The politics of social research: Institutionalizing public funding regimes in the United States and Britain

British Journal of Political Science

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 415-444

  King, Desmond ^a,b  

^a ST JOHN S COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032336358     PISSN: 00071234     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0007123498000337     Document Type: Article

References (168)

1. See J. Merton England, A Patron for Pure Science: The National Science Foundation's Formative Years, 1945-57 (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1982), especially pp. 266-73; and D. L. Kleinman and M. Solovey, 'Hot Science/Cold War: The National Science Foundation After World War II', Radical History Review, 63 (1995), 110-39.
2. See J. Merton England, A Patron for Pure Science: The National Science Foundation's Formative Years, 1945-57 (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1982), especially pp. 266-73; and D. L. Kleinman and M. Solovey, 'Hot Science/Cold War: The National Science Foundation After World War II', Radical History Review, 63 (1995), 110-39.
3. The National Science Foundation Act 1950 was signed by President Harry Truman. It took seven years for this organization to be enacted by Congress. The Act authorized the NSF to: (1) make grants and loans for 'pure' and applied research in the mathematical, physical, medical, biological, engineering and other fields; and (2) undertake military research for national defence as well as awarding graduate fellowships, correlating its work with private foundations. The initial appropriation was for $500,000 in 1950, a figure which by fiscal year (FY) 1965 had reached $420m.
4. See D. L. Kleinman, Politics on the Endless Frontier (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1995).
5. England A Patron for Pure Science, p. 266.
6. The process of upgrading its status began in earnest in March 1953: National Archives and Record Administration (hereafter NARA) Record Group (hereafter RG) 307 Records of the National Science Foundation, Office of the Director, General Records 1949-63, Dr Waterman's Subject Files 1951-56, Box 20 Folder: Social Science Research. See memorandum from Harry Alpert to Dr Waterman, 1 November 1953, in which the former notes, 'The Foundation's study of its role with respect to social science research was begun in March of this year.'
7. At the Advisory Panel for Social Science's meeting on 1 March 1954. For an early approval of this sort of strategy by the National Science Board, see Minutes of the 21st Meeting of the National Science Board, NSF, 10 July 1953, p. 7.
8. Alpert became Professor of Sociology at the University of Oregon. As well as working in the NSF, he had previously served in the Office of War Information, the Office of Price Administration and the Bureau of the Budget.
9. National Science Foundation Archive (hereafter NSFA), National Science Foundation Staff Paper, a Report to the Director, 'The Role of the Foundation with respect to Social Science Research', by Harry Alpert with the assistance of Bertha W. Rubinstein, 15 April 1954. Alpert was Study Director for Social Science Research at the NSF. The article was approved by the NSF's Advisory Panel for Social Science Research in March 1954.
10. Report of the Committee on the Provision for Social and Economic Research, chairman Sir John Clapham (London: HMSO, Cmd. 6868, 1946), p. 3.
11. K. O. Morgan, Labour in Power, 1945-1951 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), pp. 285, 297; see also P. Addison, The Road to 1945, revised edn (London: Pimlico, 1994); and R. Lowe, 'The Second World War, Consensus and the Foundation of the Welfare State', Twentieth Century British History, 1 (1990), 152-82.
12. K. O. Morgan, Labour in Power, 1945-1951 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), pp. 285, 297; see also P. Addison, The Road to 1945, revised edn (London: Pimlico, 1994); and R. Lowe, 'The Second World War, Consensus and the Foundation of the Welfare State', Twentieth Century British History, 1 (1990), 152-82.
13. K. O. Morgan, Labour in Power, 1945-1951 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), pp. 285, 297; see also P. Addison, The Road to 1945, revised edn (London: Pimlico, 1994); and R. Lowe, 'The Second World War, Consensus and the Foundation of the Welfare State', Twentieth Century British History, 1 (1990), 152-82.
14. A. H. Halsey, 'Sociology as Political Arithmetic (The Glass Memorial Lecture)', British Journal of Sociology, 45 (1994), 427-44, p. 432. See also Dahrendorf, LSE.
15. A. H. Halsey, 'Sociology as Political Arithmetic (The Glass Memorial Lecture)', British Journal of Sociology, 45 (1994), 427-44, p. 432. See also Dahrendorf, LSE.
16. NSFA, Memorandum from Assistant Director for Social Sciences to NSF Director, 15 July 1963 p. 1.
17. For an introduction to the scholarly contributions on this topic, see M. Bulmer with K. G. Banting, S. S. Blume, M. Carley and C. H. Weiss, Social Science and Social Policy (London: Allen & Unwin, 1986); M. Bulmer, ed., Social Science Research and Government (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987); and D. A. Coleman, 'Policy Research - Who Needs It?' Governance, 4 (1991), 420-55.
18. For an introduction to the scholarly contributions on this topic, see M. Bulmer with K. G. Banting, S. S. Blume, M. Carley and C. H. Weiss, Social Science and Social Policy (London: Allen & Unwin, 1986); M. Bulmer, ed., Social Science Research and Government (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987); and D. A. Coleman, 'Policy Research - Who Needs It?' Governance, 4 (1991), 420-55.
19. For an introduction to the scholarly contributions on this topic, see M. Bulmer with K. G. Banting, S. S. Blume, M. Carley and C. H. Weiss, Social Science and Social Policy (London: Allen & Unwin, 1986); M. Bulmer, ed., Social Science Research and Government (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987); and D. A. Coleman, 'Policy Research - Who Needs It?' Governance, 4 (1991), 420-55.
20. On expert knowledge and social policy in an earlier period, see D. Rueschemeyer and T. Skocpol, eds, States, Social Knowledge, and the Origins of Modern Social Policies (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996); and on economic policy, see P. A. Hall, ed., The Political Power of Economic Ideas (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989).
21. On expert knowledge and social policy in an earlier period, see D. Rueschemeyer and T. Skocpol, eds, States, Social Knowledge, and the Origins of Modern Social Policies (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996); and on economic policy, see P. A. Hall, ed., The Political Power of Economic Ideas (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989).
