Study Notes on Retrofitting Social Science for the Practical & Moral by Kenneth Prewitt

Kenneth Prewitt earned his PhD from Stanford University in the early 1960s.
His dissertation adviser, Heinz Eulau, led a project interviewing members of 57 city councils, funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under the guise of basic research on group dynamics rather than political science.
Prewitt reflects on how, upon completion of his PhD, he was not asked how his research would benefit society, indicating a detachment from social contribution.
In his early career as an assistant professor at the University of Chicago, society's benefit from social research was not a focus.
His perspective changed when he became the director of the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), where social science was embedded in government contracts, blending basic and applied research.
NORC advocated for using research findings to inform government policy, showing how social science could have practical implications.

Definition: Modern social science claims to measure and explain societal regularities, paralleling natural sciences.
The establishment of social sciences coincided with the Progressive Era, where there was a strong push to reevaluate capitalism and governance.
Influential figures like Woodrow Wilson utilized social science to restructure governance; social scientists were perceived as agents of improvement.
The emergence of research universities, which built on long-standing scholarship traditions, created an infrastructure for social science akin to that of natural sciences
Training of social scientists in advanced European institutions facilitated the establishment of social science departments in prestigious American universities.
Various disciplines emerged (anthropology, economics, political science, psychology, sociology) with their own associations and journals, establishing academic legitimacy.
Social science borrowed methods from both natural sciences (empirical measurement, causal models) and the humanities (interpretive frameworks).
Historical Philosophical Perspectives:
- Martha Nussbaum suggests that both ancient Greek philosophers and modern thinkers recognized the dual purpose of knowledge: for the sake of its intrinsic value and for societal benefit.

Historical Context: In 1964, Congress mandated an investigation into the equitable availability of educational opportunities, culminating in the Coleman Report, which analyzed 600,000 students and 60,000 teachers across 4,000 schools.
The report illustrated the capability of social science to address large-scale national issues, likening its contribution to that of natural sciences during wartime efforts.
Subsequent decades saw a robust investment in social science for national experiments aimed at social welfare, effectively linking research to real-world applications.
However, the emergence of academic neoconservatives critiqued the unintended consequences of social welfare that challenged previous social science findings.
Prewitt contrasts natural science, which can establish settled accounts of nature, against social science, which is more prone to shifts in understanding and emphasizes the dynamic nature of human societies.
As social science continues to evolve, recognizing its historical role as an agent of improvement is essential, but it faces contemporary challenges in justifying its contributions and securing public funding.

Prewitt critiques two common narratives:
1. Usefulness of Useless Knowledge: Often cited in natural sciences to justify basic research, this argument is less persuasive for social science in the public eye.
2. Evidence-Based Policy vs. Evidence-Influenced Politics: Emphasizing that social science evidence may not directly translate into policy due to various political dynamics.
Concept Introduction: “Obliteration by incorporation,” where social science terminology becomes common knowledge, often without due credit to original researchers, creating a disconnect between academic contributions and public recognition.
Public Trust: Social science struggles for respect and credibility compared to tangible achievements in natural science.
- The difficulty in garnering public appreciation for social science is reflected in limited awareness of contributions like deterrence theory, with only 4% of surveyed respondents recognizing it.

Historical Context: The premise of evidence-based policy finds roots in early social science literature, proposing that research can support policy-making effectively.
Despite the numerous case applications of social science, systematic reviews of its impact have mostly been inadequate.
Reports from both the National Academy of Sciences in the US and similar studies in the UK have reported an inability to document the effectiveness of social science in influencing policy despite its assumed contributions.

Prewitt highlights a gap in understanding how often social science has positively impacted policy decisions over the past 70 years.
Anecdotes of success don't substitute for systematic evidence of social science's value in policy-making.
The disconnect is attributed to both academics and policymakers failing to communicate and effectively utilize social research in practice.

Many institutions, including the National Science Foundation, seek to enhance the practical impact of research.
The Fourth Purpose, as posited by Prewitt, encompasses four core elements:
1. Redefining and loosening frameworks that restrict innovative thinking in research.
2. Reasserting social science’s role as an authoritative voice serving society, akin to its historical positioning.
3. Institutionalizing a collaborative approach across academic disciplines to enhance social impact.
Columbia University serves as a case study where initiatives have begun under the Fourth Purpose framework, pushing for engaged practical applications of research findings.

Initiatives inspired by sustainable development emphasize the intersection of human actions with environmental concerns, recognizing the necessity of integrating social science perspectives in discussions on climate change and other human-centric challenges.
The blurred boundaries of disciplines indicate a need for interdisciplinary approaches in addressing significant global issues.
Social scientists find increasing opportunities to collaborate with professionals across sectors (foundations, think tanks, businesses)—enhancing their relevance beyond academic confines.

Addressing the ambiguity in social science’s role amid political affiliations and biases is essential for maintaining objectivity.
The necessity for ethical reasoning and moral considerations in social research further emphasizes the role of humanities in social science—tackling complex ethical questions and engaging with broader ‘human dimensions’ of policy impact.