Is Political Science Alive and Well and Living at NSF: Reflections of a Program Director at Midstream

Is Political Science Alive and Well and Living at NSF: Reflections of a Program Director atMidstreamAuthor(s): David Calhoun LeegeSource: PS, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter, 1976), pp. 8-17Published by: American Political Science AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/418382 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 07:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toPS.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.85 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 07:14:39 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=apsa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/418382?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Is Political Science Alive and Well and Living at NSF: Reflections of a Program Director at Midstream

The Political Science Program of the National Science Foundation is the primary source of support for basic research conducted by univer- sity-based political scientists. While the scientific progress of the discipline depends on what happens in the minds, the fields, the laborator- ies, the libraries, and the typewriters of scholars across the country, there is little question that the size of the Program budget and its usage affects the type and quality of research done by political scientists. This article offers a public accounting to an interested clientele. In no way is it an officially sanctioned statement from NSF. It is a set of personal reflections with some analysis, parts of which my superiors at the Foundation find objectionable. Some of the arguments will not please important sectors of the discipline's intellectual and political leadership as well. I offer it in hopes of stimulating reaction and change. It is limited to basic research support, primarily through the Political Science Pro- gram, and does not extend to support for applied research funded typically through RANN-NSF. Finally, the Foundation is effect- ing a major reorganization which may have far-reaching consequences for the Division of Social Science of which the Program is a part; thus what is said here is subject to change over the next few years.

* * *

While the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 did not explicitly state that funds must be directed to basic research in social sciences, the Foundation indirectly supported such research through its Division of Biological and Medical Sciences through 1957 and began laying the groundwork for an appropriate division. The Division of Social Sciences received official organizational status in 1960. In the early 1960's, many political scientists expressed concern over signals emanating from the Founda- tion that the Division of Social Sciences did not intend to support basic research in political science.1 Numerous exchanges followed, with the APSA executive office taking a lead role in the effort to clarify the status of the discipline. As is common in dealings with administrative agencies, friendly congressmen were enlisted in the effort. By late 1964 a working draft of the distinction between basic research in political science and research which served more immediate political purposes was developed by the Foundation and leading political scientists. Commencing with fiscal year 1966 (July 1, 1965), the Foundation established a Political

David Calhoun Leege National Science Foundation

Science Program and in the following year constituted its first review panel. During the period from FY 66 to FY 70, the director of the Division of Social Sciences, Dr. Howard Hines, an economist, also served as acting director of the Political Science Program. He was assisted by the customary five-member panels, which included many scholars who were then or later became prominent leaders of the Association. It was a period of steady budgetary growth, from a base of $.34 million until a budget of $1.3 million was reached. During this same period the Division's budget moved from $12.59 million to $15.99 million.

Beginning with FY 71, the Program has been directed by a succession of four political scientists, Drs. William Lucas, Allen Shinn, G. R. Boynton, and David Leege. The latter two have or are serving the customary two-year terms for rotational appointees. The former two moved from basic research to applied research directorates within the Foundation. Growth in budgetary support slowed considerably during this period and even moved back from a high point in FY 73 of $1.63 million to the FY 75 level of $1.55 million. During this time, the Division's budget increased from $18 million to $25.71 million and three additional programs-Social Indicators, Law and Social Sciences, and Science Policy-were established.

The disappointing budgetary trend of the Pro- gram over the past five years is a cause of great concern to political scientists-particularly as other research support sources dry up in the post-Mansfield amendment days and as a larger component of the discipline is capable of conducting high quality scientific research. Since, as can be seen in Table 1, the Program's budgetary history is very different from that of some discipline-related programs, it is worth examining performance on criteria customarily utilized in pegging budgetary targets.

At NSF, a program's budget is considered to be a response to the following: (1) the number of people in a discipline who do

scientific research

(2) the need for funds as indicated by: (a) the role NSF plays relative to other

sources of support for basic research in the program area, and

(b) "proposal pressure," i.e., the volume and dollar demand for a program's resources

8 PS Winter 1976



TABLE 1

Program Budgets Social Science Division

National Science Foundation (in millions of dollars by fiscal year)

Fiscal Year

Program 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975

Anthropology 3.98 3.66 3.61 3.62 3.57 3.56 3.85 4.16 4.01 4.00 Economics 2.35 3.21 3.69 4.44 4.54 4.88 5.31 5.56 5.95 7.26 Geography .22 .41 .60 .19 .51 .65 1.00 .79 .59 .49 Sociology 3.66 4.06 4.04 3.56 3.54 4.15 237 2.40 2.42 2.78 Social Psychology 2.14 2.45 2.23 2.20 Political Science .34 .80 .79 1.31 1.20 1.39 1.50 1.63 1.55 1.55 History and Philosophy

of Science 1.02 .81 .83 .83 .87 .79 .87 .89 .94 .93 Special Projects

(including Linguistics) 1.03 1.96 1.86 1.97 1.76 2.58 2.83 3.13 3.76 3.48 Social Indicators 2.05 1.72 1.50 1.67 Law .90 1.09 1.05 .91 Science Policy .75 .39 .40 .49

