What future for the policy sciences?

The term “policy sciences” refers both to a distinctive tradition within the policy movement and to the broader policy movement itself. While the generic use of this term is sure to persist, the community of policy scientists trained in the tradition founded by Harold Lasswell and Myres S. McDougal faces challenges to its sustainability as a distinctive tradition of the policy movement. To motivate open discussion and debate, this essay follows the logic of a problem-oriented analysis, and also includes personal reflections and anecdote, with the following objectives: It suggests that the policy sciences tradition faces challenges to its sustainability because of the simple arithmetic of generational turnover in university faculty. It explores six factors internal and external to the policy sciences community militating against sustainability. The essay then critiques three different roles the policy scientist might play in contemporary academia, and concludes with a discussion of alternatives that might enhance the sustainability of the policy sciences tradition, should sustainability indeed be a desired outcome.     

Attitudinal characteristics of males who have engaged in spouse abuse

Several of the attitudinal characteristics which are frequently attributed to abusive males were investigated in this study. Samples of male military personnel who had engaged in at least one serious episode of interspousal violence in the previous 6 months were administered measures of the following variables: (1) Attitudes toward self — The Coopersmith Self-The Coopersmith Self-esteem Inventory; (2) Attitudes toward others — The Generalized Expectations of Others Questionnaire, a short form of The Attitudes Toward Women Scale and The Mehrabian and Epstein Empathy Scale; and (3) Dogmatism —The Rokeach D Scale and the Revised Authoritarianism Index, When compared to matched control groups of nonabusive males, statistically significant differences were found only for The Self-esteem Inventory and one item of the Generalized Expectations of Others Questionnaire. It is concluded that many of the attitudinal characteristics of abusive males reported in the clinical literature may not be a significant component in the etiology of spouse abuse.     

Decision making in joined criminal trials: The influence of charge similarity,evidence similarity,and limiting instructions

The present research investigated decision-making processes in joined trials of multiple offenses. Subjects judged videotaped trials of three joined charges in a factorial design that varied charge similarity, evidence similarity, and judges' instructions designed to reduce judgement biases; or judged one of several charges presented individually. The results indicated that subjects were more likely to convict a defendant in a joined trial than on the same charge tried by itself, particularly when the charge was presented in the third position. Convictions were more frequent when joined charges were similar, and judges' instructions significantly reduced conviction rates. Subjects judging joined trials confused evidence among charges, rated the prosecution's evidence as stronger, and rated the defendent less favorably than subjects judging single trials. The findings were compared statistically to the results of previous research, and it was concluded that increased convictions in joined trials are robust effects.This research is based on part of a doctoral dissertation by S. Tanford at the University of Wisconsin. The research was supported by National Institute of Justice Grant No. 81-LJ-CX-0048 to S. Penrod.     

Agency, Structure, and Social Chance as Cross-Disciplinary Concepts

It is appropriate that social scientists should develop explicit conceptualisations of agency, structure and social chance, these being three major dimensions of social and political life. The agency–structure debate, which refers to theoretical and ontological issues that tend not to be explicitly discussed by political scientists, is an important interdisciplinary starting point for conceptual and empirical work involving collaboration between political scientists and sociologists. Following a theoretical review of agency, structure and chance, it is argued that empirical research concerned with the study of politics and policy – indeed, social scientific research on any topic – should employ an ontology and methodology that focuses on the dynamics of interaction between agency, structure and social chance.