Search results

This article examines competing strategies for supporting and utilizing applied social science and the policy sciences in public decisions and program operations. It argues that tension and conflict are the normal, expected state of affairs between decision makers and the social science and policy science communities. This is so because of very different strategic perspectives governing the scientific standing, decision utility, and political "morality"of applied social research and policy research. The article suggests conflict can be dampened, but never completely eliminated, by two things: (1) sequential research designs that simultaneously produce both partial scientific truths and information useful to decision makers, and (2) more attention to overall quality control and utilization possibilities. However, such improvements require changes in the incentive and value systems of social scientists, policy scientists, and decision makers. The engineering of change m these three communities is itself a formidable unsolved problem.

Lecture 1.Philosophical problems in the social sciences --Lecture 2.Freedom: Method --Discussion.Hobbes --Lecture 3.Freedom: Interpretation --Lecture 4.Freedom: Principle --Discussion.Spinoza --Lecture 5.Freedom: Selection --Lecture 6.Freedom: Selection (Part 2) --Discussion.Kant --Lecture 7.Power: Selection and interpretation --Lecture 8.Power: Interpretation (Part 2) and method --Discussion.Mill, On liberty --Lecture 9.Power: Method (Part 2) --Lecture 10.Power: Principle; and History: Interpretation --Discussion.Machiavelli --Lecture 11.History: Method and principle, and conclusion --Discussion.Review --Appendix A.Class schedule --Appendix B.List of names --Appendix C.One alternate introduction to the course --Appendix D.Schema of philosophic semantics --Appendix E.Reading selections from Hobbes's Leviathan and Philosophical rudiments --Appendix F.Kant, Fundamental principles: three editions with major sections --Appendix G.Mill, On liberty: four editions with major sections' pagination --Appendix H.McKeon notes on freedom and history --Appendix I.Final examination --Appendix J.Semantic profiles of selected Western thinkers --Appendix K.Alternative definitions of freedom, power, and history.

Hierarchy is a form of organisation of complex systems that rely on or produce a strong differentiation in capacity (power and size) between the parts of the system. It is frequently observed within the natural living world as well as in social institutions. According to the authors, hierarchy results from random processes, follows an intentional design, or is the result of the organisation which ensures an optimal circulation of energy for information. This book reviews ancient and modern representations and explanations of hierarchies, and compares their relevance in a variety of fields, such as language, societies, cities, and living species. It throws light on concepts and models such as scaling laws, fractals and self-organisation that are fundamental in the dynamics and morphology of complex systems. At a time when networks are celebrated for their efficiency, flexibility and better social acceptance, much can be learned about the persistent universality and adaptability of hierarchies, and from the analogies and differences between biological and social organisation and processes. This book addresses a wide audience of biologists and social scientists, as well as managers and executives in a variety of institutions.

The introduction of soc sci evidence in judicial proceedings goes back to 1908 & the 'Brandeis brief'. The constitutionality of Oregon's law limiting women to an 8-hour work day in factories was being challenged on the ground that it restricted freedom of contract unreasonably & hence violated the `due process' provisions of the 14th Amendment. The Court learned from the Brandeis brief just how widespread was the belief, both from medical experts & the general community, about women's physical capacity upon which it rested its decision upholding the Oregon law. In the May, 1954 desegregation decision the Justices chose to take account of soc sci res findings in exactly the same way that their predecessors took account of the data in Brandeis's brief : to buttress their 'judicial notice' of the effects of the soc situation at the moment of decision. To outlaw segregation the court relied on a series of precedents for interpreting the 14th Amendment, not on sociol or soc psychol. It is fortunate that the Supreme Court, though it seems to have been influenced to some degree by the soc sci'ts, did not rest its protection of the rights of minorities on the largely irrelevant books & articles cited, or on the need to establish as a fact that segregation has a harmful personality effect. Nevertheless, soc sci is the courts' best means of acquiring accurate knowledge of human behavior. J. A. Fishman.