were its forte. The market for such books having shrunk very considerably since neither scholars nor libraries are able any longer to spend large sums on single volumes, Routledge like so many of its peers has shifted to reference works. Its ‘companion’ series, imitating Cambridge, covers postmodernism (2011), critical theory (2006), religion (2009), philosophy of psychology (2011), social and political philosophy (2012), digital consumption (2013), identity and consumption (2012), social theory (2009), postcolonial studies (2007), feminism and postfeminism (2002), organizational change (2011), bioethics (2013), multicultural education (2009), postmodernism (2007), decolonization (2000), video game studies (2013), and emotional and behavioral difficulties (2012), to list a few from a large set. Routledge also offers ‘handbooks,’ e.g., on contemporary social and political theory (2011), identity studies (2011), cosmopolitan studies (2012), cultural sociology (2010), and climate change and society (2010), among others.

Imitation among publishers is obviously a factor in the production of these volumes as one can see from multiple entries under the most pressing current concerns: cosmopolitanism, social media, climate change, postcolonialism, and so on. It seems that eventually all reference materials will become electronic, and the production of long, heavy, expensive printed volumes created by many hands will cease. Even large academic libraries have begun to resist acquiring them as a matter of course, opting instead for a subscription to electronic versions, forgoing the purchase of its printed companion. Some libraries in computer-linked systems are sharing costly reference volumes through interlibrary loan, a practice which for decades was inconceivable since such materials by definition did not circulate. All this, like so much else in the world of scholarly publishing, is changing too rapidly for even seasoned researchers to absorb. Audiophiles are returning in significant numbers to vinyl reproductions of sound, and one wonders if a ‘return to the printed book’ might not also be on the horizon after the novelty of digitized knowledge sources wears thin.

Reference Works by Discipline Sociology Although in the space allotted here it is impossible to offer even a succinct history of social science reference books, some sense of how they evolved over the last century or so might be conveyed simply by means of mentioning some titles which seemed to define a given discipline at a particular moment in its development. I will begin with my own field whose history is more familiar to me than the other disciplines. Despite its senior status as a university discipline of independent identity relative to most of the other social sciences, reference works have not been as numerous for sociology as one might therefore expect. Thomas Nixon Carver’s Sociology and Social Progress: A Handbook for Students of Sociology (Sumner, 1907: 810 pp.) was remarkable for its earliness. Yet the first real encyclopedic effort in English came only in 1992 under Edward Borgatta’s editorship (Macmillan: 4 volumes), a full century after academic departments bearing the discipline’s name appeared in several midwestern universities. (Two previous efforts, one edited by the noted scholar Michael Mann, did not live up to their titles as ‘encyclopedias’ proper.) Other useful compendia include Smelser and Swedberg’s The Handbook of Economic Sociology (1994) and Frank Magill’s International Encyclopedia of Sociology (1995: 2 volumes). The first handbook expressly designed for sociology was Alfred Vierkandt’s Handwörterbuch der Soziologie (1931), a mere 690 pages long, followed in 1956 by Werner Ziegenfuss’ Handbuch der Soziologie, at double the length. And in 1962 Rene König edited the famous Handbuch der Empirischen Sozialforschung in 2 volumes of 2000 pages. In the United States one could begin with An Introduction to Sociology edited by Jerome Davis and H.E. Barnes (1927, 1931), a 900-page collabora by seven authors. Trends in American Sociology followed in 1929, edited by George Lundberg, Read Bain, and Nels Anderson, with substantial chapters on the history of sociology, theory, social psychology, culture, rural sociology, urban sociology, educational sociology, social work, applied sociology, and

