‘W—‘w—___—---- VISITING FOREIGN SCIENTISTS AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES: A STUDY IN THE THIRD-CULTURE OF SCIENCE Thesis for the Degree of PTL DI MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY SAL Pg RESTIVE) 1971 .5. ‘13 III IIIIIIIIIII II II II III I III I I This is to certify that the thesis entitled Visiting Foreign Scientists at A American Universities: A Study in the Third-Culture of Science presented by Sal P. Restivo has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Pb in degree in My I \/ ”W'fl" v.81. .1..- we LIBRARY g...) - Michigan State University Major profes' Date July 15; 1971’ I 01/ / 0-7639 ABSTRACT VISITING FOREIGN SCIENTISTS AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES: A STUDY IN THE THIRD-CULTURE OF SCIENCE By Sal P. Restivo The increase in the movement of people across conven- tional political and geographical boundaries during the twentieth century has stimulated, and been made possible by, the emergence of a world-wide system of transportation, communication, and exchange. Scientists have been dispro- portionately involved in this process of ecumenization. Their activities have created links among societies and led to the emergence of a "third-culture of science," cultural patterns created, shared and learned by scientists of different societies who are in the process of relating their societies or sections thereof to each other. The :significance of scientific activities as a link among societies in an increasingly interdependent world has been noted but not studied in depth. The present study focuses on visiting foreign scientists at American universi- ties as one segment of the international system of scien- tific activities. Data was collected from a non-random sample of 222 visiting foreign scientists at seven midwestern universi- ties. Eighty-two interviews were supplemented with 140 \ _,..-1‘_- _’ m- , Sal P. Restivo usable returns on a mailed questionnaire. More than 90 percent Of our respondents are physical or biological scientists, and most define their research as "basic." They are evenly distributed by home country origin between deve10ped and developing countries. Their mean age is 32 years, and more than 75 percent are 35 years old or younger. 0f the 180 respondents who have a Ph.D. or M.D., more than half have earned their degrees within the last five years. // The dissertation is organized around three basic themes: / (1) conditions of work, (2) science as ideology, and (3) the modern (as opposed to traditional, or post-modern) orienta- tion of visiting foreign scientists. The conditions under which visiting foreign scientists work are conducive to social isolation and role intensity. Their involvement in basic research, their status as visitors, and a rigorous work schedule are among the fac- tors which tend to isolate them from non-work milieu; their role repertoire is limited. Thus, our respondents are not active in social and political activities and organizations. The visitors' work experiences promote an orientation to science as an autonomous profession. Research efficiency and training in skills and techniques are stressed rather than innovation. The concept of science as an ideology was suggested by the tendency of respondents to rationalize their feelings about science as an autonomous enterprise in terms of the Sal P. Restivo norms of science, especially disinterestedness. Their definition of their research as "basic" explains and justi- fies what amounts to an obligation to eschew responsibility for the present and future social consequences of that research. But as the dysfunctions of professionalization and bureaucratization in science become more salient and converge, science becomes transformed into an ideology. This argument follows from the sociological View of science as a social process. The visitors' modern orientation is discussed in the final chapter. Respondents are passively oriented to an international system of nation-states. They do not exhibit the active commitment to national and world development, and to the emergence of a world community characteristic of a post-modern orientation. It is noted, however, that their experiences in American universities do stimulate a commit- nwnt to work and profession that transcends conventional cmmmitments to neighborhood, community, and society; the nmrginal status this entails may be a precondition for arousing a post-modern orientation. Finally, the dysfunctional impact of professionaliza- tion and bureaucratization on the third-culture of science is compared to biological processes which lead to a loss of diVersity and decreased evolutionary potential. As scien- tists respond to problems of control and coordination in an Sal P. Restivo interdependent world by simplifying, specializing, and standardizing, the evolutionary potential of human culture may be decreased. VISITING FOREIGN SCIENTISTS AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES: A STUDY IN THE THIRD-CULTURE OF SCIENCE BY Sal P. Restivo A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology 1971 Copyright by SAL P. RESTIVO 1971 for David ii PREFACE Viewed in global perspective, the history of human culture is a history of increasing scale in human activity and human consciousness. The spread of transportation, communication, and exchange links around the world has, in modern times, created an empirical referent for the idea of a world society. The increasing movement of people, ideas, and materials across conventional social and cultural boundaries, and the growing challenge of global problems, such as population growth-and environmental pollution, have established a global frame of reference which the concepts and perspectives of social science are ill-equipped to comprehend. This dissertation is based on problems associated with a global frame of reference in sociology. I have selected for study one segment of the "interna- tional scientific community," visiting foreign scientists at several American universities. The role of the visiting foreign scientist in America is one of many science-related links between nation-states and cultures which many scholars consider to be important factors in large-scale social Change. Such scholars consider international scientific aCtivities in general to be critical in the development of mOdern nation-states, and to represent the prototype of an iii emerging world society. The widely-held assumption that scientific activities have a facilitative function in societal change reflects an intellectual investment in one or another version of the ill-fated "idea of progress." A reasoned assessment of the relations between science and society is difficult due to the lack of systematic and sus- tained empirical work in the sociology of science. Prob- lems range from the lack of a sociologically-adequate conception of international scientific activities to beliefs about the inevitability of scientific progress and the emergence of a science-based world society. How- ever such processes are defined, their dependence on certain theoretically-specifiable conditions should be recognized. Scientific activities have been central to the devel- Opment of human societies. The institutionalization of science beginning in sixteenth century Europe has made possible the conscious design of relationships between science and society, from Bacon's utopian New Atlantis to modern technical assistance programs and the development of national science policies. Whether planned or the consequence of social forces we are unaware of, or do not understand and cannot control, scientific activities may obstruct as well as facilitate changes in social structure. Their effects, at any rate, are a matter for study and not iv to be taken for granted. Science is itself subject to change--it is a human endeavor influenced by social and cultural conditions. On another level, changes in science can be generated from within the social system of scientific activities. Within this general perspective, I have selected for study certain aspects of the relations between international scientific activities, developmental processes on the na- tional and world levels, and the spread of human activities around the earth. Bmpirically, this dissertation is based on interview and questionnaire data from a non-random sample of 222 visiting foreign scientists at seven midwest universities. The conceptual framework is much more broad. To begin with a conventional statement of problems, hypothe- ses, and methods would do an injustice to that framework and to the intellectual biography of my research. At no point in the research process have I lost sight of the impact of my readings in global history on my selection and formulation of a dissertation t0pic; nor have I felt that the limited and exploratory nature of my research should restrict me to a naive and insensitive dependence on my data. In beginning my dissertation with an introduction to global history and developing my empirical focus out of that introduction, I h0pe to convey to the reader some of the sense I have of its relationship to my data. Sal P. Restivo ACKNOWLEDGMENTS More than any single individual, Professor John Useem has been responsible for making my graduate education an experience in intellectual growth. As major professor, chairman of my Master's and Doctoral committees, colleague, and friend, his advice has always been thoughtful, his direction unobtrusive, his ideas stimulating, and his en- couragement consistent. It is impossible for me to ade- quately express my appreciation for the time and energy Professor Useem has devoted to my education as a sociologist. Professor Ruth Hill Useem has had less to do with my day-to-day activities as a graduate student in sociology but has played a central role in my doctoral research pro- gram. I am grateful for her general criticisms, her atten- tion to details, and her encouragement. I am especially indebted to the Useems for reinforcing and arousing whatever sensitivity I have to the human dimension in sociological research. Professor William H. Form was unable to serve in his capacity as one of the original members of my Doctoral committee. He did read two preliminary drafts of this vi dissertation, and I have followed many of his suggestions for revision. Through his kind words and actions, his honesty, and his often overwhelming expectations, Professor Form has contributed greatly to my graduate education. Professor James B. McKee's conception of sociology as a humanistic discipline, his dedication to teaching as an intellectual enterprise, and his broad-ranging intellect have inspired my efforts as a teacher and researcher. His comments, suggestions, and critical questions regarding the ideas developed in my dissertation are most appreciated. I regret that Professor Jay W. Artis was on leave during the period in which I completed my dissertation and therefore unable to be present at my oral examination. I have the highest regard for him as a person and a scholar, and have benefitted greatly from our too infrequent conversa- tions. In the absence of two of my original committee members, Professor Vincent Salvo was kind enough to accept on short notice an invitation to serve on my Doctoral committee. His acceptance and his comments on my dissertation are gratefully acknowledged. Christopher K. Vanderpool, as close friend and fellow graduate student, has shared with me the joys and inevitable conflicts that accompany intimate collaboration over a period of years. He has been a constant source of critical vii intellectual stimulation, and provided a rare and immeasur- able support as we pursued parallel paths in sociology and in personal growth. My friends and fellow graduate students in the Depart- ment of Sociology have in various ways and on several levels contributed to my personal and intellectual growth. In particular, I would like to thank Florence McCarthy, and Susan Asch for their contributions to my thinking during the period in which I was working on the dissertation. I am thankful for various forms of financial, clerical, and secretarial assistance. Plans for this dissertation were initiated during my tenure as a National Defense Education Act Fellow in Comparative Social Structures. The research itself could not have been undertaken or completed without the financial support provided by a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship, and a National Science Foundation Dissertation Grant. I am grateful for the clerical and secretarial assistance provided by the Depart- ment of Sociology, and especially want to thank Mrs. Marilyn Lovall and Mrs. Doris Irmiter for their kind assistance. I also wish to thank the personnel of the Institute for International Studies in Education for various services, and especially Mrs. Wilma Hahn. Additional support was provided, through Professors John and Ruth Hill Useem, by an Alumni Association Faculty Grant, and a Hazen Foundation viii Award. Finally, I am indebted to the Huber Foundation for a Huber Award (awarded through Wellesley College) which helped defray expenses associated with the final typing, binding, and microfilming of the dissertation. Mrs. Eleanor Roether's assistance with a wide range of paper work I routed through Professor John Useem's office, and her friendship, are gratefully acknowledged. The critical abilities of my wife, Valerie, have helped me think through and commit to paper in intelligible form ideas which often seemed to be trapped in my own pri- vate mental world. The life I'share with Valerie and our son David has made the joys of research more joyous, and the disappointments, pains, and conflicts tolerable. ix LIST TABLE OF CONTENTS OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Perspectives and Problems . . . . . 2. Problems in the Sociology of Science, Working Hypotheses, and General Plan of the Dissertation . . . . . . . . . 3. Design and Methods . . . . . . . . . . II. WORK AND THE THIRD—CULTURAL MILIEU . . . III. THE IDEOLOGICAL FUNCTION OF THE NORMS OF SCIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. SCIENCE, THIRD-CULTURE, AND ECUMENE . . . . 1. Professional Man as Modern Man . . . 2. Notes on the Social Structure of Scientific Activities . . . . . . . 3. Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . FOOTNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A. COUNTRIES GROUPED BY LEVELS OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACCORDING TO COMPOSITE INDEX (FROM HARBISON AND MYERS, 1964: 33) . . . . . . . Appendix B. THE INDEX OF QUALITATIVE VARIATION Appendix C. INTERVIEW SCHEDULE . . . . Appendix D. QUESTIONNAIRE . . Page xi , xvii 21 26 53 111 157 157 187 222 229 238 260 261 262 286 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Distribution of Respondents by Sex . . . Distribution of Respondents by Years in Which They Were Awarded Their Undergraduate and Graduate Degrees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Respondents by Level of Development of Birthplace, and Field . . Distribution of Respondents by Level of Development of Home Country (Citizenship), and Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Respondents by Number of Cross- National Trips for Scientific Study of Research, by Level of Development of Country Visited . Distribution of Interviewees by Parental Third- Cultural Marriage (Marriage of Citizens of Two Different Countries) . . . . . Distribution of Married Interviewees by Whether Spouse's Birthplace is the Same as Theirs of Not . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Respondents by Whether or Not They Interacted Regularly with Foreign Scientists in Their Home Country . . . Distribution of Foreign Postdoctorals (All Fields) in the United States, by World Region and Level of Development of Home Country, 1967 . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Respondents by Home Country (Citizenship), Compared with Distribution of Visiting Foreign Scholars in the United States Distribution of Respondents by Marital Status . . xi 43 44 45 46 46 47 48 49 51 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Distribution of Interviewees by Marital Status Distribution of Respondents by the Extent to Which Their Research Has Been Characterized by Selected Aspects of Scientific Work Distribution of Respondents by Work Setting Ranked "First" in Terms of Amount of Time Spent in That Setting Distribution of Interviewees by Number of Persons in Work Group . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Interviewees by Their Character- ization of Their Present Work: Basic or Applied . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Respondents by Extent of Large- Scale Funding Required for Their Research Distribution of Interviewees by Perceived Colleagues' Definition of Their Professional Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Questionnaire Respondents by Importance of Problems Facing Mankind, Home Country, and Basic Science in Determining Their Choice of Research Problems . . . . Distribution of Interviewees by What They Would Most Like to be Remembered For . . . . . . . Distribution of Interviewees by Persons They Would Most Like to be Remembered By Distribution of Interviewees by Whether or Not There Was Anything Unanticipated About Their Work Experiences in The United States Distribution of Respondents by Degree of Work Involvement in U.S. Compared with Work Involvement in Home Country . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Respondents by Whether or Not They Have Experienced Differences Between American and Home Country Patterns of Authority in The Work Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . xii 57 61 62 63 64 65 67 68 68 71 72 73 LIST OF TABLES (Continued) 24.1 Distribution of Respondents by Relationship Between Present Scientific Activities and Scientific Activities to be Performed When They Leave Their Present Positions . . . . 25. Distribution of Interviewees by Professional Plans Following Expiration of Present Academic Commitment in the United States . . . . . . 26. Distribution of Questionnaire Respondents by Responses Concerning the Direct Involvement of Every Scientist and Scholar in National Decision-Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27. Distribution of Respondents by Whether or Not They Have Been Involved in Non-scientific Organizations or Activities in Their Home Country During the Last Five Years . . . . . 28. Distribution of Interviewees by Whether or Not They Are Involved in Bringing About Change in Their Home Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29. Distribution of Interviewees by Whether or Not They Are Members of Professional Associations Concerned with Social Responsibility in Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30. Distribution of Respondents by Purpose of Visit to a United States University . . . . . . . 31. Distribution of Interviewees by Source of Financial Support for Their Trip to the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32. Distribution of Interviewees by Source of Financial Support for Their Research Activities in the United States . . . . . . . 33. Distribution of Questionnaire Respondents by Importance of Science Facilities, Scientists, Country, Family, and Salary in Determining Their Choice of Work Locations . . . . . . . . 