Suchergebnisse

Christopher Jencks's Inequality: A Reassess ment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America is an example of social policy research which is also policy advocacy or normative political argument. His empirical analysis of the short-term and long-term effects of education is aimed at discrediting the "equality of opportunity" model for reducing social and economic inequality. He argues that we must move from concern with "equality of opportunity" to direct emphasis on "equality of results." Jencks cannot make a convincing case, however, because of a failure to pay sufficient attention to underlying normative assumptions con cerning both the meaning of the concepts of equality and equality of opportunity and the nature and purpose of educa tion. His argument is fundamentally misdirected because of a lack of awareness of the normative implications of both the position he is attacking and position he is advocating. Because of the role of social science as a legitimating symbol in debates over educational policy, it is particularly incumbent upon policy analysts both to clarify their own normative assump tions and to justify them in terms of a larger theoretical frame work. Policy research as policy advocacy is likely to fail as long as it neglects fundamental issues in normative political theory.

C. Jencks's Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America (New York: Basic Books, 1972) is an example of social policy research which is also policy advocacy or normative political argument. His empirical analysis of the short-term & long-term effects of education is aimed at discrediting the "equality of opportunity" model for reducing social & economic inequality. He argues that we must move from concern with "equality of opportunity" to direct emphasis on "equality of results." Jencks cannot make a convincing case, however, because of a failure to pay sufficient attention to underlying normative assumptions concerning both the meaning of the concepts of equality & equality of opportunity & the nature & purpose of education. His argument is fundamentally misdirected because of a lack of awareness of the normative implications of both the position he is attacking & the position he is advocating. Because of the role of social science as a legitimating symbol in debates over educational policy, it is particularly incumbent upon policy analysts to clarify their own normative assumptions & to justify them in terms of a larger theoretical framework. Policy research as policy advocacy is likely to fail as long as it neglects fundamental issues in normative political theory. Modified HA.