Encyclopedias, Handbooks, and Dictionaries

methods. In 1937 Prentice-Hall sold Man and Society for $3.75, a 787-page work edited by Emerson Schmidt that tried to introduce students to all the social sciences simultaneously, covering everything from human values to income distribution to social psychology (Herbert Blumer’s memorable chapter). The Gurvitch-Moore volume, Twentieth Century Sociology, published just following the war (1945), seemed to have widespread influence, despite its execrable typos and layout. Its most distinctive feature, in addition to chapters on all the subfields of sociology at the time, was a second section of 250 pages that dealt with sociology in France, the United States, Britain, Germany, Latin America, Italy, Spain, Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, and Yugoslavia. This should have inspired later handbooks, and may account for the volume’s popularity, since a distinctly ecumenical flavor swept the academy worldwide following World War II. Its authors – Burgess, Parsons, H.P. Becker, Sorokin, Maclver, Znaniecki, Gurvitch, Roscoe Pound, Merton, Wach, Levi-Strauss, Faris, Albert Salomon, Bastide, and so on – comprise a list of distinguished scholars that has not been matched since in a collaborative volume. The first recognizably ‘modern’ compendium was Joseph Gittler’s Review of Sociology (1957), with chapters by recognized authors on the topics that soon became the staples of introductory textbooks. (Georges Gurvitch edited Traité de sociologie in 1960, 2 volumes and 1000 pages, which seemed to have little impact in the United States.) And finally, Parsons himself had a go with his American Sociology (1968), with chapters by many scholars now in the twilight of their careers but who then were the bedrock of the mainstream, as it were. One could say many things along these lines about the Smelser Handbook, which, given its size and unique position within sociology at present, deserves more than passing attention. This is especially so regarding the ‘theories’ that are put forth in the opening chapters as constituting ‘the’ new streams. For instance, neither Walter Wallace nor Jeffrey Alexander, the chapters’ authors, wishes to consider postmodernism as a fact of existential and scholarly life, and therefore each throws himself or herself into a strange time warp. Peterson had characterized Faris’ introduction to his earlier compendium as ‘blindly benign’ (Peterson, 1965: p. 254), which seems perfectly correct, even when rereading Faris today. One could say something similar about the theoretical terrain that is gingerly walked over in opening chapters of the Smelser Handbook. A range of old beliefs, now diminished by criticism from philosophers and literary critics – some of whom, incidentally, number among our most influential ‘social’ theorists – are trotted out as if nothing substantial had occurred to Western culture since 1964. It is as if the ‘self’ about which Parsons wrote with such conviction is still out there doing what selves have ‘always’ done. The same could be said about the precritical notion of ‘science’ and ‘rationality’ that figures in both chapters, but especially in Alexander’s, as if definitions of rational action and societal rationality are not now in themselves enormously contentious topics. Such limitations begin to indicate the intellectual boundaries of compendia of this sort, even those written by top scholars, for the adventurousness that might pervade a monograph composed by the same authors is diminished when they turn their hands to ‘general’ statements. Since reference sources, by

589

common consent, are supposed to offer a summary of ‘established knowledge’ in a specific field or subfield, their authors typically draw back from the perimeters of discovery and innovation. Therefore, such works almost always lag behind the leading edges of thinking and offer their users a snapshot of what was confidently held to be true a dozen or more years before they are published. And with the ever-increasing rate of change in global intellectual culture, this poses a problem, particularly for printed reference sources, which may be met only via constantly updated electronic versions. Comparison of Smelser’s Handbook, the most recent entry into the genre, with earlier versions must remain fairly rough. Its predecessors employed other sorts of authors, aimed at different audiences (those not yet effectively lobotomized by videocretinization), and seem to have been composed in an atmosphere of genuine wonder and hopeful discovery regarding what social scientific study might yield for intellectuals and for the social order that supported them. This kind of childlike hope decomposed after the Gurvitch–Moore volume in 1945 and was replaced by a somewhat defensive, stuffy scientism in later compendia that reflected sociology’s struggle to survive McCarthyism on one hand, literary criticism on the other. But such books, while high on scientific rhetoric, seemed correspondingly low on political self-examination and savvy, while also revealing a foreshortened understanding of the philosophical problems necessarily part of sociological study. Still, it is uplifting to read these older books because their authors were usually straightforward and unpretentious. They tended to avoid enormous claims for the discipline, and offered up its fruits with a direct and unembattled character that nowadays is harder to find. It is probably no accident that after years of sociology bashing at the highest levels of government, both here and in Europe, the field should have put out a summary package for broad consumption in hopes of regaining lost ground, both within the cloister and beyond its high walls. We shall see if it succeeds as part of the long process of recertifying the discipline for a public which has been told repeatedly that nothing good can come of thinking about social reality in the way ‘we’ do. Dictionaries for sociology began with Constantine Panunzio’s pamphlet, A Student’s Dictionary of Sociological Terms (California, 1937), continuing with Henry Fairchild’s Dictionary of Sociology (1944). Only in the late 1960s were a number of competing volumes added to this small shelf of sociological reference books, including those of Geoffrey Mitchell (1968, 1979), George and Achilles Theodorson (1969), and Thomas Hoult (1969). With Raymond Boudon and François Bourricaud’s Critical Dictionary of Sociology (1989), celebrated scholars from Europe entered the field for the first time, followed in the 1990s with new dictionaries by David Jary (1991), Nicholas Abercrombie (1994), Gordon Marshall (1994, 1998), and Allan Johnson (1995), the former three being well-known British scholars. American sociologists have not of late contributed substantially to this genre.

