Robert K. Merton

Robert King Merton (July 4, 1910 – February 23, 2003, born Meyer R. Schkolnick to immigrant parents) was a distinguished American sociologist perhaps best known for having coined the phrase "self-fulfilling prophecy." He also coined many other phrases that have gone into everyday use, such as "role model" and "unintended consequences." He spent most of his career teaching at Columbia University, where he attained the rank of University Professor.

Biography

Robert K. Merton was born Meyer R. Schkolnick on July 4, 1910 in Philadelphia, into a working class Eastern European Jewish immigrant family. Educated in the South Philadelphia High School, he became a frequent visitor of the nearby Andrew Carnegie Library, The Academy of Music, Central Library, Museum of Arts, and other cultural and educational centers.

He changed his name at the age of 14 from Meyer R. Schkolnick to Robert Merlin, after the Merlin of Arthurian legend. However, friends convinced him that the name was too "magical," and he changed it to Merton.

Merton started his sociological career under the guidance of George E. Simpson in Temple College (1927-1931), and Pitrim Sorokin in Harvard University (1931-1936). (Sztompka 2003).

It is a popular misconception that Robert K. Merton was one of Talcott Parsons’ students. Parsons was only a junior member of his dissertation committee, the others being Pitirim Sorokin, Carle C. Zimmermanm and the historian of science, George Sarton. His dissertation, a quantitative social history of the development of science in seventeenth-century England, reflected this interdisciplinary committee. (Merton 1985)

Merton was heavily influenced by Pitirim Sorokin, who tried to balance large-scale theorizing with a strong interest in empirical research and statistical studies. Sorokin and Paul Lazarsfeld influenced Merton to occupy himself with "middle-range" sociological theories.

Merton taught at Harvard until 1939, when he became professor and chairman of the department of sociology at Tulane University. In 1941, he joined the Columbia University faculty, becoming Giddings Professor of Sociology in 1963. He was named to the university's highest academic rank, university professor, in 1974 and became special service professor upon his retirement in 1979, a title reserved by the trustees for emeritus faculty who "'render special services to the University."

In recognition of his lasting contributions to scholarship and the university, Columbia established the Robert K. Merton Professorship in the Social Sciences in 1990. He was associate director of the university's Bureau of Applied Social Research from 1942 to 1971. He was an adjunct faculty member at [ockefeller University and was also the first Foundation Scholar at the Russell Sage Foundation.[1] He retired from teaching in 1984.[Sztompka, 2003]

Merton was married twice, including fellow sociologist Harriet Zuckerman. He had two sons and two daughters from the first marriage, including Robert C. Merton, winner of the 1997 Nobel Prize in economics.

Merton died in 2003.

Work

Middle Range Theory

Middle range theory, developed by Robert K. Merton, is an approach to sociology briding the gap between the theory and empirical evidence. Merton criticized both radical or narrow empiricism which stresses solely on the collection of data without any attention to a theory, and the abstract theorizing of scholars who are engaged in the attempt to construct a total theoretical system covering all aspects of social life - in other words the 'grand theory', covering the nature of mankind, society – sometimes even nature. With the introduction of the middle range theory he meant that we shouldn't try to explain the whole world, but should concentrate on measureable pieces of what the obvious tells us is reality.[2] He conceded that when they matured, as natural sciences already had, the body of middle range theories would converge into a system of universal laws on the model of experimental natural sciences, but he concluded that until that time, social sciences should give priority to middle range theories, deliberately avoiding universal theory.[3]

For Merton, middle-range theory meant a set of techniques to analyze reality and allowing to produce theoretical accounts that engaged with that reality in order to communicate with others, whether policy-makers or scholars from other disciplines; and providing ideas for future work.

According to Merton, middle range theory starts its theorizing with delimited aspects of social phenomena instead of broad, abstract entity such as society or social system. In that aspect, middle range theories may seem like general, total theories, as they both involve abstractions. However, the abstractions in theories of the middle range are firmly backed up by observed data. Middle range theories have to be constructed with reference to phenomena that are observable in order to generate an array of theoretical problems as well as to be incorporated in propositions that permit empirical testing. The examples of middle range theories are a theories of reference groups, of social mobility, of role-conflict and of the formation of social norms, [4], Weber's thesis or Durkheim's theory of suicide.

