|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 23
The American Response:
Ideas and Prospects
lithe panelists were asked to draw on the conference discussions to
suggest ideas for what should be done, including specific projects and
programs, organizational changes, and funding, so that the U.S. social
science community can respond effectively to the new opportunities in the
Soviet Union.
HERBERT SIMON, CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY
Simon began by commenting that, on the basis of his experience
with the NAS program 'wish China, political developments are at least as
important as any particular programs. What American social scientists
can accomplish is very much determined by political conditions within the
Soviet Union and between that country and the rest of the world.
Simon reported that he had been impressed by the intensely applied
focus of Soviet social science. It would not be an exaggeration, he argued,
to say that today there is no social science in the Soviet Union, if by that
we mean basic interest and curiosity about fundamental human phenomena
as the driving force behind research. Although Western social science has
its own strong interest in applied work, he was astounded by the degree
of responsibility held and sought by Soviet social scientists in designing
social reforms. This means, among other things, that any American social
scientist involved in joint programs is'likely to become drawn into current
policy debates. Simon suggested that social scientists therefore need to be
very aware and sophisticated about the roles they and their projects could
play in the reform process.
Simon also noted the relevance of concerns about `'science imperial-
ism" that had been voiced in other countries—the concern of indigenous
23
OCR for page 24
24
SOVIET SOCL4L SCIENCE
groups with control over their own data. Americans need to be sensitive
to these issues; the fact that we bring money and would like to have their
data does not mean that we will always be welcome. This may become
especially true as the Soviet Union opens up to more contacts and the tight
central control of exchanges is lost.
On the subject of multilateral versus bilateral contacts, Simon ex-
pressed a preference for making use of multilateral settings whenever
possible. He seconded the importance of getting out of Moscow and noted
that this has become much easier in recent years.
One important point raised during the meeting was the role of area
specialization. In the early postwar period, when many area programs
were founded and supported, it was assumed that Americans should know
more about other parts of the world, and that other nations would provide
useful laboratories and sources of data. The ideal conception was that
data from other parts of the world would feed into the testing of general
social science theories about human behavior in a wide variety of cultural
settings. It is no secret, Simon commented, that we have done a far better
job of developing knowledge about particular areas than we have done in
applying that knowledge to the development of social science. 1b him it
therefore becomes very important to encourage the participation of nonarea
specialists. He acknowledged that this is a difficult enterprise: generalists
will know little about the country, and the lack of language skills will pose
real problems for research.
Simon concluded by saying that everyone involved in these contacts
must repeatedly ask: What is the basic goal of all these activities? For
himself, and he thought perhaps for most of the participants, the fun-
damental purpose is to contribute to building the base of general social
science knowledge and capabilities. Helping to develop Soviet competence,
especially if that includes fostering an interest in basic as well as applied
research, will contribute to knowledge-building as well. Simon expressed
the belief that all social scientists hope to achieve normal scientific relations
with the Soviet Union, so that doing science with the Soviets will be no
different from working in Britain or France.
ENID C.B. SCHOETTLE, THE FORD FOUNDATION
Schoettle began by echoing calls for increasing the multilateral ap-
proach to the study of the Soviet Union, in terms of both the research
teams employed and the number of countries studied. She argued that
the use of comparative cases from Eastern Europe could enrich our un-
derstanding of the Soviet Union and of the broader operation of socialist
societies. She also noted that Americans have a great deal to gain from
OCR for page 25
SOVIET SOCIAL SCIENCE
25
colleagues in other Western countries, whose perspectives on social science
and on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe could add to our enterprise.
Schoettle listed five basic sources of funding for the field of Soviet
studies and for social science activities with Me Soviet Union. The two
traditional sources are the U.S. government and major national foundations
such as Ford and Carnegie that have a long-standing interest in these
fields and whose interest shows no sign of diminishing. Philanthropy from
new foundation programs and from new individual and corporate donors
together constitute a third funding source. The fourth source is the regular
budgets of the major scholarly associations, colleges, and universities. She
noted that, although it is sometimes very difficult to get funded through
these sources initially, once a project acquires the status of a regular
line item, support tends to continue. The fifth source is the Soviet Union
itself. Schoettle emphasized the importance of reciprocity and precedent as
principles in exchange projects. She suggested that, when seeking support
in the United States, Americans should always make clear what their
Soviet partners are contributing, and that donors should generally expect
Soviets to bear the bulk of the ruble costs of any project. She also noted
that equipment costs, such as computers that U.S. participants hoped to
provide to project partners, needed to be handled very carefully, despite
the pressures likely to arise for shortcuts or funding sleights-of-hand.
Schoettle also noted the importance of avoiding as much as possible
the cost of reinventing the wheel as new projects and institutions begin joint
projects. She suggested paying attention to the importance of networking
enterprises, of finding ways to spread and share information. Substantive
information about what is happening is very important, and so is providing
practical advice about how to design and carry out projects successfully.
Finally, Schoettle addressed herself to the question: Why do funders
fund? She agreed with Simon's argument for the importance of supporting
stronger social science. In response to the discussion about the most
appropriate targets for training and suppor~graduate students, young
professionals, or more established scholars she suggested that, although
all are appropriate, it is important to think about the cumulative effect of
cutting in at various points in a scholar's career. Multiple strategies, which
build on experiences, stand the greatest chance of success.
She also suggested that there are two other major reasons why funders
support work in this area. The first is to pluralize and democratize, to
encourage the forces of reform in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
Schoettle argued strongly that American scholars should not shrink from
this as a principal motivation for their activities. She urged projects to
seek to foster pluralization within the scholarly community, by insisting
on younger scholars and women as participants, by involving scholars
from outside Moscow and from many disciplines, and by encouraging
OCR for page 26
26
SOVIET SOCIAL SCIENCE
the involvement of wider publics as well. The other abiding purpose is
the belief that scholarly cooperation is somehow part of building broader
international cooperation, of creating better relations and the capacity to
address urgent common problems.