22. Congressional Record, House of Representatives 81st Congress, 2nd Session, 27 February 1950, p. 2435.
23. Among a plethora of books about social science methodology, the following can be consulted: J. A. Barnes, Who Should Know What? (Harmondsworth, Middx: Penguin Books, 1979); L. Doyal and R. Harris, Empiricism, Explanation and Rationality (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986); C. G. Hempel, Philosophy of Natural Science (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966); R. Keat and J. Urry, Social Science as Science (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975); and E. Nagel, The Structure of Science (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961). Texts designed explicitly for political and social scientists which embody this scientific approach include: A. C. Isaak, Scope and Methods of Political Science, 3rd edn (Chicago, Ill.: Dorsey, 1981); G. King, R. O. Keohane and S. Verba, Designing Social Inquiry (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994); L. C. Mayer, Redefining Comparative Politics (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1989); and C. C. Ragin, The Comparative Method (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987). Older models of the positivist approach for political scientists include: the essays included in J. C. Charlesworth, ed, Contemporary Political Analysis (New York: Free Press, 1967); M. M. Czudnowski, Comparing Political Behavior (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1976); and K. Deutsch, The Nerves of Government (New York: Free Press, 1963). For current debates in political science, consult R. E. Goodin and H-D. Klingemann, eds, A New Handbook of Political Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), esp. chaps 1-3. I am also grateful to Roger Crisp for helpful comments about the definition of positivism.
24. Among a plethora of books about social science methodology, the following can be consulted: J. A. Barnes, Who Should Know What? (Harmondsworth, Middx: Penguin Books, 1979); L. Doyal and R. Harris, Empiricism, Explanation and Rationality (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986); C. G. Hempel, Philosophy of Natural Science (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966); R. Keat and J. Urry, Social Science as Science (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975); and E. Nagel, The Structure of Science (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961). Texts designed explicitly for political and social scientists which embody this scientific approach include: A. C. Isaak, Scope and Methods of Political Science, 3rd edn (Chicago, Ill.: Dorsey, 1981); G. King, R. O. Keohane and S. Verba, Designing Social Inquiry (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994); L. C. Mayer, Redefining Comparative Politics (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1989); and C. C. Ragin, The Comparative Method (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987). Older models of the positivist approach for political scientists include: the essays included in J. C. Charlesworth, ed, Contemporary Political Analysis (New York: Free Press, 1967); M. M. Czudnowski, Comparing Political Behavior (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1976); and K. Deutsch, The Nerves of Government (New York: Free Press, 1963). For current debates in political science, consult R. E. Goodin and H-D. Klingemann, eds, A New Handbook of Political Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), esp. chaps 1-3. I am also grateful to Roger Crisp for helpful comments about the definition of positivism.
25. Among a plethora of books about social science methodology, the following can be consulted: J. A. Barnes, Who Should Know What? (Harmondsworth, Middx: Penguin Books, 1979); L. Doyal and R. Harris, Empiricism, Explanation and Rationality (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986); C. G. Hempel, Philosophy of Natural Science (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966); R. Keat and J. Urry, Social Science as Science (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975); and E. Nagel, The Structure of Science (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961). Texts designed explicitly for political and social scientists which embody this scientific approach include: A. C. Isaak, Scope and Methods of Political Science, 3rd edn (Chicago, Ill.: Dorsey, 1981); G. King, R. O. Keohane and S. Verba, Designing Social Inquiry (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994); L. C. Mayer, Redefining Comparative Politics (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1989); and C. C. Ragin, The Comparative Method (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987). Older models of the positivist approach for political scientists include: the essays included in J. C. Charlesworth, ed, Contemporary Political Analysis (New York: Free Press, 1967); M. M. Czudnowski, Comparing Political Behavior (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1976); and K. Deutsch, The Nerves of Government (New York: Free Press, 1963). For current debates in political science, consult R. E. Goodin and H-D. Klingemann, eds, A New Handbook of Political Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), esp. chaps 1-3. I am also grateful to Roger Crisp for helpful comments about the definition of positivism.
26. Among a plethora of books about social science methodology, the following can be consulted: J. A. Barnes, Who Should Know What? (Harmondsworth, Middx: Penguin Books, 1979); L. Doyal and R. Harris, Empiricism, Explanation and Rationality (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986); C. G. Hempel, Philosophy of Natural Science (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966); R. Keat and J. Urry, Social Science as Science (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975); and E. Nagel, The Structure of Science (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961). Texts designed explicitly for political and social scientists which embody this scientific approach include: A. C. Isaak, Scope and Methods of Political Science, 3rd edn (Chicago, Ill.: Dorsey, 1981); G. King, R. O. Keohane and S. Verba, Designing Social Inquiry (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994); L. C. Mayer, Redefining Comparative Politics (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1989); and C. C. Ragin, The Comparative Method (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987). Older models of the positivist approach for political scientists include: the essays included in J. C. Charlesworth, ed, Contemporary Political Analysis (New York: Free Press, 1967); M. M. Czudnowski, Comparing Political Behavior (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1976); and K. Deutsch, The Nerves of Government (New York: Free Press, 1963). For current debates in political science, consult R. E. Goodin and H-D. Klingemann, eds, A New Handbook of Political Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), esp. chaps 1-3. I am also grateful to Roger Crisp for helpful comments about the definition of positivism.
27. Among a plethora of books about social science methodology, the following can be consulted: J. A. Barnes, Who Should Know What? (Harmondsworth, Middx: Penguin Books, 1979); L. Doyal and R. Harris, Empiricism, Explanation and Rationality (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986); C. G. Hempel, Philosophy of Natural Science (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966); R. Keat and J. Urry, Social Science as Science (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975); and E. Nagel, The Structure of Science (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961). Texts designed explicitly for political and social scientists which embody this scientific approach include: A. C. Isaak, Scope and Methods of Political Science, 3rd edn (Chicago, Ill.: Dorsey, 1981); G. King, R. O. Keohane and S. Verba, Designing Social Inquiry (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994); L. C. Mayer, Redefining Comparative Politics (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1989); and C. C. Ragin, The Comparative Method (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987). Older models of the positivist approach for political scientists include: the essays included in J. C. Charlesworth, ed, Contemporary Political Analysis (New York: Free Press, 1967); M. M. Czudnowski, Comparing Political Behavior (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1976); and K. Deutsch, The Nerves of Government (New York: Free Press, 1963). For current debates in political science, consult R. E. Goodin and H-D. Klingemann, eds, A New Handbook of Political Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), esp. chaps 1-3. I am also grateful to Roger Crisp for helpful comments about the definition of positivism.
28. Among a plethora of books about social science methodology, the following can be consulted: J. A. Barnes, Who Should Know What? (Harmondsworth, Middx: Penguin Books, 1979); L. Doyal and R. Harris, Empiricism, Explanation and Rationality (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986); C. G. Hempel, Philosophy of Natural Science (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966); R. Keat and J. Urry, Social Science as Science (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975); and E. Nagel, The Structure of Science (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961). Texts designed explicitly for political and social scientists which embody this scientific approach include: A. C. Isaak, Scope and Methods of Political Science, 3rd edn (Chicago, Ill.: Dorsey, 1981); G. King, R. O. Keohane and S. Verba, Designing Social Inquiry (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994); L. C. Mayer, Redefining Comparative Politics (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1989); and C. C. Ragin, The Comparative Method (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987). Older models of the positivist approach for political scientists include: the essays included in J. C. Charlesworth, ed, Contemporary Political Analysis (New York: Free Press, 1967); M. M. Czudnowski, Comparing Political Behavior (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1976); and K. Deutsch, The Nerves of Government (New York: Free Press, 1963). For current debates in political science, consult R. E. Goodin and H-D. Klingemann, eds, A New Handbook of Political Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), esp. chaps 1-3. I am also grateful to Roger Crisp for helpful comments about the definition of positivism.