Middle range theory has also been applied to the archaeological realm by Lewis R. Binford.

• ...what might be called theories of the middle range: theories intermediate to the minor working hypotheses evolved in abundance during the day-by-day routine of research, and the all-inclusive speculations comprising a master conceptual scheme. Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure [5]

• Our major task today is to develop special theories applicable to limited conceptual ranges — theories, for example, of deviant behavior, the unanticipated consequences of purposive action, social perception, reference groups, social control, the interdependence of social institutions — rather than to seek the total conceptual structure that is adequate to derive these and other theories of the middle range. Robert K. Merton[6]

• Sociological theory, if it is to advance significantly, must proceed on these interconnected planes: 1. by developing special theories from which to derive hypotheses that can be empirically investigated and 2. by evolving a progressively more general conceptual scheme that is adequate to consolidate groups of special theories.[7]

• theories that lies between the minor but necessary working hypotheses that evolve in abundance during day-to-day research and the all-inclusive systematic effects to develop a unified theory that will explain all the observed uniformities of social behaviour, social organization and social change.

Social Structure and Anomie

Social Structure and Anomie in 1938 edition

Robert Merton set out to expand upon the concept of Emile Durkheim’s anomie. He began by stating that there are two elements of social and cultural structure. The first structure is culturally assigned goals and aspirations (Merton 1938, p. 672). These are the things that all individuals should want and expect out of life, including success, money, and material things.

The second aspect of the social structure defines the acceptable mode for achieving the goals and aspirations set by society (Merton 1938, p. 673). This is the appropriate way that people get what they want and expect out of life. Examples include obeying laws and societal norms, seeking an education, and hard work. In order for society to maintain a normative function there must be a balance between aspirations and the means by which to fulfill such aspirations (Merton 1938, pp. 673-674).

According to Merton, balance is maintained as long as the individual feels that he is achieving the culturally desired goal by conforming to the "institutionally accepted mode of doing so" (Merton, 1938, p. 674). In other words, there must be an intrinsic payoff, an internal satisfaction that one is playing by the rules, and there must also be an extrinsic payoff, achieving the goals. It is also important that the culturally desired goals be achievable by legitimate means for all social classes. If goals are not achievable through an accepted mode, then people may come to use illegal means to achieve the same goal.

Social Structure and Anomie in 1949 edition

In his revised edition of this work, Merton changed the definition of cultural aspirations to include those goals held out as legitimate objectives for all or for diversely located members of society. In his explanation of means, he reworded the definition slightly, but the meaning remained relatively the same. He ended his discussion on goals and means much as he did in the earlier version on the paper, except for the fact that he credited the term anomie to Emile Durkheim. In a footnote he traced the origin of the word to its first use in the late sixteenth century.

The second large expansion of Merton’s original work can be noticed in the typology of individual adaptations in situations of anomie. Under the "Conformity" adaptation, he added a further explanation of society and its functions in his model. He stated that unless there is a deposit of shared values by individuals, there exists nothing but social relations, no society. He alluded to the fact that this may be the case within contemporary society (Merton 1949, p. 236).

In describing the adaptation of "Innovation," Merton further developed the proposition that an individual who has not properly internalized the appropriate means for arriving at the sought after goal may choose some different avenue of relief. He also draws upon the discipline of psychology in asserting that a person who has a great deal of emotional investment in the culturally accepted goal may be unusually willing to take risk in the hopes achieving the desired end. At this point Merton inserted ideas contained at the end of the original work under the section on "Innovation."

Social Theory and Social Structure

In 1957, Robert Merton published another revised paper under the title of “Social Structure and Anomie” as a chapter in his book Social Theory and Social Structure. The work features the addition of several more examples in the discussion of the wide spread effects of the "American Dream."

The chapter entitled “Continuities in the Theory of Social Structure and Anomie” is a further clarification of the components of his theory and a response to several criticisms it had received.