TOTALS 12.59 14.91 15.41 15.92 15.99 18.00 23.58 24.24 24.37 25.71

(3) how well a discipline or related substantive fields are developing, as indicated by (a) what is being learned, the state of new

theoretical breakthroughs, and

(b) the scientific quality of proposals Only on the second criterion are reasonably hard data available. For purposes of comparative illustration I have taken three programs with very different budgetary histories-Anthropology, Economics, and Political Science. Anthropology is a relatively small discipline which, according to National Academy of Sciences-based estimates of scientific manpower, has approximately 2400 active Ph.D.s.3 Economics has approximately 10,800 active Ph.D.s and Political Sci- ence has about 7500. These figures, interesting- ly enough, coincide with estimates by the relevant professional associations as to the number of their members who hold doctorates in that field. Clearly, not all people holding doctorates in a social science are qualified to do scientific research. Graduate training, current employment, research opportunities, and other factors affect whether possessors of doctorates once had such capabilities and continue to develop them. Generally we would concede that a higher proportion of doctorate-holding economists than anthropologists and anthropologists than political scientists once did and continue to do basic scientific research. Even granting that, it would be difficult to account for the level and pattern of budgetary support available in the three programs (see Figure 1) by the number of qualified scholars. The disjuncture from expectations is most pro- nounced between Political Science and Anthro- pology, considerably less so between Political Science and Economics.

Even between the latter two disciplines the pattern from FY 71 on runs contrary to the numbers argument. In the period since 1970, approximately 4400 new Ph.D.-holders in economics have entered the marketplace while about 4200 new doctorates in political science (exclusive of area studies) have been awarded. At many graduate schools, training programs in the two disciplines are becoming increasingly similar and one should expect the competence gap to narrow. If it is narrowing, however, it is running quite contrary to the comparative funding gap. If the "number of qualified investigators" criterion is to be applied by the Foundation, one should expect a rather sharp change in the FY 71-75 funding patterns for the programs over the next half decade.

The important point to remember, however, is that this is only the first of three criteria. The second is the need for funds. Here again, one must work with soft data for one portion of the assessment. One cannot calculate precisely NSF's funding role for each discipline relative to that of federal mission agencies and other foundations. The Foundation has maintained that the disproportionately high level of support for anthropology is a function of inade- quate funds for basic research from other sources. Estimates prepared by the Foundation of federal funding for the social sciences in recent years are interesting to compare. Basic research support for anthropology has been in the range of $8.0-11.5 million per annum; for economics, $25.6-33.5 million; and for political science $2.6-4.2 million.4 If one limits the federal support figures only to basic research performed at universities, according to Founda- tion estimates, in FY 74 the Anthropology Program supplied $3.9 of $4.0 million (98%), the Economics Program supplied $6.1 of $16.3

9



Is Political Science Alive and Well and Living at NSF

FIGURE 1

Pattern of Budgetary Support, Three Programs in Division of Social Sciences

Social Sciences

Economics

Anthropology

Political Science _--

I I I I I I

66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

FISCAL YEAR

million (37%), and the Political Science Pro- gram supplied $1.5 of $1.9 million (79%). If the estimates are anything more than artifacts of incomplete information and misclassifica- tion, the need argument fails to account for most of the differences in the patterns. According to the second indicator, "proposal pressure," hard data are available, with only modest slippage as a result of the time it takes to process a proposal, once received, through to an NSF action. Table 2 lists success rates in each program, first in terms of response to the volume of requests and secondly in terms of response to the dollar demand. Success rates in all three programs have been dropping through the years, although there are some FY exceptions peculiar to each program. Such a decline is to be expected as Congress places budgetary constraints on the Division of Social Sciences; other data not presented here indicate that the social sciences and engineering consistently have the lowest success rates in the Foundation, sometimes 25 percentage points below the success rates of divisions in the physical sciences. To return to the three-program comparison, the success rate in Political Science is usually far below that of Economics and Anthropology. The most precipitous decline in the Program's ability to respond to proposal pressure has come in the period from FY 71 on; the gap between Economics and Political Science during this period is often as wide as the gap between the physical sciences and the social sciences. Interesting also is the comparison between Anthropology and Political Science during the same period; despite relatively static budgets in both programs in some of the years, Anthropology has been able to respond to proposal pressure far better than has Political Science. Thus, either the proposal pressure consideration is inconsistently applied or other factors account for differences in budgetary patterns.

TABLE 2

Selected Comparisons of Success Rates ("Proposal Pressure")

Anthropology Economics Political Science

Fiscal No. Awards $ Awarded No. Awards $ Awarded No. Awards $ Awarded Year No. Proposals $ Requested No. Proposals $ Requested No. Proposals $ Requested

66 52% 41% 52% 27% 36% 17% 67 57 37 61 34 62 42 68 47 30 47 33 40 13 69 60 50 64 37 46 45 70 49 31 42 27 42 18 71 40 27 35 23 24 14 72 40 22 50 21 30 18 73 36 30 39 21 30 21 74 41 28 43 27 27 18 75 43 23 54 29 35 20

10 PS Winter 1976

$26- 25- 24- 23- 22- o

=21- E E 20-

19- z 0 18-

17- o 16-

15- n 14- O 13- c:

12- W 11- k- 10- lo -

2 9- : 8- cc 7-

6-

o 5- 4- 3- 2-

1-

0



The factor most frequently mentioned by Foundation planning and budget officials is the third one-how well the discipline is developing. To their minds, political scientists have spent excessive resources on large-scale data collec- tion and tool development and insufficient effort on the development of useful models or on cumulating knowledge. While it may be true that political scientists do not have a parsimoni- ous number of consensually-shared theories of some generality as do economists and social psychologists, nevertheless recent program directors have devoted extensive effort to program evaluation and documentation of the discipline's progress. These reports are now being used internally to assess whether scientific progress in various sectors of the discipline is sufficient to merit infusion of additional funds. Such assessments are by their nature judgmental and depend in part on the breadth of understanding possessed by planning officials who have come from other disciplinary back- grounds. More will be said about this later.

Documentation of scientific progress has not been aided by grantees' reporting habits. Many grantees overlook the grant letter; it specifies that all findings are to be reported to the Program, in the form of copies of publications or papers and, where possible, in succinct lay-language paragraphs suitable for use else- where in the Foundation or on Capitol Hill. In recent years program directors have expended considerable effort extracting such information from grantees. Finally, following a coordinated letter-writing appeal to grantees by two political scientists presently outside the Foundation, the current program director was able to abstract a half-dozen reports of findings from grantees and these have found their way into annual and quarterly reports. Despite the effort, some grantees have written saying, "my, that's a grand idea" but failed to offer any of their findings! One program director tells the story of an investigator who, after much nudg- ing, sent in a two-page list of publications at the conclusion of his project and asked innocently whether the Foundation wanted to receive copies of any of the publications!

In response to the proposal pressure argument, Foundation officials have argued that the low success rates of political scientists are illusory; over 50% of the proposals cannot be considered competitive under any scientific merit argument. This argument was probably justified over the first seven or eight years in the life of the Program. It does not hold a basis in fact now. The present and immediate past program directors have considerably reduced the number of formal proposals received by the Program by sending clear signals on inquiries and proposals. The present program director has critiqued many potentially competitive pre-proposals, sometimes responding with 8-10 pages of comments. Feedback on potentially competitive but declined proposals has been very extensive so that strong resubmissions may result. Nor- mally other demands on a program director's

time do not permit such extensive involvement in proposal development, but it was considered crucial to the budgetary expansion of the Program. The results are already favorable. In the past two years, program directors and panelists have noted a marked change in the proportion of proposals which can be considered serious candidates for funding. And while as recently as three or four years ago, program directors concluded that the quality of proposals did not sustain a plea for sizeable budgetary increases, today I would argue strongly that the Program needs at least a 50% budgetary increase to respond favorably to those proposals which should be funded and to the dollar demand of proposals funded, but at delibilitatingly low levels or on an annual continuation.

To summarize, according to all three criteria the budgetary history of the Political Science Program is not what one would have expected. It diverges sharply from that of other programs in the Division and the Foundation. Some programs which began early in the life of the Foundation have reached solid budgetary pla- teaus. Others have grown far beyind what incrementalism would predict. The important point in the three-program comparison is not to stimulate internecine warfare over a fixed budget pie. Relationships among the program directors are close and cooperative. On many occa- sions personnel in the Economics Program, for example, have recognized the need for joint funding of projects in political economy where the Political Science budget could not sustain an award. They have also shown great patience with political scientists' reluctance to study certain problems at the interface of economics and political science and have fostered closer relationships through joint conferences. Rather, the purpose of the comparison is to alert an interested clientele to different budgetary patterns, criteria used for budgetary planning, and strategies of program directors to effect changes in the patterns. It is, to repeat, public accounting.

One final point must be noted. The argument is often made that despite the static or reduced level of support for the Political Science Pro- gram, political scientists do receive support through other programs in the Division and other directorates of the Foundation, most notably RANN. The point is well taken: in the past year, for example, political scientists received additional support of approximately $175,000 through other programs, particularly Special Projects, Economics, and Law and Social Sciences. In one sense, that would make FY 75 one of the best budget years experienced by political scientists in NSF basic research. But the point is illusory. The additional support from other programs depends on vagaries such as their demand for funds, special features of the proposal, and the program director's relationships with other program directors. That the non-program support figure fluctuates greatly can be seen in an interesting compari-

11




son. When the Carroll Report was introduced as testimony for the Research and Technical Programs Subcommittee of the House Commit- tee on Government Operations, the Foundation responded that Carroll had failed to list NSF support received from all programs by political scientists in 1966.5 If we use figures then supplied by the Foundation, political scientists in 1966-their fledgling year as a "recognized science"-received 7.3% of the divisional research budget exclusive of "special projects" and 8.7% of it inclusive of "special projects." In FY 74, as the same discipline presumably matured, political scientists, from all divisional programs, received 7.6% of the budget exclusive of special projects and 7.1% inclusive of special projects. One might conclude that either the quality of work done by political scientists has regressed over the years, or 1974 was a unique year, or it would not be advisable for the Foundation to use this argument. The initial points remain: in basic research, the budgetary picture for the Political Science Program and for political scientists has not been marked by steady growth, and it is difficult to balance the Foundation's criteria for pegging budgets with the actual budgetary histories of programs.

* * *

One can speculate at length about factors other than the three criteria which might contribute to the budgetary history of the Program. Here insights may be drawn both by applying what political scientists know about public organiza- tions as well as by reflecting on personal experiences.

The origins of the Political Science Program have had lasting consequences. First and fore- most, a straightforward application of incrementalism would suggest that latecomers would have smaller budgets than earlier programs. While that argument may be useful for dollar- level of support, it does not account for the differing budgetary histories of programs and the varying proportions of shares in divisional resources. For example, in 1966 two of the earliest programs-Anthropology and Econom- ics-had 32% and 19% of the divisional budget respectively; the new program, Political Science had 3%. In FY 75, Anthropology had shrunk to 16% of the divisional budget (in part because of the spin-off of linguistics), Economics had grown to 28%, and Political Science received 6%. But the Political Science figure was down from a high of 8% during FY 69-71. Incremen- talism is often useful at the agency level, but scholars sometimes note its inability to account for programmatic shifts. Features about the origins of the Program which Foundation officials found distasteful still linger in their memories and are passed on in institutional memory. Within the Foundation the view seems to have been held that the sensitive subject matter of political science spelled trouble and that not very many political scientists were scientists. In gaining clarification of the discipline's status, considerable pressure

was put on the Foundation by Capitol Hill sources. Resentment developed. In the minds of some, it was not scientific merit but political pressure that forced creation of the Program. To this day, whenever letters expressing concern about the level of support accorded social sciences and/or political science are sent to relevant committee members by political scientists, there is great uneasiness among Founda- tion managers. They contend that the argument is too often made on the basis of pork-we want our share-and too seldom on the basis of documented scientific advances. There is little question that the sensitivity of subject matter looms large in the minds of Foundation managers. According to one official, the Foundation consciously chose to develop programs in less sensitive social sciences earlier and to defer the development of more sensitive ones-like political science-until later. In light of the recent attacks on projects to study equity in inter-personal relationships (characterized through the press and on Capitol Hill as studies of "passionate love"), it is instructive to recall this piece of testimony dating to the earliest hearings on the development of a federally-supported basic research funding organization:

Dr. Bowman. Let me make just a single statement about what I would consider the undesirable aspects of social science, to include in any legislation of this sort, or include in studies of the sort proposed in a National Science Foundation. It seems to me essentially unsound to put into a National Science Foundation a wide range of social questions upon which the people of America have not yet made up their minds, as to how they want to live. Some of these questions are capable of scientific analysis and determination and as to them, the more analysis the better, before we decide with votes whether or not we will adapt the analytical findings. Now, I think it would be a waste of time to go into examples of the opposite sort of question because we are all familiar with the thou- sands of examples around us, of highly debatable social ends, ends upon which hardly two men who meet accidentally would agree. Congressman Brown. That is exactly the point which I have, that the averabe Ameri- can just does not want some expert running around prying into his life and his personal affairs and deciding for him how he should live, and if the impression becomes prevalent in the Congress that this legislation is to establish some sort of an organization in which there would be a lot of short-haired women and long-haired men messing into everybody's personal affairs and lives, inquir- ing whether they love their wives or do not love them and so forth, you are not going to get your legislation. It is my thought that we should be very, very practical in this hour of need.6

12 PS Winter 1976



Or consider the following line of inquiry regarding political science:

Mr. Evins. You had 325 grants last year. You want 345 next year. You will give 17 of them in the field of political science. Are you going to train politicians? Dr. Hines. These are political scientists rather than politicians. Mr. Evins. What is the difference in your definition? Dr. Hines. I am qualified on only one side. Political science is an attempt to analyze the situation objectively and to understand how political systems work. However, it does not tell people how it ought to work. Mr. Evins. They have been writing on that since the days of the Founding Fathers. Everybody is publishing books on it.... What is the nature of these-how to become a candidate, how to enter politics? Some- body writes in and asks you to give them a grant? Dr. Hines. It tends to describe how political behavior occurs and not how to do it.... I can assure you, if you need assurance, we are not getting into politics.7

Even as recently as this past summer the social sciences were seen as the primary source of the National Science Foundation's difficulties with the Congress:

Question: Your agency has been coming under sharp congressional criticism of late. Why do you think the NSF has been singled out?

Stever. First of all the National Science Foundation has grown to be quite a large agency and it's coming under more scrutiny. A number of areas-the physical sciences, mathematics, engineering, and computer sciences-are generally accepted and under- stood. But the foundation is also commis- sioned by Congress to be in the social sciences and at this time there are a lot of questions about government being in the social sciences area. We are in the education of social science as well and there have been a lot of objections to social science courses.

. . . Let me say that one of the reasons this is picked on, I think, is simply that it's in the field of social sciences and some people, some congressmen and senators, believe that we should not be in the social sciences. However, the Congress put us in social sciences. If we are to do research in there, then I think we should tackle these important subjects.8

Within the Foundation, managers of the basic research directorate have argued strongly for continued support of the social sciences. Yet the feeling lingers that, under severe congressional pressure, the Foundation would abolish social science programs to salvage support for

physical and biological sciences and engineering. Some managers in parts of the Foundation still refer to the social sciences as the "social studies." The current reorganization which places the biological sciences and the social sciences together in a separate basic research directorate was introduced to the staff as not only a way of developing programs outside "the domination of physical scientists" but as "put- ting you on the front line to defend yourself." Thus, the picture of Foundation support for the social sciences is both publicly and privately mixed.

Political scientists should not, however, point fingers of blame at the Foundation alone. A large part of our problems are of our own making. Neither collectively nor individually do most of us engage in behaviors that are characteristic of other scientists. Collectively, the American Political Science Association is organized more on the professional association model than on the scientific society model. Leadership is selected partly on the merits of scientific achievements, but many other factors are involved. That is not unexpected in a discipline that is intended to be both scientific and humane, or in one where the subject matter is politics. The APSA is not organizationally structured by coherent domains of scientific knowledge or by approaches to developing knowledge; for that matter, neither are most departmental curricula; thus it is far more difficult for the Association to generate sum- maries of the state of knowledge in a concep- tual domain than it is for the American Psychological Association with its section structure. Finally, leading scholars and elected Asso- ciation leaders behave very differently on visits to Washington than do other scientists. "Being a scientist" is very central to the identities of physical, biological and psychological, and some social scientists (especially economists); it is quite natural that they would spend time at the National Science Foundation in conversa- tions with upper-echelon managers on matters other than their own grant support. They keep officials abreast of their own work and advances made by others. NSF managers who are physicists, for example, are quite conversant with the work of Donald Campbell and other social psychologists and it surfaces regularly in their discussions on program development. Despite sometimes heroic efforts by past program directors and panelists, many Foundation managers do not understand what scientific progress political scientists are making. Political scientists have not intruded in their milieu. Leading political scientists, with a handful of notable exceptions, do other things when they visit Washington.

It is encouraging over the past year that Association staff and a handful of Council members are taking the first steps to routinize communication with the Foundation. Hopeful- ly disciplinary leaders will develop direct links at various levels of the Foundation hierarchy. I do not discount the need for considering a

13




structural reorganization of the Association along the lines of coherent knowledge structures or lines of inquiry.

Another way in which we have created our own problems has been alluded to earlier: the quality of proposals submitted. The story is told of two previous panels who could not recommend use of all budgeted funds because of low proposal quality. Many proposals do not offer a research problem; they fail to confront rival theories, perform rudimentary logical analysis, or explore promising strands of theory; or they fail to specify in sufficient detail the research strategy and tactics-i.e., hypotheses, design, sample, measures. Many offer little more than description, not pressing the phenomenon to possible explanations, i.e., offering a problem. Some are repetitive of other work. Some call for the development of archives or of an instrument-with little said about the even- tual theoretical import of the project. Some proposals are so scanty that reviewers are left only with the professional reputation of the proposer. Fortunately, these shortcomings now characterize a much smaller proportion of our proposals. The picture of the discipline the Foundation should form from proposals in the last few years should be very different from the one it had in the mid- to late-1960's.

In a related way, the discipline's own program directors and panelists have created problems for itself. It could well be that panelists and directors have become increasingly "tougher" as the discipline has progressed. Certainly the political science of the 1960's is not competing well at the present time. Better statistical and mathematical techniques are believed available; greater rigor in theoretical formulation and greater awareness of measurement problems are expected. Some attention to cumulation and tests of strong rival theories are the order of the day. It is no surprise that many people trained at the zenith of the "behavioral revolution" and their teachers experience difficulty in getting their proposals funded. But it may be that the quest for advance overlooks important backing- and-filling operations in our knowledge systems.

Finally, a set of structural problems may also account for the difficulties of the Political Science Program. Until now, physical scientists were generally thought to have dominated the planning and budgetary processes of the Foun- dation. While they have made strong efforts to understand what social scientists do, they are not at home with our subject matter and frequently revert to presumed analogies with intellectual problems in their own disciplines. Tighter budgets are not likely to be accom- panied by increased support to study subject matters foreign to budgetary planners. Perhaps the reorganized directorate and the recent appointment of a psychologist to the deputy directorship will ameliorate the situation some- what.

Another structural problem may relate to span of control and the division leadership's historic proximity to problems of the Political Science Program. Until now, the Division of Social Sciences has included a very large number of programs without the grouping of programs into sections. This means that each program interacts directly with the top leadership of the Division. While that leadership performs a yeoman's job monitoring and reviewing recom- mendations from all programs, certain past and present structural features make it more aware of all stages of the proposal review process in Political Science. "Tough" panels and "tough" program directors generate sharp debate about the qualities of proposals. In a unique way, all of our warts are visible. Sharp debate character- izes some other panels but it is less visible unless it appears on paper as well. It is interesting to note in this respect that, in my term of duty, on every occasion save one where a proposal was jointly reviewed by another panel, the proposal received lower ratings and sharper criticism from political scientists than it did from other disciplines. Our stage of scientific self-consciousness and full visibility of our proceedings make a deadly combination.

Another structural problem concerns basic and applied social sciences. In recent years Founda- tion leaders have increasingly sent representa- tives of applied social sciences to the Hill and OMB for testimony. If successful communica- tions develop affinity, one should predict the steady state budget for basic research and the rapidly expanding budget for applied social science research. At points the phenomenon can be accounted for by factors other than affinity. On occasion in its external dealings, the Foundation has not included relevant findings from basic social science research but has stressed results only from applied research programs.

Finally, structure and personnel interact in uniquely personal ways. Perhaps one major source of problems for the discipline is the inability of its program directors to make arguments that successfully persuade. Part of the problem is short duration of tenure. The first two program directors stayed one year before moving to applied research interests. The third and fourth directors are two-year rotational appointees. Despite continuity in planning between successive program directors, Foundation managers have not had to contend for long with any given person. On the other hand, dealings on budget and planning have not generally bolstered morale. A previous program director devoted considerable time to docu- menting scientific advances made possible by Program grants; the resulting 50-page report was thorough and well done. The only direct comment I have been able to elicit from a planning officer about it was the following: "With the models you political scientists use, I could fit the dimensions of 100 women in them and come out with the same estimates you get with your political data." Until very recently,

14 PS Winter 1976



my program initiatives have been met either with statements that "political scientists are not qualified to do that type of research" (despite listings of relevant articles) or they have been transferred as rationales for budgetary increases to other programs. Optimism and stamina are two essential ingredients for a Political Science Program director. Perhaps eventually it will occur, but so far no political scientist has chosen to leave a satisfying academic career to continue on a more permanent basis in the program directorship; in many other programs, directors have remained for several years and have personally experienced some budgetary successes. Again knowledge of public bureaucracies would predict these experiences and outcomes.

To summarize, factors well beyond the criteria used to peg budgets may account for the history of the Political Science Program. At the same time there may be reason for guarded optimism about the consequences of trends in the Program itself and in reorganization plans of the Foundation.

* * *

What does the future hold for basic research funding in political science and what cues can be provided interested scholars; I have already suggested certain desirable courses of action for individuals, the Association, and program directors. But where do there seem to be futures for scholars in terms of potential NSF grant support? For purposes of program planning, we have arbitrarily grouped political science research under three headings: political mobilization, policy-formation processes, and changing structures of politics.

Research on political mobilization-socialization, attitude formation and change, recruit- ment, participation, and the channeling of political demands, etc.-has received heavy programmatic support in the past, but its proportion of program dollars is diminishing. Those areas that represent scientific advance-e.g., the application of dynamic models to political socialization-will continue to receive support; static research is more likely to be phased out. More selective application of public choice assumptions in the voting and committee studies is also characteristic of the current program. One promising new trend in this subfield involves studies of the effects of mass media, not in opinion formation and change, but in political agenda-setting and the channeling of political demands. Another significant topic is the study of corporatist states which structure political demands not through electoral participation but through vertical interest organiza- tions; historically and perhaps presently, fewer regimes fit civil society assumptions than statist assumptions. In each area a topic of long-term interest to political scientists is being addressed through new modes of modelling the polity and of measuring behavior. Increased research on

alternatives to standard survey research instru- ments-e.g., Q-methodology, psycho-physical measurement-in the area of attitude formation and change is likely; rather different models of mind are involved.