29. Among a plethora of books about social science methodology, the following can be consulted: J. A. Barnes, Who Should Know What? (Harmondsworth, Middx: Penguin Books, 1979); L. Doyal and R. Harris, Empiricism, Explanation and Rationality (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986); C. G. Hempel, Philosophy of Natural Science (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966); R. Keat and J. Urry, Social Science as Science (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975); and E. Nagel, The Structure of Science (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961). Texts designed explicitly for political and social scientists which embody this scientific approach include: A. C. Isaak, Scope and Methods of Political Science, 3rd edn (Chicago, Ill.: Dorsey, 1981); G. King, R. O. Keohane and S. Verba, Designing Social Inquiry (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994); L. C. Mayer, Redefining Comparative Politics (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1989); and C. C. Ragin, The Comparative Method (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987). Older models of the positivist approach for political scientists include: the essays included in J. C. Charlesworth, ed, Contemporary Political Analysis (New York: Free Press, 1967); M. M. Czudnowski, Comparing Political Behavior (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1976); and K. Deutsch, The Nerves of Government (New York: Free Press, 1963). For current debates in political science, consult R. E. Goodin and H-D. Klingemann, eds, A New Handbook of Political Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), esp. chaps 1-3. I am also grateful to Roger Crisp for helpful comments about the definition of positivism.
30. Among a plethora of books about social science methodology, the following can be consulted: J. A. Barnes, Who Should Know What? (Harmondsworth, Middx: Penguin Books, 1979); L. Doyal and R. Harris, Empiricism, Explanation and Rationality (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986); C. G. Hempel, Philosophy of Natural Science (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966); R. Keat and J. Urry, Social Science as Science (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975); and E. Nagel, The Structure of Science (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961). Texts designed explicitly for political and social scientists which embody this scientific approach include: A. C. Isaak, Scope and Methods of Political Science, 3rd edn (Chicago, Ill.: Dorsey, 1981); G. King, R. O. Keohane and S. Verba, Designing Social Inquiry (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994); L. C. Mayer, Redefining Comparative Politics (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1989); and C. C. Ragin, The Comparative Method (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987). Older models of the positivist approach for political scientists include: the essays included in J. C. Charlesworth, ed, Contemporary Political Analysis (New York: Free Press, 1967); M. M. Czudnowski, Comparing Political Behavior (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1976); and K. Deutsch, The Nerves of Government (New York: Free Press, 1963). For current debates in political science, consult R. E. Goodin and H-D. Klingemann, eds, A New Handbook of Political Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), esp. chaps 1-3. I am also grateful to Roger Crisp for helpful comments about the definition of positivism.
31. Among a plethora of books about social science methodology, the following can be consulted: J. A. Barnes, Who Should Know What? (Harmondsworth, Middx: Penguin Books, 1979); L. Doyal and R. Harris, Empiricism, Explanation and Rationality (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986); C. G. Hempel, Philosophy of Natural Science (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966); R. Keat and J. Urry, Social Science as Science (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975); and E. Nagel, The Structure of Science (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961). Texts designed explicitly for political and social scientists which embody this scientific approach include: A. C. Isaak, Scope and Methods of Political Science, 3rd edn (Chicago, Ill.: Dorsey, 1981); G. King, R. O. Keohane and S. Verba, Designing Social Inquiry (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994); L. C. Mayer, Redefining Comparative Politics (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1989); and C. C. Ragin, The Comparative Method (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987). Older models of the positivist approach for political scientists include: the essays included in J. C. Charlesworth, ed, Contemporary Political Analysis (New York: Free Press, 1967); M. M. Czudnowski, Comparing Political Behavior (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1976); and K. Deutsch, The Nerves of Government (New York: Free Press, 1963). For current debates in political science, consult R. E. Goodin and H-D. Klingemann, eds, A New Handbook of Political Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), esp. chaps 1-3. I am also grateful to Roger Crisp for helpful comments about the definition of positivism.
32. Among a plethora of books about social science methodology, the following can be consulted: J. A. Barnes, Who Should Know What? (Harmondsworth, Middx: Penguin Books, 1979); L. Doyal and R. Harris, Empiricism, Explanation and Rationality (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986); C. G. Hempel, Philosophy of Natural Science (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966); R. Keat and J. Urry, Social Science as Science (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975); and E. Nagel, The Structure of Science (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961). Texts designed explicitly for political and social scientists which embody this scientific approach include: A. C. Isaak, Scope and Methods of Political Science, 3rd edn (Chicago, Ill.: Dorsey, 1981); G. King, R. O. Keohane and S. Verba, Designing Social Inquiry (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994); L. C. Mayer, Redefining Comparative Politics (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1989); and C. C. Ragin, The Comparative Method (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987). Older models of the positivist approach for political scientists include: the essays included in J. C. Charlesworth, ed, Contemporary Political Analysis (New York: Free Press, 1967); M. M. Czudnowski, Comparing Political Behavior (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1976); and K. Deutsch, The Nerves of Government (New York: Free Press, 1963). For current debates in political science, consult R. E. Goodin and H-D. Klingemann, eds, A New Handbook of Political Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), esp. chaps 1-3. I am also grateful to Roger Crisp for helpful comments about the definition of positivism.
33. Among a plethora of books about social science methodology, the following can be consulted: J. A. Barnes, Who Should Know What? (Harmondsworth, Middx: Penguin Books, 1979); L. Doyal and R. Harris, Empiricism, Explanation and Rationality (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986); C. G. Hempel, Philosophy of Natural Science (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966); R. Keat and J. Urry, Social Science as Science (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975); and E. Nagel, The Structure of Science (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961). Texts designed explicitly for political and social scientists which embody this scientific approach include: A. C. Isaak, Scope and Methods of Political Science, 3rd edn (Chicago, Ill.: Dorsey, 1981); G. King, R. O. Keohane and S. Verba, Designing Social Inquiry (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994); L. C. Mayer, Redefining Comparative Politics (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1989); and C. C. Ragin, The Comparative Method (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987). Older models of the positivist approach for political scientists include: the essays included in J. C. Charlesworth, ed, Contemporary Political Analysis (New York: Free Press, 1967); M. M. Czudnowski, Comparing Political Behavior (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1976); and K. Deutsch, The Nerves of Government (New York: Free Press, 1963). For current debates in political science, consult R. E. Goodin and H-D. Klingemann, eds, A New Handbook of Political Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), esp. chaps 1-3. I am also grateful to Roger Crisp for helpful comments about the definition of positivism.
