Suchergebnisse

The involvement of soc sci'ts with gov poses a serious threat to the independence of soc sci. In order that soc sci may be useful to gov officials, it must meet their criteria of reality & practicality. At the technical level this may mean accepting official categories of discourse; more broadly it will mean that certain problems do not get studied, unless the res can be structured so as to suggest 'constructive' & pol'ly tenable solutions, & unless the soc sci'st adopts a manipulative att toward the subjects of his res. The HEW document, TOWARD A SOCIAL REPORT, & Project Camelot illustrate some of these difficulties. Complete independence of soc sci'ts from public or private external influence is impossible, however. Their adherence to a posture of 'counter-valence'-for example, diversifying their sources of patronage & favoring less powerful groups & instit's as clients-would come closest to achieving the practicable equivalent of such intellectual independence. In particular, they should avoid lending themselves to any strengthening of the Presidency or other instit's of centralization, & to any furtherance of officials' manipulative attitude toward mass opinion. In their professional assoc's they should, finally, adopt ethical canons in pursuit of these ends. HA.

This paper examines the temporal, pol'al, conceptual, & methodological constraints encountered by soc sci'ts working for the Nat'l Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (Kerner Commission). Focusing on efforts to develop a synthetic, theoretical explanation of the causes of disorders, to collect data on riot cities, & to adhere to accepted forms of soc res, we discuss a fundamental tension between procedures preferred by soc sci'ts & the demands of staff directors who must anticipate the ways in which commissioners will receive staff res. Under the circumstances, soc sci'ts in some cases may conduct res on limited questions without signif interference in work schedules or modes of presentation. However, because of these constraints more often soc sci'ts & their work serve to legitimate procedures & findings which are primarily developed without soc sci contributions. HA.

This paper examines the temporal, political, conceptual, and methodological constraints encountered by social scientists working for the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (Kerner Commission). Focusing on efforts to develop a synthetic, theoretical explanation of the causes of disorders, to collect data on riot cities, and to adhere to accepted forms of social research, we discuss a fundamental tension between procedures preferred by social scientists and the demands of staff directors who must anticipate the ways in which commissioners will receive staff research. Under the circumstances, social scientists in some cases may conduct research on limited questions without significant interference in work schedules or modes of presentation. However, because of these constraints more often social scientists and their work serve to legitimate procedures and findings which are primarily developed without social science contributions.

The involvement of social scientists with government poses a serious threat to the independence of social science. In order that social science may be useful to government officials, it must meet their criteria of reality and practicality. At the technical level this may mean accepting official categories of discourse; more broadly it will mean that certain problems do not get studied, unless the research can be structured so as to suggest "constructive" and politically tenable solutions, and unless the social scientist adopts a manipulative attitude toward the subjects of his research. The HEW document, Toward a Social Report, and Project Camelot illustrate some of these difficulties. Complete independence of social scientists from public or private external influence is impossible, however. Their adherence to a posture of "counter-valence"—for example, diversifying their sources of patronage and favoring less powerful groups and institutions as clients— would come closest to achieving the practicable equivalent of such intellectual independence. In particular, they should avoid lending themselves to any strengthening of the Presidency or other institutions of centralization, and to any furtherance of officials' manipulative attitude toward mass opinion. In their professional associations they should, finally, adopt ethical canons in pursuit of these ends.

Supermarket: Where Do Social Scientists Shop?

Pierre Bourdieu famously dismissed phenomenology as offering anything useful to a critical science of society – even as he drew heavily upon its themes in his own work. This paper makes a case for why Bourdieu's judgement should not be the last word on phenomenology. To do so it first reanimates phenomenology's evocative language and concepts to illustrate their continuing centrality to social scientists' ambitions to apprehend human engagement with the world. Part II shows how two crucial insights of phenomenology, its discovery of both the natural attitude and of the phenomenological epoche, allow an account of perception properly responsive to its intertwined personal and collective aspects. Contra Bourdieu, the paper's third section asserts that phenomenology's substantive socio-cultural analysis simultaneously entails methodological consequences for the social scientist, reversing their suspension of disbelief vis-à-vis the life-worlds of interlocutors and inaugurating the suspension of belief vis-à-vis their own natural attitudes.