HERBERT LEVINE, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
Levine focused his remarks on the question of priorities among the
wide array of potentially worthwhile activities. His own highest priority
would be the improvement of social science capabilities in the Soviet
Union. His own discipline of economics, for example, is in dreadful shape
as a science there, and he would like to see major efforts given to building
its strength as a basic discipline. Such~fundamental strength, he believes,
would be of great value both for its eventual practical application and for
the interest of the West in having Soviet economists who could appreciate
and analyze world events. He believes the same benefits and priorities hold
true for the social sciences.
Within this focus, he would give greatest attention to graduate training.
Providing training that has a lasting effect requires careful thought and
planning. In his own work over the years with younger Soviet scholars,
he found that they tended to get swallowed up by the generally dismal
standards and practices within the Soviet economic establishment. He
therefore believes that training programs should be geared to providing a
small number of competitively selected students with a complete graduate
education in the West. For Levine, the key was to provide training not only
in theory and methods, but also in the culture of science. This broader
cultural education is an essential part of the training; it does not currently
exist in the Soviet Union and therefore is best acquired abroad.
Levine suggested that the major scholarly associations should be the
key vehicle for these training programs. Although IREX would be an im-
portant source of information, it should not have the primary responsibility.
He argued that it would-be extremely useful to persuade the Soviets to
establish a new entity to manage their side of the training enterprises that
could maintain connections with both the ASUSSR and the universities.
He seconded Schoettle~s suggestion that the Soviets should be expected to
contribute to the costs of the training, if only because one tends to value
something more if one has had to pay for it.
Finally, he agreed with the idea that it was important to think about
what role these scholars will eventually play in their own societies. He
suggested that postgraduate programs could be used to help advance their
careers and reinforce the results of their training. If the purpose of the
programs was to encourage the development of basic social science, then
OCR for page 27
SOVIET SOCIAL SCIENCE
27
reinforcing longer-term, cumulative erects should be part of the program
design.
WILLIAM A. JAMES, U.S. INFORMATION AGENCY
James commented that, from the perspective of exchanges, the U.S.-
Soviet contacts were still very small and limited in scope compared with, for
example, American exchanges in Eastern Europe. The U.S. Information
Agency (USIA) sought, through its support of exchange programs, to
expand that network with the ultimate goal of creating normal scientific
relations between the two countries.
James described the range of USIA programs, emphasizing two new
programs of potential interest to U.S. scholars. One provides seed money
to American universities to start linkages with foreign universities, offering
$50,000 over a threeyear period to help start projects, which are then
expected to find other sources of support. Until last year, projects with the
Soviet Union were not eligible, but that has now been changed. For next
year, projects to link with the Baltic states, the Ukraine, and Byelorussia
will be eligible. The second new project is the Samantha Smith program, an
undergraduate and high school exchange project that can include nonaca-
demic programs.
In discussing funding, James lamented the harsh budgetary realities-
perestroika versus Gramm-Rudman-Hollings—that was limiting the govern-
ment's ability to respond to the changes under way in the Soviet Union
and Eastern Europe. The USIA, for, example, is faced with a flat budget
that remains at the level of fiscal 1985. Any expansion in programs came
from diverting funds from projects that had fallen through for one reason
or another. He argued that the best projects would still be able to find
funding "money chases good ideas" and also urged scholars to look for
local sources of funds.
James reviewed six program priorities for USIA funding over the
coming year: expanding the English language training program, business
management, American studies, environmental studies, pedagogical reform,
and "constitutionality" or law and legal reform. The USIA also plans to
encourage internships as part of exchanges, since practical problems of
implementing reforms could be assisted by providing opportunities for
direct experience. Finally, he suggested that another area of interest and
concern to the scholarly community should be its contacts with the federal
government, how its knowledge and insights could be made available to
those charged with making and implementing policy.
OCR for page 28
28
SOVIET SOCL,4L SCIENCE
FINAL REMARKS
.
On integrating disciplinary researchers and Soviet area specialists,
one participant remarked that it is important to bring social science meth-
ods, and not only disciplinary specialists, into Soviet studies. Another, while
agreeing about the need to raise the research standards in area studies, saw
the abstract methods valued in the disciplines as a barrier to entry for area
specialists.
On organizational issues, one participant raised the problem of
getting outside the ASUSSR. Another noted the rising power of Soviet dis-
ciplinary associations in sociology, history, economics, and political science
and suggested that Americans could now work with those groups. The
associations could also sponsor individual applicants to study in the United
States.
On training Soviet scholars, one participant suggested creating a
network of the 17 sociology students now in the United States, so that they
will stay in contact later. A mechanism similar to the NRC's Committee
on Scholarly Communication with the People's Republic of China might
be used to supplement their fellowship money for this purpose. Another
suggested bringing groups of Soviet students from the same institutions,
especially outside Moscow, to build research centers. A third participant
said the Soviets want to cluster their graduate students as a way to solve
the problems they will face when they return to Soviet academia.
One option suggested for eliminating the reentry problem was to do the
training in the Soviet Union and invite the participation of local institutions.
In another participant's view, many approaches should be used. Six years
of training in the United States will not often be supported because of
the expense. It would be very useful and important, however, to support
networks of the Soviet alumni of American training programs.
One participant noted that the social scientists and the U.S. gov-
ernment may have different goals. The former want mainly to improve
social science, while the latter (especially USIA) may want to emphasize
citizens' groups, the Western Soviet Union, and other policy priorities.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
soviet social