34. Distribution of Respondents by Expressed Sense of Social Responsibility for the Possible Social Consequences of Their Research . . . . xiii Page 91 92 94 95 95 96 105 108 109 130 131 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 39N 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Distribution of Questionnaire Respondents by Anticipated Consequences for Mankind of Their Present Research . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Interviewees by Perceived Importance of Scientists in Their Home Countries Future Development . . . . . Distribution of IntervieWees by Whether or Not They Are Optimistic About the Development of Their Home Countries During the Next Decade Distribution of Interviewees by Whether They Are Optimistic or Pessimistic About the World's Future During the Next Decade Distribution of Interviewees by Willingness to Consider Changing Their Profession . . . . . Distribution of Interviewees Willing to Consider Changing Their Profession by Professions They Would Consider Changing to . . . . . . . . Distribution of Respondents by Number and Types of Publications . . . . . . . . . . Percentage Distribution of Questionnaire Respondents by Their Responses to Normative Statements About Their Home Country . . . Distribution of Interviewees by Whether or Not They Perceive Themselves as Actors in a Scientific Network That Links Their Home Country and the United States, by Presence and Type of Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Respondents by Geographical Plans Following Expiration of Present Academic Commitments in the United States . . . Distribution of Interviewees by Geographical Plans Following Expiration of Present Academic Commitments in the United States Distribution of Interviewees by Plans, and Factors Affecting Their Decisions xiv Page 133 134 134 135 146 234 147 151 165 166 167 168 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Distribution of Questionnaire Respondents by Whether or Not They Would Accept a Permanent Job Outside Their Home Country Distribution of Interviewees by Whether or Not it Makes Any Difference to Them What Country They Work in, by Plans After Visit Distribution of Interviewees by Whether or Not it Makes Any Difference to Them What Country They Live in, by Factors Affecting Their Response . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Interviewees by Perceived Influence of Their National Identities on Their Relationships with Foreign Scientists Distribution of Interviewees by Whether or Not Scientific Gatherings Outside Their Home — Country Have Enabled Them to Establish Personal Communication Links with Foreign Scientists . Distribution of Interviewees by Perceived Number of Scientists in Their Field or Area of Specialization, Home Country . . . . Distribution of Interviewees by Number of Scientists in Their Area of Specialization or Field, Home Country, They Know Personally . Distribution of Questionnaire Respondents by Ranked Importance of Means of Scientific Communication in Their Work . . . . . . Distribution of Respondents by Memberships in Scientific Societies and Level of Development of Country in Which Societies Are Located Percentage Distribution of Interviewees by Frequency of Participation in Professional Meetings at Regional, National, and International Levels . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Respondents by Perceived Major Obstacles to International Scientific Communication . . . . . . XV 173 174 175 177 178 193 194 196 197 198 200 57. 58. 59. 60A LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Distribution of Respondents by Place of Work, Last Five Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Respondents by Level of Development of Country(ies) They Have Worked in, Last Five Years . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Interviewees by Whether or Not They Believe the Criteria for Truth and Verification in Science Will Ever Change Countries Grouped by Levels of Human Resources Development According to Composite Index (from Harbison and Myers, 1964: 33) xvi 207 219 260 LIST OF FIGURES Page Summary Statistics on Distribution of Respondents by Age in Years . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Number of Children Among Married Interviewees . . . 52 Summary Statistics on Spouse and Family (Spouse and Children), Interviewees . . . . . . . . . . . 52 IQV's for the Dependent Attributes Discussed or Otherwise Presented in the Text . . . . . . . 60 Dimensions and Conditions of Scientific Work in Relation to Social Isolation and Role Intensity . 81 Summary Statistics on Interviewees' Images of Their Home Countries' Futures . . . . . . . . . 161 Response Categories, Interviewee ReSponses to Question on Impact of Their Cross-cultural and Transnational Experiences on Their View of Man, Society, and the World . . . . . . . . 184 The Field of Scientists, Degree Status Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 xvii Science is no world-uniting power, and scientific communication is no sign of friendship and trust. It is such a sign only where the fundamental drive of science, which alone gives meaning to it, binds men existen- tially--where their common work makes them friends. Karl Jaspers CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1. Perspectives and Problems Raymond Aron (1961) has perceived in the twentieth century "the dawn of universal history." In this century, the increase in scale of human activity and human con- sciousness, i.e., the number of people in conscious rela- tions (Honigman, 1959), has transcended the conventional boundaries, of socio-cultural1 units such as tribes, nations, nation-states, culture areas, and civilizations. Increase in scale at sub-global levels is not a new phenomenon in socio-cultural history; neither is the con- cept of an increase in scale which ultimately encompasses the globe in some type of world order. Within the bounda- ries of the ancient Middle East, for example, changes in scale occurred which broke down geographical and cultural barriers. William H. McNeill (1963: 127ff) uses the phrase "cosmopolitan civilization" to describe the "lively diplomatic, commercial, and cultural intercourse" that had developed by the fifteenth century B.C. in the area in- cluding Egypt and Mesopotamia.2 In the history of ideas, it is possible to trace the linguistic roots of the "one world" concept to the Cynic word, "kosmopolis" and its behavioral roots to actual or dreamed of increases in socio-cultural scale.3 Alexander conceived the goal of his conquests to be the establishment of "homonoia," i.e., human concord among the nations he conquered; the Stoic Zeno of Citium, a student of the Cynic Crates of Thebes, conceived of a world ruled by one divine and universal law; in China, the concept "ta t'ung" ("one world") originated in the pre-Confucian era and has survived into modern times (K'ang yu-Wei, 1958). In Islam, the universal society appears as "dar-al-Islam," the "abode of Islam." A "World Order" is one of the central features in Western intellectual history. In Dante's DE Monarchia, the idea is manifested in the "respublica Christiana"; it under- lies Bacon's concept of global unification through "the thorough passage of the world . . . and the advancement of the sciences"; and it is part of the unified systems sketched by scholars such as Comenius, Hegel, Marx, and Comte. The remarkable quality of the twentieth century is the "extraordinary change in scale of wgzld events" des— cribed by Heilbroner (1963: 7): "It is as if the familiar newsreel of history had given way to a gigantic Cinerama, as if the once dark wings of the theatre were now illumined by an immense extension of the screen on which history is projected to us. And this sense of change in scale is not merely an illusion based on our receding distance from the past. During the middle years of the twentieth century we have actually been spectators at an unprecedented enlarge- ment of human affairs, an enlargement which may well appear in the future as one of the great watersheds in human his- tory." Unlike our predecessors, we can root our ideas about a world society in the reality of world-wide systems of transportation, communication, and exchange. The vocabulary of the world-minded reflects the challenges inherent in trying to capture conceptually the emerging future; it stresses different foci and different visions: post- historical, post-modern, post-industrial, post-civilizational. The visions of many contemporary prophets of world order continue to be informed by a Baconian Divine Provi- dence.’ Aron (1961: 44-45), for example, refers to indus- trialization and the unification of mankind as "inevitable." A divine teleology inspires the emphasis Jaspers, and de Chardin place on the evolutionary continuity of the emer- gence of cross-cultural consciousness. Jaspers (1959: 340) writes, the "intercourse between peoples has meant a con- tinual growing together of mankind, the creation of unity through the planet's becoming one to the consciousness, and ultimately to actions of men." A comparable sense of "inevitability" is articulated in de Chardin's writings on "complexification" and the emergence of the noosphere (1959, 1960, 1964). For some scholars, however, the future is not so cer- tain. Juxtaposed to the vision of one world is "a haunting fear of there being no world for man" (Useem, 1963: 481). Toynbee (1946: 207) asks, "Is the new social driving power of industrialism and/democracy to be employed in the great constructive task of organizing a Westernized world into an ecumenical society, or are we going to turn our new power to our own destruction?" Among the most systematic perspectives on the problem- atics of a world society is that of Harrison Brown. On the basis of an analysis of global ecology, the distribution of natural resources, and the potentials for exploitation and utilization of human and non-human resources, Brown (1954: Z64ff) suggests that, of the alternative futures available to mankind, the most likely to be realized is "a reversion to agrarian existence": "This is the pattern which will almost certainly emerge unless man is able to abolish war, unless he is able to make the transition involving the utili- zation of new energy sources, and unless he is able to stabilize populations." A "completely controlled, col- lectivized industrialized society" is the next most likely possibility. Least likely is the emergence of a world-wide free industrial society." Elsewhere, Brown's alternative worlds are personified in the conflict between Seidenberg's Post-historic Man-- the bureaucrat/technocrat--and Mumford's One-world Man, who "will gladly sacrifice his mechanical efficiency, along with his cocksureness and complacency, in order to enhance the quality of life itself" (Mumford, 1956: 180). There is, across the variety of futures imagined, a pervasive Western bias. I have already quoted Toynbee on "organizing a Westernized world into an ecumenical society." The "great theme" of Peter Drucker's post-modern world (1959: 246f) emerges with "the disappearnace of the East and its Westernization": "The emergence of a common, basically Western world civilization is the greatest of our new frontiers--the greatest change and the greatest oppor- tunity." McNeill (1963: 878) captures in prose the "dra- matic spectacle" of an emerging Ecumene. His histoly con- cludes with the contemporary emergence of a "world-wide cosmopolitanism" growing out of the Old World Ecumene. "'The Rise of the West,'" he urges, "may serve as a short- hand description of the upshot of the history of the human community to date . . . no matter how it comes, the cosmo- politanism of the future will surely bear a Western imprint. At least in its initial stages, any world state will be an empire of the West." In 1917, according to McNeill's schema of history (1963: 867), a new phase in world history began, "marked by the Communist transformation of Russia, the rise of the United States to world power, the eclipse of western Europe as undisputed center and arbiter of Western Civilization, and by enormous advances in man's ability to manipulate human as well as inanimate energies." Kenneth Boulding (1969: 347) locates a new phase in the emergence of a modern world civilization earlier in time than McNeill but within the Western sphere; with the dis- coveries and conquests of the Spanish and Portuguese in the West, and East to the Philippines and Japan, man reached "the moment of globalization, the moment in human history at which the earth ceased to be a great plain and became a sphere." In their attempts to comprehend the emerging future, men have created stimulating and imaginative prospects. Their mental futures, however, have often been grounded in a metaphysics of inevitability and a provincial Western experience. There is no completely adequate framework in social science for dealing with changes in scale in human activity and consciousness within a global setting. There is a promise for such a framework in the ideas of Alfred Kroeber, and Gordon Hewes concerning "ecumene," and it is to their work I now turn my attention. The Ecumene: A Sociology of Global History The increase in scale of socio-cultural phenomena to global levels has accentuated the necessity noted by Julian Steward (1955: 44) for "an adequate conceptualization of the phenomenon of socio-cultural systems above the tribal level." Steward argues that "in the growth continuum of any culture, there is a succession of organizational types which are not only increasingly complex but which represent new emergent forms." Hewes, proceeding from Kroeber's paper on "the ancient oikoumene" (1946), places "the Ecumene" in Steward's "succession of organizational types or levels of socio-cultural evolution." An Ecumene, or Ecumenical System, is defined by Hewes (1965: 74-75) as: . . . a set of functionally interconnected civilizations, linked by actual roads, sea- routes, and other channels of transport and communication, over which move agents of commerce, diplomacy and warfare, and religion, such that constituent civilizations tend toward a common and advancing technological base, come to share various styles, scien- tific, philosophical, and religious ideas, political forms, and so on. Such a system also tends to expand geographically, incor- porating new areas and pe0ples through trade, conquest, colonization, missionary effort, and the attraction which ecumenical affiliations may have for the leaders of marginal or ex- ternal societies. The same long-distance transport and communication facilities re- quired to maintain the internal linkages of the ecumenical system place its societies in a favorable position to employ them in this process of incorporating distant outside areas. Such an ecumenical system, Hewes notes, eventually "envelops the planet." The process of "ecumenization" is imagined to begin in an historical period characterized by the isolation of "nuclear" civilizations: . . . when intercommunication between these nuclei and secondary civilized centers reached a certain level of effectiveness, the Ecumene emerged. A very rough analogy makes this sharper. The earlier phases--Copper and Bronze Age phases--of civilized growth may be likened to a three-ring circus, with essentially unrelated performances under way in each ring. As the affair progresses, things become more complicated, more rings are opened up, and the entire company gradu- ally comes to engage in an immensely intricate dramatic spectacle. ~ Hewes sees the emergence in this century of an esp- menical system, "socio-cultural" in nature and "marked by a rising awareness of the whole on the part of its members." Such a system, Hewes cautions, does not entail a Pax Ecumenica: "a fairly high degree of cultural similarity can exist without political unification . . .," as in Latin America, or Western Europe. In theory, according to Hewes, "two or more ecumenical systems might have emerged "on the earth, but as it happened, there has been only one. This is partly a function of the different configurations of the land masses in the Old and New Worlds." Hewes' conceptualization defines the process of ecu- menization as the unilinear development and diffusion of Western culture. His perspective carries with it a clear intimation of inevitability. Nonetheless, his analysis can be applied, with modifications, to a study of increase in scale at the socio-cultural level. The earth can be con- sidered a geo-physical, bio-spherical environment upon which socio-cultural history has unfolded. A global ecumene of sorts is now in existence as a consequence of the development of links between, among, and across sub- systems on the same order as those Hewes describes within the Old World Ecumene: "local primary communities," "local or regional socio-political units," and "civilizations." In addition to the Old World Ecumene, it is possible to identify two other major ecumenical systems-~one in the Chinese culture-area, and another on the Indian sub- continent. Other minor ecumenical systems might be use- fully identified, e.g., in the Middle East and in Africa. In these terms, the global ecumene is conceived to emerge out of the development of links between and among the major and minor ecumenical systems. The process of ecu- menization, whether the frame of reference is the Old World, China, or the globe, depends on the movement of persons engaged in what Hewes refers to as "prosaic activities": "foreign trade, diplomacy, transport and communication, missionary effort, book translation, and in modern times, the work of scientists, scholars, journalists, and even tourists" (Hewes, 1965: 81). 10 The emergence of the modern world Ecumene has been accompanied by, and in some cases made possible by "an enormous increase in the speed, frequency, and in volume of transport and communication" (Hewes, 1965: 102). This increase, in conjunction with "prosaic activities," has made it necessary for social scientists to develop concepts for describing and interpreting the emergence and development of collectivities possessing some form of "cultural" boundary but not the usual political or geographical boundaries. Such collectivities have been analyzed in the work of Professors John and Ruth Hill Useem on "third- culture."4 The Third-Culture The Useems use the term "thirdlgdlture" to refer to I '- ‘u... and“ VOW“ 1“ the cultural patterns "created, shared, and learned by men of different societies who are in process of relating m.-. theigfisocietiesio3_sectiongwfihereof-toaeach other." There_ has been an expansion of the linkages "both conflicting and cooperative, among the societies of the world," promoting "an increasingly interdependent world." The Useems (1967: 130) have drawn attention to "the men-in-the middle who*wa *W _.. «ham - .