As previously mentioned, it was Durkheim’s theory of anomie that inspired Merton’s theory of the same name. However, there is a fundamental difference between the theories and the direction in which they work. Merton, for the most part, accepted Durkheim’s concept of anomie and its meaning of a normless state of society. However, he then took the concept in another direction. Merton saw a disjunction between culturally devised goals and accepted means of achieving the desired ends, while Durkheim theorized that if the human appetite for goals was not regulated and became limitless, anomie would ensue, and from anomie, "strain" would emerge. Such strain would manifest itself in a variety of forms, one of which could be deviant behavior. So while both Durkheim and Merton are considered anomie theorists, they differ significantly in their outlooks.

While Merton’s anomie theory is structurally different from that of Durkheim, it can be credited with drawing attention to the anomie theory in America. Merton’s theory also could be cited for placing emphasis on the need for development of future anomie and strain theories, such as those by Richard Cloward, Lloyd Ohlin, and Albert Cohen.

Strain theory

Merton borrowed Durkheim's concept of anomie to form his own theory, called "Strain Theory" (Merton 1938). It differs somewhat from Durkheim's in that Merton argued that the real problem is not created by a sudden social change, as Durkheim proposed, but rather by a social structure that holds out the same goals to all its members without giving them equal means to achieve them. It is this lack of integration between what the culture calls for and what the structure permits that causes deviant behavior. Deviance then is a symptom of the social structure. Merton borrowed Durkheim's notion of anomie to describe the breakdown of the normative system.

Merton's theory does not focus upon crime as such, but rather upon various acts of deviance, which may be understood as leading to criminal behavior. Merton noted that there are certain goals which are strongly emphasised by society. Society emphasises certain means to reach those goals (such as education, hard work, and so forth). However, not everyone has equal access to the legitimate means to attain those goals. The stage then is set for anomie.

Merton then presented five modes of adapting to strain caused by the restricted access to socially approved goals and means. He did not mean that everyone who was denied access to society's goals became deviant. Rather the response, or modes of adaptation, depend on the individual's attitudes toward cultural goals and the institutional means available to attain them.

Merton's structural-functional idea of deviance and anomie.

The term anomie, derived from Emile Durkheim, for Merton means: a discontinuity between cultural goals and the legitimate means available for reaching them. Applied to the United States he sees the American dream as an emphasis on the goal of monetary success but without the corresponding emphasis on the legitimate avenues to march toward this goal. This leads to a considerable amount of (the Parsonian term of) deviance. This theory is commonly used in the study of criminology (specifically the strain theory).

Cultural goals	Institutionalized means	Modes of adaptation
+	+	Conformity
+	-	Innovation
-	+	Ritualism
-	-	Retreatism
±	±	Rebellion

Definition of the terms in the graph :

• Conformity is the most common mode of adaptation. Individuals accept both the goals as well as the prescribed means for achieving those goals. Conformists will accept, though not always achieve, the goals of society and the means approved for achieving them.

• Innovation: individuals who adapt through innovation accept societal goals but have few legitimate means to achieve those goals, thus they innovate (design) their own means to get ahead. The means they adopt to get ahead may be through robbery, embezzlement, or other such criminal acts.

• Ritualism: in ritualism, the third adaptation, individuals abandon the goals they once believed to be within their reach and dedicate themselves to their current lifestyle. They play by the rules and have a safe daily routine.

• Retreatism is the adaptation of those who give up not only the goals but also the means. They often retreat into the world of alcoholism and drug addiction. They escape into a non-productive, non-striving lifestyle.

• Rebellion: the final adaptation, rebellion, occurs when the cultural goals and the legitimate means are rejected. Individuals create their own goals and their own means, by protest or revolutionary activity.

Bureaucracy

Merton believed society could develop alternatives to current institutions by analyzing their dysfunctions. His essay "Bureaucratic Structure and Personality" (Merton 1957) describes the "red tape" and other inefficiencies of bureaucracy.

Merton suggested that, if the predominance of rational rules and their close control of all actions favor the reliability and predictability of the bureaucrat's behavior, as Weber believed, it could equally lead to his lack of flexibility and his tendency to turn means into ends. Instead of serving as means to an end, these rules become ends in and of themselves:

Such inadequacies in orientation which involve trained incapacity clearly derive from structural sources... (1) An effective bureaucracy demands reliability of response and strict devotion to regulations. (2) Such devotion to the rules leads to their transformation into absolutes; they are no longer conceived as relative to a set of purposes. (3) This interferes with ready adaptation under special conditions not clearly envisaged by those who drew up the general rules. (4) Thus, the very elements which conduce toward efficiency in general produce inefficiency in specific instances. Full realization of the inadequacy is seldom attained by members of the group who have not divorced themselves from the meanings which the rules have for them. These rules in time become symbolic in cast, rather than strictly utilitarian. (Merton 1957)

Merton called this phenomenon "goal displacement." He observed that this occurred when formalistic goals become more important than the main substantive goal of an organization. Merton concluded that bureaucratic characteristics can have both beneficial and harmful effects on organization.

Sociology of science

Merton carried out extensive research into the sociology of science, developing the Merton Thesis explaining some of the causes of the scientific revolution, and the "Mertonian norms" of science. This is a set of ideals that scientists should strive to attain, specifically:

• Communalism - science is an open community;
• Universalism - science does not discriminate;
• Disinterestedness - science favors an outward objectivity;
• Organized Skepticism - all ideas must be tested and are subject to community scrutiny;

The Merton Thesis

The Merton Thesis is an argument about the nature of early experimental science proposed by Robert K. Merton. Similar to Max Weber's famous claim on the link between Protestant ethic and the capitalist economy, Merton argued for a similar positive correlation between the rise of Protestant pietism and early experimental science [Sztompka, 2003]. The Merton Thesis has resulted in continuous debates [Cohen, 1990].

The Merton Thesis has two distinct parts: Firstly, it says that the changes in the nature of science are due to an accumulation of observations and better experimental technique; secondly, it proposes that the popularity of science in England in 17th century, and the religious demography of the Royal Society (English scientists of that time were predominantly Protestants or Puritans) can be explained by a correlation between Protestantism and the values of the new science.[Gregory, 1998] He specifically singles out English Puritanism and German Pietism as causally significant in the development of the scientific revolution of the 17th and 18th centuries. Merton attributes this connection between religious affiliation and sustained interest in science to a strong compatibility between the values of ascetic Protestantism and those associated with modern science [Becker 1992]. Protestant values were seen to have had the effect of stimulating scientific research by inviting the empirical and rational quest for identifying the God-given order in the world and for practical applications; just as they legitimized scientific research through religious justifications.[Sztompka, 2003]

The first part of his thesis has been criticized for insufficient consideration of the roles of mathematics and the mechanical philosophy in the scientific revolution. The second part has been criticized for the difficulty involved in defining who counts as a Protestant of the "right type" without making arbitrary distinctions. It is also criticized for failing to explain why non-Protestants do science (consider the Catholics Copernicus, da Vinci, Descartes, Galileo, or Huygens) and conversely why Protestants of the "right type" are not all interested in science.[Gregory, 1998] [Ferngen 2002] [Porter&Teich 1992]

Replying to some of the critics of the Weber-Merton Thesis, Merton suggests that the Puritan ethos was not indispensable, although it did provide major support at that time and place.[Heddendorf. 1986]. He also notes that once having obtained institutional legitimacy, science largely severed its ties with religion, finally to become a counterforce, curbing the influence of religion. But as the first push, religion was seen as crucially important to the genesis of the scientific revolution.[Sztompka, 2003] While the Merton thesis doesn't explain all the causes of the scientific revolution, it does illuminate possible reasons why England was one of its driving motors and the structure of English scientific community.[Cohen, 1994]

Merton's 1938 doctoral dissertation, Science, Technology and Society in 17th-Century England, on the connections between religion and the rise of modern science, launched the historical sociology of science and continues to elicit new scholarship.[8] Merton further developed this thesis in other publications.

• "It is the thesis of this study that the Puritan ethic, as an ideal - typical expression of the value - attitudes basic to ascetic Protestantism generally, so canalized the interests of seventeenth century Englishmen as to constitute one important element in the enhanced cultivation of science." — Robert K. Merton, Science, Technology and Society

• "If this congeniality of the Puritan and the scientific temper partly explains the increased tempo of scientific activity during the later seventeenth century, by no means does it account for the particular foci of scientific and technological investigation. Was the choice of problems a wholly personal concern, completely unrelated to the socio-cultural background ? Or was this selection significantly limited and guided by social forces?" — Robert K. Merton, Science, Technology and Society

Other Concepts

Merton introduced many relevant concepts to the field, among them 'obliteration by incorporation' (when a concept becomes so popularized that its inventor is forgotten) and 'multiples' (theory about independent similar discoveries).

Self-fulfilling Prophecy

A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that, in being made, actually causes itself to become true. Although examples of self-fulfilling prophecies can be found in human literature as far back as ancient Greece, it is 20th century sociologist Robert K. Merton who is credited with coining the expression "self-fulfilling prophecy" and formalising its structure and consequences. In his book Social Theory and Social Structure, Merton gives the following definition:

The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the original false conception come true.

In other words, a false prophetic statement may affect humans (through fear or logical confusion) to take actions that will ultimately result in fulfillment of the prophecy.

Unintended Consequences

The Law of Unintended Consequences holds that almost all human actions have at least one unintended consequence. In other words, each cause has more than one effect, including unforeseen effects. The idea dates to the Scottish Enlightenment, which influenced people such as Thomas Jefferson.

In the twentieth century, sociologist Robert K. Merton once again popularized the concept, sometimes referred to as the Law of Unforeseen Consequences. Merton (1936) spoke of the "unanticipated consequences" of "purposive social action", emphasizing that his term "purposive action… [is exclusively] concerned with "conduct" as distinct from "behavior". That is, with action which involves motives and consequently a choice between various alternatives" (p.895).

Merton listed five causes of unanticipated consequences:

1. Ignorance (It is impossible to anticipate everything)
2. Error (Incomplete analysis of the problem, or following habits that worked in the past but may not apply to the current situation)
3. Immediate interest which may override long-term interests
4. Basic values may require or prohibit certain actions, even if the long-term result might be unfavorable (these long-term consequences may eventually cause changes in basic values)
5. Self-defeating prophecy (Fear of some consequence drives people to find solutions before the problem occurs, thus the non-occurrence of the problem is unanticipated)

Legacy

Merton has received many national and international honors for his research. He was one of the first sociologists elected to the National Academy of Sciences and the first American sociologist to be elected a foreign member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy. He was also a member of the American Philosophical Society, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, which awarded him its Parsons Prize, the National Academy of Education and Academica Europaea.

He received a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1962 and was the first sociologist to be named a MacArthur Fellow (1983-88). More than 20 universities awarded him honorary degrees, including Harvard, Yale, Columbia and Chicago, and, abroad, the Universities of Leyden, Wales, Oslo and Kraków, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Oxford.

The scholars claim that the future of Anomie Theory is moving well ahead of even most optimistic estimates. They further suggest that there are three current themes in anomie research, a re-examination of the empirical research on classic anomie theory, more specific tests of classic anomie theory, and efforts to revise and extend classic anomie theory.

It has been suggested that some of Merton’s ideas resulted in several programs in the United States during the 1960s. Programs dealing with strategies such as affirmative action and equal opportunity along race and gender lines are in keeping with the ideas of the anomie perspective. A particular program that emerged during the Kennedy administration called “Mobilization for Youth” has been specifically credited to Merton. It appears that the anomie perspective will be once again revitalized and will become a centre of research.

At no time in the immediate, and even distant, future will the work of the man whose career has spanned almost seven decades be forgotten. There is not doubt that most scholars would agree that that Robert Merton has left an indelible mark on the field.

In 1994, Merton was awarded the US National Medal of Science for his work in the field[9]. He was the first sociologist to receive the prize.