The second sub-field-policy-formation processes-has shown considerable progress in recent years. Projects near completion show high yield on models of budgetary processes. Dy- namic models of foreign-policy processes, particularly those dealing with arms races, war and peace, alliances and political-economic coali- tions, are now at a crucial stage of development where much has been learned systematically but the instrumentation required for further advance is becoming apparent. Cognitive-pro- cessing models of decision-making appear to capture complexities of political processes in bureaucracies better than do some independent rational actor models borrowed from economics. Considerable work on n-person games is yet required. One effect of the Mansfield amendment has been to divert to the Program many high quality proposals related to foreign policy-making and international relations which would have been received by DoD-related agencies. While funding of the above proposals may appear disproportionately high relative to other substantive interests in policy-formation, the Program continues to welcome strong proposals in such areas as organization theory and behavior, processes of innovation and diffusion, implementation of policy across structural levels and functional units, and "design science" applications to the reorganization of representa- tional and delivery units.

The third sub-field-the changing structures of politics-seems more recalcitrant to swift development but there are opportunities to address it through joint programmatic planning with other sectors of NSF. Mathematical models of diffusion of political violence show some prom- ise. However, more "normal" acts of support withdrawal from political regimes and the conditions of regime collapse are still poorly addressed. While many scholars are at work on problems of conceptualization and measurement, particularly of behavioral dependent vari- ables, no major programmatic thrust has yet developed around their proposals. There are three areas of development in this third sub- field which may call for major new investments of funds. All three have consequences for other sectors of NSF and none could properly be located in another program without joint funding in the Political Science Program as well.

(I) The first involves the study of contextualism. The case can be made that the understanding of contextualism is essential to the continued vitality of economics, political science, and sociology (as well as social psychology). Exist- ing models-e.g., those involving assumptions of rational independent actors-and methods and techniques-e.g., nationwide probability sample surveys, many statistical techniques, laboratory experimentation-are ill-suited to the task. A number of qualified social scientists recognize

15




the limitations of existing work and are beginning to make breakthroughs on the problem. The dominant fact of life in highly-developed ("post-industrial") societies is interdependence. Interdependence has created a challenge for political scientists and economists. Many economists of late recognize that what they lack is a theory of the state or of government. It may have made sense to treat the state as an exogenous actor when the government con- tributed 5% to GNP; however, when government contributes 25-30%, some economists have concluded that their models are misspeci- fied. At one time economists could speak of classic markets with individual actors. Rational man could be conceived as independent. But now institutional interventions require an as- sumption of interdependence. Thus, while Veb- len and Commons were the subjects of earlier ridicule, many are now looking to them for insights. Similar problems have been experienced by political scientists and sociologists, but at least in these disciplines Durkheim has had a pervasive effect and ecological analysis was taken seriously.

In asserting that contextualism needs to be the subject of concentrated attention, we are seeking a systematic exposition of the ways in which variance in social, economic, and political behavior is accounted for by individual effects and by context. There must be a middle ground between individual choice models and Durkheim. Early work by Commons, Sigel and Meyer, and Miller, and current work by Sprague and Przeworski, Coleman, Rusk, Hibbs, and Tufte are illustrative of approaches to this problem. Institutes or research centers in the social sciences are not currently organized to address contextualism well. Both micro- and macro- economics centers develop their work around assumptions inappropriate for this purpose. The large survey research centers usually rely on samples that defy the analyst to tease out contextual effects. Laboratory experiments are designed specifically to control or randomize context and, therefore, delete it from explanat- ory variable status. It may well be desirable to establish both project and institutional support on the ad- vanced study model which would bring together economists, political scientists, sociologists, mathematicians, and others on post- doctoral fellowships. A capability to access large data archives (such as censuses, voting returns, governmental and personal expendi- tures) is needed; thus interactive computing with large memory would have to be subsi- dized. Finally, a field research organization that could do contextual sampling for specialized surveys would be appropriate.

(II) The second area, in part draws on the same rationale as the first, but seeks to develop a political economy of depletable resources. Economists cannot address this topic alone as a

recent NSF-supported conference attests. Joint programmatic effort is required on: (1) public choice and resource use, (2) cartels and coali- tions of actors (transnational, international, national, public, and private), and (3) domestic political consequences of shortage-related policies. Research is needed on the reconceptualization of public goods as distinct from actions on private goods involving governments; on coali- tion theory and n-person games; on sensitive metrics for preference revelations about pri- orities on public goods and policy outcomes; on the concept 'equity,' decision rules, and in- equalities in the distribution of depletable resources; and on theories regarding the range of foreign policy instrumentalities available to national actors under various conditions of resource constraint.

(111) The third thrust concerns the politics of land use planning and related topics involving various mixes of governmental intervention in the economy. Internal discussions have called for coordinated NSF basic research and applied research programs on the land-use decisional process, involving primarily political scientists but also urban and regional geographers and economists. The existing applied research program emerges largely from community planning literature where highly experienced actors specify problems and develop "rational" (one-best) structures for overcoming the problem. The approach is characterized by modest analysis and some advocacy. A basic research approach could be two-fold:

A. Formal, deductive-assumptions are made about the motivations of actors, incentives, etc., then the outcomes through various political structures (decision-rules based on concepts of advantage and equity) are pre- dicted, solely as a product of logic (e.g., Buchanan and Tullock, the Ostroms, Holt).