- transform the broad aims of joint societal endeavors into I egoing enterprises, who implement policy decisions through personal confrontations in the day-to-day performance of 11 their work roles, who innovate the accommodations and adaptations necessary to interconnect two or more bureau- cratic structures." Within the context of "growing interdependency," the Useems focus on modernizing roles in the third-culture (1968: 143): Part of the enlarged scale of interdependency between the newly-developing and the more developed countries, a predominant character- istic of our times, are the systems designed to facilitate the process of modernization: programs to advance educational exchange, institution building, technical and economic assistance, business and industrial innova- tions, expansion of the scientific community, application of technology, and the strength- ening of development organizations. The Useems anticipate a growing concern in the devel- oping nations with creating viable national "scientific communities"; on a larger scale, they discern "the evolving of world-wide scientific groups which include segments of scientific communities from many different societies" (Useem and Useem, n.d.: l). Thg_gpplig§£ignrof the thirds, culture concept to science has led the Useems to studies ’"W ‘0'.$ ”W a, ’t- I; I“ ~erufl“..._,.ulflf («Mi 10" HM of the "expansion of the scientific commun1ty" as a system M "designed to facilitate the _process of modernization."5 c...» ‘_—.. 1...... v. ”.,“.qh—cyuc, “ f‘ - t" l’ . "' anh ’1 o “fir-A... This study is part of the broader investigations presently “3' M Awaiulv «W “I- 1“ ”.- being directed by the Useems. It should be evident that the conception of science as a third-culture is closely allied to the idea of an "inter- national scientific community." The distinctions among 12 these and related concepts, e.g., the social network of science, are discussed in my final chapter. In this intro- duction I wish to critically review some of the empirical bases for "international scientific community" and "third- culture of science." The International Scientific Community The "international scientific community" has been characterized as the most important trans-societal system in ecumenization: it has been defined as the basis for, or microcosm of an emerging world community; it is con- ceived to be critical in unifying national programs for controlled manipulation of the global environment; and it is viewed by some scholars as crucial to processes of deveIOpment and modernization (see esp. Apter, 1965). These ideas involve implicit and explicit definitions of the relationships between science and society. Such definitions can be classified according to their basis in (l) intuitive and metaphysical assumptions, and (2) empirically-grounded ideas and theories. The metaphysics of science and society has its modern roots in Francis Bacon's interpretation of the prophecy of Daniel--"many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased"; Bacon saw in this statement the fated destiny, 13 by Divine Providence, of scientific advance and "the thorough passage of the world" meeting "in the same age." Bacon's intellectual heirs today proclaim science as an essential factor in world integration, a "savior of man- kind," and the primary basis for a "true world culture” (Wagar, 1963: 154, 174). Recently, the Nobel laureate Sir Peter Medawar (in Greenberg, 1969: 1239) expressed the belief, sanctified by reference to Bacon, that "The deterioration of the environment produced by technology is a technological problem for which technology has found, is finding, and will continue to find solutions." Such uncritical expressions of faith betray an ignorance of the relationship between values and, more broadly, other non- technological cultural factors and manifest an optimism that draws its sustenance from the "idea of progress." In one sense, and paradoxically, Bacon also antici- pated critical conceptions of the relationship between science and society. Merton (1957: 607), for example, reiterates Bacon's intimation, but without any reference to inevitability or fate when he notes that "the interplay between socio-economic and scientific development is scarcely problematical." In this context, scientists are defined as significant actors in various aspects of ecu— menization. In economic terms, scientists are defined as "strategic human capital" (Harbison and Myers, 1964);6 in political terms, they are "elites" (Apter, 1965); in 14 social psychological perspective, the value-orientations of scientists are perceived to be a basis for global coopera- tion and the development of a world community (Apter, 1965: 436). The growing awareness of the ecological unity of the earth among both scholars and laymen, most imaginatively and comprehensively expressed in the works of Fuller (e.g., 1963) is the source of changing conceptions about the func- tions of international scientific c00peration. Roger Revelle (1963: 138), for example, writes: "It is by no means clear how scientific cooperation on a worldwide basis can best be used to attack [the] appalling questions of our time. But it is obvious that their solutions will be found only if science and technology are brought to bear in the broadest possible way and with urgent intensity." The critical relationship between science, technology, and societal problems is noted elsewhere, and in more quanti- tative terms, in such works as Brown's The Challenge of Man's Future, and Richard Meier's Science and Economic Development; it is manifest in the proliferation of inter- national conferences on science and the new nations, e.g., the UNESCO conferences on science and technology (UNESCO, 1963 and 1970), and the 1960 conference on Science and The Advancement of New States held in Rehovoth, Israel (Gruber, 1961; see also Shah, 1967 and Shils, 1967).7 15 That science and scientists are strategic components of large-scale social change is hardly problematic. There are, however, serious gaps in our knowledge concerning science, scientists, and contemporary societal changes. Among the most critical questions confronting the soci- ologist of science interested in contributing to such knowledge is, what is the nature of the scientific community. Philosophers, theologians, scientists, politicians, intellectuals, laymen, and specialists in the sociology and history of science, irrespective of differences in perspective and ideology, have used the term "scientific community" to refer to what in sociological terms would be a homogeneous social group, or collectivity.8 Edward Shils (1958: 15), for example, writes that the scientific community "approximates most closely to the ideal of a body bound together by a universal devotion to a common set of standards derived from a common tradition and acknowledged by all who have passed through the discipline of scientific training." This idea, however, has been more often asserted or assumed than subjected to systematic study. The Third-Culture of Science The physical mobility of persons engaged in scientific activities has been a notewrothy aspect of the history of 16 science. It appears, for example, that large numbers of outstanding Greek scholars in the late pre-Christian era migrated (Dedijer, 1968: 13-14). Until about 300 B.C., the main flow of this migration was to Plato's Academy and Aristotle's Lyceum in Athens. As a consequence of the efforts of Ptolemy Lagi (323-285 B.C.) and his son, Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.), Alexandria succeeded Athens as a scientific center; among the scholars who lived and worked in third-century Alexandria were Zeno the Stoic, Epicurus, Euclid, Eratosthenes, Archimedes, and Aristarchus of Samos (Albright, 1957: 339f). But Sarton has noted (1959: 9-10) the greater movement of superstitions as opposed to scientific ideas. Neither was there a great movement of scientific ideas to the East; in proportion to the Asiatci p0pulation, "the Greek emigrants were too few in pre-Christian times and too little interested in science and scholarship to affect and change Eastern minds. . . ." (Sarton, 1959: 11). There was no continuous diffusion of science, and men who possessed scientific ideas were by no means mobile in great numbers. Nevertheless, centers for scientific activity which attracted scholars from widely separate areas emerged and flourished in East and West prior to the beginnings of the scientific revolution in sixteenth century Europe. By the fourth century A.D., Rome had become the center of so great a flow of students from Gaul and other provinces that 17 special decrees were issued to govern their conduct (Haarhof, 1920: 241). The most famous of the early academies in China was the Academy of the Gate of Chhi, founded in the fourth century B.C. (Needham, 1969: 243). In Nalanda, India, a Buddhist school attracted Asiatic pilgrims between the fifth and twelfth centures A.D. (Moskerji, 1947: 563-564; Altekar, 1948: 123, 125); a center for higher learning was organized at Gundi Sapur in East Persia early in the sixth century A.D. (Dedijer, 1968: 17); and in 639 A.D., the emperor T'ai Tsung established a center in China which attracted "bar- barian" students (Galt, 1951: 328; see also Martin, 1901: 378). Baghdad and Azerbaiijan were also important science centers in the centuries preceding the Middle Ages (Needham, 1949). Not only centers, but also individuals attracted scholars, Abelard being an outstanding example (Dedijer, 1968: 20). From the thirteenth to the fifteenth century, the vanguard of the West's scientific revolution was visible in the "migration of intellectuals across political bounda- ries" to the universities of Europe. At Bologna and Paris, "the foreigners seem to have constituted the majority of the student body" (Dedijer, 1968: 21). With the emergence of modern science in Western Europe from 1500 on, an increase in the scale of "international science" and in the degree of institutionalization of scientific activities occurred. During the twentieth 18 century, scientists have participated in a social system developed over a period of four hundred years; the growth of this system has made it possible for scientists to participate disproportionately in the increased movement of persons across cultures (Shils, 1960; Thomas, 1967 and 1968). The generation of scientists trained during the post- World War II decades has experienced two forms of cross- cultural mobility on a larger scale than any prior genera- tion of scientists: (l) geographical mobility--scientists have been active participants in cross-cultural relations as visitors and advisors in foreign countries, and passive participants as nationals "hosting" visiting from other countries, and (2) psychic moBility--they have been senders and receivers in a growing and increasingly global system of scientific activities. The increase in scale of scien- tific activities during the last quarter century is mani- fested in the facts of (1) exchange of scholar programs, (2) institution-building and other forms of technical assistance programs in the new states, especially for higher education, (3) "brain drains," (4) the frequency of international conferences, (5) the number of individuals participating in such conferences, (6) the emergence of international scientific organizations, including federa- tions of national scientific organizations, (7) "interna- tional laboratories," where scientists from different 19 nations work together, e.g., the medical laboratories at the Harvard Medical School, and (8) the organization of international scientific "cooperatives"; on the regional level, for example, these include (a) the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM), which maintains joint research centers at Ispra (Italy), Geel (Belgium), Petten (Holland), and Karlsruhe (Germany), (b) the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva, (c) the European Space Research Organization (ESRO), which maintains several centers, the largest (the European Space Technology Center-- ESTEC) located in Noordwijk, Holland, and (d) the Interna- tional Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines; on the global level, activities such as the International Geophysical Year are illustrative. These aspects of scientific activity are among the basic empirical refer- ents for conceptions such as "international scientific community," and "third-culture of science." The conceptual focus of my research is the third- culture of science. In contrast to "international scien- tific community," the third-culture concept emphasizes science and the scientific role as links among nation- states and cultures; it underlines the relation between scientific activities and large-scale processes of social change, e.g., economic development, modernization, and the increasingly international and trans-societal scale of human activities. - 20 Following the Useems, the working definition of ”thirde» culture of science" is "the cultural (including intra- scientific) patterns created, shared, and learned by scientists of different societies who are in process of relating their societies or sections thereof to each other"; the scientific role thus implied is a "modernizing role" that "might provide a model of relatedness, and supply the//f perspective necessary for participation in the ecumene I . . ." (Winter, 1968: 4). The conception of science as a third-culture requires that we consider variations in the types of societies the third-culture links. The facilitation and/or obstruction of the modernizing processes the Useems associated with third-cultural activities depends on the degree to which the goals of nation-states at different levels of development and linked by third-cultures are, or are becoming, inter- related and interdependent; third-cultural patterns "hold forth the promise of greater unity among peOple from differ- ent societies" (Useem, 1963: 11). Where men from different . ““IF‘HD .A— societies interact on a more or less regular basis, there ..._1 u must bewsharednnorms,hvalues beliefs; The question is what norms, values, and beliefs are shared in the third- culture of science. To what extent is the "shared-ness affected by the home country origins of the interacting scientists? These questions led us to incorporate a method 21 for identifying the "level of development" of our respond- ents' home countries. Having established a conceptual foundation at the most general level, it is now appropriate to relate my concerns about the third-culture of science to problems in the sociology of science. The problems selected are critical ones in the sociology of science, and therefore demand attention in any study of science and society. They are the basis for delineating the nature and delimiting the scope of my research. 2. Problems in the Sociology of Science, Working Hypothe- ses, and General Plan of the Dissertation Conditions of Work The conception of science as a "monolithic entity" dominates the entire range of literature in the sociology of science and related fields (Kaplan, 1964: 854; Rose and Rose, 1970: 263). Numerous sources of heterogeneity within the scientific community have, however, been suggested. Most of these suggestions involve differentiating scientific activities on the basis of "subject matter" into physical, biological, and social sciences.9 The criteria for differ- entiation include (1) length of the theoretical chain link- ing general principles with common sense language and experience, or the extent to which mathematics is an 22 important element in the theoretical structure,10 (2) cost and scale of research (Coser, 1965: 299), (3) degree to which theory and methodology are susceptible to social and political influences (Hirsch, 1961), (4) degree to which theory and methodology are "well-organized" (Menzel, 1958; Price, 1965: 107; Storer, 1967), (5) degree to which norms are specified for a concrete set of practices (Hagstrom, 1965: 11), (6) degree to which paradigms organize theory and methodology (Kuhn, 1962, and 1963: 344), (7) nature of methodology (including technique),11 (8) level of develop- ment of scientific community and sectors thereof, and associated systems of prestige-status-esteem relative to other institutions, organizations, and roles,12 (9) varia- tions in occupational role behavior (Becker and Carper, 1956: 288-300), (10) differences in "intellectual or cognitive styles of performance" (Spencer, 1966: 296). These criteria are related to the organization of work in science. If we turn from the suggestive and speculative to an examination of the more coherent literature in the sociology of work, occupations, and professions, the rationale for hypothesiz- ing sources of heterogeneity in science is considerably strengthened. This literature reinforces the significance of observed and suggested differences in (1) occupational role behavior, and (2) "intellectual or cognitive styles of performance" among scientists. 23 The relationship between variations in conditions of work and variations in the conceptual and activity patterns characteristic of occupational and professional collectivi- ties has been extensively documented.13 There is, however, no general theory that logically relates specific conditions of work to specific cognitive and activity patterns in indi- viduals, groups, and collectivities. It is sociologically naive to suppose that significant variations within the scientific community will neatly dif- ferentiate physical, biological, and social scientists. It seems more reasonable to assume that specific work conditions are systematically related to specific cognitive and activity patterns. There may, of course, be significant overlap of these conditions so that a particular configuration is associated with a given occupation or profession; but the appropriate independent attributes are work conditions and not broad occupational or professional categories.14 To the extent that the system of scientific activities or any sector thereof is characterized by heterogeneity of work conditions, the ideas and activities of scientists will vary; to the extent that work conditions are homo- geneous (which would not be the case for the total system, but likely for sectors thereof), it is reasonable to expect homogeneity in the ideas and activities of scientists. The working hypothesis that follows from the above dis- cussion is: to the extent that the conditions of their work 4 I T I - .4" ., (.1 ,1 A, I t. ,_ C— ‘-.’ ,gzit “,> , (1.," (’9.».a -. ‘4‘)...é/y' urn“ V ) you Kerri ‘ - , (.1 C «lee. {/- .9 ’ tap. .fléIibI"“’ 3 I ‘ 9- ‘ 24 are similar (homogeneous), the ideas and activities of scientists will be similar (homogeneous). In Chapter 2, I sketch the logical relationships (hypothetical) between specific conditions of work and specific ideas and activi- ties. This tentative schema is based on, but not entirely dependent on, the descriptive analysis of the conditions of scientific work among the visiting foreign scientists in my sample. The reason for this approach to the problem is clarified in the section on methodology. Norms There has been a general tendency in the sociology of science to abstract generalizations and "theories" from idealized conceptions of science and scientists rather than from empirical studies of scientific activity. This ten- dency is most evident in the attempts by sociologists to abstract the "norms of science" (Parsons, 1951: 343; Merton, 1957: 550-561; Barber, 1952: chapter 4; Storer, 1966: 76- 86). These attempts have proceeded from an idealized con- ception of science to the abstraction of "norms" and then to the assumption that the abstracted norms directed the activities of working scientists. But the relationship between the "norms of science" and the actual ideas and activities of scientists has not been systematically ex- plored. Storer has noted the difficulty of Operationalizing 25 the norms,15 but this is only one aspect of the general problem--what is the relationship between the norms of science abstracted by sociologists of science, and the ideal and actual cognitive and activity patterns among scientists? A study of the norms of science was not an important part of the original research plan. Questions on the norms were constructed with the objective of exploring problems in operationalization. Interviewee responses to questions on "disinterestedness," however, suggested an idea that had not been considered prior to beginning the field work: the norms of science have an ideological function. In conjunc- tion with ideas developed in studying the visiting foreign scientists' work milieu, it now occurred to me that the ideologicalization of science was not an unexpected conse- quence of professionalization and bureaucratization in science. Therefore, a chapter is devoted to the idea that American scientific activities have an ideological component that reinforces the scientific ideology of visiting foreign scientists and affects (l) the nature of their professional training, (2) their role as a link between nation-states, and (3) their roles as agents of social change. Boundaries The precise definition of the boundaries of science as a social system falls outside the scope of this dissertation. 