Publications

• Merton, Robert K. “Social Structure and Anomie,” American Sociological Review 3, 1938, pp. 672-682
• Merton, Robert K. “Social Structure and Anomie: Revisions and Extensions”, pp. 226-257; in: The Family, edited by Ruth Anshen, Harper Brothers, New York, 1949
• Merton, Robert K. ,Social Theory and Social Structure rev. ed. Glencoe: Free Press 1957
• Merton, Robert K.. “Social Conformity, Deviation, and Opportunity-Structures: A Comment on the Contributions of Dubin and Cloward.” American Sociological Review 24, 1959, pp.177-189
• Robert K. Merton, The Sociology of Science, 1973
• Robert K. Merton, Sociological Ambivalence, 1976
• Robert K. Merton, On the Shoulders of Giants; in: Tristram Shandy|Shandean Postscript, 1985
• The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity: A Study in Sociological Semantics and the Sociology of Science, 2004

• Sztompka, P. and Robert K. Merton, in: Blackwell Companion to Major Contemporary Social Theorists, George Ritzer (ed.), Blackwell Publishing, 2003, ISBN 140510595X Google Print, p.12-33
• Merton, Robert K. 1957. "Bureaucratic Structure and Personality" in Social Theory and Social Structure. (1968 edition) Glencoe, IL: Free Press. ISBN 0029211301
• The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action by Robert K. Merton, American Sociological Review, Vol 1 Issue 6, Dec 1936, pp.894-904

References

ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

• Calhoun, C., ", Remembered," Footnotes (an internet website), March 2003.
• Sarton, G., Episodic Reflections by an Unruly Apprentice, Isis, 76, 1985, pp. 470-486.

• Vulcan, A.P., Cameron, M.H. & Heiman, L., "Evaluation of mandatory bicycle helmet use in Victoria, Australia", 36th Annual Conference Proceedings, Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, Oct 5-7, 1992.
• Vulcan, A.P., Cameron, M.H. & Watson, W.L., "Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Use: Experience in Victoria, Australia", World Journal of Surgery, Vol.16, No.3, (May/June 1992), pp.389-397.

• George Becker, The merton thesis: Oetinger and German Pietism, a significant negative case, Sociological Forum, Issue: Volume 7, Number 4, December 1992
• Bernard I. Cohen (ed.), Puritanism and the Rise of Modern Science: the Merton Thesis, Ruthers University Press, ISBN 0-8135-1530-0
• Floris H. Cohen, The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry, University of Chicago Press, 1994, ISBN 0-226-11280-2

Google Print, p.320-321

• Gary B. Ferngren, Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002, ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. Google Print, p.125
• Andrew Gregory, 1998, handouts for course 'The Scientific Revolution' at The Scientific Revolution, [www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/gregory/215/handouts/h14_srel.doc doc file online]
• Russel Heddendorf, Religion, Science, and the Problem of Modernity, JASA 38 (December 1986): 226-231.
• Roy Porter, Mikulas Teich, The Scientific Revolution in National Context, Cambridge University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-521-39699-9, Google Print, p.179
• Piotr Sztompka, Robert K. Merton, in Blackwell Companion to Major Contemporary Social Theorists, George Ritzer (ed.), Blackwell Publishing, 2003, ISBN 1-4051-0595-X Google Print, p.13

Further reading

• Eric V. Snow, Christianity: A Cause of Modern Science?, Impact #298
• Steven Shapin, Understanding the Merton Thesis, Isis, Vol. 79, No. 4 (Dec., 1988), pp. 594-605

External links

• A website on Merton
• Review materials for studying Robert King Merton
• The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action
• Merton Bibliography
• Extracts from Merton
• ANTHROPOLOGICAL THEORIES: A GUIDE PREPARED BY STUDENTS FOR STUDENTS Dr. M.D. Murphy
• THE UNANTICIPATED CONSEQUENCES OF HUMAN ACTION: A Synoposis of the Structure-Functional Theories of Robert K. Merton, Diligio, 2000
• Merton, Robert K. 1957. Social Theory and Social Structure, revised and enlarged edition. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. Excerpts, selected by Frank Elwell
• Manifest and Latent Functions Excerpt from Invitation to Sociology by Peter L. Berger, pp. 40-41 (NY: Doubleday (Anchor Books), 1963)

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

• Robert_K._Merton  ^history
• Manifest_and_latent_functions_and_dysfunctions  ^history
• Unintended_consequence  ^history
• Middle_range_theory_(sociology)  ^history
• Merton_Thesis  ^history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

• History of "Robert K. Merton"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.