20. yüzyılda Weber’den sonra sosyal teori içinde tarihi-sosyolojik yaklaşımın en etkili isimleri arasında Parsons ve Luhmann’ı zikretmek mümkündür. Bu çalışmada Parsons ve Luhmann’ın sosyal sistem ve meşruiyet kavramlaştırmaları tartışılarak bu kavramların tarihi-sosyolojik yaklaşım içindeki gelişim süreci betimlenmiştir. Parsons toplumun işlevsel sorunlarla mücadele şekillerine dayalı olarak sosyal sistem kavramlaştırması yaparken, Luhmann artan çevresel karmaşıklık karşısında sosyal sistemlerin karmaşıklık azaltıcı etkilerine ve otopoyiyetik değişme mekanizmalarına vurgu yapmaktadır. Parsons dengeye odaklanarak uzlaşma sürecinde etkili olan çatışma ve çelişkileri değerler sistemine havale etmektedir. Luhmann ise yasal-pozitivist bir yaklaşım benimseyerek işlemlere ve işlemleri düzenleyen yasal normlara yüzeysel bir uyumun meşrulaştırıcı etkisini öne çıkarmaktadır. Meşrulaşma sürecinde etkili olan normatif tartışmaları tam olarak açıklayamamaları, her iki meşruiyet kavramlaştırması için temel zayıflık olarak görülebilir.

• Abrahamson, M. (2003). Functional, Conflict and Neofunctional Theories. In George Ritzer, Barry Smart (Ed.). Handbook of Social Theory (s. 141-151). SAGE Publications Ltd., London.
• Baltacı, A., ve Balcı, A. (2017a). Complexity Leadership: A Theorical Perspective. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 5(1), 30-58.
• Baltacı, A., ve Balcı, A. (2017b). Bilgi uçurmanın nedenleri: Nitel bir çalışma. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi ‐ Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 7(1), 53‐66.
• Baert, P. J. N. (2000). Social Theory, Complexity and Time. In P.J.N. Baert (Ed.). Time in Contemporary Intellectual Thought (s. 205-231). Elsevier Science B. V., Amsterdam.
• Baert, P. J. N. ve da Silva F. C. (2010). Social Theory in the Twentieth Century and Beyond. Polity Press, Cambridge.
• Bissell, P. ve Traulsen, J. M. (2005). Sociology and Pharmacy Practice. Pharmaceutical Press. Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
• Brunczel, B. (2010). Disillusioning Modernity. Niklas Luhmann’s Social and Political Theory. Peter Lang, Gmbh., Frankfurt.
• Brus, M. (1995). Third Party Dispute Settlement in an Interdependent World: Devloping a Theoretical Framework. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht.
• Calhoun, C. (1992). Introduction: Habermas and Public Sphere. In Craig Calhoun (Ed.). Habermas and Public Sphere (s. 1-50). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• Clark, I. (2005). Legitimacy in International Society. Oxford, University Press Oxford.
• Clegg, S. R. (2002). Frameworks of Power. SAGE Publications Ltd., London.
• Cohen, A. P. (1975). The Management of Myths: The Politics of Legitimation in a Newfoundland Community. Manchester University Press, Manchester.
• Dahrendorf, R. (1959). Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
• Donati, P. (2011). Relational Sociology: A New Paradigm for Social Sciences. Routledge, New York, NY.
• Febbrajo, A. (1988). The Rules of the Game in the Welfare State. Gunther Feubner (Ed.). Dilemmas of Law in the Welfare State (s. 128-150). Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin.
• Fidan, T., ve Öztürk, İ. (2015a). Perspectives and expectations of union member and non-union member teachers on teacher unions. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 5(2), 191-220.
• Fidan, T., ve Oztürk, I. (2015b). The relationship of the creativity of public and private school teachers to their intrinsic motivation and the school climate for innovation. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 905-914.
• Fuchs, S. (1999). Niklas Luhmann. Sociological Theory, 17(1), 117-119.
• Gerhardt, U. (2002). Talcott Parsons: An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Giddens, A. (1968). Power'in the recent writings of Talcott Parsons. Sociology, 2(3), 257-272.
• Giddens, A. (1999). Toplumun Kuruluşu (Çev.: Hüseyin Özel). Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları, Ankara.
• Guibentif, P. (1994). Approaching the production of law through Habermas's concept of communicative action. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 20(4), 45-70.
• Habermas, J. (1980). Legitimation Crisis (Çev.: Thomas McCarthy). Heinemann, London.