Anthropology Of all the social sciences, anthropology has been to date the least well served in terms of general reference books. This seems odd given the nineteenth century’s penchant for vast

590

Encyclopedias, Handbooks, and Dictionaries

compilations of quasi-anthropological data, e.g., Frazer’s Golden Bough or Herbert Spencer’s Descriptive Sociology (in fact comparative anthropology) in 12 volumes. The earliest dictionary of sociology that I have found has now become a standard, Charles Winick’s Dictionary of Anthropology (1956), with several later editions. Anthropology A to Z (1963), edited by Gerhard Heberer, Carleton Coon et al., was based on an earlier German compilation of several hands. A recent trend among publishers, to name reference books after their firm, is typified in The Macmillan Dictionary of Anthropology (1986) edited by Seymour-Smith. The implication of this general practice – that a source’s value to the user is more or less guaranteed by virtue of a firm’s prestige – is not necessarily realized in practice. The most recent entry is Barfield’s Dictionary of Anthropology (1997). The discipline came into its own so far as references sources go when Honigmann et al. produced the 1300-page Handbook of Social and Cultural Anthropology (1973) at a period when the social sciences reached a zenith of appeal among college undergraduates in the U.S. Two misnamed volumes are Hunter and Whitten’s Encyclopedia of Anthropology (1976) and Barnard and Spencer’s Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology (1996), both books of modest size. An interesting twist appeared with Bock’s Handbook of Psychological Anthropology (1994), an instance, ever more common, of a reference book seemingly anticipating an intellectual or disciplinary trend before it gains acceptance at the institutional level. Such a rubric might well surprise both psychologists and anthropologists, relatively few of whom typically relate their two fields in any intimate way.

Cognitive Sciences and Related Fields As soon as it became apparent in the 1970s to policy makers, governmental budget specialists, and academics that improvements in psychopathic or sociopathic conditions could be more cheaply and quickly realized through the use of drugs and related somatic measures – as opposed to ‘talking cures’ or other socially based interventions – those fields that stress the linkage between individual physiology and the social order experienced a sudden renaissance. What seemed a neoDarwinian rage for simplification overtook large zones of inquiry within the social and behavioral sciences. This has become so much the case during the last decade that physiological reductionism often seems the order of the day, nearly extinguishing the behavioral component in explanations for an ever-broadening range of ailments, from alcoholism to schizophrenia to general criminality. Given this intellectual environment, it is hardly surprising that a range of new reference books appeared which positioned themselves along a continuum of biobehavioral explanation of social action, from crude sociobiological reductionism to subtle neurological analysis of brain function and behavior. Much of this new wave of work stirs up controversy because of its real or imagined political consequences, most famously exemplified by the raucous reception given Herrnstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve (1994), both in the ordinary as well as the academic press. Among many such books, which have recently been published, several might be mentioned for their innovative qualities. Michael Gazzaniga edited Handbook of Cognitive Neuroscience (1984), complemented by Dunlop and Fetzer’s

Glossary of Cognitive Science (1993), brought to even grander fruition in Wilson and Keil’s The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (1999). Not unrelatedly are Wyer and Srull’s Handbook of Social Cognition (1984, 1994) and Van Hasselt and Hersen’s Handbook of Social Development (1992). More traditional, and connected with a field the roots of which go back at least to Saussure’s posthumous masterpiece, Course in General Linguistics (1916), is Florian Coulmas’s The Handbook of Sociolinguistics (1997), and what amounts conceptually to its complementary volume, Morton Gernsbacher’s Handbook of Psycholinguistics (1994). These interestingly hybrid fields will undoubtedly grow in the new century, and it seems now that a biosocial focus will stimulate at least as much theorizing and research as did the more purely sociopolitical analyses during the preceding half-century.

