By: MA
In Praxis for the Poor, Stuart Schram discusses the interaction between social science research and politics. This essay will focus Schram’s claim about the impossibility of neutrality in social science research and implications for public scholarship.
While academic research strives to produce objective knowledge, decisions made during the research process affect the outcome. “There are political implications to which side we choose in disputes over the advantages of quantitative and qualitative research, or between theorists.” (Schram, p. 7) Beyond methodological concerns, Schram argues that neutrality is impossible because social science is dependent on context. Therefore current context, a society shaped by power dynamics, social science cannot be free from politics. In Schram’s words, “Social scientists have no choice but to be political; they only choose whether to ignore the politics already embedded in their work or to struggle with it. Research that avoids explicitly confronting politics too often gets co-opted by it.” (Schram, p.5-6)
As examples of this phenomenon, Schram contrasts two popular books that engage in public scholarship about the welfare state in America. (Schram, p. 18-19) What Government Can Do by Page and Simmons relies on presentation of data and facts about social welfare programs to make the case for a progressive agenda. Schram praises this work for its thoroughness, but argues that it fell short of its potential to influence social welfare policy. Schram attributes this to the authors’ goal of remaining neutral and not addressing political issues. The result was a narrative designed to be acceptable to a broad audience. In contrast, Schram points to widespread dissemination of Charles Murray’s Losing Ground and its influence among critics of the welfare state. According to Schram, Murray’s book had greater appeal where Page and Simmons’ did not because it presented a clear argument that resonated with existing negative beliefs about welfare among conservative audiences. Murray’s success is attributed to his decision to speak directly to an audience, capitalizing on the political advantage of taking a position.
When social welfare policies succeed, they can shift the balance of power within society which creates winners and losers. Facts used to justify the need for change must be accompanied by an argument that leads the reader to a specific conclusion. Given the power dynamic, not all audiences will agree with an argument made by either side. But the goal is not to convince everyone. Therefore scholars that aim to influence policy will be more effective by taking a clear position that resonates with some people even if it alienates others, than scholars whose research is bland and broadly inoffensive.
If scholars are to be effective at advancing progressive policies, constraints that affect their willingness to engage in the policy process must be examined. Fearing backlash from those who call for a separation between research and policymaking, universities and other entities that receive public funds may impose limits on researchers. Reputational risk, or being branded as having a particular ideological slant, is one risk. Financial risk is another.
NRA’s effectiveness at stifling gun violence research provides an example of the risks associated with research that is deemed as activist. Since the 1990s, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been prohibited from using federal funds for gun violence research. In 1996, a group of CDC-funded injury-prevention researchers published study that connected having a firearm in the home with a substantial increase in the risk of homicide.[i] The National Rifle Association (NRA), the leading gun rights advocacy organization, accused the CDC of generating “propaganda” and using science to advocate for gun control.
The research was not published in connection to any specific policy. However because federal funding cannot be used for lobbying, the NRA’s allegation and the organization’s political influence had serious consequences. NRA successfully persuaded Congress of its claims, and the following year, CDC’s budget was reduced by the exact amount that previously funded gun violence research. The result was a chilling effect. The number of researchers publishing research related to gun violence has declined and remains low today. This example has implications for research on controversial topics broadly, particularly among organizations that rely on public research funds.
The result is the tendency to produce research for the sake of research. In Schram’s words, “As academics, institutional constraints limit political involvement and funnel scholarship towards theory building, theory testing and the growth of knowledge as an end in itself.” (Schram, p. 102) I don’t deny the value of this type of research. But my interest in pursuing a research career is based on my interest in improving policies towards advancing social change. I’m not sure where I will end up at the end of my training. But I am hopeful about the potential to reach that goal.
[i] PRI, “Quietly Congress Extends a Ban on CDC Research on Gun Violence,” (October 5, 2015)
In Praxis for the Poor, Stuart Schram discusses the interaction between social science research and politics. This essay will focus Schram’s claim about the impossibility of neutrality in social science research and implications for public scholarship.
While academic research strives to produce objective knowledge, decisions made during the research process affect the outcome. “There are political implications to which side we choose in disputes over the advantages of quantitative and qualitative research, or between theorists.” (Schram, p. 7) Beyond methodological concerns, Schram argues that neutrality is impossible because social science is dependent on context. Therefore current context, a society shaped by power dynamics, social science cannot be free from politics. In Schram’s words, “Social scientists have no choice but to be political; they only choose whether to ignore the politics already embedded in their work or to struggle with it. Research that avoids explicitly confronting politics too often gets co-opted by it.” (Schram, p.5-6)
As examples of this phenomenon, Schram contrasts two popular books that engage in public scholarship about the welfare state in America. (Schram, p. 18-19) What Government Can Do by Page and Simmons relies on presentation of data and facts about social welfare programs to make the case for a progressive agenda. Schram praises this work for its thoroughness, but argues that it fell short of its potential to influence social welfare policy. Schram attributes this to the authors’ goal of remaining neutral and not addressing political issues. The result was a narrative designed to be acceptable to a broad audience. In contrast, Schram points to widespread dissemination of Charles Murray’s Losing Ground and its influence among critics of the welfare state. According to Schram, Murray’s book had greater appeal where Page and Simmons’ did not because it presented a clear argument that resonated with existing negative beliefs about welfare among conservative audiences. Murray’s success is attributed to his decision to speak directly to an audience, capitalizing on the political advantage of taking a position.
When social welfare policies succeed, they can shift the balance of power within society which creates winners and losers. Facts used to justify the need for change must be accompanied by an argument that leads the reader to a specific conclusion. Given the power dynamic, not all audiences will agree with an argument made by either side. But the goal is not to convince everyone. Therefore scholars that aim to influence policy will be more effective by taking a clear position that resonates with some people even if it alienates others, than scholars whose research is bland and broadly inoffensive.
If scholars are to be effective at advancing progressive policies, constraints that affect their willingness to engage in the policy process must be examined. Fearing backlash from those who call for a separation between research and policymaking, universities and other entities that receive public funds may impose limits on researchers. Reputational risk, or being branded as having a particular ideological slant, is one risk. Financial risk is another.
NRA’s effectiveness at stifling gun violence research provides an example of the risks associated with research that is deemed as activist. Since the 1990s, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been prohibited from using federal funds for gun violence research. In 1996, a group of CDC-funded injury-prevention researchers published study that connected having a firearm in the home with a substantial increase in the risk of homicide.[i] The National Rifle Association (NRA), the leading gun rights advocacy organization, accused the CDC of generating “propaganda” and using science to advocate for gun control.
The research was not published in connection to any specific policy. However because federal funding cannot be used for lobbying, the NRA’s allegation and the organization’s political influence had serious consequences. NRA successfully persuaded Congress of its claims, and the following year, CDC’s budget was reduced by the exact amount that previously funded gun violence research. The result was a chilling effect. The number of researchers publishing research related to gun violence has declined and remains low today. This example has implications for research on controversial topics broadly, particularly among organizations that rely on public research funds.
The result is the tendency to produce research for the sake of research. In Schram’s words, “As academics, institutional constraints limit political involvement and funnel scholarship towards theory building, theory testing and the growth of knowledge as an end in itself.” (Schram, p. 102) I don’t deny the value of this type of research. But my interest in pursuing a research career is based on my interest in improving policies towards advancing social change. I’m not sure where I will end up at the end of my training. But I am hopeful about the potential to reach that goal.
[i] PRI, “Quietly Congress Extends a Ban on CDC Research on Gun Violence,” (October 5, 2015)