26 I have followed customary usage among sociologists of science in defining "scientist." The problem of defining "scientific community" is more difficult. There are un- resolved problems with the two concepts already introduced in outlining the frame of reference for my research, "international scientific community," and "third-culture of science." "Community" and "culture" are both part of the basic vocabulary of sociology; yet, neither customary usage nor fiat has established a generally accepted defini- tion for community or culture. It may be true that, as Haberer (1969: 7) notes, we know the "international scien- tific community" exists; "what we do not know so well is the kind of community with which we are dealing and the sense in which it is a community." It is important that we examine the empirical content and analytic significance of "community," as well as "culture," and "international," with reference to scientific activities. In my final chapter, I discuss the modern orientation of our respondents (as opposed to a post-modern or traditional orientation) and I explore the relevance of the vocabulary of social networks for comprehending the complexity of world-wide scientific activities. 3. Design and Methods In its original conception, this study was designed to focus on conditions of scientific work (independent 27 attributes) and conceptual and activity patterns of scientists in third-cultural roles (dependent attributes; on our use of the term "attributes" see Lazarsfeld and Barton, 1951: l69ff). It was my intention to explore the relationship between a set of conditions of work, or di- mensions thereof, and selected dependent attributes, to weigh the relative influence of the conditions of work, and to explicate the relationships between independent and dependent attributes. I assumed my data would exhibit correlational patterns; I was not certain what these pat- terns would be. My intention was to confront the theoreti- cal problem of relating conditions of work to patterns of ideas and activities. What follows is a discussion of my original sampling design and general methodology, and the nature of the final sample. The plan of the thesis out- lined above is based on the changes in focus pressed upon me in the field. The Universe and the Sample The conceptual universe was defined to include all social settings in which scientists from two or more societies are involved for some measurable and durable interval of time in scientific activities requiring their regular and cooperative interaction. Such settings are 28 defined as third-cultural settings, and the scientists involved in such settings are by definition third-cultural actors. Third-cultural settings must be defined at societal and organizational levels. Based on available resources and the nature of our research objectives, the United States was defined as the societal setting; in particular, the locus of third-cultural settings in science was defined to be within the boundaries of six midwestern states: Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Universities in these states were defined as third-cultural organizational settings if they were host to visiting foreign scientists. Given the survey data available, the most visible and readily discernible third-cultural scientists are visiting foreign scientists; they are links between at least two societies, and lists of visiting foreign scientists are available (though less reliable than anticipated in de- signing this study). The empirical universe was defined to include all visiting foreign scientists in residence at a selected number of midwest universities during the 1969-1970 academic year. This definition was later expanded to include the 1970 summer session. Visiting foreign scientists are active participants in the third-culture of science by virtue of their cross-cultural experience and their "alien" status in American society. They are also, in general, members of 29 the younger generation of scientists. They have been pro- fessionally socialized in an international milieu, and their conceptual and activity patterns should afford some measure of (l) the effects of the increase in scale of scientific and societal activities, and (2) their potential for facili- tating and/or obstructing large-scale social change. The definition of "visiting foreign scientist" follows the definition of "visiting foreign scholar" used by the Institute of International Education: All foreign citizens not considered students (e.g., visiting professors, lec- turers, instructors, advanced research and teaching fellows and associates, visiting scholars, academic guests, special- ists and all such foreign senior participants in educational programs) who are physical, biological, or social scientists; who will be in residence at a university meeting our cri- teria for inclusion in this studyas a research site; who will be on campus for one month or longer during the 1969- 1970 academic year (and including the 1970 summer session); and who have their permanent residence in a foreign country. The classification of scientific fields according to the categories "physical," "biological," and "social," follows the system used by the National Science Foundation in their classification of scientific occupations.16 Universities were selected as research sites if they had hosted 100 or more visiting foreign scholars (data for scientists were not available) each year for the past few 30 years, i.e., those universities which were likely to have 100 or more visiting foreign scholars during the 1969-1970 academic year. The significance of using data for scholars, and the limitations imposed by restricting our sampling to midwest universities can be evaluated in part by noting that (I) nearly three-quarters of the visiting foreign scholars in a given year are in the physical and life sciences, medical sciences, social sciences, and engineering, and (2) approximately one-third of these scholars in any given year over the past few years have been in residence at mid- west universities and colleges (Institute of International Education, 1965 to 1970). Techniques, and Selection of Research Sites The exploratory objectives of our research, and the fact that individuals for whom English is a second language might have some difficulty with certain concepts, questions, or "scales" prompted our decision to use personal interviews as the primary initial source of data. We also expected our respondents to express a critical, oftentimes skeptical interest in social science research. Establishing rapport in the interview situation had to be integrated with legiti- mizing our research so that respondents would take our work seriously; this was facilitated by the personal 31 interviews. In the field, two factors appeared to contrib- ute much to legitimizing our "scientific roles"; one was the fact that our research was being financially supported by the National Science Foundation, and the second was our ability to intelligently discuss or ask questions about problems and issues in physical and biological science. Our interview schedule was constructed, pre-tested on 17 and the final American and visiting foreign scientists, schedule (not counting modifications in the field) organized and mimeographed. The final schedule included some pre- coded items, but most of the questions were open-ended. Most yes-no items were followed by probes. The schedule required approximately one and one-half hours to administer. Mr. C. K. Vanderpool and I conducted the interviews.18 We worked separately in the field. Certain standardizing procedures were necessary to insure data comparability. These procedures were deve10ped and tested in any earlier collaborative study (Restivo, 1966; Vanderpool, 1966). During the pre-test period we interviewed respondents to- gether, independently, and with our colleague present as a non-participant observer. Comparison of interview results, and the study of tape-recorded interview sessions aided in sensitizing us to our own and our colleague's style. De- vices such as underscoring words to be accented in reading questions from the schedules, and written specification of 32 probes were used. Tests of the comparability of our interview techniques and styles, our use of probes, and data-comparability during the pre-test periods for this and the earlier study established our confidence in these procedures. Interview Sites Three major universities with established graduate and professional schools were selected as interview sites. These universities were characterized by (1) some dis- parity in "quality rating” based on an index derived from ratings in the Carter (1966) report, (2) some diversity in community setting, and (3) accessibility, determined by time and travel funds available for the project. In each case, a high administrative officer of the university was informed of our intention to undertake research on campus. This procedure established our identity on the campuses; our study was not in any way sanctioned by these administrators, though they did extend us several courtesies, including assistance in setting up on-campus offices. Each of the selected universities is a major center for third- cultural activities. 33 Sampling Procedures and Design Modifications Our original sampling frame consisted of a list of all visiting foreign scientists in residence at the three interview sites for the 1969-1970 academic year.19 The sampling frame was stratified along two dimensions; type of discipline (physical, biological, and social), and level of development of visitor's home country (developed, and deve10ping). The latter dimension is discussed below. A random sample of fifty elements was drawn from each cell of the stratified sampling frame for an N of 300. The size of the sample was determined by considering (1) the number of elements in each cell which would allow for necessary sub-classifications in the analysis without yielding empty cells or cells with too few elements, and (2) the number of interviews two interviewers could reasona- bly expect to complete over the planned duration of the field phase. This deSign could not be implemented due to flaws in the primary survey data. Once in the field, we discovered that numerous individuals in our sampling frame were not, in fact, in residence at the interview sites. Many of the individuals listed in the primary survey had terminated residence, some as much as two and three years before. The problem was especially acute among social scientists. Nationally, fewer than ten percent of visiting foreign 34 scientists in the United States for 1969-1970 were social scientists. Only twelve social scientists appeared in our final sample. The failure of our original design forced us to abandon random sampling and the systematic exploration of relation- ships between independent and dependent attributes using standard statistical analyses. We simply attempted to reach every physical, biological, and social scientists in residence at the research sites. Our target N for inter- views was lowered considerably; the time required to administer the interviews plus other time/cost factors brought our target N down to 100. We completed eighty- two usable interviews. This phase of our research began in March and ended in August 1970. Mr. Vanderpool and I arranged each of our interviews by telephone. Only three potential respondents refused to participate in the study; Mr. Vanderpool encountered one refusal, and I encountered two, one due to an extremely poor command of English by a potential interviewee. Most of the interviews were conducted in an office set aside for us at the research sites. Some interviews were conducted in our respondents' own offices or their labora- tories. While the interview schedule was strictly adhered to, the "atmosphere" was generally informal and the dialogue often conversational. The interview situation was rela- tively stable from interview to interview. Our respondents 35 were extremely cooperative. In my Master's research, I discovered that initiating a discussion of my respondent's field of interest, or of scientific method, aided in estab- lishing rapport. This "technique" was used in this study with similar results. As Mr. Vanderpool and I neared the completion of approximately fifty interviews (about twenty-five each) we began to be noticeably affected in our interview styles by the emerging patterns in responses to our questions. We were able to predict responses to many questions. The interview process became more and more mechanical-~fewer and fewer "surprises" occurred. The most stimulating part of the interview process was the opportunity to converse with our respondents before and after the interview. Appreciating the emerging obstacles to meaningful interviews, and recog- nizing that merely gathering more data was not worth the investment of time, energy, and money, we decided, upon completion of eighty-two interviews, to construct a mailed questionnaire. In part, this decision reflected a decision not to probe selected topics in depth during a new set of interviews but rather to broaden the data base on certain tOpics. The Mailed Questionnaire The questionnaire was much shorter than the interview schedule; it covered what we considered "key" themes based 36 on our interview experience, e.g., social and political activities, orientation to the norms of science, and con- ditions of work. Letters of inquiry were mailed to the chairmen of all science departments at the four universi- ties selected as research sites for this phase of the study requesting the names of visiting foreign scientists who would be in residence during the summer of 1970. After a short pre-determined waiting period, questionnaires were mailed to all of the individuals whose names we had received, or two-hundred sixty-five scientists. The cover letter in- cluded with the questionnaire requested a response within three weeks; no follow-up letters were mailed. These less than optimal procedures were dictated by time/cost factors. Nonetheless, we expected, given the high return rates on mailed questionnaires associated with the study of profes- sionals, at least a fifty percent return. Our actual return rate was 53.0 percent, or 140 usable questionnaires. No differences were discernible betwen respondents and non- respondents in terms of the admittedly minimal amount of information we had available for analysis, i.e., university affiliation, department, and field. The returned questionnaires, together with the inter- views, gave us a total N of 222. Our sample is relatively homogeneous; most of the scientists are in the physical and biological sciences working on theoretical or experimental 37 "basic” problems. They are evenly distributed by "level of deve10pment" of home country. And they are relatively homo- geneous on such basic attributes as age, marital status, and sex. These and other basic characteristics of the sample are discussed and presented in below. I consider my sample a "case," an empirical basis for the conceptual analyses that form the body of my thesis. The significance of generalizing my findings to a larger population can be evaluated to some extent by comparing the characteristics of the sample with the characteristics of visiting foreign scholars (Tables 9 and 10, pp. 48 and 49). The data for this study have been organized in tables reporting percentage responses. Given the quality of data and my research objectives, I have organized the data in the simplest manner, relying on this presentation to sug- gest relationships which are incorporated in my conceptual analysis. It should be noted, finally, that time/cost factors often necessitated proceeding hastily where more energy should have been devoted to codification, theory, and pre-tests. While we had considered a limited case study at one university, and would argue that under the circumstances such a study might have been more apprOpriate, the stimulatidn of ideas provided by this research experi- ence was possibly not achievable, in the same degree and quality, under limited case study conditions. 