34. Among a plethora of books about social science methodology, the following can be consulted: J. A. Barnes, Who Should Know What? (Harmondsworth, Middx: Penguin Books, 1979); L. Doyal and R. Harris, Empiricism, Explanation and Rationality (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986); C. G. Hempel, Philosophy of Natural Science (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966); R. Keat and J. Urry, Social Science as Science (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975); and E. Nagel, The Structure of Science (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961). Texts designed explicitly for political and social scientists which embody this scientific approach include: A. C. Isaak, Scope and Methods of Political Science, 3rd edn (Chicago, Ill.: Dorsey, 1981); G. King, R. O. Keohane and S. Verba, Designing Social Inquiry (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994); L. C. Mayer, Redefining Comparative Politics (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1989); and C. C. Ragin, The Comparative Method (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987). Older models of the positivist approach for political scientists include: the essays included in J. C. Charlesworth, ed, Contemporary Political Analysis (New York: Free Press, 1967); M. M. Czudnowski, Comparing Political Behavior (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1976); and K. Deutsch, The Nerves of Government (New York: Free Press, 1963). For current debates in political science, consult R. E. Goodin and H-D. Klingemann, eds, A New Handbook of Political Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), esp. chaps 1-3. I am also grateful to Roger Crisp for helpful comments about the definition of positivism.
35. Among a plethora of books about social science methodology, the following can be consulted: J. A. Barnes, Who Should Know What? (Harmondsworth, Middx: Penguin Books, 1979); L. Doyal and R. Harris, Empiricism, Explanation and Rationality (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986); C. G. Hempel, Philosophy of Natural Science (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966); R. Keat and J. Urry, Social Science as Science (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975); and E. Nagel, The Structure of Science (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961). Texts designed explicitly for political and social scientists which embody this scientific approach include: A. C. Isaak, Scope and Methods of Political Science, 3rd edn (Chicago, Ill.: Dorsey, 1981); G. King, R. O. Keohane and S. Verba, Designing Social Inquiry (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994); L. C. Mayer, Redefining Comparative Politics (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1989); and C. C. Ragin, The Comparative Method (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987). Older models of the positivist approach for political scientists include: the essays included in J. C. Charlesworth, ed, Contemporary Political Analysis (New York: Free Press, 1967); M. M. Czudnowski, Comparing Political Behavior (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1976); and K. Deutsch, The Nerves of Government (New York: Free Press, 1963). For current debates in political science, consult R. E. Goodin and H-D. Klingemann, eds, A New Handbook of Political Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), esp. chaps 1-3. I am also grateful to Roger Crisp for helpful comments about the definition of positivism.
36. The tenacity and plausibility of the positivist framework itself, however employed, has been the subject of major debate and critique during the last two decades, a development less relevant to the purposes of this article which relate to the institutionalization of a particular approach at the NSF and SSRC. For introductions, see D. M. Ricci, The Tragedy of Political Science (New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 1984); and S. P. Turner and J. H. Turner, The Impossible Science: An Institutional Analysis of American Sociology (London: Sage, 1990).
37. The tenacity and plausibility of the positivist framework itself, however employed, has been the subject of major debate and critique during the last two decades, a development less relevant to the purposes of this article which relate to the institutionalization of a particular approach at the NSF and SSRC. For introductions, see D. M. Ricci, The Tragedy of Political Science (New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 1984); and S. P. Turner and J. H. Turner, The Impossible Science: An Institutional Analysis of American Sociology (London: Sage, 1990).
38. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, US House of Representatives 89th Congress 1st Session, Volume II, 'Review of the National Science Foundation' (Washington, DC: US GPO, 1965), p. 1300. He did add, however: 'I personally question the puristic attitude that deplores involvement in contemporary problems in the name of "basic research".'
39. Nuffield College, College Memorandum to the Heyworth Committee on Social Studies (hereafter Nuffield memo), D. N. Chester, Warden, 10 April 1964, p. 1, in PRO Folder: ED 144-37, 23803.
40. Nuffield memo, 10 April 1964, p. 2.
41. Nuffield memo, 10 April 1964, p. 2.
42. See D. King, The New Right: Politics, Markets and Citizenship (London: Macmillan, 1987). For an example of New Right criticism of policy based on social research, see D. Anderson, ed., The Ignorance of Social Intervention (London: Croom Helm, 1980).
43. See D. King, The New Right: Politics, Markets and Citizenship (London: Macmillan, 1987). For an example of New Right criticism of policy based on social research, see D. Anderson, ed., The Ignorance of Social Intervention (London: Croom Helm, 1980).
44. Manifest in the 1982 Rothschild enquiry into the social sciences, and in the decision, taken in 1983, to rename the SSRC the 'Economic and Social Research Council'. See Lord Rothschild, An Enquiry into the Social Science Research Council (London: HMSO, Cmnd. 8554, 1982).
45. NSFA, 'The Role of the Foundation with respect to Social Science Research', p. 11.
46. NSFA, Memorandum from Assistant Director for Social Sciences to NSF Director, 15 July 1961, p. 1.
47. For examples, see O. Larsen, Milestones und Millstones: Social Science at the National Science Foundation, 1945-1991 (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1992), chaps 4, 5.
48. On Project Camelot - a US Department of the Army sponsored social science study identifying the preconditions of internal conflict or revolution in countries and determining how these preconditions could be modified - see Barnes, Who Should Know What? pp. 46-52, and I. L. Horovitz, ed., The Rise and Fall of Project Camelot (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1967).
49. On Project Camelot - a US Department of the Army sponsored social science study identifying the preconditions of internal conflict or revolution in countries and determining how these preconditions could be modified - see Barnes, Who Should Know What? pp. 46-52, and I. L. Horovitz, ed., The Rise and Fall of Project Camelot (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1967).
50. NSFA, Memorandum from Harry Alpert to Dr Waterman, 1 July 1953. This lists those who were consulted. Later memoranda provide further details of who was consulted.
51. NSFA, memorandum from Harry Alpen to Dr Waterman, 'Study of Foundation's Role with Respect to Social Science Research: Preliminary Considerations (Position Article No. 2)' 1 November 1953, p. 3. In a position article prior to his report, Alpert argued that the 'social science program of the National Science Foundation must be defined in relation to the activities of nongovernmental organizations supporting social science research. It should be basic policy that the Foundation will not support research in areas adequately supported by private foundations, industry, academic institutions and other nongovernmental groups.'
