Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T19:37:23.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Science and the Proposal for a National Social Science Foundation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Fred R. Harris
Fred R. Harris*
Affiliation:
United States Senate
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“Political scientists … are … ex-post-facto entrail watchers … after-the-event sooth-sayers,” said the late Lucius Beebe. Similarly, much of the general public has long felt that social scientists are not scientists at all but deal in intuition and vague, unfounded generalizations, or are “proposition mongers,” a threat to policymakers.

These notions, together with the fact that social scientists work in sensitive, moral-charged subjects which frequently cause strong public reaction, are partly responsible for the relatively small support the Federal Government has given to research and scholarship in the social sciences.

In 1965 basic research of all types funded by the Federal Government amounted to $1.69 billion, of which the social sciences received only $37 million, or 2.2 per cent. The estimated obligations for 1966 and 1967 were about the same, 2.5 per cent and 2.8 per cent. Nor is there much difference when Federal support for applied research is considered. For 1965, Federal social science expenditures for applied research amounted to only 2.8 per cent of the $3.16 billion the Federal Government spent for all types of applied research, and for 1966 and 1967, estimated expenditures, are only 3.9 per cent and 4.8 per cent.

Type
The State of the Profession
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 61 , Issue 4 , December 1967 , pp. 1088 - 1095
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Beebe, Lucius, “Cafe Society Revisited,” New York Herald Tribune, 04 19, 1964, Sunday Magazine, p. 12.Google Scholar

2 Guetzkow, Harold, “National Foundation for the Social Sciences,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Research, Committee on Government Operations, U. S. Senate, 90th Congress, 1st Session, 06 27, 1967.Google Scholar

3 Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Research, June 2, 1967.

4 Paul Bohannan, testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Research, July 12, 1967.

5 “Federal Funds for Research, Development, and other Scientific Activities, Fiscal Years 1964, 1965, and 1966,” Vol. XIV, National Science Foundation, NSF 66–25 (U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1966), pp. 12 and 17.

6 Archibald, Kathleen, “Federal Interest and Investment in Social Science,” The Use of Social Science Research in Federal Domestic Programs, Part I, a Staff Study for the Subcommittee on Research and Technical Programs, Committee on Government Operations, U. S. House of Representatives, 90th Congress, 1st Session (U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.), p. 329.Google Scholar

7 Riecken, Henry W., “Government-Science Relations, The Physical and Social Sciences Compared,” American Psychologist, 22 (03, 1967).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8 Carroll, James D., “Notes on the Support of Political Science Research Projects by the Division of Social Sciences of the National Science Foundation, Fiscal Years 1958–65,” The Use of Social Science Research in Federal Domestic Programs, Part IV, pp. 88–89.Google Scholar

9 Haworth, Leland J., “National Foundation for Social Sciences,” Hearings before the Subcommittee on Government Research, Committee on Government Operations, U. S. Senate, 90th Congress, 1st Session, 02 7, 8, and 16, 1967, Part I (U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.), 1967, p. 105.Google Scholar

10 The number of faculty members in the social sciences for the years 1962 to 1963 are as follows:

1. Economics 3,160

2. Political Science 2,870

3. Sociology 2,370

4. Anthropology 720

“Teaching Faculty in Higher Education, 1962–63; Primary Teaching Areas and Contract Salaries,” Office of Education (U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1964), p. 7.

11 Figures on the size of the memberships of major social science associations as of September 1, 1967, were obtained by contacting the administrative offices of each society and are as follows:

1. American Economic Association 15,149

2. American Political Science Association 15,000

3. American Sociological Association 10,327

4. American Anthropological Association 6,700

5. History of Science Society 2,250

12 Grants approved by NSF for fiscal year 1966 are as follows:

1. Anthropology $3,981,890

2. History and Philosophy of Science 1,023,000

3. Political Science 335,650

Haworth, op. cit., p. 105.

13 Wex S. Malone, testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Research, June 21, 1967, and Myres S. McDougal, testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Research, June 27, 1967.

14 Gilb, Coreen, “Full Opportunity and Social Accounting Act,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Research, Committee on Government Operations, U. S. Senate, 90th Congress, 1st Session, 07 20, 1967.Google Scholar

15 Launor F. Carter, testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Research, June 2, 1967.

16 Gwendolen M. Carter, testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Research, June 21, 1967.

17 Guetzkow, op, cit.

18 Austin Ranney, testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Research, July 12, 1967.

19 Vincent Davis, testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Research, June 21, 1967.

20 Gerald Holton, testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Research, June 28, 1967.

21 Hornig, Donald F., “Equitable Distribution of R & D Funds by Government Agencies,” hearings before the Subcommittee on Government Research, Committee on Government Operations, U. S. Senate, 90th Congress, 1st Session, 07 11, 1967.Google Scholar

22 Wirtz, W. Willard, “National Foundation for the Social Sciences,” Part I., 8–9.Google Scholar

23 Joe B. Frantz, testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Research, July 12, 1967.

24 Ross Stagner, testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Research, July 13, 1967.

25 Holton, op. cit.

26 Don K. Price, testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Research, June 20, 1967.

27 Letter from Dr. Henry Steele Commager, Professor of History, Amherst College, to Senator Fred R. Harris, March 8, 1967.

28 Haworth, op. cit., p. 80.

29 Haworth, op. cit., pp. 95–100.

30 “National Foundation for the Social Sciences,” Part I.

31 Kingsley Davis, testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Research, June 2, 1967.

32 Fred Harvey Harrington, testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Research, June 28, 1967.

33 Haworth, op. cit., p. 81.

34 Haworth, op. cit., p. 77.

35 Haworth, op. cit., p. 94.

36 James A. Robinson, testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Research, July 12, 1967.

37 “Federal Funds for Research, Development, and Other Activities, Fiscal Years 1965, 1966 and 1967,” Volume XV, NSF 66–25 (U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1967), p. 7.

38 Warren E. Miller, testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Research, June 6, 1967.

39 Fred R. Harris, hearings of the Subcommittee on Government Research, July 13, 1967.

40 Hughes, Thomas L., “National Foundation for the Social Sciences,” Part I, p. 130.Google Scholar

41 Max F. Millikan, testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Research, June 27, 1967.

42 Davis, op. cit.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.