Publications

The present paper seeks to examine Italian debates on variability and concentration during the 1910s and 1930s by setting them in the social-scientific context in which they were conducted. To do this, we must envision Italian statistics not only as a discipline or a type of knowledge whose evolution responds to an internal logic and to the interplay of rational arguments, but also as a field in which scientific developments and methodological controversies are connected to several cognitive, material, and symbolic stakes. The object of the paper is thus to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the logic or structure underlying methodological controversies. After having defined our general perspective, we shall present an overview of the debates and connect their scientific or methodological dimensions with issues of a “ethical” character, such as conflicts over scientific priority and behavior regarding the acknowledgment of others’ work. From there, we will move to consider more closely the alignment of protagonists, their different cognitive interests, and assess the relative strength of the “coalitions” defending this or that position. This examination will be set against the institutional development of the field and the growth of “scientific nationalism” in 1930s Italy. Finally, we will submit that such alignments tend to remain stable and to reproduce in other methodological controversies, notwithstanding their different character or object.

Prévost, J.-G. (2024). Italian debates on variability and concentration in the 1910s and 1930s: structure of a methodological controversy. Metron