52. The Board oversaw the NSF and was an important body during the Foundation's first decade.
53. NSFA, 'The Role of the Foundation with respect to Social Science Research', pp. 2-3.
54. NARA RG 307 Records of the NSF, Office of the Director, General Records 1949-63, Dr Waterman's Subject Files 1951-56, Box 20 Folder: Social Science Research. See memorandum from Harry Alpert to Dr Waterman, 1 November 1953, 'Study of Foundation's Role with Respect to Social Science Research: Preliminary Considerations (Position Article No. 2)', p. 2.
55. NARA RG 307 Records of the NSF, Office of the Director, General Records 1949-63, Dr Waterman's Subject Files 1951-56, Box 20 Folder: Social Science Research. See memorandum from Harry Alpert to Dr Waterman, 'National Science Foundation's Activities with respect to Social Science Research (Progress Report No. 4)', 1 July 1955, pp. 18-19. Emphasis added.
56. This point is emphasized in Kleinman and Solovey, 'Hot Science/Cold War', 1995, pp. 119-20
57. NARA RG 307 Records of the NSF, Office of the Director, General Records 1949-63, Dr Waterman's Subject Files 1951-56, Box 20 Folder: Social Science Research. Memorandum from Harry Alpert to Dr Waterman, 'Discussion with Mr Barnard on Foundation's Study of Social Science Research', 22 May 1953, p. 1. Alpert also attached a article delivered before a congressional committee discussing the differences between natural and social sciences, authored by a Cornell academic, William Myers. Myers opined that 'there is no hard and fast line between the social sciences and the physical and biological sciences'; and that methodologies overlapped: 'The physical and social sciences use many of the same basic disciplines, the same logic and seek the same objectives of provable knowledge that can be passed on to others' (NSFA, 'The Role of the Foundation with respect to Social Science Research', Appendix E, 'Some Differences Between the Social and Natural Sciences', pp. 70, 71).
58. NARA RG 307 Records of the NSF, Office of the Director, General Records 1949-63, Dr Waterman's Subject Files 1951-56, Box 20 Folder: Social Science Research. Memorandum from Harry Alpert to Dr Waterman, 'Discussion with Mr Barnard on Foundation's Study of Social Science Research', 22 May 1953, p. 1. Alpert also attached a article delivered before a congressional committee discussing the differences between natural and social sciences, authored by a Cornell academic, William Myers. Myers opined that 'there is no hard and fast line between the social sciences and the physical and biological sciences'; and that methodologies overlapped: 'The physical and social sciences use many of the same basic disciplines, the same logic and seek the same objectives of provable knowledge that can be passed on to others' (NSFA, 'The Role of the Foundation with respect to Social Science Research', Appendix E, 'Some Differences Between the Social and Natural Sciences', pp. 70, 71).
59. 'The Role of the Foundation with respect to Social Science Research', p. 16. On the Foundation's original remit, see Kleinman, Politics on the Endless Frontier.
60. 'The Role of the Foundation with respect to Social Science Research', p. 16. On the Foundation's original remit, see Kleinman, Politics on the Endless Frontier.
61. NSFA, 'The Role of the Foundation with respect to Social Science Research', p. 17.
62. NSFA, 'The Role of the Foundation with respect to Social Science Research', p. 27.
63. NSFA, 'The Role of the Foundation with respect to Social Science Research', p. 19.
64. NSFA, 'The Role of the Foundation with respect to Social Science Research', p. 20.
65. National Science Board, Minutes of the 58th Meeting of the National Science Board, 23 January 1959, Appendix VII, 'Report of the Social Sciences Committee as approved by the National Science Board at its meetings on December 1, 1958 and January 23, 1959', p. xlii.
66. NSFA, Memorandum from Assistant Director for Social Science to NSF Director, 15 July 1961, p. 2.
67. NSFA, Memorandum from Assistant Director for Social Science to NSF Director, 15 July 1965, pp. 1, 2.
68. NSF, Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1959 (Washington, DC: US GPO, 1959), p. 45
69. NSF, Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1960 (Washington, DC: US GPO, 1960), p. 59.
70. NSF, Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1962 (Washington, DC: US GPO, 1962), p. 32.
71. NSF, Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1963 (Washington, DC: US GPO, 1963), p. 31.
72. NSFA, Memorandum from Assistant Director for Social Sciences to NSF Director, 15 July 1963, p. 1.
73. NSFA, Memorandum from Assistant Director for Social Sciences to NSF Director, 15 July 1963, pp. 19, 20.
74. NSFA, 'The Role of the Foundation with respect to Social Science Research', pp. 33, 34. 52 Kleinman and Solovey, 'Hot Science/Cold War', p. 119.
75. NSFA, 'The Role of the Foundation with respect to Social Science Research', pp. 33, 34. 52 Kleinman and Solovey, 'Hot Science/Cold War', p. 119.
76. House of Representatives, 82nd Congress, Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate Foundations and Other Organizations (Washington, DC: US GPO, 1953); and House of Representatives, 83rd Congress, Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations (Washington, DC: US, 1954).
77. House of Representatives, 82nd Congress, Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate Foundations and Other Organizations (Washington, DC: US GPO, 1953); and House of Representatives, 83rd Congress, Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations (Washington, DC: US, 1954).
78. NSFA, memorandum from Program Director for Social Science Research to NSF Director, 1 July 1958, 'Annual Review of the Social Science Research Program, Fiscal Year 1958'. See also Harry Alpert, 'The National Science Foundation and Social Science Research', American Sociological Review, 19 (1954), 208-11.
79. NSFA, memorandum from Program Director for Social Science Research to NSF Director, 1 July 1958, 'Annual Review of the Social Science Research Program, Fiscal Year 1958'. See also Harry Alpert, 'The National Science Foundation and Social Science Research', American Sociological Review, 19 (1954), 208-11.
80. NSF, Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1959 (Washington, DC: US GPO, 1959), pp. 44-6, at p. 44.
81. National Science Board, Minutes of the 68th Meeting of the National Science Board, 17-18 November 1960, p. 14. This recommendation from the committee was given 'his complete support' by the NSF Director, Dr Alan Waterman.
82. Congressional Record, House of Representatives, 19 August 1958, p. 16988.
83. Congressional Record, Senate, 1 May 1958, p. 12304.
84. Congressional Record, House of Representatives, 19 August 1958, p. 16987.
85. James G. Miller et al., 'National Support for Behavioral Science', American Psychologist (1958) included in 'The Use of Social Research in Federal Domestic Programs', a Staff Study for the Research and Technical Programs Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives 90th Congress 1st Session, April 1967 (Washington, DC: US GPO, 1967), pp. 197-211.
86. James G. Miller et al., 'National Support for Behavioral Science', American Psychologist (1958) included in 'The Use of Social Research in Federal Domestic Programs', a Staff Study for the Research and Technical Programs Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives 90th Congress 1st Session, April 1967 (Washington, DC: US GPO, 1967), pp. 197-211.