• Haferkampf, H. (1992). Modernity and Ascription. Hans Haferkampf ve Neil. J. Smelser (Ed.). Social Change and Modernity (s. 97-121). The University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA.
• Igwe, U. T. (2004). Communicative Rationality and Deliberative Democracy of Jürgen Habermas: Toward Consolidation of Democracy in Africa. Transaction Publishers, London.
• Kalipke, A. (2010). The Corpus Evangelicorum: A Culturalist Perspective on its Procedure in the Eighteenth Century Holy Roman Empire. In J. P. Coy, B. Marschke ve D. W. Sabean (Ed.). The Holy Roman Empire Reconsidered Vol 1. Berghahn Books, New York, NY.
• Kim, K. (2003). Order and Agency in Modernity: Talcott Parsons, Erving Goffman, and Harold Garfinkel. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
• Lee, D. (2000). The Society of Society: The Grand Finale of Niklas Luhmann. Sociological Theory, 18(2), 320-330.
• Lewis, J.D. ve Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a Social Reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967-985.
• Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power. Chicester: Wiley. içinde; Lewis, J.D. ve Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a Social Reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967-985.
• Luhmann, N. (1983a). Insistence on Systems Theory: Perspectives From Germany-An Essay. Social Forces, 61(4), 987-998.
• Luhmann, N. (1983b). Legitimation durch Verfahren. Suhrkamp Verlag, Gmbh, Frankfurt am Main.
• Luhmann, N. (1990). Political Theory in the Welfare State (Çev.: John Bednarz Jr.). Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin.
• Luhmann, N. (1992). The Direction of Evolution. In Hans Haferkampf ve Neil. J. Smelser (Eds.). Social Change and Modernity (s. 273-293). The University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA.
• Luhmann, N. (1994). Modernity of Science. New German Critique. Special Issue on Niklas Luhman, 61, Winter, 9-23.
• Öztürk, İ. ve Balcı, A. (2014). Millî eğitim bakanlığının 652 sayılı kanun hükmünde kararname ile yeniden yapılandırılmasına ilişkin Ankara ili kamu ilkokul ve ortaokul yöneticilerinin görüşleri [Views of the state primary school and secondary school principals in Ankara province about the restructure of Ministry of National Education (By decree law No. 652)]. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi - Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 4(1), 213-241.
• Parsons, T. (1956a). Suggestions for a Sociological Approach to the Theory of Organizations-I. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1(1), 63-85.
• Parsons, T. (1956b). Suggestions for a Sociological Approach to the Theory of Organizations-I. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1(2), 225-239.
• Parsons, T. (1958). Authority, Legitimation, and Political Action (Ed.: Joachim C. Friedrich). Authority. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
• Parsons, T. (1960). Structure and Process in Modern Societies. Free Press of Glencoe, New York, NY.
• Parsons, T. (1966). The Structure of Social Action: A Study in Social Theory with Special Reference to a Group of Recent European Writers (4. Baskı). The Free Press, New York, NY.
• Parsons, T. ve Platt, G. M. (1973). The American University. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
• Parsons, T. (1989). A tentative outline of American values. Theory, Culture & Society, 6(4), 577-612.
• Schwanitz, D. (1995). Systems Theory According to Niklas Luhmann: Its Environment and Conceptual Strategies. Cultural Critique, 30, 137-170.
• Segre, S. (2012). Talcott Parsons: An Introduction. University Press of America, Lanham.
• Segre, S. (2014). Contemporary Sociological Thinkers and Theories. Ashgate Publishing Company, Burlington, VT.
• Thornhill, C. (2008). Towards a historical sociology of constitutional legitimacy. Theory and Society, 37(2), 161-197.
• Trevino, A. J. (2001). Talcott Parsons Today: His Theory and Legacy in Contemporary Sociology. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Oxford.
• Turner, J. H. (1988). A Theory of Social Interaction. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
• Turner, B. S. (1999). Classical Sociology. SAGE Publications, London.
• Vanderstraeten, R. (2000). Luhmann on Socialization and Education. Educational Theory, 50(1), 1-23.
• Vanderstraeten, R. (2002). Parsons, Luhman and the Theorem of Double Contingency. Journal of Classical Sociology, 2(1), 77-92.
• Wintgens, L. J. (2012). Legisprudence: Practical Reason in Legislation. Ashgate Publishing Co., Burlington, VT.
• Wuthnow, R. (1992). Cultural Change and Sociological Theory. Hans Haferkampf ve Neil. J. Smelser (Ed.). Social Change and Modernity (s. 257-277). The University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA.