The Utilization of Social Scientists in the Overseas Branch of the Office of War Information

1947 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 649-667 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard W. Doob
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Social Scientist ◽  
Initial Period ◽  
Government Service ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Total War ◽  
The Government ◽  
Armed Services

Many social scientists employed by the government or in the armed services during the war found their research and scientific wisdom not eagerly accepted, wisely interpreted, or sensibly followed by policy-makers. Unlike some of the old-line departments, the war agencies had no established procedure for utilizing social science. Social scientists had a place on the ever-changing organization charts, sometimes merely because it was somewhat vaguely felt that all kinds of brains, even academic, were necessary to win a total war. Often they had to carve out for themselves the specific rôles they wished to play. They functioned, not in accordance with the charts, but within what Mansfield and Marx call informal organizations of their own making.In many situations, there was a discrepancy between what social scientists thought they could do and what the policy-makers were prepared to let them do. Some sought deliberately to bridge the gap by promoting and marketing their disciplines and themselves. Like their colleagues in the natural sciences, they wished to be consulted when problems involving their own expertness were involved.The informal techniques that social scientists employed in behalf of social science and themselves are worth recording because certainly similar ones must often be utilized whenever social scientist meets policy-maker. They should be mentioned to any social scientist about to enter government service, so that he can at least be aware of the problem and more easily survive the initial period of disillusionment and misery. They belong, it seems, within the purview of the student of public administration.

‘Who Wants to be a Social Engineer? A commentary on David Blunkett's Speech to the ESRC’

2000 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Hodgkinson
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Politics And Government ◽  
The Government ◽  
Education And Employment ◽  
Social Scientific ◽  
The Uk

This article is a response to a speech addressed to the Economic and Social Research Council which was made, in February this year, by the UK Secretary of State for Education and Employment, David Blunkett. The speech was entitled ‘Influence or Irrelevance: can social science improve government?’ . Blunkett's programme for engaging social science in the policy process is far from unique and many of the arguments have been heard before. However, the curiosity of the speech lies in the fact that the conception of social science which Blunkett advocates mirrors the approach New Labour itself has to politics and government. This raises some rather interesting difficulties for social scientists. How do we engage in a debate about the role of social scientific research in the policy process when our own conception of the discipline may be radically at odds with that of the government? Furthermore, New Labour's particular conception of the relationship between social and policy-making means that we not only have to contest their notion of what it is we do, but also challenge their conception of the policy process. We cannot ignore this engagement, even if we wanted to. The challenge is to address it and to do so, moreover, in terms which Blunkett might understand. This article is an attempt to start this process.

‘We Were All Very Sick and Very Stupid’

2020 ◽  
pp. 20-47
Author(s):  
Lise Butler
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Labour Party ◽  
Political Organization ◽  
The Political ◽  
Left Wing ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
John Bowlby ◽  
Child Psychologist ◽  
Social Importance

This chapter discusses the Conference on the Psychological and Sociological Problems of Modern Socialism held at University College Oxford in 1945. This event featured prominent left-wing policy makers, intellectuals, and social scientists, including the MP Evan Durbin, the political theorist G. D. H. Cole, the writer and politician Margaret Cole, the child psychologist John Bowlby, the historian R. H. Tawney, and Michael Young, who was then the Secretary of the Labour Party Research Department. The conference reflected multiple strands of inter-war and mid-twentieth century political thought and social science which emphasized the political and social importance of small groups, notably through guild socialist arguments for pluralistic forms of political organization, and theories about human attachment drawn from child psychology. The views expressed at the conference reflected a sense that active and participatory democracy was not just morally right but psychologically necessary to prevent popular political radicalization, limit the appeal of totalitarianism, and promote peaceful civil society. The chapter concludes by noting that the events of the conference, and the intellectual influences that it represented, would subsequently shape Michael Young’s project to promote social science within the Labour Party during the later years of the Attlee government.

Social science for hydrologists: considerations when doing fieldwork with human participants

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sally Rangecroft ◽  
Eddie Banks ◽  
Rosie Day ◽  
Guiliano Di Baldassarre ◽  
Theresa Frommen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Practice Research ◽  
Power Dynamics ◽  
Ethical Practice ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Research Outcomes ◽  
Interdisciplinary Projects ◽  
Human Participants