Economics Unlike some of the newcomers mentioned above, economics (or ‘political-economy’ as it was first known) has a long history relative to other social sciences, dating at least to 1776 and the publication of Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Reference sources therefore abound. Before economics became an academic area, many guides to financial matters existed, of course, e.g., The Handbook of Trade and Commerce, or, A concise dictionary of the terms and principles of trade, commerce, manufactures, commercial and common law, etc., with tables of money, weights, and measures, published in London in 1840. We also know from sources like Marx’s Theories of Surplus Value, his 3-volume anthology of annotated excerpts from the history of economic theory, that the literature on economic matters was by the 1850s quite well developed. Reference works, however, did not apparently surface until somewhat later. Palgrave’s Dictionary of Political Economy (1894) is perhaps the most famous, and John Joseph Lalor’s Cyclopedia of Political Science, Political Economy, and the Political History of the United States: By the Best American and European Writers (1881–84) is another early example. So was Frank Bower’s A Dictionary of Economic Terms for the Use of Newspaper Readers and Students (1905), kept in print until 1951 under subsequent editors. More obviously pertinent to the discipline as it now exists was Herwith Price’s Economic Dictionary, 2 volumes (1926–29), published in Berlin, as well as John Todd’s The Mechanism of Exchange: A Handbook of Economics (3rd edition, 1927) (which became The Science of Prices in a 4th edition (935) before reverting to its original title in its 5th). Frank Bower’s brief Dictionary of Economic Terms reached its 10th edition in 1936, while Horton’s Dictionary of Modern Economics appeared in 1948. Beginning in the early 1950s, the number and variety of dictionaries and handbooks concerning economics exploded, keeping pace with undergraduate enrollments at large public universities in the U.S. and elsewhere. Sloan and Zurcher’s went through five editions between 1951 and 1970, while J.L. Hanson’s reached its 6th edition in 1986, having been in print for 21 years. The latest dictionaries of economics include those by John Black (Oxford, 1997) and Bannock et al. (Wiley, 1998). On a larger scale, encyclopedias of economics began to appear relatively late, with the Guilford Encyclopedia of Economics in 1973/74, the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Economics in 1982 and 1994 (2nd edition), and The Fortune

Encyclopedias, Handbooks, and Dictionaries

Encyclopedia of Economics in 1993. O’Hara has reverted in his choice of title to an earlier time, perhaps for political as much as intellectual reasons, with Encyclopedia of Political Economy in 2 volumes (1999). Another new entry is K. Liou’s Handbook of Economic Development (1998), which broadens the discipline’s terrain by including the global dimension.

Political Science One of the earliest general reference works in this area is Political Dictionary: Forming a work of universal reference, both constitutional and legal; and embracing the terms of civil administration, of political economy and social relations, and of all the more important statistical departments of finance and commerce (London, 1845–46) in 2 volumes. It is instructive that those fields, which in the mid-nineteenth century seemed closely enough linked, empirically and practically, to be treated within a single work, have since the mid-twentieth century been torn asunder into mutually incompatible and incomprehensible camps of specialists, who have little to say to one another except at ceremonial occasions. This situation is not necessarily an advance in social knowledge. The 14-volume American Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events: Embracing Political, Civil, Military, and Social Affairs (New York, 1862–75) does not take in political science per se, though would surely have uses to the historian of the discipline. Already mentioned, John Lalor’s 1882 Cyclopedia of Political Science [.] is among the first to use the term in the modern sense. Another amalgamated volume that typifies an era unafraid to mix disciplines was William Bliss’s Encyclopedia of Social Reform: Including political economy, political science, sociology and statistics (1897), some 1439 pages in length. Dictionaries and lexicons of political science are as numerous as encyclopedias or handbooks are scarce. William Connolly’s Terms of Political Discourse (1974) and Maurice Cranston’s Glossary of Political Terms (1966) were produced by scholars who subsequently became well known for other work. Joseph Dunner’s Dictionary of Political Science (1964), Jack Plano’s Political Science Dictionary (1973), and Roger Scruton’s A Dictionary of Political Thought (1982) are several among a score of similar works, which, as in neighboring fields, have been increasing in number, length, and complexity during the last decade. Works of larger scope, in terms of length as well as conceptual breadth, include David Miller’s The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought (1987, 1991), Hawkesworth and Kogan’s Encyclopedia of Government and Politics (1992: 2 volumes), and Goodin and Klingemann’s A New Handbook of Political Science (1996).

