The financial crisis of 2007-2008 not only shook the global economy, but also directed attention to its intellectual underpinnings in modern economics. To investigate “where it went wrong,” as a 2009 cover of The Economist put it, many scholars have become concerned with the development of economics as a discipline, the role of economic knowledge in political and practical contexts, and the impact of blind-spots in standard economic theory. Building upon the pioneering works of Deirdre McCloskey (1985), Philip Mirowski (1989), Michel Callon (1998), Donald MacKenzie (2006), Marion Fourcade (2009), and Mary Morgan (2012), these scholars have continued analyzing contemporary economics as an academic profession and as a particular way of thinking about social issues. In doing so, they have not only moved forward the classical debates on the peculiarity and performativity of economics, but have also established new domains of research by focusing on the inner workings of central banks, investment banking, or the education of future economists. Some newer review articles and book collections bear witness to the output of this vibrant and expanding field (e.g., Hirschman and Berman 2014; Boldyrev and Svetlova 2016; Kapeller, Pühringer, Hirte, and Ötsch 2016; Maeße, Pahl, and Sparsam 2017; Fourcade 2018; Godechot 2018; Pahl 2018; Schmidt-Wellenburg and Lebaron 2018). In addition, the advent of large-scale citation data has also led to increasing interest for such questions within the economic mainstream, where new forms of the “economics of economics” have become visible over the past years (e.g., Hamermesh 2018; Heckman & Moktan 2018). While indeed a newfound interest of many scientists, research on economics and economic knowledge is actually a classic topic in the history of science – not only due to its political importance, but also because of a marginalized, but still resilient, tradition of studying the history of economic thought as a subject in its own right (see Blaug 2001). Here, economics is described as a highly contested and stratified discipline with a strong cumulative research program at its core that has pushed “dissident” or “heterodox” economists to the edge of the discipline. Accordingly, the academic divide between orthodox, mainstream, and heterodox economics (Colander, Holt, and Rosser 2004; Dobusch and Kapeller 2009) and its impact on the distribution of scientific power are genuine research interests for many (heterodox) economists. With the rise of the social studies of science – further accelerated by the economic downturn of 2008-2009 – the “old” history of economic thought is now supplemented and extended by the “new” sociology of economics focusing more on contemporary economics and its effects on policy, society, and the economy at large. As a matter of fact, all contributions in this issue of Science in Context explore research questions at the intersection of sociology, economics, and the history of economic thought.

中文翻译：

---

简介：当代经济学的变革与坚持。

2007-2008年的金融危机不仅动摇了全球经济，而且也将注意力转向了其在现代经济学中的知识基础。为了调查“出了问题的地方”（正如《经济学人》 2009年的封面报道），许多学者开始关注经济学作为一门学科的发展，经济知识在政治和实践环境中的作用以及盲目研究的影响。标准经济理论中的亮点。在Deirdre McCloskey（1985），Philip Mirowski（1989），Michel Callon（1998），Donald MacKenzie（2006），Marion Fourcade（2009）和Mary Morgan（2012）的开创性作品的基础上，这些学者继续分析当代经济学。作为一种学术专业和一种思考社会问题的特殊方式。在这样做，他们不仅推动了关于经济学的特殊性和绩效的经典辩论，而且通过关注中央银行，投资银行的内部运作或对未来经济学家的教育，建立了新的研究领域。一些较新的评论文章和书籍收藏见证了这个活跃且不断扩展的领域的成果（例如，Hirschman和Berman 2014； Boldyrev和Svetlova 2016； Kapeller，Pühringer，Hirte和Ötsch2016；Maeße，Pahl和Sparsam 2017； Fourcade 2018; Godechot 2018; Pahl 2018; Schmidt-Wellenburg和Lebaron 2018）。此外，大规模引文数据的出现也引起了人们对经济主流中此类问题的关注，在过去几年中，新形式的“经济学”已经变得可见（例如，Hamermesh 2018； Heckman＆Moktan 2018）。尽管确实是许多科学家的新兴趣，但经济学和经济知识的研究实际上是科学史上的经典课题–不仅是因为其政治重要性，而且还因为研究历史的边缘化但仍然具有韧性的传统经济思想本身就是一个主题（参见布劳格，2001年）。在这里，经济学被描述为一个高度竞争和分层的学科，其核心是强大的累积研究计划，从而将“持不同政见者”或“异性恋”经济学家推向了学科边缘。因此，正统经济学，主流经济学和异质经济学之间的学术鸿沟（Colander，Holt和Rosser，2004； Dobusch和Kapeller，2009）及其对科学力量分布的影响，是许多经济学家的真正研究兴趣。随着社会科学科学研究的兴起-在2008-2009年经济不景气的情况下进一步加速-现在，“旧的”经济思想史得到了“新的”经济学社会学的补充和扩展，其更多地侧重于当代经济学及其影响政策，社会和整个经济。事实上，本期《环境科学》中的所有著作都探讨了社会学，经济学和经济思想史的交汇处的研究问题。