<p>Water is at the core of many current and future global challenges, which involve hydrological, technical and social processes. Therefore, successful interdisciplinary research on how water-related issues interact with human activities, actions and responses is increasingly important. Qualitative data and diverse perspectives provide much-needed information to improve our understanding and management of water-related issues. To collect this information, hydrologists are increasingly conducting fieldwork with human participants (e.g. individuals, policy-makers, community leaders, government representatives, etc.) themselves, and collaboratively with others. Although collaboration between hydrologists and social scientists in interdisciplinary projects is becoming more common, several barriers, including lack of understanding and experience, can result in hydrologists and social scientists remaining somewhat separate during research, leading to suboptimal research outcomes. Hydrologists who are planning and undertaking fieldwork involving human participants may be underprepared because they are unfamiliar with key social science approaches and concepts. Therefore, here, we help guide hydrologists to better understand some important issues to consider when working with human participants, to facilitate more collaborative research.</p><p>As a group of social, natural, and interdisciplinary scientists, we discuss a number of important elements of fieldwork involving human participants that hydrologists might be unfamiliar with, or might have different approaches to than social scientists. These elements include good ethical practice, research question frameworks, power dynamics, communication of science (e.g. participatory mapping, photovoice, videography, and interactive graphs), and post-fieldwork reflections. There are also issues to consider when working collaboratively with social scientists, such as vocabulary differences and different methodologies and data collection approaches (e.g. interviews, focus groups, questionnaires, workshops, ethnography).</p><p>We believe that by introducing hydrologists (and natural scientists in general) to some of the key considerations when working with human participants in the field, more holistic, ethical, and successful research outcomes can be achieved. We also want to stress that collaboration with social scientists stays important and research ethics, design, participant involvement, and results, may be compromised without the input and experience of social scientists themselves. Facilitating these collaborations between the natural and social sciences will improve interdisciplinary water research, resulting in a better understanding of the interactions between water and society.</p>

Reflections of a Black Social Scientist: Some Struggles, Some Doubts, Some Hopes

1982 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacquelyn Mitchell
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Graduate Student ◽  
Social Scientist ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Science Inquiry ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Preschool Program ◽  
Research World

Jacquelyn Mitchell describes her experiences as a teacher in a compensatory preschool program and later as a graduate student and researcher, examining a number of issues relevant to black social scientists. She discusses some dilemmas (such as bicultural awareness and a sense of double marginality) of the black social scientist who is seeking a place in the academic/research world—simultaneously questioning the sociopolitical nature of social science inquiry and asking how research can more adequately reflect the reality of black people's lives.

scholarly journals Trust in government in times of economic crisis

2016 ◽  
pp. 111-126
Author(s):  
Robert Sobiech
Keyword(s):  
Public Administration ◽  
Economic Crisis ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
Trust In Government ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Evaluation ◽  
Public Debates ◽  
The Government

The aim of the paper is to provide an overview of the existing studies concerning the phenomenon of public trust in government. Low trust in government has been frequently defined as a key problem influencing the policy process in many countries. The economic crises reinforced the importance of trust and triggered public debates on the necessary reforms of the public sector. The paper examines the key theories and research conducted by social scientists with a particular emphasis on the role of trust in risk societies. The review of the existing literature concentrates on the drivers of trust, showing the importance of two interlinked logics: the logic of consequences (the performance approach) and the logic of appropriateness (the process approach). The first one explains trust as a result of outputs and outcomes of government policies and services. The logic of appropriateness claims that trust is built on values and identity and depends on the adoption by governments the rules of integrity, openness, responsiveness and transparency. Trust in government is also deeply rooted in a broader system of rules, norms andvalues known as the trust culture. The last part of the paper is an attempt to trace an impact of an economic crisis on public trust. Studies of public opinion do not fully confirm the opinions on low trust and a decline in trust in government and trust in public administration in times of crisis. Some studies reveal considerable fluctuations of public trust in selected countries. In other countries, the public evaluation of government and public administration is high and there are only slight modifications in citizens’ perception of the government.

scholarly journals The Full Circle

2001 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. v-viii
Author(s):  
Ejaz Akram
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Social Scientist ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Direct Result ◽  
World Science ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Full Circle ◽  
Full Picture ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
English Speaking World