Psychology Just as the number of undergraduate majors in psychology typically overwhelms those of all the other social sciences, with ratios often running five or six to one or higher, so with reference books attached to this enormous field. The most distinguished early survey was surely William James’s Principles of Psychology (1890: 2 volumes), in print continuously ever since, in full and abridged versions. Clark Murray’s Handbook of Psychology (1885, 1888), James Sully’s Teacher’s Handbook of Psychology (1886, 1909: 5th edition), and the Handbook of

591

Psychology (1889–91: 2 volumes) by William James’s equally famous contemporary, James Mark Baldwin, were each substantial compilations, and helped give psychology a headstart toward producing a unified view of the social world vis a vis its sister disciplines. More eclectic viewpoints were expressed in Geoffrey Rhodes’s The Mind at Work: A Handbook of Applied Psychology (1914) (with help from the noted sociologist, L.L. Bernard) and in Leander Keyser’s A Handbook of Christian Psychology (1928: 2nd edition). By 1931, however, the field had become thoroughly professionalized, as exemplified by Anderson, Buhler, and A. Freud et al., A Handbook of Child Psychology (1933: 2nd edition), and its companion volumes in the Clark University series, H. Banister et al., A Handbook of General Experimental Psychology (1934: 1125 pp.) as well as Allee, Allport, et al., A Handbook of Social Psychology (1935: 1195 pp.). Somewhat less innovative were W.B. Pillsbury’s Handbook of General Psychology (1942), Kimball Young’s Handbook of Social Psychology (1946), or Lindner and Selger’s Handbook of Correctional Psychology (1947). Specialization within the discipline had already reached such a pitch that in 1950 Norman Munn offered Handbook of Psychological Research on the Rat (first published in 1933 as A Introduction to Animal Psychology). The 1950s were a boom period for psychology reference works of the larger scale, reflecting the discipline’s everwidening influence in Western societies, with at least six more ‘handbooks’ entering the market. In more recent times innovation has once again become commonplace, with books like M. Gazzaniga’s Handbook of Psychobiology (1975), Raaig, Veldhoven, et al., Handbook of Economic Psychology (1988), and Crawford and Krebs’s Sociobiology and Psychology (1987), which recently became the Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (1998). The last volume intimates a strong connection currently being forged between researchers with refreshed enthusiasm for neoevolutionary doctrines on the one hand, and sociobiological explanations for behavior on the other. This general tendency – in some ways a repudiation of earlier causal models for social action and psychological states – has been given substantial impetus by the genome project and related studies that attempt to link physiology with behavior in an unmediated fashion. Encyclopedias have also been a more regular feature of psychology’s disciplinary life than in other fields. Early efforts included McKean’s The Encyclopedia of Psychology: A series of graphic descriptions of human characteristics (Brussels, 1928) and Philip Harriman et al., Encyclopedia of Psychology (1946). The 1970s exploded with new versions varying substantially in size and scope. Robert Goldenson’s Encyclopedia of Human Behavior: Psychology, Psychiatry, and Mental Health (1970: 2 volumes) brought together supplementary fields, just preceding the herculean effort by Benjamin Wolman et al. (300 editors and 1500 authors), International Encyclopedia of Psychiatry, Psychology, Psychoanalysis and Neurology took up 12 initial volumes (1977) plus a supplement (1983) and surely set a new standard for comprehensiveness of these allied research areas. Wolman also edited a 1-volume Encyclopedia of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Psychoanalysis in 1996. Another half-dozen encyclopedias of psychology proper appeared during the late 1970s and 1980s that of Raymond Corsini’s running to 4 volumes (Wiley, 1984) and Frank Magill’s reference book production team brought out the Survey of Social Science: Psychology Series (1993) in