87. Miller et al., 'National Support for Behavioral Science', p. 199.
88. Miller et al., 'National Support for Behavioral Science', p. 200.
89. 48th President of the American Political Science Association. See D. Ricci, The Tragedy of Political Science (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1984), pp. 110-11.
90. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, US House of Representatives, 89th Congress, 1st Session, Volume I, 'Review of the National Science Foundation', 20 July 1965 (Washington, DC: US GPO, 1965), p. 430.
91. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, Vol. I 'Review of the National Science Foundation', p. 444.
92. National Science Board, Minutes of the 82nd Meeting of the National Science Board, 17-19 January 1963, Appendix III, 30 January 1963, p. vi. Emphasis in original.
93. NARA RG 307 Records of the NSF, Office of the Director, General Records 1949-63, Box 79 Folder: Division of Social Sciences 1963. Report of the Social Sciences Committee of the National Science Board, 17 January 1963, discussed at the Board, 30 January 1963, p. 1.
94. NARA RG 307, Report of the Social Sciences Committee of the National Science Board, 17 January 1963, p. 1.
95. National Science Board, Minutes of the 82nd Meeting of the National Science Board, 17-19 January 1963, Appendix III, 30 January 1963, p. vii. Emphasis in original.
96. 'The Use of Social Research in Federal Domestic Programs', a Staff Study for the Research and Technical Programs Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives 90th Congress 1st Session, April 1967 (Washington DC: US GPO, 1967), p. 2.
97. See Larsen, Milestones and Millstones, pp. 70-1.
98. NARA RG 307 Records of the NSF, Office of the Director, Science Adviser - G. Stever, Subject Files 1973-76, Box 11 Folder: Meeting/Report of the Behavioral and Social Science Professional Associations - 19 February 1975. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee, 'NSF Social Science Research Programs', 14 February 1975, p. 1. The committee members were all from within the NSF.
99. NARA RG 307 Records of the NSF, Office of the Director, Science Adviser - G. Stever, Subject Files 1973-76, Box 11 Folder: Meeting/Report of the Behavioral and Social Science Professional Associations - 19 February 1975. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee, 'NSF Social Science Research Programs', 14 February 1975, p. 1. The committee members were all from within the NSF.
100. NARA RG 307, G. Stever, 1975. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee, 'NSF Social Science Research Programs', 14 February 1975, Appendix B, p. 1.
101. Report of the Committee on the Provision for Social and Economic Research, chairman Sir John Clapham (London: HMSO, Cmd. 6868, 1946), p. 12. Emphasis added.
102. Report of the Committee on the Provision for Social and Economic Research, p. 13. Formally the recommendations were: (a) that a standing Interdepartmental Economic and Social Research Committee be set up to survey and advise upon research work in government departments; (b) that favourable consideration be given to increases of the university grant with a view to strengthening developments conducive to the spread of research into economic and social questions, both through the provision of more chairs and other teaching posts, and through much more liberal provision for libraries, calculating machines, computing assistants, and similar facilities; (c) that the University Grants Committee (UGC) be asked to consider the establishment of a subcommittee to advise on matters relating to the social sciences.
103. See A. Shonfield, Modern Capitalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965); National Economic Development Council, Conditions Favourable to Faster Growth (London: HMSO, 1963); Labour Party, Labour and the Scientific Revolution (London: Labour Party, 1963); and A. H. Halsey, 'Sociology as Political Arithmetic (The Glass Memorial Lecture)', British Journal of Sociology, 45 (1994), 427-44.
104. See A. Shonfield, Modern Capitalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965); National Economic Development Council, Conditions Favourable to Faster Growth (London: HMSO, 1963); Labour Party, Labour and the Scientific Revolution (London: Labour Party, 1963); and A. H. Halsey, 'Sociology as Political Arithmetic (The Glass Memorial Lecture)', British Journal of Sociology, 45 (1994), 427-44.
105. See A. Shonfield, Modern Capitalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965); National Economic Development Council, Conditions Favourable to Faster Growth (London: HMSO, 1963); Labour Party, Labour and the Scientific Revolution (London: Labour Party, 1963); and A. H. Halsey, 'Sociology as Political Arithmetic (The Glass Memorial Lecture)', British Journal of Sociology, 45 (1994), 427-44.
106. See A. Shonfield, Modern Capitalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965); National Economic Development Council, Conditions Favourable to Faster Growth (London: HMSO, 1963); Labour Party, Labour and the Scientific Revolution (London: Labour Party, 1963); and A. H. Halsey, 'Sociology as Political Arithmetic (The Glass Memorial Lecture)', British Journal of Sociology, 45 (1994), 427-44.
107. D. V. Glass, 'The Application of Social Research', British Journal of Sociology, 1 (1950), 17-30, p. 17.
108. Glass, 'The Application of Social Research', p. 18.
109. Halsey, 'Sociology as Political Arithmetic', p. 435.
110. Dahrendorf, LSE.
111. N. Annan, Our Age: The Generation That Made Post-War Britain (London: Harper Collins, 1990), p. 13.
112. See, for example, White Paper on Employment Policy in Parliamentary Papers, Vol. 8 (1943-44), (London: HMSO, Cmd. 6527, 1944).
113. Committee on Social Studies (Heyworth Committee), Report on Seminar held on 13-14 January 1964, Part VI, 'on the present state of knowledge in the Social Sciences', Introduction by Professor W. J. M. MacKenzie, p. 9, in Public Record Office (hereafter PRO) Folder ED 144-3.
114. Writing a few years later, MacKenzie aligned political science with positivist social science, though with caveats grounded in the British empirical tradition: 'political science rightly has a place in this inquiry into nomothetic disciplines in the social sciences. Its character as a social science is determined by the fact that it searches for laws and is to some extent successful in establishing them.' W. J. M. MacKenzie, 'Political Science', in UNESCO, Main Trends of Research in the Social and Human Sciences, Part One: Social Sciences (Paris: UNESCO, 1970), p. 173-4.
115. Report of the Committee on Social Studies (chairman Lord Heyworth), June 1965 (London: HMSO, Cmnd. 2660, 1965) p. 28.
116. On the establishment of the Committee and decisions about its membership, see letter from G. R. Bell to A. B. Cherns, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, 27 June 1963, and 'Committee on Social Studies' in confidence, 10 July 1963, PRO Folder: ED 144-1. Aside from Lord Heyworth, the other members were: Mr Noel Annan, Mr Charles F. Carter, Sir Austin Bradford Hill, Dame Mary Smieton and Mr Charles H. Wilson. The report went through several drafts before finally agreed by the committee members. See minutes of the committee's meetings 31 December 1964, 4 February 1965 and 10 February 1965 in PRO, Folder: ED 144-2.