38 Level of Development Bendix (1964: 5) defines three large-scale social processes important in the modern history and contemporary situation of nation-states: industrialization, moderniza- tion, and development. Industrialization refers to the ”economic changes brought about by a technology based on inanimate sources of power as well as on the continuing development of applied scientific research." Modernization refers to "all those social and political changes that accompanied industrialization in many countries of Western civilization. Among these are urbanization, changes in occupational structure, social mobility, development of education-~as well as political changes from absolutist institutions to responsible and representative governments, and from a laissez-faire to a modern welfare state." Finally, deve10pment is "used where reference is made to related changes in both the technical-economic sphere (industrialization) and the social-political sphere (modernization)." Within this framework, two types of contemporary societies (nation-states) can be identified; developed, and developing. Developed societies are industrialized and modern; developing societies are industrializing and modern- izing. In classifying respondents' home countries, I have followed, with some modifications, the schema of Harbison 39 and Myers (1964: see Appendix A). They identify four levels of development based on a composite index of human resources. Their index includes a technical-economic and a social-political dimension; it is thus essentially con- sistent with Bendix's definition of deve10pment. I have modified their schema by collapsing the first three levels of development and defining societies at those levels as "developing"; societies at the fourth level are defined as "developed." This modification is justified by (1) the relatively small size of our proposed sample and the fact that we did not know in advance the distribution of scien- tists by home country at the universities selected as research sites; (2) the relatively narrow range of index numbers between levels I and II compared to the relatively wide range of index numbers between levels III and IV. The latter range is substantially decreased if the United States, given its high index, is considered a special case; this increases the degree of homogeneity in level IV; (3) an expectation based on prior studies that there would be few if any scientists in our sample from countries in levels I and 11. While there have been valid questions raised about the empirical basis of the Harbison-Myers schema, it does provide at least a crude measure of level of development. The measure is especially relevant for my study given Harbison and Myer's use of a "human resources" index and 40 my focus on "strategic human capital" in a modernizing context. This concept of development classifies nation- states within an international stratification system based on an index of human resources deve10pment. It implies neither unilinear nor unidimensional assumptions about societal processes. Responses were relatively homogeneous along this di- mension; there was no meaningful way to determine "signi- ficance" for small differences in percentage distributions by level of development on the attributes I have analyzed. The data, and my analysis, suggest the reasonableness of a "no difference" assumption. For this reason, level of deve10pment does not appear as an attribute for cross- classification (Vanderpool, 1971). Basic Characteristics of the Sample1 The following tables summarize the basic characteris- tics of our interviewees and questionnaire respondents. Several characteristics should be especially noted. Not unexpectedly, men outnumber women in the sample by about ten to one (Table 1). Approximately three-quarters of our respondents are 35 years old or younger (Figure 1). This statistic, in conjunction with the fact that more than _U h—I" ' 1Unless otherwise noted, Total N = Base N (i.e., no discrepancies) for interview and/or questionnaire data summarized in the following tables. \ .c...-A'r$'. .5 . n . 41 TABLE 1 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY SEX Respondents Sex N % Male 203 91.5 Female 19 8.5 Total 222 100.0 half of our respondents have received their Ph.D. or M.D. within the last five years (Table 2), is the basis for defining our sample as a segment of the "younger generation" of scientists. Mean age (X) = 32.0 years Range = 22-67 years Percent 35 years old or younger = 76.0% Figure 1. Summary Statistics on Distribution of Respondents by Age in Years Tables 3 and 4 indicate the essentially equal distribu- tion of our respondents between "developed" and "developing" countries; they are also equally distributed by "field," 42 TABLE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY YEARS IN WHICH THEY WERE AWARDED THEIR UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE DEGREES Degree Awarded B.A./B.S. M.A./M.S. Ph.D./M.D. N % N % N % 1955 or earlier 32 17.1 16 12.1 8 4.4 1956-1965 146 78.1 90 68.1 70 39.0 1966 or later ‘__9 4.8 _2§_ 19.8 lg; ' 56.6 Total 187a 100.0 132b 100.0 180C 100.0 aN = 222. Number of "no answer" = 32; "no degree" = 3. bN = 222. Number of "no answer" = 61; "no degree" = 29. CN = 222. Number of "no answer" = 37; "no degree" = 5. 43 TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT OF BIRTHPLACE, AND FIELDa Level of Development of Birthplace Field Developed Develgping N % N % Physical science 44 .W40.6l 51 ,44.7 Biological science 58 53:8 57 #5030 Social science __9 .SL6T __§_ 7‘§:§u~ Total 108 100.0 114 100.0 a106 citizens (89.1%) of developed countries are citi- zens of the developed country they were born in; 91 citizens (92.8%) of developing countries are citizens of the devel- oping countries they were born in; 13 citizens (10.9%) of developed countries are natives Of another developed coun- try; 7 citizens (7.2%) of developing countries are natives of another developing country. 44 TABLE 4 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT OF HOME COUNTRY (CITIZENSHIP), AND FIELD3 Level of Development, Home Country Field Developed Developing N % N % Physical science 49 41.2 43 43.9 Biological science 63 52.9 50 51.0 Social science 7 5.9 ‘_5 5.1 Total 119 100.0 98 100.0 aN = 222. Number "indeterminate" = 5. except for the social scientists. In conjunction with Table 5, the notes for Tables 3 and 4 provide basic infor- mation on the cross-cultural experiences of our respondents: in summary, (1) an overwhelming proportion of our respond- ents are citizens of the countries they were born in, (2) P 4? . 4 . . nearly SIxty perée {phave never VISIted a develgged country Wlww w. .4 ,. ., ‘ t/::rcent for scientific study or research; more than eig have never traveled to a developing country for study or research (Table 5), (3) only 2.5 percent of our inter- viewees are children of a third-cultural marriage, i.e., the marriage of citizens of two different countries (Table 6), (4) approximately ninety percent of our interviewees are married to spouses whose country of birth is the same as theirs (Table 7). 45 TABLE 5 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY NUMBER OF CROSS- NATIONAL TRIPSa FOR SCIENTIFIC STUDY OR RESEARCH, BY LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT OF COUNTRY VISITED Level of Development of Country Visited Number of Trips Developed Developing N % A N % None 127 57.8 184 82.9 One 51 23.0 28 12.6 Two 24 10.1 4 1.8 Three 15 6.8 2 0.9 Four or more __5_ 2.3 __g_ 1.8 Total 222 100.0 222 100.0 aNot including the trip that brought them to the United States for this visit. 46 TABLE 6 DISTRIBUTION OF INTERVIEWEES BY PARENTAL THIRD- CULTURAL MARRIAGE (MARRIAGE OF CITIZENS OF TWO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES) Parental Third- Respondents Cultural Marriage N % Yes 2 2.5 NO 29_ 97.5 Total 813 100.0 aN = 82. Number of "no answer" = 1. TABLE 7 DISTRIBUTION OF MARRIED INTERVIEWEES BY WHETHER SPOUSE'S BIRTHPLACE IS THE SAME AS THEIRS OR NOT Respondents Spouse's Birthplace N % Same 57 90.5 Different 6 9.5 Total 63 100.0 47 There is one positive index of psychic mobility among 3>€Vg our respondents: nearly sev nty percent experienced some ‘ w Mme M). Arm‘s»- .. -' form of "regular" Interaction with foreign scientists in .,_ v”.- -P“‘~ ”a "Mwwgfl " I -.~—w -.' their home country (Table 8). It should be noted, however, I WWW V'V‘u? "were. W t ,, that when we probed on this question among our interviewees this interaction was described as minimal and superficial. For example, such "interaction" may have consisted of attending a lecture by a visiting foreign scientist. TABLE 8 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY WHETHER OR NOT THEY INTERACTED REGULARLY WITH FOREIGN SCIENTISTS IN THEIR HOME COUNTRY Respondents Responses N % Yes L”w“_1_4__3_____W 67.0 No 71 33.0 Total 214a 100.0 3N = 222. Number of "no answer" = 8. Tables 9 and 10 provide comparative data which illus- trate that in spite of the sampling difficulties we en- countered our sample is somewhat representative of the distribution of visiting foreign scientists, according to statistics published in Open Doors. These data are not strictly comparable, because they include non-scientists; DISTRIBUTION OF FOREIGN POSTDOCTORALS (ALL FIELDS) TABLE 9 48 IN THE UNITED STATES, BY WORLD REGION ANDa LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT OF HOME COUNTRY, 1967a Level of Development of Home Country World Region Developed Developing, Total N % N % Base N % Africa 0 0.0 96 100.0 96 100.0 West Asia 147 16.0 769 84.0 916 100.0 South America 102c 38.5 164 61.5 266 100.0 East Asia 609d 64.0 347 36.0 956 100.0 Australasia 212 72.5 79 27.5 291 100.0 Europe 1532 77.4 451 22.6 1983 100.0 figiggpfimgféf§ 2646 78.4 72 2119. éééé. 100.0 Total 2866 59.0 1978 41.0 4844 100.0 aBased on Table B-3, of Origin, 1967," in The Invisible University (1969: 308). b 621 from India. CAll from Argentina. d 6All from Canada. All from Japan. "Foreign Postdoctorals by Country 305- 49 TABLE 10 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY HOME COUNTRY (CITIZENSHIP), COMPARED WITH DISTRIBUTION OF VISITING FOREIGN SCHOLARS IN THE UNITED STATES Respondents VRSb Countries _—_ N %a N % United Kingdom 33 15.0 1424 13.3 India 30 13.7 1244 11.6 Japan 26 , 11.8 1117 10.4 Germany 16 7.3 727 c 6.8 China 14 6.4 1.2, 124 3.8, 406 Australia 10 4.6 359 3.3 Canada 8 3.6 529 4.9 Israel 8 3.6 315 2.9 Czechoslavakia 6 2.7 120 1 1 Korea 5 2.3 211 2.0 Switzerland 5 2.3 205 2.0 Italy 5 2.3 293 2.7 Chile 4 1.8 -- -- France 4 1.8 404 3.8 Egypt 3 1.4 118 1.1 Pakistan 3 1.4 -- -- Poland 3 1.4 137 1 3 Turkey 3 1.4 -- -- Brazil 2 0.9 113 1.1 Colombia 2 0.9 -- -- Greece 2 0.9 -- —- Hong Kong 2 0.9 -- -- Netherlands 2 0.9 136 1.3 Norway 2 0.9 -- -- Spain 2 0.9 138 1.3 Burma 1 0.5 -- -- Costa Rica 1 0.5 -- -- Guyana 1 0.5 -- -- Indonesia 1 0.5 -- -- Iran 1 0.5 -- -- Ireland 1 0.5 -- -- Jordan 1 0.5 -- ~- Malaysia 1 0.5 -- —- Nepal 1 0.5 -- -- New Zealand 1 0.5 -- -- Okinawa 1 0.5 -- -- Peru 1 0.5 -- -- Philippines 1 0.5 174 1 6 50 TABLE 10 (Continued) Respondents VFSb Countries ___ N %a N % South Africa 1 0.5 -- -- Sweden 1 0.5 116 1.1 Syria 1 0.5 -- -- Thailand 1 0.5 -- -- Venezuela 1 0.5 -- -- Yugoslavia 1 0.5 126 1.2 Argentina —- -- 165 1.5 Belgium -- -- 104 1.0 aTotal N for our respondents = 222; Base N = 219. Three respondents could not be classified by home country. bBased on "Leading Nationality Groups of Foreign Faculty Members and Scholars, 1967-1968" (IIE, 1967: 8). cFigures (N, %) are for "China Unspecified" and "Republic of China" respectively. Only two of our respond- ents were classified as "China Unspecified." but, as I noted above, more than three-fourths of the "visit- ing foreign scholars" are in the physical, biological, medical, engineering, and social sciences. I will refer later to the data in Table 9; but note that about sixty percent of foreign postdoctorals in the United States are from developed countries. The "favored status" of developed countries in sending scientists to the United States is further reflected in Table 10. Finally, Tables 11 and 12, and Figures 2 and 3 summarize the data on marital status, children, and spouses. More than seventy percent of our respondents are married. Among 51 our interviewees, nearly eighty percent are married, and the overwhelming majority of these scientists are accom- panied by their families. TABLE 11 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY MARITAL STATUS Respondents Marital Status N % Married 158 71.3 Single 61 27.4 Other 3 1.3 Total ' 222 100.0 TABLE 12 DISTRIBUTION OF INTERVIEWEES BY MARITAL STATUS Respondents Marital Status N % Married 63 77.0 Single 19 23.0 Other -- -- Total 82 100.0 52 Number of interviewees married = 63 Number of children = 102—(Mean (Y)) = 1.6 children Range = 0 to 5 children Number of interviewees reporting "no children" = 15 Number of interviewees reporting "3 or more children" = 14 Figure 2. Number of Children Among Married Interviewees Number of interviewees married Number accompanied by spouse Number not accompanied by spouse Number of interviewees with children Number accompanied by family Number not accompanied by family 63 58 (92.0%) 5 ( 8.0%) 48 43 (89.5%) 5 (10.5%) Figure 3. Summary Statistics on Spouse and and Children), Interviewees Family (Spouse CHAPTER II WORK AND THE THIRD-CULTURAL MILIEU Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and Thorstein Veblen are among the outstanding contributors to the classical examination of work as a significant determinant of human activity and patterns of thought (e.g., world-views, ideologies, and cognitive mappings). The literature on work, occupations, and professions indicates that "occupational cultures ““c—‘fl‘fi . '-"-‘.~a.-—..'u..—u4 . _...4 'F" (rooted in common tasks, work schedules, job training, and career patterns) arewsometimesflbetter predictors of be- havior than both social class and pre3job experience" I .,”-qua»: pr 1‘ (Wilensky, 1961: 521-522). Goblot (1925: 38) noted that, "Nothing stamps a man as much as his occupation. Daily work determines the mode of life; even more than the organs of the body, it constrains our ideas, feelings, and tastes." The most unequivocal expression of this per- spective on work, as recently formulated by Friedson (1970: 89-90; Cf. Becker, 1964), is that "what peOple do is more an outcome of the pressures of the situation they are in than of what they have earlier 'internalized.'" Scientific occupations are generally classified among the professions;11 and professions can be considered 53 54 ideal-types of occupational institutions (Vollmer and Mills, 1966: 2) characterized by a body of "systematic knowledge or doctrine acquired only through long prescribed training" (Wilensky, 1964: 138). Professionalization (both as a group process and as a process of socialization for the individual who enters a profession) creates a work milieu which ab- sorbs the greater part of an individual's thoughts and activities (Greenwood, in Vollmer and Mills, 1966: 17). In terms of psychic investments and day-to-day activities, work becomes life (see, for example, Hall, 1948; Caplow, 1954; Form, 1946). The impact of professional socializa- tion in science is greater to the extent that a given work environment is standardizable, and in fact standardized, across a variety of organizational, institutional, and cultural settings. The following working hypothesis was introduced above (p. 23): To theflgxtentuthat,t e conditions of their work - are similar (homogeneous), the ideas and activities of sqign;is£s.uillmbewsimilarMLthogeneunfil, Ultimately the” question arises, given a set of work conditions, what specific ideas and activities are likely to emerge, and ..I ~. (‘46... Wyn ‘ "“M n ' M L I “HR 1"!“ 3.“ .,wA-v' " what‘spegif1c ideas and activities are likely to be in- hibifgg. The test of my working hypothesis is based on the "index of qualitative variation,” or IQV (Mueller and Schuessler, 1961: 177-179). The IQV analysis precedes my discussion of work conditions among our respondents, the 55 effects of these conditions on their role repertoire (Biddle and Thomas, 1966: 59), and the implications of my findings for understanding the role of visiting foreign scientists in third- cultural perspective4 at n A: ‘7“ a“: 3” F” Jr {4... :9 :- as“) " If EBndltlons of work,/ ideas and act1v1t1es are ‘ aa-efi-u -.—‘ 8.5" ”gem as“. M: a.» _,, ‘ .,". ____,.....e.--~ "“ . _.,,__......———~“~“ W considered two sets of attributes, then I have in effect defined the former as independent and the latter as de- pendent attributes. Corroboration of my working hypothesis is based on constructing a mean IQV for each set of attrib- utes, and establishing that the resulting indices for each set of attributes exhibit comparable degrees of homo- geneity. The index is computed as follows: _ total observed differences IQV - maximum possible differences X 100 The index varies from zero (maximum homogeneity) to 100 per- cent (maximum heterogeneity). In order to utilize the index as a measure of homogeneity, a cut-off point had to be set which would determine whether any given set of responses was to be classified as "homogeneous" or "hetero- geneous." The cut-off was eStablished through a trial-and- error procedure at seventy-five percent; that is, an index of seventy-five percent or higher defines a heterogeneous set of responses, and an index of seventy-four percent or lower defines a homogeneous set of responses. The specific procedures and rationales involved in establishing the 56 cut-off, and in calculating the IQV's are discussed in Appendix B. The use of the IQV is not, in this analysis, without some ambiguity. For example, in establishing the mean IQV for conditions of work, a number of possibilities emerge. If "conditions of work" is defined to include (1) whether the scientist's research is "applied" or "basic," (2) the setting for his research (e.g., laboratory, or office), (3) the number of persons in the work group, and (4) the extent of financial support needed for his research, the mean IQV (i.e., the mean of the IQV's for each set of responses) is 50.0 percent, much below the seventy-five percent cut-off (Tables 14-17 below). For the "selected aspects of scientific work," with categories intact, the mean IQV is 79.8 percent; but it is possible that the response categories for these items ("definitely charac- teristic," "somewhat characteristic," and "not at all characteristic" on the interview schedule, and "great part," "some part," "no part" on the questionnaire) do not dis- criminate meaningfully between "definitely" and "somewhat," and "great" and "some." If the mean IQV is re-calculated after collapsing these categories (thereby dichotomizing all responses), then the mean IQV is 64.3 percent (Table 13). The mean IQV for all conditions of work then is 58.6 per- cent. In no case is the IQV for all items which can be 57 o>HpaHHomoQ 4 \HaoHeHasm 4.44 4.4o o.ooH ooN o.H4 44H o.mH 44 OAOH ON oxmoHoeeooe . . . . . . 4902 m 40 o mm o OOH omH o 44 omH 4 NH 44 4 4 4H HmoweHHo c.44 0.44 o.QOH OHN m.Hm no m.HN 44 4.44 44 oaoeHgoaxm 4.4o 4.44 o.OOH com c.44 44 9.44 94 o.m4 om xmoHoeoHHoz . . . . . . . mofiumfiumum 4 HH 4 on o OOH omH H m 4 H oo 44 4 om O4 o 4:4 444: m.H4 4.44 o.OOH HON 4.44 44 4.44 ea 4.Hm 4o xeooee 4 4 4 z 4 z 4 z 4 z . . ommm xuoz mo @ HHou on: w wuoomm< >oH Hauoe HH< om uoz Heazoaom HHooHonom maupmomom mo owumfihouomhmsu , _......Mmoz_UHmHHzmHum mo_mHumam< Hmnumqmw.»m_nmNHmmHuHuQHHomow: mostozom zofi>uopa4 any :4 mhmommm :HmoHHHQEmzm o.>pflawnmpmeoo Eouw poummo: o>m: xme magma wafimcmgo use mofinmhmmsoo on 04 popcopcw one: .oasponom 304>Hopcfi paw opfimcq04umonc ogu :4 zao>4poommoh Hmommm :ufiaz :.Hmo4moaocnoop: can :mcwhoocfiwno: mowhom -oumo one .mafiuoocfiwco can .uqoemoHo>ov use gopmomoh .nopmomoh voflammm mowsHocHo .mpcoflHo Ho muaofipmm amen: 40\wcm Hmswcm op mmawwafim :oumomoh mo cowumoHHmmm op mummomw .o4H m4 .opomopocp .z .oaswogom on>Hopnfi may c4 Humane «on wood poommm maneo .uxop opp :4 woGHmHaxo mm mowhowoumo pommmfiaoo ogu How woumHonmo coon o>ma m.>oH may .aszHoo wcooom ogu cH :.HH< um uoz: one :.umgzoEom: :.xHouHc4moQ: .mofluowopmo mcwumfixo map How woumHsono coon o>mg m.