592

Encyclopedias, Handbooks, and Dictionaries

6 volumes, grandly renamed the International Encyclopedia of Psychology when reissued and reset in 1996. (Magill and his specialty editors have produced like volumes for all the social sciences in his Survey series.) Ever since James Mark Baldwin published Dictionary of Philosophyy and Psychology (1901–05: 3 volumes; new edition, 1928), there has never been a shortage of dictionaries for the discipline. I have identified 35 in English alone, some of them of continuing interest simply for the peculiarity of their design, at least by today’s standards, e.g., William Taylor’s Taylor’s Dictionary of Bio-Psychology, Genetics, and Various Branches of Applied Psychology (1925: 148 pp.), or Vergilius Ferm’s A Dictionary of Pastoral Psychology (1955). Of the more standard fare – a score or more appear in most standard bibliographies – many were compiled by the same scholars who oversaw production of the encyclopedias named above, with the most lavish entries all appearing during the 1990s.

Conclusion Were Moreri and his contemporary compilers alive today, they would probably be astonished at the level of continuing interest in reference sources. Informed academic reference librarians and professional bibliographers now claim that we are living in a golden era of reference materials, especially if one uses sheer quantity of output as the vital measure of the gold standard. One director of acquisitions wrote of “So Many Choices, So Little Money” regarding new reference books (Wilkinson, 1997), and the editor of The Book Review of The Library Journal recently analyzed ‘reference for a new age’ with particular attention to the mesh of electronic and printed materials suddenly dominating publishers’ catalogs (Hoffert, 1996). A third expert notes that flashy graphics and other user-friendly alterations have attracted many first-time users to reference materials who before would have shunned their perceived complexity (Mantell, 1997). Even a cursory look at the current availability of dictionaries, handbooks, or encyclopedias in the social sciences indicates that in some fields, for which before 1990 virtually no reference books (let alone CD-ROMs) were available, now have at their disposal a halfdozen fresh entries in the genre. And even at considerable cost, they are being bought by research libraries almost as a matter of course, just as the electronic forms have begun to encroach on printed versions. The latter may continue to exist into the upcoming century, but will probably be relegated to the status of secondary resources, subordinate to the newer formats. Or they might persist as specialized bodies of information for ever-smaller audiences. Overall, it is fair to say that the reference materials ‘business’ is thriving as never before, especially when measured by library acquisition budgets aimed in its direction, and the ultimate effect this outpouring may have on the way social science is conceived and used remains difficult to predict. That said, however, no one seems to be arguing that the latest entries into the reference book market are supplanting in quality of information or breadth of coverage some of the old standards. The Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences from the early 1930s will never be rendered entirely obsolete simply because so many of its contributors have themselves become

the subjects of articles in later works. What was true in 1910 of the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, still the nonpareil standard of reference works in English, is similarly the case for a range of earlier works. When authors close to the origin of a given field of research accepted invitations by reference publishers to write about their own scholarly innovations (e.g., Werner Sombart on ‘Capitalism’ in the ESS, Benedetto Croce’s article on ‘Aesthetics’ or Edmund Husserl’s on ‘Phenomenology,’ both in the 14th edition of the Britannica), later authors have been obliged to accept such statements as first-order expert testaments, beginning their reformulations from there. Surely some of this is going on today, for instance, in newer fields like ‘cognitive neuroscience,’ ‘psycholinguistics,’ ‘psychobiology,’ or ‘economic psychology,’ and a century hence these may well be accepted as foundational statements. (Certainly, all of these ‘reformulations’ are accorded extensive treatment in the current work!) But for the time being, it is hard to distinguish the ephemeral from the more or less permanent when evaluating the raft of reference works that have appeared during the last decade or so.

