The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Sociological theory: what went wrong?: diagnosis and remedies
Abstract
Social theory is open to many passing currents. Claims to originality tend to thrive and past are often ignored. In Sociologiocal Theory: What Went Wrong? Mouzelis claims that currently being isolated are not really problems, and that achievements claimed are little more than pretensions. He argues that we have been premature to dismiss thinkers from the late 1950s and early 1960s and that we can build on their ideas to produce a more effective, more relevant social theory. Written with precision and with clarity, Sociological Theory: What Went Wrong? is a compelling analysis of the central problems of sociological theory today and of the means to resolve them.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective
Geels, F. W. (2010) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022 · Cited by 1,718
Geels, F. W. (2014) · Theory, Culture & Society · doi:10.1177/0263276414531627 · Cited by 1,636
Thinking with Bourdieu against Bourdieu: A ‘Practical’ Critique of the Habitus
King, A. (2000) · Sociological Theory · doi:10.1111/0735-2751.00109 · Cited by 586
Geels, F. W. (2020) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119894 · Cited by 426
Introduction: Theory, Interdisciplinarity and Critical Discourse Analysis
Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (2003) · Critical Discourse Analysis · doi:10.1057/9780230288423_1 · Cited by 269
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 1996-07-01
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 33-6613-33-6613
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W1971187851
- Cited by
- 281
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sociological theory: what went wrong?: diagnosis and remedies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.33-6613
- The paper
- Sociological theory: what went wrong?: diagnosis and remedies. (1996). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.33-6613
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
