[DSRP Evidence](https://dsrpevidence.org/)

# The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences

## Details

**Authors** Lamont, Michèle and Molnár, Virág

**Year** 2002

**Publisher** Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 167-195

**Kind of work** article

**Discipline** Sociology

**Secondary disciplines** Anthropology, Political Science, Psychology

**Applied** false

[Read it at the publisher](https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141107) 
10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141107

## In authors' words

### What they set out to do (purpose)

To review how the concept of boundaries has been used across anthropology, history, political science, psychology and sociology.

### Who or what was studied (sample)

Literature on collective identity, class and ethnic/racial inequality, gender, professions and scientific knowledge, communities, national identities and spatial boundaries.

### How they did it (methods)

Cross-disciplinary literature review.

### What they found (results)

The review finds boundary concepts used across these fields and proposes that future research examine how symbolic boundaries and social boundaries relate to one another.

## Commentary

### In short

A review of how researchers in several social sciences use the idea of a boundary to explain identity, inequality, professions and communities. It asks how classifications in people's minds connect to the divisions in their social lives.

### Response

The review shows the distinction structure recurring across social-science subfields as a shared explanatory device, and the proposed link between symbolic and social boundaries brings in relationships between the two kinds. The fit is partial: the review documents use of the boundary concept, and the material read does not state a finding about effects of drawing or redrawing boundaries.

**Patterns it shows** D, R

Shows the structure is there

**Added** 2026-10-19

**How to cite this** Lamont, Michèle and Molnár, Virág (2002). The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 167-195.