See also: E-Communications Platforms and E-learning; Libraries; Publishing as Medium; Publishing: Academic and University Presses; Social Science and Civil Society; Social Science and Universities.

Bibliography Bliss, William (Ed.), 1897. Encyclopedia of Social Reform. Funk & Wagnalls, New York. Boccardo, Gerolamo (Ed.), 1857. Dizionario della economia politica e del commercio. Franco e Figli, Torino. Burnett, John, 1984. Useful Toil: Autobiographies of Working People from the 1820s to the 1920s. Penguin Books, New York. Chinoy, Ely, 1966. Review of Faris’ handbook of modern sociology. American Sociological Review 31, 270–271. Conrad, et al. (Eds.), 1895. Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften. Gustav Fischer, Jena. Coquelin, Charles (Ed.), 1852/1853. Dictionaire de L’economie politique. Guillaumin, Paris. Cupp, William L., 1959. Review of Merton et al., sociology today. Social Forces 38, 77–78. Davis, Jerome, Barnes, Harry Elmer (Eds.), 1927. An Introduction to Sociology. D.C. Heath, Boston. Elster, Ludwig (Ed.), 1898. Worterbuch der VoIkswirtschaft. Gustav Fischer, Jena. Faris, Robert E. Lee (Ed.), 1964. Handbook of Modern Sociology. Rand McNally, Chicago. Furbank, Paul, 1992. Diderot: A Critical Biography. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Gittler, Joseph (Ed.), 1957. Review of Sociology: Analysis of a Decade. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Gittler, Joseph (Ed.), 1965. Review of Faris’ handbook of modern sociology. American Journal of Sociology 71, 335–336. Gurvitch, Georges, 1960. Traite de sociologie. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris. Gurvitch, Georges, Moore, Wilbert (Eds.), 1945. Twentieth Century Sociology. Philosophical Library, New York. Hoffert, Barbara, 15 November 1996. Reinventing reference for a new age. Reference 97: Supplement to Library Journal, S4–S7. House, Floyd, 1959. Review of Merton et al., sociology today. American Journal of Sociology 45, 211. König, Rene (Ed.), 1962. Handbuch der Empirischen Sozialforschung. Ferdinand Enke, Stuttgart. Lundberg, George, et al. (Eds.), 1929. Trends in American Sociology. Harper & Brothers, New York.

Encyclopedias, Handbooks, and Dictionaries

Mantell, Suzanne, September 29, 1997. Looking it up is looking up. Publishers Weekly 244, 51–53. Merton, Robert K., et al. (Eds.), 1959. Sociology Today. Basic Books, New York. Moore, Wilbert, 1959. The whole state of sociology. American Sociological Review 24, 715–718. Palgrave, Robert H.I. (Ed.), 1894. Dictionary of Political Economy. Macmillan, London. Palgrave, Robert H.I. (Ed.), 1900–1901. Dictionary of Political Economy. Macmillan, London. Parsons, Talcott (Ed.), 1968. American Sociology. Basic Books, New York. Peterson, Richard, 1965. Review of Faris’ Handbook of modern sociology. Social Forces 44, 253–254. Rotteck, Carl von, Welcker, Carl (Eds.), 1834–1843. Staats-Lexikon oder Encyclopedie der Staatswissenschaften. Ultona, Hammerich.

593

Say, Léon, Chailley, Joseph (Eds.), 1891/1892. Nouveau Dictionnaire D’economie Politique. Felix Alcan, Paris. Schmidt, Emerson (Ed.), 1937. Man and Society. Tübingen: H. Laupp, New York, Prentice-Hall. Sumner, W.G., 1907. Folkways: a Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals. Ginn & Company, Boston. Vierkandt, Alfred (Ed.), 1931. Handwörterbuch der Soziologie. Ferdinand Enke, Stuttgart. Wilkinson, Frances E., September 1997. Reference materials: so many choices, so little money: librarians and publishers speak out! Against the Grain 9 (4), 1, 18, 20, 47, 167. Ziegenfuss, Werner (Ed.), 1956. Handbuch der Soziologie. Ferdinand Enke, Stuttgart.