117. Cited in memorandum 'Committee on Social Studies', in confidence, 10 July 1963 in Folder: ED 144-1. It was prepared by the Human Science Committee at the DSIR.
118. Guided by a paper prepared by A. T. M. (Tommy) Wilson. Heyworth Committee
119. Committee on Social Studies, Report on Seminar held on 13-14 January 1964, 'Opening Remarks by Dr A. T. M. Wilson', p. 2, 3, in PRO Folder ED 144-3.
120. Committee on Social Studies, Minutes of Proceedings at a Seminar of Users, 9 November 1964, p. 40, in PRO Folder ED 144-5, 23590.
121. Committee on Social Studies, Report on Seminar held on 13-14 January 1964, Part VI, 'On the Present State of Knowledge in the Social Sciences', Introduction, by Professor W. J. M. MacKenzie, p. 11.
122. Report of the Committee on Social Studies (Heyworth), p. 32.
123. Committee on Social Studies, 'On the Present State of Knowledge in the Social Sciences', Introduction, by Professor D. MacRae, p. 2.
124. Committee on Social Studies, 'On the Present State of Knowledge in the Social Sciences', Introduction, by Professor D. MacRae, p. 2.
125. Committee on Social Studies, 'On the Present State of Knowledge in the Social Sciences', Introduction, by Professor D. MacRae, p. 3.
126. Committee on Social Studies, 'On the Present State of Knowledge in the Social Sciences', Introduction, by Professor D. MacRae, p. 4.
127. Committee on Social Studies, Report on Seminar 13-14 January 1964, Part VIII, Note of discussion on Tuesday 14 January 1964, pp. 19-20, in PRO Folder ED 144-3.
128. Committee on Social Studies, Report on Seminar 13-14 January 1964, Part VIII, Note of discussion on Tuesday 14 January 1964, p. 34.
129. Committee on Social Studies, Report on Seminar 13-14 January 1964, Part VIII, Note of discussion on Tuesday 14 January 1964, p. 1.
130. Committee on Social Studies, Report on Seminar 13-14 January 1964, Part VIII, Note of discussion on Tuesday 14 January 1964, p. 3.
131. Committee on Social Studies, Report on Seminar 13-14 January 1964, Part VIII, Note of discussion on Tuesday 14 January 1964, p. 5.
132. Committee on Social Studies, Report on Seminar 13-14 January 1964, Part VIII, Note of discussion on Tuesday 14 January 1964, pp. 8-9.
133. Committee on Social Studies, Report on Seminar 13-14 January 1964, Part VIII, Note of discussion on Tuesday 14 January 1964, p. 31.
134. Committee on Social Studies, Minutes of Proceedings at a Seminar of Users, 9 November 1964, pp. 10-11, in PRO Folder ED 144-5, 23590. Emphasis added.
135. In a lengthy memorandum, Mrs Judith Hart MP touted the need for greater use of social science research by government departments. Accepting the 'validity of their [social sciences] claim to be true scientific disciplines in that they use scientific method', Hart regretted that 'effective use of social research is not yet to be taken for granted' amongst civil servants. She gave the example of housing: The Ministry of Housing and Local Government (and its Scottish counterpart) neither carries out nor commissions research on the social implications of layout in new housing development, although evidence has been available since about 1950 that the subject might be important... Indeed, it has sponsored the whole new towns programme without any effort being made to bring into being a research unit or advisory service, to assist new town development corporations and local authorities to plan vast movements of population which disturb family and social relationships as sharply as did the "unplanned" growth of cities during the Industrial Revolution.' See Mrs Judith Hart MP to the Heyworth Committee, n.d., p. 2, in PRO Folder ED 144-4.
136. Committee on Social Studies, Minutes of Proceedings at a Seminar of Users, 9 November 1964, p. 3, in PRO Folder ED 144-5, 23590.
137. Committee on Social Studies, Minutes of Proceedings at a Seminar of Users, 9 November 1964, p. 5
138. Committee on Social Studies, Minutes of Proceedings at a Seminar of Users, 9 November 1964, p. 7 (J. Bowen).
139. Committee on Social Studies, Minutes of Proceedings at a Seminar of Users, 9 November 1964, p. 9.
140. Committee on Social Studies, Report on Seminar 13-14 January 1964, Part VIII, Note of Discussion on Tuesday 14 January 1964, p. 41.
141. Committee on Social Studies, Notes of a Seminar on 'The Research Function of Social Science Departments in Wales, with Particular Reference to the Problem of Small Departments', Session 2, 11 May 1964, pp. 4-5, in PRO Folder ED 144-5, 23590.
142. Committee on Social Studies, Report on Seminar 13-14 January 1964, Part VIII, Note of Discussion on Tuesday 14 January 1964, p. 48.
143. Committee on Social Studies, Report on Seminar 13-14 January 1964, Part VIII, Note of Discussion on Tuesday, 14 January 1964, pp. 11-12.
144. Committee on Social Studies, Report on Seminar 13-14 January 1964, Part VIII, Note of Discussion on Tuesday, 14 January 1964, p. 22.
145. Committee on Social Studies, Report on Seminar 13-14 January 1964. Part VIII, Note of Discussion on Tuesday, 14 January 1964, p. 24.
146. Committee on Social Studies, Notes of a Seminar on 'The Research Function of Social Science Departments in Wales, with Particular Reference to the Problem of Small Departments', Session 2, 11 May 1964, p. 14. The perspicacity of these observations in respect of the future SSRC's history is striking. The ESRC is now driven by Council formulated thematic priorities, intended directly to link research to application and users' needs (even though the identification of these are necessarily difficult). Economic and Social Research Council, Thematic Priorities (Swindon: ESRC, 1995). Graduate funding is also to be increasingly linked to these nine themes.
147. Committee on Social Studies, Notes of a Seminar on 'The Research Function of Social Science Departments in Wales, with Particular Reference to the Problem of Small Departments', Session 2, 11 May 1964, p. 14. The perspicacity of these observations in respect of the future SSRC's history is striking. The ESRC is now driven by Council formulated thematic priorities, intended directly to link research to application and users' needs (even though the identification of these are necessarily difficult). Economic and Social Research Council, Thematic Priorities (Swindon: ESRC, 1995). Graduate funding is also to be increasingly linked to these nine themes.
148. Report of the Committee on Social Studies (Heyworth), p. 45.
149. Report of the Committee on Social Studies (Heyworth), p. 47. The Council was to have the following responsibilities: 'to provide support for research in the social sciences; to keep under review the state of research in the social sciences; to advise the Government on the needs of social science research; to keep under review the supply of trained research workers and to contribute resources towards this training; to give special consideration to the application of research in the social sciences and to the dissemination of information about research projected and completed; to give advice to the users of research (in government, local government, industry, etc.).'
