That's Interesting!: Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology
Abstract
Answer: Interesting theories deny certain assumptions of their audience, while noninteresting theories affirm certain assumptions of their audience. This answer was arrived at through the examination of a number of famous social, and especially sociological, theories. That examination also generated a systematic index of the variety of propositional forms that interesting and non-interesting theories may take. The fertility of this approach suggested a new field be established called the Sociology of the Interesting, which is intended to supplement the Sociology of Knowledge. This new field will be phenomenologically oriented in so far as it will focus on the movement of the audience's mind from one accepted theory to another. It will be sociologically oriented in so far as it will focus on the dissimilar base-line theories of the various sociological categories that compose the audience. In addition to its value in interpreting the social impact of theories, the Sociology of the Interesting can contribute to our understanding of both the common sense and scientific perspectives on reality.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Papers that challenge commonly held beliefs deny an aspect of the assumption-ground of their audience.
“Papers that challenge commonly held beliefs deny an aspect of the assumption-ground of its audience (Davis, 1971).”
From Unraveling scientific impact: Citation types in marketing journals (2015) · cites this paper as Davis, 1971
The paper develops a measurement instrument containing 8 reflective items, based on Davis (1971), to measure the degree to which a paper challenges commonly held beliefs.
“We also develop a measurement instrument containing 8 re fl ective items, based on Davis (1971) to measure the degree to which a paper challenges commonly held beliefs.”
From Unraveling scientific impact: Citation types in marketing journals (2015) · cites this paper as Davis, 1971
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Qualitative Quality: Eight “Big-Tent” Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research
Tracy, S. J. (2010) · Qualitative Inquiry · doi:10.1177/1077800410383121 · Cited by 7,536 · see citing works
An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies
Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y. L., & Jiang, Y. (2008) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400377 · Cited by 3,286 · see citing works
HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known
Kerr, N. L. (1998) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4 · Cited by 1,989 · see citing works
A Framework for Conceptual Contributions in Marketing
MacInnis, D. J. (2011) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.75.4.136 · Cited by 1,547 · see citing works
Shall we Really do it Again? The Powerful Concept of Replication is Neglected in the Social Sciences
Schmidt, S. (2009) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0015108 · Cited by 1,125 · see citing works
Gabriel, A. S., Podsakoff, N. P., Beal, D. J., Scott, B. A., Sonnentag, S., Trougakos, J. P., & Butts, M. M. (2019) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428118802626 · Cited by 755 · see citing works
Product lifecycle management: the new paradigm for enterprises
Grieves, M. W. (2005) · International Journal of Product Development · doi:10.1504/ijpd.2005.006669 · Cited by 741 · see citing works
Cialdini, R. B., Trost, M. R., & Newsom, J. T. (1995) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.318 · Cited by 728 · see citing works
Managing artificial intelligence
Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2021/16274 · Cited by 898 · see citing works
What makes management research interesting and why does it matter?
Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., & Ireland, R. D. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.20785494 · Cited by 432 · see citing works
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2015) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2015.0042 · Cited by 343 · see citing works
An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth a Pound of Cure: Improving Research Quality Before Data Collection
Aguinis, H., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2014) · Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091231 · Cited by 304 · see citing works
Tormos, F. (2017) · Politics, Groups, and Identities · doi:10.1080/21565503.2017.1385494 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Unraveling scientific impact: Citation types in marketing journals
Stremersch, S., Camacho, N., Vanneste, S., & Verniers, I. (2015) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2014.09.004 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Integrating Qualitative Methods and Open Science: Five Principles for More Trustworthy Research*
Humphreys, L., Lewis, N. A., Sender, K., & Won, A. S. (2021) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1093/joc/jqab026 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
A Systems-Based Approach to Fostering Robust Science in Industrial-Organizational Psychology
Grand, J. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, T. D., Landis, R. S., Reynolds, D. H., Scott, J. C., Tonidandel, S., & Truxillo, D. M. (2018) · Industrial and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1017/iop.2017.55 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Construct Mixology: Forming New Management Constructs by Combining Old Ones
Newman, D. A., Harrison, D. A., Carpenter, N. C., & Rariden, S. M. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1161965 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Matei, S. A., & Hunter, L. (2021) · The Information Society · doi:10.1080/01972243.2021.1951415 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
“Until Galileo, a simple theory formulated by Aristotle (and no more elaborate than what our senses told us) claimed that all objects have a natural place in the universe (Darling 2007).”
Background
- Authors
- Davis, M. S.
- Affiliations
- Northern Illinois University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Davis, Murray S.
- Venue
- Philosophy of the Social Sciences
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1971-06
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 309-344
- ISSN
- 0048-3931 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7441
- OpenAlex
- W2167997804
- Cited by
- 1,219
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 37 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 62 · 2019: 72 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 46 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 55 · 2012: 48
- FWCI
- 8.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Philosophy of the Social Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Contemporary Sociological Theory and Practice
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Education, Politics, and Culture Studies
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Philosophical Thought and Analysis
- Keywords
- sociology of knowledge, phenomenology, common sense, scientific perspective, sociological categories
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