B. Empirical-interests of actors are inferred from various measures, the structure of a system is observed, processes are observed, and regularities are mapped and explained (e.g., Kaufman and Sayre, Williams, Friesema, studies of coastal zone manage- ment).

This area of basic research anticipates substan- tial changes in the scope of governmental action in the United States and other highly developed societies. In this country the level of actors has changed from municipal alone, to state, national, and even international. Referenda on siting and use are frequent. Major legislative battles of the next two decades are likely to center on land use questions and basic research would be in the national interest. This area also provides an opportunity for reformulating and testing Lowi's typology of policy processes-distributive, self-regulatory, redistributive, and regulatory. And it institu- tionally locates a basic research home for studies of mass and leadership environmental perceptions and political conflict over siting.

16 PS Winter 1976



Perhaps this discussion-and it is simply a program director's overview of where some progress seems possible-will help generate demands on the Program. It is not intended to restrict the types of proposals which will compete well. The Program is seeking strong proposals in any substantive and/or methodolo- gical area.

One final question centers on the future of political scientists in a reorganizing National Science Foundation. While the reorganization plan now being implemented has some draw- backs, I believe there are positive signs as well. I had hoped that a plan would be adopted providing visible access to disciplines through continuation of the cores of existing programs and creation of new programs at the inter-face of disciplines. Instead the Foundation opted for maintenance of the current programs but grouping them in a section structure; at least the plan does reduce the severity of the span of control problem. The current program officers remain committed to joint programmatic involvement in political economy (both micro- and macro-), European-style political sociology, and mathematical and statistical foundations in the social sciences. Thus the current reorganization is not forever fixed and informal cooperation can overcome its limitations.

Most importantly, a new set of planning officials at the level of the new Directorate for Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences is aggressively studying the progress of social science programs and is open to arguments for program development. They must operate in a congressional and White House budgetary cli- mate which is characterized by increasing skep- ticism about the utility (and even propriety) of federal support for basic research in the social sciences. Yet for FY 76, the Political Science Program's budget has been increased to $1.7 million (up from the $1.4 million budget and the $1.55 million expended in FY 75); whether that figure, the first such major increase in a half-decade, will be expended by the Program depends on the quality of proposals received in the next three months and on nuances of the peer review process. But at least the reorganized Division and the newly created Directorate have provided tangible evidence that they see scientific progress in the research of the discipline and recognize its budgetary needs. It is up to

the scholars, program directors, and panelists to maintain the momentum.

Alive: Yes.

Well: Vital signs returning.

Living at NSF: Hope is the staff of life.

NOTES

*An earlier version of this article was presented to the 1975 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association in San Francisco. The author appreciates the comments of two National Science Foundation officials on the earlier paper.

1. For an extended description of this period see James D. Carroll, "Notes on the Support of Political Science Research Projects by the Division of Social Sciences of the National Science Founda- tion, Fiscal Year 1958-65," in The Use of Social Research in Federal Domestic Programs, Part IV (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967), pp. 81-105. This is one section of a staff study for the Research and Technical Operations Subcommittee of the House Committee on Govern- mental Operations. Officials of the Foundation took exception to several arguments and uses of data in the Carroll Report and their responses are included.

2. Leland J. Haworth, "Support of Political Science by the National Science Foundation," American Political Science Review, LVIII (December 1964), pp. 1086-1088.

3. Compiled and extrapolated from successive annual reports of the National Academy of Sciences bearing the titles Doctoral Scientists and Engineers in the United States and Summary Report: Doc- torate Recipients from United States Universities (Washington: National Academy of Sciences).

4. National Science Foundation, Federal Funds for Research, Development and Other Scientific Activi- ties, Vols. XIX, XX, XXII, XXIII (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office).

5. Loc. Cit.

6. U.S. Congress, House, Subcommittee of the Com- mittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Hear- ings on a Bill to Promote the Progress of Science .... 79th Congress, 2nd Session, 1946, p. 13.

7. U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Appropria- tions, Hearings on Independent Offices Appropria- tions for 1967, 89th Congress, 2nd Session, 1966, pp. 144-45.

8. "Science Aide Stever Replies to NSF Critics," Washington Star, August 20, 1975.

PS welcomes material for its sections. Deadlines are: Fall-August 15; Winter-December 15; Spring-February 15; and Summer-May 15.

Your cooperation in listing items for the news and notes section in the format as used in PS will be appreciated.

17



Documents

Is Political Science Alive and Well and Living at NSF: Reflections of a Program Director at Midstream