POLICY RESEARCH AS SOCIAL SCIENCE: OUTFLANKING THE VALUE DILEMMA

Social scientists fear that policy research compromises their objectivity. As a result, policy science is becoming a separate discipline which is accorded lower status that other fields of social inquiry. However, the history, sociology and psychology of science show that the elaboration of robust social theory would be aided by a more intimate relation between policy research and academic social science than currently obtains. The traditional canons of value freedom, which have been invoked to justify the independence of social science from policy, misrepresent the relation between facts and values in science. Objective knowledge is consequent on dispute and triangulation by a many-valued community of fallible social scientists; but it does not eventuate from consensual value neutralism. Social knowledge interacts with social values to change phenomena our theories represent. This self-restructuring characteristic of social events warrants singular attention by social scientists. Policy researchers are in a particularly opportune position to provide that attention.     

IDEOLOGY AND POLICY RESEARCH: THE CASE OF MURRAY'S LOSING GROUND

Ideology and policy research are intertwined in many ways; an example is Murray's Losing Ground which uses “science” to justify racial, sexual, and class discrimination. Murray is utterly faithful to the neoconservative version of how liberalism went wrong in the 1960s. He says an intellectual elite shifted the blame for poverty, crime and low achievement to “the system” destroying individual responsibility. But his argument is not supported by evidence. Data are bent tofit foregone conclusions. He argues that more people are becoming dependent on government support, but his method of counting who receives assistance is a fiction. Nevertheless his argument has wide appeal among Americans. Why? His argument touches the self-interested Social Darwinist in almost all of us.     

EVALUATION RESEARCH AND POLITICAL SCIENCE: AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE DIVISION OF SCHOLARLY LABOR

Political science might have been the birthplace of evaluation research, but it has instead been unreceptive to it for a number of reasons. Hofferbert's suggestion that political scientists become involved by studying the impact of policy on democratic processes does not take into account the ferment that has been taking place in the field of evaluation. Political scientists should not conduct evaluation studies using the same methodology they normally use because these may not produce the kind of information needed for improving policies or programs. A disciplinary division of labor is impractical for a number of reasons. Instead, they should use a policy sciences framework, which contains normative elements and focuses on potentials for change, among other things.     

"THE LONG AND VIOLENT PULL": SCIENCE FUNDING AND POLICY RESEARCH

Books reviewed in this article.
Claude E. Barfield. Science Policy from Ford to Reagan: Continuity and Change.
D.B.T. Kallen et al. (Eds.) Social Science Research and Public Policy-Making: A Reappraisal
David Meister. Behavioral Research and Government Policy: Civilian and Defense R & D     

INNOVATION POLICY AND THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

This paper offers a rationale for expanding current efforts to support industrial innovation to encompass the important and unique contributions that the social sciences can make in this area. In order to provide a comprehensive overview of these contributions, the paper examines the role that social factors play in the process of technological innovations, the importance of social innovations, and the potential contributions of social science research to the diffusion of innovation as well as its importance in considering the broad social impacts of social innovations.     

THE NEXT DECADE: THE ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, AND SOCIAL CONTEXT OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING POLICIES

The conservative challenge of the Reagan administration has not produced a full-scale reversal of the liberal policies and social programs developed by earlier administrations and seems unlikely to do so now. Nevertheless, the continuities in American social and political history, the changed economic and fiscal circumstances of the current era, and growing public appreciation of the limits of federal action and of institutional capabilities are likely to effect a reduction in the level of federal spending for social programs in the foreseeable future and force the states to assume larger fiscal and programmatic roles. Implications for future employment and training policies include continued decentralization, a shift in focus away from training new entrants to retraining mid-career workers, and greater emphasis on meeting cost-effectiveness tests as program goals seek to promote economic efficiency rather than social objectives.