The historiography of sexology is young. It is also expanding at a remarkable pace, both in terms of the volume of publications and, more notably, in terms of its geographical, disciplinary, and intersectional reach. This special issue takes stock of these new directions, while offering new research contributions that expand our understanding of the interdisciplinary and transnational formation of this field from the late 19th through to the mid 20th century. The five articles that make up this special issue stage (...) historiographical interventions by challenging the tendency within sexological history to focus on the medical, the homosexual, the human, and the Western European at the expense of other disciplines, diagnoses, non-human subjects, and geographical locations. A particular strength of these contributions is their focus on mapping conversations among and between sexologists on both sides of the Atlantic in the early to mid 20th century – particularly in Germany, Britain, and the US – and between East and West in the early Cold War era. (shrink)

From 1950 to 1952, statisticians W.G. Cochran, C.F. Mosteller, and J.W. Tukey reviewed A.C. Kinsey and colleagues’ methodology. Neither the history-and-philosophy of science literature nor contemporary theories of interdisciplinarity seem to offer a conceptual model that fits this forced interaction, which was characterized by significant power asymmetries and disagreements on multiple levels. The statisticians initially attempted to exclude all non-technical matters from their evaluation, but their political and personal investments interfered with this agenda. In the face of McCarthy’s witch hunts, (...) negotiations with Kinsey and his funding institutions became integral to the review group’s work. This paper analyzes the heavy burden of emotional and affective labor in this collaboration, the conflicts caused by competing visions of objectivity, and the uses of statistical knowledge to gain and sustain authority. Kinsey’s refusal to adopt the recommended probability sample damaged his already precarious position even further and marked him as a biased researcher who put his personal agenda above methodological rigor. Kinsey’s uncooperative demeanor can be explained by distrust resulting from numerous adverse reactions to his work and by fear of having his sexuality exposed. This case study illustrates that the very concept of valid numbers can become an arena for power struggles and that quantification alone does not guarantee productive exchanges across disciplines. It calls for a deeper conceptual analysis of the prerequisites for successful scientific collaborations. (shrink)