Science Without Philosophy?Many of our readers and contributors have raised questions regarding thevarious definitions of social science and their relation to the scope of MISS.Definitions of social science have changed with time and place, and one of thereasons for that is not what is “social,” but what is “science”? “Science” inFrench, or “wissenschaft” in German, do not translate exactly the same as“science” in English. In English speaking world, “science” has an associationwith hard sciences while social sciences have been tacitly considered to be softsciences, or not sciences at all. Such a distinction does not exist in otherlanguages.It is not our intent here to provide a mere taxonomy of the meanings ofscience, but to develop an understanding as well as a consensus that socialsciences and their sub-disciplines are, without exception, based on certainparadigms that are philosophical in nature. Being a social scientist without theknowledge of these philosophical assumptions, upon which the paradigms ofthe socia1 sciences rest, is to willingly escape the full picture. Properphilosophical training, therefore, has a deep nexus with the methods of socialscience, and constitutes a necessary pre-requisite of understanding theparadigms. Paradigms establish the agenda and the agenda dictates the policy.social sciences therefore become a vehicle of understanding the society inconsonance with the accepted philosophical truths.Philosophical exposition of concepts and ideas in turn necessitates adefinition of philosophy itself. All definitions of philosophy will point tocertain “givens” or a priori assumptions that precede all scientific inquiry. Ifsocial sciences stay within the realm of the positivist paradigm, the problemmay seemingly be solved, but reducing inquiry to empiricism has its own pitfallsand the atomistic division in today’s academia is a direct result of that.Further, it restricts the scope of those social scientists who also happen to bebelievers in transcendental Truth. Conversely, to the degree that philosophy is ...

Government-to-Government Enterprises

2011 ◽  
pp. 76-98
Author(s):  
Luiz Antonio Joia
Keyword(s):  
Central Bank ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Success Factors ◽  
Electronic Government ◽  
Justice Department ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Key Success Factors ◽  
The Government

Electronic government has proven a watershed in the domain of public administration despite being difficult to pin down precisely. Indeed, the government-to-government (G2G) arena is one of the least studied aspects of this newly established field of knowledge. This chapter aims to present a heuristic frame to implement government-to-government endeavors effectively. The frame presented in this article was largely drawn from an actual government-to-government case study successfully implemented in Brazil. From the analysis of this explanatory case study involving the Brazilian Central Bank (BCB) and the Brazilian Justice Department (BJD), some key success factors were singled out as well as the major hurdles to be overcome and causes thereof. These findings led the researcher to propose a heuristic frame not only to explain the conclusions drawn from the case study presented, but also to help researchers, practitioners, and policy makers to deploy government-to-government projects adequately.

Did Megaproject Research Pioneer Behavioral Economics?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bent Flyvbjerg
Keyword(s):  
Project Management ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Behavioral Economics ◽  
Social Scientist ◽  
Development Projects ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Cass Sunstein ◽  
Major Project ◽  
Management Scholarship

With Albert O. Hirschman, project management scholarship has what it lacks the most: an eminent intellectual and social scientist who has thought long and hard about project management, and especially the management of large transformative projects. Cass Sunstein, co-author of Nudge and a key contributor to behavioral economics, distinguishes Hirschman as an early behavioral economist and says that his main contribution to project management, the book Development Projects Observed, “can plausibly be counted as a work in behavioral economics.” This chapter tests Sunstein’s claim by assessing Hirschman’s work in major project management, and asks what we can learn from Hirschman, as scholars, policy makers, and project leaders. The focus is on Hirschman’s principle of the Hiding Hand, first described in Development Projects Observed, because this is rightly considered his largest idea on project management and is one of his main contributions to economics and social science.

scholarly journals Do Perceptions of Gifted Intelligence and Normal Intelligence Participants Differ About Social Science and Social Scientists?

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 90
Author(s):  
Sezgin Selvi ◽  
Selcuk Besir Demir
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Content Analysis ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Social Scientist ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Common Finding ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Normal Intelligence ◽  
Perceptions Of Students

This qualitative study was conducted to compare the perceptions of students with gifted intelligence and studentswith those of normal intelligence about social science and social scientists. The data obtained from 23 giftedintelligent and 23 normal participants within the same age group was analysed using content analysis and resultswere represented with a straight and systematic language. A significant part of normal participants confused socialscience teacher with social scientist. Both groups find a social scientist happy. Social scientist was represented asyoung and dynamic, was thought without hindrance as well. As a common finding, gender is significant for bothgroups and males were distinguished. They do not sufficiently recognise social scientists. However, normalintelligence participants confuse social sciences with the natural sciences and they give names of both naturalscientists and inventors instead of social scientists.

Select Your Social Scientist with Care

1984 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-71
Author(s):  
Ray Wyatt
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Social Scientist ◽  
Research Project ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Moral Criticism ◽  
Policy Guidance ◽  
Oriented Research

ABSTRACTA public policy-oriented research project in Australia is used to point out the connections between typical social science motivations, such as moral criticism, truth-seeking and policy-guidance, and the research styles which such motivations produce, such as advocacy, impracticality and expediency. Each style's reliability, fundamentalism and policy applicability are discussed and suggestions are made for testing research validity. Finally, it is shown how policy makers can interpret advice from the different sorts of social scientist more intelligently.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document