150. Report of the Committee on Social Studies (Heyworth), p. 46.
151. Lord Rothschild, An Enquiry into the Social Science Research Council (London: HMSO, Cmnd. 8554, 1982).
152. See, for example, G. King, R. Keohane and S. Verba, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994); and A. Kohli, P. Evans, P. J. Katzenstein, A. Przeworski, S. H. Rudolph, J. C. Scott and T. Skocpol, 'The Role of Theory in Comparative Politics', World Politics, 48 (1995), 1-49. For a British statement of the dominant canon in political science, see the collection in D. Marsh and G. Stoker, eds, Theory and Methods in Political Science (London: Macmillan, 1995).
153. See, for example, G. King, R. Keohane and S. Verba, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994); and A. Kohli, P. Evans, P. J. Katzenstein, A. Przeworski, S. H. Rudolph, J. C. Scott and T. Skocpol, 'The Role of Theory in Comparative Politics', World Politics, 48 (1995), 1-49. For a British statement of the dominant canon in political science, see the collection in D. Marsh and G. Stoker, eds, Theory and Methods in Political Science (London: Macmillan, 1995).
154. See, for example, G. King, R. Keohane and S. Verba, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994); and A. Kohli, P. Evans, P. J. Katzenstein, A. Przeworski, S. H. Rudolph, J. C. Scott and T. Skocpol, 'The Role of Theory in Comparative Politics', World Politics, 48 (1995), 1-49. For a British statement of the dominant canon in political science, see the collection in D. Marsh and G. Stoker, eds, Theory and Methods in Political Science (London: Macmillan, 1995).
155. For a theoretical approach which explains comparative differences by reference to political-institutional differences across states - termed historical institutionalism - see K. Thelen and S. Steinmo, 'Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics', in S. Steinmo et al., eds, Structuring Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
156. On the general positivist character of social sciences by the end of the 1960s, see the valuable essays in UNESCO, Main Trends of Research in the Social and Human Sciences: Part One: Social Sciences (Paris: UNESCO, 1970).
157. For which see, inter alia, P. Abrams, The Origins of British Sociology: 1834-1914 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968); J. Madge, The Origins of Scientific Sociology (London: Tavistock, 1963); J. Platt, A History of Sociological Research Methods in America, 1920-1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); and D. Ross, The Origins of American Social Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
158. For which see, inter alia, P. Abrams, The Origins of British Sociology: 1834-1914 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968); J. Madge, The Origins of Scientific Sociology (London: Tavistock, 1963); J. Platt, A History of Sociological Research Methods in America, 1920-1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); and D. Ross, The Origins of American Social Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
159. For which see, inter alia, P. Abrams, The Origins of British Sociology: 1834-1914 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968); J. Madge, The Origins of Scientific Sociology (London: Tavistock, 1963); J. Platt, A History of Sociological Research Methods in America, 1920-1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); and D. Ross, The Origins of American Social Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
160. For which see, inter alia, P. Abrams, The Origins of British Sociology: 1834-1914 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968); J. Madge, The Origins of Scientific Sociology (London: Tavistock, 1963); J. Platt, A History of Sociological Research Methods in America, 1920-1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); and D. Ross, The Origins of American Social Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
161. In a superb historical essay, Donald Winch examines the growth of nineteenth-century notions of social research for effective making of legislation. He writes that the 'underlying aim of many philosophers who adopted naturalistic approaches to man in society during the Enlightenment was to construct a science of the legislator capable of doing for their own generation what Aristotle and Machiavelli had done earlier, but to do so on a fresh foundation that incorporated an improved Newtonian methodology of observation and experiment; access to more cosmopolitan historical and anthropological evidence; and a more profound understanding, as they saw it, of the psychological "springs" of human action'. Winch reminds the reader how in the nineteenth century the British parliament was transformed into a law-making body which enacted legislation on the basis of 'extensive social investigation' implemented 'through bureaucratic modes of intervention'. Mid-twentieth century social scientists had even more ambitious plans for unearthing the rational bases for public policy. Rather than simply discovering the facts and reaching conclusions on the basis of them, the new promise was to provide a general model of behaviour which could be applied systematically with certainty of accuracy to a range of social, political and economic circumstances (D. Winch, 'The Science of the Legislator', in M. J. Lacey and M. O. Furner, eds, The State and Social Investigation in Britain and the United States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 66).
162. See the accounts in A. Somit and J. Tanenhaus, The Development of American Political Science: From Burgess to Behaviouralism (Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, 1967); M. A. Baer, M. E. Jewell and L. Sigelman, eds, Political Science in America: Oral Histories of a Discipline (Lexington, Mass.: University Press of Kentucky, 1991); A. Oberschall, 'The Institutionalization of American Sociology', in A. Oberschall, ed., The Establishment of Empirical Sociology (New York: Harper & Row, 1972); and Ross, The Origins of American Social Science.
163. See the accounts in A. Somit and J. Tanenhaus, The Development of American Political Science: From Burgess to Behaviouralism (Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, 1967); M. A. Baer, M. E. Jewell and L. Sigelman, eds, Political Science in America: Oral Histories of a Discipline (Lexington, Mass.: University Press of Kentucky, 1991); A. Oberschall, 'The Institutionalization of American Sociology', in A. Oberschall, ed., The Establishment of Empirical Sociology (New York: Harper & Row, 1972); and Ross, The Origins of American Social Science.
164. See the accounts in A. Somit and J. Tanenhaus, The Development of American Political Science: From Burgess to Behaviouralism (Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, 1967); M. A. Baer, M. E. Jewell and L. Sigelman, eds, Political Science in America: Oral Histories of a Discipline (Lexington, Mass.: University Press of Kentucky, 1991); A. Oberschall, 'The Institutionalization of American Sociology', in A. Oberschall, ed., The Establishment of Empirical Sociology (New York: Harper & Row, 1972); and Ross, The Origins of American Social Science.
165. See the accounts in A. Somit and J. Tanenhaus, The Development of American Political Science: From Burgess to Behaviouralism (Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, 1967); M. A. Baer, M. E. Jewell and L. Sigelman, eds, Political Science in America: Oral Histories of a Discipline (Lexington, Mass.: University Press of Kentucky, 1991); A. Oberschall, 'The Institutionalization of American Sociology', in A. Oberschall, ed., The Establishment of Empirical Sociology (New York: Harper & Row, 1972); and Ross, The Origins of American Social Science.
166. See R. L. Geiger, To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American Research Universities, 1900-1940 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).
167. P. Flather, "Pulling Through" - Conspiracies, Counterplots, and How the SSRC Escaped the Axe in 1982', in M. Bulmer, ed., Social Science Research and Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).
168. Larsen, Milestones and Millstones, p. 3.