>oH map .qesaoo umpfim on“ :Hn .coflpmosc 304>Houaw HoHHmpmm may no pohou::oo:o mofiuazowmmww cowmeH:DEEoo oaom mo omzmuon .mownowoumo omnommoh may one .cofiumosc ecu mo mcfimmhna on“ omcwao op woummfiHno uHom o: .oHHMGn04pmosc onu wafiuoshum -coo :H .nme cOHumoscv mason mfisu c4 use oasvosom 304>Hopafl map :4 com: moHHowoumo omcommog may wow :.uqu on: cam :.phmm oEom: :.pnmm umonm: .moN cowumoscv oufimccofipmoac may :4 wow: moHHomoumo omcommoh onp coozuoa homomohomwv m m4 ohonu was“ opozm 4.44 4.44 >oH :46: 4 4 4 z 4 z 4 z 4 z H.HHou .oe: mommm ”wwwowm >dH Heuoe HH< 44 Hoz awesoEom_ 4HoHHeHmoq mzohmomom mo ofiumwpopomhmnu HuoaoHoaouv 4H mHmme H :.Hmauom: we“ :.Hmusume: :.Hm8Hmsga: :.ufiHone»m: .Eouuon on no“ Eosm .opm Mp0: mo muOHprcoo Hmsuom esp mzhouume pomnnzm: dowmcoeHw map mpaomohmou H :Esaoo .onEmXo pom .EOHmcoEfiw may macaw Esscwunoo a do woomam owe Muoz mo mcowufiwnoo Hanuum may mthoz mo scamaoeflv: m muaomoumon :Ezaou comm nopoz D __ _ _ c _ _ A 204 o>fimcagxm 304 gm“: 304 swam a L m t .1 .1 t s a n 1 e O t S n I I 1 e a 1 .1 o c R no 8 :on osflpUAHHmom swan: choN nah: meoz ocoz m __ mafia # - Xoch _ zuwmcoo _ kuHXonEoU _ mpmou __ cofiufimomfl -oummm xpflocowosom coauUMHognH Hmofimofiocaooe nonwomom -msumum :ofiuompoch nemacmpaouV m opsmwm 83 configurations, one for maximum social isolation and role intensification. It should be evident, incidentally, that I have conceived social isolation and role intensification to be functionally interdependent, related directly though not necessarily linearly. An environment conducive to social isolation will give rise to, or reinforce, role intensification. In constructing Figure 5, I have expressed my aware- ness of the need to provide a profile of individuals, groups, and collectivities based on "scores" for each dimension. Such a profile would be placed relative to theoretical "horizontal." A profile which connected the top set of conditions (A-B) would coincide with the theoretical hori- zontal (or profile) I have associated with "highest level of social isolation and role intensity." A "theoretical horizontal" is defined as a horizontal line anywhere in the place which connects items theoretically associated with one another for any given individual, group, or col- lectivity. The profile for any given individual, group, or collectivity would result in a "best-fitting" horizontal. The closer the best-fitting horizontal to A-B, the higher the expected degree of social isolation and role intensity, the greater the probability that a given individual, group, or collectivity will not be involved in activities related to large-scale social change; more emphatically, higher degrees of social isolation and role intensity will be 84 associated with high probabilities of low degrees of involvement in extra-work activities. It can be hypothesized that (1) professionalization, because it is conducive to "the invasion of life by work," and (2) bureaucratization, where it tends to introduce, sanction, and maintain strict well-defined control over work conditions and work-roles tend to increase the affinity of the profile horizontal for the theoretical horizontal A-B. These two processes are discussed in some detail in the following chapter. Within the constraints imposed by this crude schema it appears evident that a profile of our respondents would approximate the theoretical horizontal associated with the highest degree of social isolation and role intensity. In the following paragraphs, I explore some of the conse- quences of social isolation and role intensity for the extra-work activities of our respondents, and discuss the implications of this for understanding their roles in the third-culture of science. Work, The Third-culture of Science, and Social Change The literature on third-cultural milieu is consistent in stressing both the actual and normative (ideal) relation- ships between science and science-related activities and development (i.e., industrialization and/or modernization), 85 and ecumenization. Educational exchange, institution- building, technical and economic assistance, and the development of national scientific communities are viewed as systems or sub-systems "designed to facilitate the process of modernization" (Useem and Useem, 1968: 43). This view is reflected in the rationales for exchange pro- grams and visiting scholar activities. In a recent study of postdoctoral education in the United States, many university administrators expressed the feeling that international education is "a responsibility of the world's richest country" (NAS, 1969: 209). At a national confer- ence on higher education and development in 1967, a United States State Department official noted that one problem America faces is "how education in America, for the foreign and American student alike, can help bring together the advanced and developing world" (Canter, 1967: 37).24 Science is, according to many scholars, the critical activity in national and world deve10pment. J. D. Bernal's The Social Function of Science established a Marxist per- spective on the relationship between science and social change when it was published in 1939: "It is to Marxism that we owe the consciousness of the hitherto unanalysed driving force of scientific advance, and it will be through the practical achievements of Marxism that this conscious- ness can become embodied in the organization of science for benefit of humanity" (Bernal, 1939: 415). In a 86 Festschrift for Bernal published a quarter of a century later (Goldsmith and Mackay, 1966: 55), physicist P. M. S. Blackett, Nobel recipient in 1948, argued that "the West should make the great experiment of sacrificing some of its immediate prosperity to give massive aid to the have- not countries. . . . Scientists and technologists have a special responsibility in this matter, since it is their genius and their skill which alone can bring the material basis of happiness within the reach of all." Richard Meier reaches similar conclusions in his book, Science and Economic Development. He describes his work as an experimental attempt to judge the impact of progress in science on world economic development. Like Brown (1954), Meier has tried to develop a "readily communicated quanti- tative framework." He has tentatively identified, for example, the number of calories a human being needs, and the amount of resources available for satisfying human needs for food, clothing, and shelter. Though his conclu- sions concerning the relationship between science and social change are consistent with Bernal's, Meier's argument is much more rigorous, theoretically and quantitatively. Silvert, addressing himself primarily to the problems of developing countries, concludes that ". . . the degree of freedom required to make the most rational decisions needed at the level of deve10pment of the country concerned may be a functional requisite for self-sustaining growth" 87 (1969: 435-436). He associates this "degree of freedom" with the claim in science that "freedom is an efficient form of organization" (Polanyi, 1951: 34-35). The preceding arguments are deve10ped more explicitly by Apter in his The Politics of Modernization (1965). Science, he urges, based as it is on "the need for informatin, verification, experimentation, and empiricism" must ulti- mately be accepted by the modernizing elites (Apter, 1965: 175).25 It is through the scientific community that "links are maintained between the industrial nations and those just beginning to industrialize" (Apter, 1965: 439). Finally, Gilpin has related scientific activity to the economic and technological status of developed nations, noting that "Great Power status accrues only to those nations which are leaders in all phases of basic research and which possess the financial and managerial means to convert new knowledge into advanced technologies" (1968: 25). The theme uniting these and related conceptions of science and society is an unchallengeable awareness of the function of organized human inquiry in problem-solving at the national and world levels, a function relevant to deve10ped and developing nations, as well as to world development. Furthermore, many observers believe that (1) there are special skills, knowledge, and techniques appropriate to the solution of developmental problems at all levels, and (2) 88 broad creative and critical scientific imagination is necessary for short-as well as long-term deve10pmental planning. The function of scientific activity as a link between developed and developed countries is under these conditions defined in much more complex terms than simple transfers of technologies and research "know-how," either through (1) transfer of scientific and technological "goods and services," or (2) training foreign personnel. Calder (1970: 268), for example, writes that, "There is every reason why the poor countries should attempt to leapfrog over the obsolescent technologies of the rich . . . imita— tion of the present rich countries may be quite inapprOp- riate for countries with different climates, cultures and interests. The poor countries must therefore formulate their own visions of the future and experiment with novel tech- nologies themselves. . . ." A similar situation has been noted for developed countries. The European "responses toward the contemporary scientific-technological revolu- tion" does not appear to be dependent "under present condi- tions on an Atlantic basis through some sort of technological .Marshall Plan" (Gilpin, 1968: 459). There has been widespread affirmation of these ideas (fiog., Brown, 1954; Brown and Harbison, 1957: 78ff; Shils, 1&96]; 219; Gruber, 1962; Lewis, 1962; Revelle, 1963: 138; Har'bison and Myers, 1964: 69; Apter, 1966: 222; Shils, 1966: 212; Shils, 1967: 482-483; Shah, 1967; Myrdal, 1968: 55££; 89 Perkins, 1966: 617; Meier, 1966; Stone, 1969: 1118; Halpern, 196: 183; UNESCO, 1963, and 1970). This affirmation entails a definition of the visiting foreign scientist's role in the United States, whether he is from a developed or a developing country. His role, as one of a number of roles in science that link developed and developing countries, is one many scholars consider a model for (if not the only actual) modernizing role. While objections might reasonably be raised against the conception of the scientific role as the modernizing role, there can be little question that it is a critical role in contemporary large-scale processes of social change. The question thus arises: to what extent is the experience of the visiting foreign scientist in the United States linked to large-scale processes of social change; to what extent is his role, considered in terms of how it is initially defined and how it develops thereafter, a "modernizing role," or a role that stimulates an aware- ness of national and world development? Tendencies to social isolation and role intensification are not conducive to stimulating and/or reinforcing cogni- tive or behavioral involvements with processes of social change. The visiting foreign scientists in our sample are implicated in the professional sub-culture of American scien- tists; concomitantly, their encounter with American society and culture is, under the best conditions, peripheral. Even where respondents expressed a desire to learn more about the 90 United States, they indicated how little time they had for actually doing so. Several interviewees noted outside the context of the interview proper their "need" to "get away" on weekends, to "relax"; their activities, however, were usually such as to reinforce "off-the-job" social isolation-- hiking alone or in small groups, for example, was a favorite form of leisure for several interviewees. I will say more about the professional sub-culture of American science as our respondents experience it in the following chapter; but with reference to my "conditions of work" hypotheses, the distinction between "basic" and "applied" research as factors in social isolation and role intensity (which is at least intuitively appealing) may be irrelevant. Basic and applied research may, for the visit- ing foreign scientists, stimulate and/or reinforce social isolation and role intensity. This possibility is suggested by two ideas: (1) that basic research is focused on the advanced theoretical, experimental, and methodological problems defined at the "centers" of the scientific communi— ty, and (2) that applied research, financed through private and/or government grants, deals with technological problems of American industry, agriculture, national defense, and more generally health, education, and welfare (Beer and David, 1963: 116-117; NAS, 1969: 205). In the first case, the visitor is being exposed to problem—solving "paradigms" which are not relevant to the scientific-technological 91 problems of his home country; in the second case, he is also participating in scientific-technological activities which may be largely irrelevant to the applied problems of his home country. I have already made reference to the overwhelming in- volvement of our respondents in what they refer to in a variety of contexts as "basic research." That their scien- tific activities are, in fact, irrelevant to the specific developmental problems of their home countries (or the world) is suggested by the data in Table 24.1. Nearly half TABLE 24.1 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRESENT SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES AND SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES TOaBE PERFORMED WHEN THEY LEAVE THEIR PRESENT POSITIONS Respondents Relationship Between Activities N % Same activities performed before coming to the United States 87 46.5 Same activities now engaged in 58 31.0 Other 42 22.5 Total 187b 100.0 aNote that nearly sixty percent of our respondents in- tend to return home. bN = 222. Number of "no answer" = 35. 92 of our respondents will return to performing the same scientific activities they were engaged in before coming to the United States. This means for most of them (1) a reduction in the amount of time available for research: about one-third of our interviewees, for example, will be teaching as well as doing research (Table 25); the reduction TABLE 25 DISTRIBUTION OF INTERVIEWEES BY PROFESSIONAL PLANS FOLLOWING EXPIRATION OF PRESENT ACADEMIC COMMITMENT IN THE UNITED STATES Respondents Plans N % University - teaching 7 10.0 research 16 22.8 teaching/research 23 32.8 Industry — research 2 2.9 Government - research 7 10.0 Not certain _15 21.5 Total 703 100.0 aN = 82. Number of "no answer" = 12. will probably be greater for visitors from developing coun- tries who emphasized the lack of full-time research posi- tions, especially in the universities, available to them; (2) the application of skills, knowledge, and techniques learned here to problems which are job-specific and not 93 necessarily relevant to developmental processes; (3) a con- tinuation, even in a limited way, of basic research activi- ties (in the classroom, as well as in the laboratory) which are associated with professional advancement in science-- the reference group in that case is "in" the scientific centers, and especially the United States; and (4) no active attempt to make their scientific role relevant to develop- mental processes; they will take no such initiative, and no stimulation or reinforcement will come from their work environment. My final statement (number four) concerning the roles our respondents will play in reference to developmental pro- cesses is supported by data on their present and past activities as social change agents. Many of our question- naire respondents felt that "every scientist and scholar should be directly involved in the decision-making process of their country"; approximately 25 percent disagreed with that statement (Table 26). Our respondents in general, however, are distinguished by their lack of involvement in non-scientific organizations and activities at all socio- political levels--neighborhood, community, and national (Tables 27, 28). Still another indication of their "lack of involvement" is the fact that only about eight percent of our interviewees are members of professional associations organized around the goal of promoting social responsibility in science (Table 29). 94 TABLE 26 DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENTS BY RESPONSES CONCERNING THE DIRECT INVOLVEMENT OF EVERY SCIENTIST AND SCHOLAR IN NATIONAL DECISION-MAKING Statement: Every scientist and scholar should Respondents IQ! be directly involved in the decision- making process of his home country N % % Strongly agree 21 15.6 Agree 54 40.3 Neither agree nor disagree 25 18.7 Disagree 26 19.4 Strongly disagree __8 6.0 Total 134a 100.0 86.0b aN = 140. Number of "no answer" = 6. bBased on collapsing "agreement" and "disagreement" categories (i.e., computed from sub-totals with n = 109), and eliminating neutral category. 95 TABLE 27 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN NON-SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS OR a ACTIVITIES IN THEIR HOME COUNTRY DURING THE LAST FIVE YEARS Respondents IQV Involvement in Non-scientific Organizations or Activities N % % Involved 74 34.4 Not involved 141 65.6 Total 215b 100.0 90.0 aBased on data from items 48 (questionnaire), and 205 and 220 (interview schedule). There were no affirmative responses to question 220, which dealt with national-level decision-making. bN = 222. Number of "no response" = 7. TABLE 28 DISTRIBUTION OF INTERVIEWEES BY WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE INVOLVED IN BRINGING ABOUT CHANGE IN THEIR HOME COUNTRY3 Respondents IQV Involvement in Change N % % Involved 8 9.8 Not involved 74 90.2 Total 82 100.0 35.2 aBased on answers to the question, "Are you involved in bringing about change in your country?" This question was eXplicated during the interviews to ascertain whether or not the interviewee was consciously and actively working to bring about social and/or political changes in his home country. 