The “Science of Science Policy”: reflections on the important questions and the challenges they present

Developing the “Science of Science Policy” will require data collection and analysis related to the processes of innovation and technological change, and the effects of government policy on those processes. There has been much work on these topics in the last three decades, but there remain difficult problems of finding proxies for subtle concepts, endogeneity, distinguishing private and social returns, untangling cumulative effects, measuring the impact of government programs in a true “but for” sense, and sorting out national and global effects. I offer observations on how to think about these issues. This paper was presented as the Keynote Address at the NSF Workshop on Advancing Measures of Innovation: Knowledge Flows, Business Metrics, and Measurement Strategies, Arlington, VA, June 2006.     

The importance of “spillovers” in the policy mission of the advanced technology program

Government policies like the Advanced Technology Program (“ATP”) are intended, at least in part, to remedy the “market failure” inherent in the fact that a significant portion of the social benefits of new knowledge and technology are not captured by a firm that invests in R&D. ATP’s project selection, and its evaluation of the impact of its program, can be made more effective by explicitly incorporating the analysis of such “spillovers.” For project selection, this means identifying technological, organizational and economic factors that tend to oint to a large “spillover gap,” or deviation between the social and private rates of return to a proposed project. For program evaluation and assessment, it means adapting existing study methods that measure social returns to innovation in ways that explicitly capture spillover effects. This paper is based on a study that I performed for the ATP, Economic Analysis of Research Spillovers: Implications for the Advanced Technology Program, NIST GCR 97-708. I have benefited from comments and useful discussions with Zvi Griliches, Jeanne Powell, Rosalie Ruegg, and Richard Spivack. Some of the ideas in this paper grew out of previous joint research with James Adams. The views expressed herein are my own, however, and should not be attributed to any of these individuals or to the ATP.     

Closing the Gaps: Plaintiffs in Pivotal Sexual Harassment Cases

When he wrote Debtors in Court almost 30 years ago, Herbert Jacob laid the foundation for the legal mobilization research that has flourished in recent years. In arguing that litigants were political actors, Jacob showed that their social identities and Communications networks influenced their decisions to use the power of the law to vindicate their interests. This paper builds on Jacob's original insights to analyze the origins of the claim for sexual harassment as a Title VII violation. By focusing on the women who filed those claims, the paper examines the interaction of class, gender, and race that created social distance between the women and their harassers and employers. This distance made informal resolution of their disputes impossible, requiring the intervention of third parties. In addition, their Communications networks led them to attorneys able to generate and expand the new claim for sexual harassment. This analysis of a particular moment in legal history reveals the potential political significance of private litigation.     

Power Dynamics in an Experimental Game

We introduce a new experimental method for studying power. Drawing from multiple theoretical perspectives, we conceptualize power as relational and structural, as well as comprised of different forms through which basic human needs can be met. Thus, the method we introduce examines how, when faced with a particular need, people use multiple forms of power concurrently and within a “field of influence,” namely, the other players in a game. This enabled us to examine how one form of power is transformed into another and how power is transferred from one player to another through interaction, as well as to measure power as behavior, as the exercise of choice, as potential, and as outcomes. Two experiments using egalitarian start conditions and a survivable ecology demonstrated that participants used power to gain more power, creating inequality. Being the target of force made some players unable to “survive” in the local ecology. Theoretical and methodological issues in the study of power are discussed and the application of our game method to the study of power in other fields is considered.     

Book Reviews

Book Reviews in This Article:
America's Health Care Revolution. Who Lives? Who Dies? Who Pays? By Joseph A. Califano, Jr.
American Medicine: The Power Shift . By Eli Ginzberg
Health Services in the United States, 2d ed. By Florence A. Wilson and Duncan Neuhauser
The U.S. Health Care System. A Look to the 19905 . Edited by Eli Ginzberg.
Handbook of Health Care Risk Management . By Glenn T. Troyer and Steven L. Salman
Health Care Risk Management: Organization and Claims Administration . By Gary P. Kraus
Medicolegal Aspects of Critical Care . Edited by Katherine Benesch, Norman S. Abramson, Ake Grenvik, and Alan Meisel
Ethics and Critical Care Medicine . Edited by John C. MosLop and Loretta Kopelnian
The mentally disabled and the Law , 3d ed. By Samuel Jan Brakel, John Parry, and Barbaa A.     

Implementing children’s right to be heard: Local attenuations of a global commitment

A critical challenge for human rights and human security alike turns on diminution of subject audibility and voice and the reduction of rights-bearing subjects to mere referent objects of security. Owing in part to inadequate theorization of child/youth subjecthood, this problem is especially acute where the rights and security of young people are at issue. Though the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child makes specific provision for recovery of the voices of children and youth, this may be frustrated at implementation in local settings. Moving beyond the Global South, where this problem has been more readily acknowledged, this article inquires into practices that undermine child/youth rights by reinforcing the subject/object positions of protector/protected in ways that disallow young people’s articulations of their best interests and security needs. Spurious presumptions about young people’s (in)capacity for independent subjecthood as well as emergent rhetorical technologies of silencing and voice-denial are identified.