96 TABLE 29 DISTRIBUTION OF INTERVIEWEES BY WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE MEMBERS OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS CONCERNED WITH SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN SCIENCE Respondents IQV Membership Status N % % Member 6 7.4 Not a member '15 92.6 Total 81a 100.0 3N = 82. Number of "no answer" = 1. Our interviewees were asked to explain their "lack of involvement" in social change (Table 27); the reason most often cited was "too involved in work" (Table 29). It is reasonable to suppose that this "reason" is generalizable to all respondents on all questions dealing with "involve- ment"; that is, most of our respondents would explain their lack of involvement in non-scientific organizations and activities in terms of the demands of their work. Work, even in a "third-cultural" setting, can narrow rather than broaden an individual's experience. The dis- parity between the actual role of the visiting foreign scientist and the role imagined by many students of science and society is sufficient to warrant a close examination of the consequences of international education, exchange pro- grams, and related linkage systems. The work-role of the 97 visitor, our data indicate, so closely tied to American basic science, is rarely defined by the visitor or his hosts specifically in terms of the visitor's potential con— tribution to his home country's deve10pment, or to world deve10pment. What of the visitor's work-role in relation to con- structing cooperative links between America and his home country? Except for scientific "elites," such links appear to be rather fragile. Once the visitor returns to his home country, his immediate situation takes priority over his host country situation. To the extent that American scientists remain a part of his network they do so in a predominantly if not exclusively professional way (Cf. Rose and Rose, 1970: 180-181). At the very least, our data do not support the idea that scientists (and "inter- nationally mobile" scientists in particular) are peculiar in the extent to which they manifest a concern for or orientation to large-scale social change. Their "inter- national outlook" gives no evidence of being especially extensive or deeply internalized in comparison to what one might expect to find among other professional collectivi- ties (Cf. Lerner and Teich, 1968).26 A Brief Excursus on the "Free Market" Conception of Scientific Talent To the extent that the preceding discussion is applic- able to "international science," and to the extent that the 98 argument is valid, the conception that allowing a "free market" for scientific talent-~a ”capitalism of intellect"-- to operate contributes to the furtherance of human welfare must be challenged. The issue is whether the unimpeded movement of scientific talent on a world market in fact contributes to improving the human condition on a global scale. Grubel's argument (1970: 9-10) is representative of the free market of scientific talent position: It is generally tempting to consider the addition to knowledge, the teaching ser- vices and leadership provided by . . . foreign-born scientists as a clear gain to the United States and an equivalent loss to the rest of the world. This view fails to take account of several important matters. First, it is misleading to believe that these scientists necessarily would have reached the same level of productivity had they not migrated to the United States. In their native countries they might not have had the necessary laboratory equip- ment, time for research and stimulating colleagues as they did in the United States. Political and ideological persecution might have reduced their productivity. Second, scientific knowledge produced by these foreigners is freely available to the rest of the world. . . . Third, the income from work received by all scientists as a group tends to re- flect the expected social value of their contribution to the nation's output . . . the emigration of a scientist tends to leave unchanged the incomes of those re- maining behind, since he takes along not only his contribution to the nation's output but also his claim on it. Gruber's first point ignores the economic distinction be- tween a structure and an aggregate, and what Veblen referred to as "trained incapacity." Boulding (1968: 113) notes that 99 "Human capital, more than physical capital is a structure rather than an aggregate": a highly trained person does not necessarily add to the productive capacity of a society unless that person fits "into the matrix of information flows in a way that increases the productivity of the society": It is quite possible, indeed it has frequently happened, that quite highly trained people may have a strongly negative marginal productivity, especially if they are emotionally immature, insensitive to their own environment and destroy more in the way of structure than they create. There is a good deal also of . . . "trained incapacity" in the case of highly trained individuals who have been trained to do a particular thing and who insist on doing it whether it makes any sense or not. It is not the existing stock of knowledge in a society which determines its rate of devel- opment as much as its capacity for learning. Some constellations of knowledge assist this and some do not. Productivity must also be related to the manpower needs of individual nations and to world development. The level of productivity, and the quality of knowledge associated with the professional training of our respondents is de- fined within the structure of American science. The Western nations, including the United States, were "forced to build up fundamental science and to explore blindly the hidden qualities of phenomena which some day may be use- ful; they have learned how to find promising personnel for this work and they have brought some system into the pro- cess of invention" (Meier, 1966: 219). The consequence 100 of this history is that the United States now has a heavy demand (an "unlimited" demand according to Perkins, 1966: 617) for high-level manpower.27 The present movement of scientific and technological resources (human and non-human) on the world market appears to be making "the rich coun- tries more and more independent of the poor, even to the extent of drawing from them their potential developmental leadership" (Boulding, 1968: 118-119; and Myrdal, 1956: 323ff). Scientific training in American colleges and uni- versities is geared to the level of development of American science and technology; within this environment, few, if any, provisions are made to accommodate the visiting foreign scientist as an agent in development. The visitor, like the immigrant scientist, moves in a world market which operates independent of conscious designs for development. Grubel's second point is simply not true. There are innumerable obstacles to the free flow of scientific infor- mation and personnel, including restrictions on the move- ment of scientific instruments across national boundaries, paSSport and visa requirements, and barriers to the free movement of research vessels or scientific groups across politically defined boundaries (Revelle, 1963: 126; Rose and Rose, 1970: 180-181). The role of the visiting scien- tist and the function of scientific exchange programs is not independent of national policy considerations defined in terms of "national interest"; the political economy of 101 international science does not permit the operation of a laissez faire system of scientific exchange. Concerning the third point Grubel makes, where there is an actual brain drain (through migration) the scientist does indeed take along his "claim on the nation's output" but he also takes with him a potential for contributing to the knowledge-based inputs specific to the needs of his society. Where the scientist is trained in the United States but returns home, there is another type of "drain" to the extent that the returnee's training did not prepare him technically, professionally, or axiologically for con- fronting the developmental problems of his home country, and the related opportunity structure for the skills and values he has learned and internalized as a professional scientist (Cf. Deutsch, 1970: 181). The work experiences of the visiting foreign scientist obstruct the development of his potential to actively con- tribute to industrial and socio-political changes in deve10ped as well as developing countries. The emphasis of international education and exchange programs on stu- dents as opposed to faculty, and on internationalizing the American curriculum as opposed to carrying on technical- assistance programs is one manifestation of the low priority accorded education for international and world deve10pment by the United States (Deutsch, 1970: 181). This is further 102 illustrated by the low, almost negligible proportion of scientists visiting or on exchange from "third-world" nations (Tables 9, 10: 48-50). The high proportion of visitors from England, Germany, and Japan reflects the econ- omics of exchange as well as the operation of market-like pulls and pushes in science. Even among undergraduates visiting from abroad, approximately one-third of those from countries prepresented by more than 1000 foreign stu- dents in recent years have been from developed countries; in 1967-68, about one-sixth of such students were from Canada (IIE, 1967-68). That development is not a salient feature of exchange or visiting scientist programs is also evident in the tendency to evaluate such programs in terms of their impact on the individual participants. This tendency is reflected not only in the design of such programs by private and public agencies, but also in the research literature. The most recent example of the latter is the study of an ex- change program for broadcasters by Kelman and Ezekiel, Cross-National Encounters (1970): the book is sub-titled "The Personal Impact of an Exchange Program for Broadcasters." The implications of a possible reversal of the "brain drain" to the United States are not usually considered in terms of world development; rather, a balance of payments, national-interest orientation prevails. In an article on "brain drain" reversal, Thomas P. Southwick (1970: 566), 103 noting that many foreign-born scientists are leaving the United States and probably will not return, writes: If this trend represents simply a leveling off of an unnatural imbalance of scientists, which came about in the mid-1960's, Congress may find that there is no cause for alarm. But, if it finds that the trend indicates a significant loss of scientific manpower for the United States, Congress indeed will have cause for concern. The concern of the Congress will have little to do with manpower needs in a global perspective. Brain drain flows, exchange programs, and structures to accommodate visiting scientists are dependent on priorities and opportunities in universities, and federal monetary allocations. These conditions manifest the lack of control men have over dis- tributing themselves in accordance with global needs. Our respondents work in a milieu which assigns a low priority to "production objectives," and emphasizes speciali- zation (Brown and Harbison, 1957: 84, 87). Visitors from the developing countries receive training in a work environ- ment oriented to professional norms and "fundamental re- search" when scarce capital "in relation to the most in- sistent needs of economic and social development almost forbids any fundamental research which requires expensive equipment or considerable numbers of expensively trained persons” (Shils, 1961: 219). The significance of all this for visitors from devel- oped countries, already pointed out earlier in this chapter, 104 is underscored by the fact that it is now reasonable to challenge the hitherto taken-for-granted conceptions of significance of basic research for national and world development, and for the emergence of a world-wide "cul- ture" (e.g., Allen, 1970; Brown, 1970). The critique of "basic science" cannot, it must be emphasized, be simply and naively negative. Individuals capable of contributing to theory in science are a neces- sary ingredient for national development (Cf. Stone, 1969: 1118). But it is impossible to rely any longer on a ritualistic commitment to ideas of purity in science and in science as the foundation of "progress." The problem of manpower is not a simple matter of training for basic or applied science; the problem is to match manpower needs and manpower training to the conscious design of national and world deve10pment, or more generally, social change. Third-cultural milieu in the United States cannot be ex- pected to clearly and unequivocally facilitate cooperation among nations, national and world deve10pment, and the building of a world community within the context of present conceptions of national interest and priorities. In evalu- ating the prospects for national and world development, world-wide cooperation, and the emergence of some form of world society, we cannot ignore the crucial role of the United States given the immense quantity of resources it has access to and controls. 105 Concluding Notes I have not used the term ”training" in discussing the visiting foreign scientist's role inadvertently. While university officials and scientists may be more concerned with conducting efficient research than with "training" foreign scientists (NAS, 1969: 206), our respondents see their visit to the United States as a means for learning and/or improving their research skills (Table 30; see also TABLE 30 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY PURPOSE OF VISIT TO A UNITED STATES UNIVERSITY Respondents IQV Purpose of Visit N % % To learn and/or improve research skills 143 64.5 To teach 2 0.9 Other (including both of the above) 77 34.6 Total 222 100.0 70.0 NAS, 1969: 207). Whatever the relative emphasis in the work situation, "research efficiency" and "training" take prece- dence over "education" in Boulding's sense (1968: 113), i.e., improving the capacity to learn. The NAS study I have been citing concludes (as I have) that the visiting foreign 106 scientist experience is not designed to promot national development in "countries of origin" (NAS, 1969: 217). But how are we to interpret their conclusion that the emphasis is instead on "individual development," especially in light of the low priority accorded "education?" This is an equivocal contention at best, not only in terms of the arguments I have developed in this chapter, but in terms of the NAS data itself. Indeed, the report raises the spectre of "exploitation," and quotes one university dean who suspects . . that the particular mix between foreign postdoctorals and citizens of the United States depends upon the drawing power of a particular professor. He will normally pick the most promising men applying to work with him, although he may be influenced somewhat by his desire to be known and have influence in particular foreign countries. Some of the so-called foreign postdoctorals are simply hired hands and reflect the fact that some foreigners, often with not too great ability, are willing to do kinds of work which American postdoctorals or graduate students will not do (NAS, 1969: 208). An extreme example of the "hired hand" situation is the case of a 39 year-old ecologist I interviewed. He has no col- lege degrees (though he has studied at the university level), and no publications; but he has Spent more than seventeen years studying plant and animal populations, some of this work carried out using radioisotope tech- niques. In his words, Without grades and without a degree, I am nothing. Seventeen years of experience, but I am still considered a graduate assistant. 107 The work I am doing is as advanced as anything the Ph.D.s here are doing. But my supervisor will publish my work under his name. The NAS report (1969: 219) notes further that . . . there has been little effort made to adapt the postdoctoral experience to the home country's needs. This lack of effort results, in part, from the means of support. The research that the faculty member is doing and in which the postdoctoral par- ticipates is performed in response to American national needs. Federal agencies support research that is appropriate to the stage of development of this country; if it is appropriate for another country, that circumstance is accidental. The relevance of the ”means of support" argument for our respondents is in part established by noting the sources of support for travel and research among our interviewees. Of the thirty—three visitors who received funds to travel to the United States, nine (27.3%) were receipients of United States government assistance; eleven (33.4%) re- ceived financial support from their host university or from a private American foundation (Table 31). Their research activities in the United States were supported primarily by Federal funds (43.5%) or university grants (42.4%); these were usually "principle investigator" grants to American scientists, laboratories, or programs (Table 32). There is some indication in the NAS study (1969: 219) that "as one moves from physics through chemistry to the biosciences the degree of relevance increases for those postdoctorals from less developed countries. In all fields 108 TABLE 31 DISTRIBUTION OF INTERVIEWEES BY SOURCE OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR THEIR TRIP TO THE UNITED STATES Country Providing Support Home Country H;§; Other Source N % N % N % Government 8 24.2 9 27 3 1 3 0 Industry 3 9.1 0 -- 0 -- Foundation 0 -- 6 l8 2 0 -- University _1 _§;Q _§ 1§;2 0 .LL. Totalb 12 36.3 20 60.7 1 3.0a aRow total: % = 100.0; N = 33. bPersonal resources: 43 (52.5% of total sample-- N = 82); "Other" sources: 3 (3.7% of total sample--N = 82). 109 TABLE 32 DISTRIBUTION OF INTERVIEWEES BY SOURCE OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR THEIR RESEARCH ACTIVITIES IN THE UNITED STATES Respondents Source of Support N' % Host university 33 ‘ 42.5 U.S. government 34 43.5 Home country 1 1.3 Other 9 11.5 Don't know _1 1.3 Total 783 100.0 3N = 82. Number of "no answer" = 4. 110 the training is more relevant for highly developed countries, i.e., countries more like the United States." This conclu- sion is based on faculty mentors' opinions of the post- doctoral experience; while they may not be "the best evalua— tions on this subject" (NAS, 1969: 219), these data conform to expectations based on my analysis. I would caution that in evaluating relevance for the needs of home countries, faculty mentors may have assumed the relevance of their "advanced basic research" for developed countries, an assumption which may be, as noted earlier, untenable. In the following chapter, the issues discussed above are explored in a related but somewhat different perSpec- tive based on an interpretation of the norms of science as elements in an ideology of science. CHAPTER III THE IDEOLOGICAL FUNCTION OF THE NORMS OF SCIENCE bur objectives in this section are to (I) explore the meaning of idology in science, (2) examine on a general level the consequences of professionalization and bureau- cratization in science, especially for ideology-formation, and (3) interpret the visiting foreign scientist experience as a manifestation of ideology-formation in science. The serendipitous provocation for this undertaking stems from an originally peripheral inquiry concerning the "norms of science." The Norms of Science iNorman Storer (1966: 78-80), proceeding from the con- tributions of Robert K. Merton and Bernard Barber, identi- fies three orientational and three directive "norms of science": 1. Universalism (orientationa1)--". . . physical laws are everywhere the same and . . . the truth and value of a scientific statement is independent of the character- istics of its author." 111 —.._’—— ' r—-—+M1 112 2. Organized scepticism (directive)--”. . . each scicnrtist should be held individually responsible for making sure that previous research by others on which he bases his work is valid. . . . "The scientist is obligated also by this norm to lnake Inflalic his criticisms of the work of others when he 'believes it to be in error. . . . ". . . no scientist's contribution to knowledge can EH3 accepted without careful scrutiny, and . . . the scientist must doubt his own findings as well as those of otherws. He must hold himself entirely responsible for the goodness of his workJ' 3. Communism, or communality (directive)--"[The scitnrtist should] share his findings with other scientists freelqr and without favor, for knowledge that is not in the Inflilic domain cannot be part of the legitimate body of knowledge against which creativity is measured and to ‘which other scientists refer in their work . . . this luxnn encourages the scientist to take the initiative in placing his findings before his fellow scientists." 4, Disinterestedness (orientational)—-"It is illicit for time scientist to profit personally in any way from his research. . . . In general, it serves to encourage 'science for science's sake' or to make research and discovery an end in itself!’ a 113 5. Rationality (orientational)—-". . . a faith in the moral virtue of reason"; the goals of science are pur- sued according to "empirical test rather than tradition and . . . a critical approach to all empirical phenomena rather than acceptance of certain phenomena as exempt from scru- tiny and . . . the necessity of maintaining a common set of standards by which proof may be demonstrated." 6. Emotional neutrality (directive)--". . . avoid so much emotional involvement in . . . work that . . . a new approach [cannot be adopted or an old answer rejected] when . . . findings suggest that this is necessary, or that findings are distorted in order to support a particular hypothesis." Storer's conception of the function of these norms (1966: 86) illustrates their place in the sociology of science: . . . scientists support the norms of science, through their own allegiance to them and through imposing sanctions on those who violate them, because they are in some sense aware that these norms are necessary if the exchange-system of science is to operate properly. Because each scientist, to the extent that he wishes personally to be creative, is interested in maintaining a social structure in which his efforts can continue to receive honest, competent re- sponse from others, he has a personal stake in supporting the norms that make this possible. But this is not a sufficient introduction if we wish to understand what the "norms of science" are as a sociological 114 construct. When originally formulated by Merton (1957: 551-561), universalism, communism, disinterestedness, and organized scepticism were elements of an "ethos" of science, an ". . . affectively toned complex of values and norms which is held to be binding on the man of science." These norms-values were also defined as "institutional imperatives," a term Merton used synonomously with "mores" (1957: 552); these "imperatives," or "mores," are "binding, not only because they are procedurally efficient, but be- cause they are believed right and good. They are moral as well as technical prescriptions" (1957: 553). Bernard Barber (1952: 122-134), viewing science as a "moral enterprise," identified a set of "moral values" common to science and to the ”'ideal type' of liberal society": rationality, emotional neutrality, universalism, and individualism. In addition, Barber described the "moral ideals" of science: these are "somewaht differ- ent from the dominant patterns of liberal society as they exist today, although these ideals are important in some other areas than science proper and could even some day become the dominant moral values for the whole society": communality (a politically and ideologically "clean" rendition of Merton's "communism"), and disinterestedness, or other-orientation (following Parsons, 1949: Chapter VIII). 115 In the third major contribution to this field, Parsons (1951) uncovered three levels of "norms" (Kaplan, 1964: 855-856): (1) "technical" norms--empirica1 validity, logical clarity, logical consistency, and generality of principles (Parsons, 1951: 335); (2) the set of pattern variables associated with the occupational role of the scientist-~universalism, affective neutrality, specificity, achievement orientation, and collectivity orientation (1951: 343; Cf. Merton's imperatives); and (3) research norms--tentativeness, and "an obligation . . . to accept the validity of scientific findings and theories which have been adequately demonstrated" (1951: 353; Cf. Merton's imperatives). Two problems are associated with these attempts to identify normative-evaluative orientations in science: one was noted in Norman Kaplan's excellent review article for the Handbook of Modern Sociology(1964: 857): "Whether their analysis is correct or not, the point to be stressed here is that the values posited by Merton and Barber and Parsons have been fully accepted as those which prevail today, without any additional empirical verification or theoretical analysis." It is interesting to note that Kaplan chose the term "values" even though he consistently used the term "norms" in discussing the contributions of Merton, Barber, and Parsons; and this is the second problem: are these overlapping concepts in the works of Merton, 116 Barber, Parsons, and Storer "norms," or "values," or "moral ideals," "institutional imperatives," or "mores?" I will examine this problem first. Storer is the least ambiguous among the sociologists of science in defining "norms of science" as distinct from "values of science." The distinguishing "rule-of- thumb" is that ". . . values concern primarily end-states or the characteristics of desirable goals, whereas norms pertain more to standards of behavior without direct regard for the purposes of that behavior"; the norms define "the sorts of behavior in which scientists should engage, rather than the goals they should seek" (Storer, 1966: 76-77). In spite of this prelude, Storer cannot resist the temptation to introduce the six orientations and directives as ". norms (values) . . ." (1966: 77). Blake and Davis (1964: 456-457) employ the term "norm" "to designate any standard or rule that states what human beings should or should not think, say, or do under given circumstances." In this sense, they note, the salient factor is "should," "for it clearly implies two important propositions: first, that actual behavior may differ from the norm; second, that it wlll differ from the norm unless some effort or force is exerted to bring about conformity." Furthermore, "disem- bodied values--i.e., values without norms through which they can be collectively achieved--are like purely private 117 norms sociologically irrelevant." Finally, "The sociologi- cal use of the term generally assumes, without always saying so, that norms are shared to some extent." Cer- 'tainly, a norm may be more complex than a simple "shared should statement" (Cf., Blake and Davis, 1964: 464-465; Williams, 1968; Gibbs, 1968); but it is at least that. In order to determine the significance of the norms of science as "shared should statements" some manner of ”systematic classification and quantitative analysis" is necessary; without that "we have . . . only the investi- gator's intuitive assessment of the norms in a social unit" (Gibbs, 1968: 210). Intuition has maintained undue primacy over theory and empirical study in the search for "norms of science"; if it is "shared should statements" we are looking for, there is little reason to suppose that is what the norms outlined by Storer represent. This leads us to the second problem, the theoretical and empirical foundations for the norms. There is some recognition among sociologists of science of the narrow, intuitive basis for Merton's influential conceptualization of the norms of science. Kaplan (1964: 855), for example, notes Merton's admission that the insti- tutional imperatives "were derived largely from the writings and documents of the seventeenth century." And Storer (1966: 77) is even more explicit in writing that Merton 118 "was able to conceptualize the norms of science, working presumably in part through intuition and testing his ideas against what scientists have said since the seventeenth century about their work and about how scientists should behave." Merton's intuition was more likely an internali- zation of the speculations (at least from the time of Francis Bacon) and select autobiographical sketches which were the foundation of an idealized conception of science and scientists before anything approaching a systematic sociology of science had emerged. By the time that hap- pened, the idealization seems to have become so salient that it took precedence over empirical research as a stimulus for ideas about, for example and especially, norms in science. The norms of science appear as an abstraction from an idealized abstraction! To imply that there are identifiable norms of science suggests that science as a social system has been clearly delineated and that the norms are operative among the members of that system. But what is the social system of science? Among what groups or collectivities are the norms operative; is it all persons who define themselves as scientists, at all times in all places? Kaplan points out, for example, that "Implicit in Merton's formulation of his four institutional imperatives is the idea that these have remained relatively unchanged from the time of their early origins" (1964: 855).28 Are the norms relevant for all 119 living Ph.D.s in science; or for an elite? What is the intensity associated with each of the norms: does the sense of "should-ness" vary in intensity among scientists and for different norms? Is a norm of science a norm if scientists "manifest no sign of true commitment to [their] normative opinions?" (Gibbs, 1968: 210). And to what ex- tent is "any departure of real behavior from the norm [followed] by some punishment?" (Homans, 1950: 121). What, in short, do the norms of science tell us about the world's working scientists? My research suggested to me the idea that the norms, whatever their origin, are today part of an ideology among scientists that has emerged concomitantly with the profes- sionalization and bureaucratization of scientific activities. The norms appear to function as a set of ideas about science which explain and justify scientific activity. I intend to pursue this argument with reference to "dis- interestedness" because (1) this was the primary focus of my data on norms, and (2) in a sense, it is the most gen- eral, and therefore the most representative of the norms, and the most critical. The traditional conceptions of basic or pure science, of the right to autonomy in scientific activity, the idea of knowledge for its own sake, have emerged as ideas which explain and justify autonomy and basic science independent of a studied investigation of science as a social system. Scientists who are engaged in 120 basic research do not so much behave in accordance with the norms, or orient themselves to the norms, as they use the norms to explain and justify their right to be left alone, to pursue their own problems in their own way, without societal interference and without concern for societal needs and problems. Science and Ideology Shils (1968: 73-74) argues that the sciences cannot be considered an ideology for the reason that they are "genuinely intellectual pursuits, which have their own rules of observation and judgment and are open to criticism and revision. . . .": Although scientific activities and outlooks-- in terms of both procedure and substance--are parts of a general culture or a prevailing outlook, they are very loosely integrated parts of those cultures or outlooks (just as the various parts of science are not completely integrated with each other). . . . it is characteristic of prevailing outlooks to be loosel- integrated internally and to have no single element that predominates exclusively over the others. . . . In a great variety of ways, the scientific and the nonscientific parts of prevailing outlooks, creeds, and movements of thought influence each other, and at the same time, each part possesses con- siderable autonomy. It is likely that this relationship will become more intense in the future and scientific knowledge, although never becoming exclusively dominant, will have an even greater influence on prevailing outlooks, creeds, and movements of thought than it has had. For all these reasons, assertions to the effect that "science is an ideology" or that "the social sciences are as ideological as the ideologies they criticize" must be re- jected. 121 David Apter (1965: 343), however, identifies science as one form of ideological thought; the second form is dogma. Apter argues that "the ideology of science involves high information and practical realism": The ideology of science is not merely a style of thinking about problems, nor is it solely a derivation from the functional significance of science in an industrialized world, although this is clearly the origin of its power. Rather, it is the application of rational methods and experimentation to social affairs. The characteristics of science as an ideology are, according to Apter, "(1) science is a well-defined ideology possessing norms of empiricism, predictability, and rationality as guides to conduct, (2) social science is becoming accepted as scientific, and scientific norms are increasingly accepted as guides to social conduct, (3) there is a universal trend toward planning, calculations, and ration- alistic goals concerned with the future in both the devel- 0ping and the developed areas, (4) in the developing areas, vulgar ideologies adopt the values of science through some form of socialism in association with the national inde- pendence movement . . ., (5) in the industrial countries, the new ideology expresses itself in a meritocracy" (Apter, 1965: 343). Why these characteristics are defined as aspects of an ideology when they appear to be nothing more than a reitera- tion of the normative-evaluative system posited for science derives from Apter's conception of ideology: ideology 122 "links particular actions and mundane practices with a wider set of meanings, giving social conduct a more honor- able dignified complexion. . . . From another viewpoint ideology is a cloak for shabby motives and appearances. . . ." (Apter, 1965: 314). But in distinguishing science from dogma, Apter (like Shils) neglects the fact that science is a social process; and professionalization and bureaucratization, for example, can introduce a rigidity into science which is accompanied by a "dogmatization" of ideas in science. The pervasive notion that of all human endeavors only science is cumulative and progressive ob- scures the simple observation that science is a social activity subject, like all social activities, to changes in structure and idea-systems. Apter's conception of science as an ideology, paradoxically, appears to include the seeds of a form of change in science toward dogma: point four above (page 121) seems to entail a potential for some- thing akin to the scientistic metamorphosis of science in twentieth century China (Kwok, 1965). If science is not to be distinguished from dogma (since scientific activity can be dogmatized), what then is the relationship between science and ideology? It is useful to begin by recalling Mannheim's conception of ideology: The particular conception of ideology is implied when the term denotes that we are skeptical of the ideas and representations advanced by our opponent. They are regarded 123 as more or less conscious disguises of the real nature of a situation, the true recog- nition of which would not be in accord with his interests. The more inclusive total conception of ideology . . . [refers] to the ideology of an age or a concrete historico-social group, e.g., of a class, when we are concerned with the characteristics and composition of the total structure of the mind of this epoch or of this group. The ideas expressed by the subject are . . . regarded as functions of his existence. This means that opinions, statements, prOpositions, and systems of ideas are not taken at their face value but are interpreted in the light of the life- situation of the one who expresses them. It signifies further that the specific char- acter and life-situation of the subject in- fluence his opinions, perceptions, and interpretations (Mannheim, 1936: 55-56). Mannheim goes on to exchew the term "ideology" because of its moral connotation, and speaks instead of the "perspec- tive" of a thinker, "the subject's whole mode of conceiving things as determined by his historical and social setting" (1936: 266). Even though Mannheim affirms the applica- bility of the particular conception of ideology "for cer- tain aspects of the struggles of everyday life” (1936: 77n), his tendency to emphasize the moral connotation of "ide- ology" and to discuss the underlying assumptions of the sociology of knowledge as a “total conception of ideology" detracts from the sociological utility of ideology in what he refers to as its particular sense. Ideology, in the usage I intend, entails "explanation and justification" (Blumer, 1955: 210; Bendix, 1956: 2n). I should like to follow Hodges' recent summary of "the 124 substance of ideology" (1971: 354-355) in arriving at a working definition, with the following proviso: my inten- tion is to conceive ideology as a general sociological concept applicable to general sociological phenomena and not mainly or exclusively to political and/or economic institutions. The central features of ideology are: l. Argument: "ideologies are meant to persuade and to counter opposing views." 2. Utopian goals defined in "unrealistically opti- mistic terms" (Watkins, 1964: 7). 3. Program "for the defense or reform or abolition" of societal value systems and institutions." 4. Rationalization: here I should like to substitute "always" for "very frequently" in affirming Berger's state- ment that "ideologies systematically distort social reality in order to come out where it is functional for them to do so" (1964: 111). Rationalization may be more or less con- scious, more or less salient, more or less elaborate, but is always present in some degree (by definition) wherein we speak of ideology. 5. Over-simplification: "Anyone who believes that his goals are absolutely and overwhelmingly in the public interest will suspect something sinister about the motives of those who reject his conclusions" (Watkins, 1964: 8); a proneness "to think in . . . terms of we and they, friend and enemy." 125 6. Reference group: an individual's ideologies are associated with groups he identifies with. The implication here is the self-evident one that ideologies are phenomena of social groups. They are at once cause and consequence of conceiving one's own group as an "in-group," and all other groups as "out-groups." 7. Sacred documents: e.g., "manifestos, declara- tions." 8. Heroes: "founding fathers, seers and sages, courageous leaders, martyrs." 9. World-view: "Ideologies represent theories of fundamental causes and effects; they portray a 'valid' view of the world and the nature of man." 10. Affectivigy: Hodges argues that "Ideologies are emotional and affect-laden; they are ultimately premised on action." He has in mind, and quotes, Bell's statement (1961: 395) that "What gives ideology its force is its passion. . . . For the ideologue, truth arises in action, and meaning is given to experience by the 'transforming moment.‘ He comes alive not in contemplation, but in 'deed.'" It might, however, be more useful in trying to generalize the concept ideology to conceive the action- premise somewhat differently. The affective component of ideology can be viewed as the basis of an action-potential which can be activated in different ways, to different degrees (and with varying probability) at the individual 126 and the group level. This action-potential may be mani- fested, for example, in ”defense mechanisms"; it might emerge in a physical act (e.g., the hat-pinning of a pro- testor by a biologist's wife at the 1970 meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science); and it might be activated in a class-type struggle. With this working-definition in mind, we can return to a consideration of the views expressed by Shils and Apter. In opposing the ideas of ideology and dogma, respectively, to science, Shils and Apter (like Merton and other students of science) have in mind an idealized con- ception of science and scientists. The fact that there is no substantive referent for this conception in the activi- ties of scientists is of special significance given the societal role of the scientist defined in the perspectives of Shils and Apter. For Shils, the scientific community is a microcosm of a world community. Apter views scien- tists as central actors in the period of "practical real- ism" during the modernizing process of ideology formation. But in both cases we are given the strong impression that science emerged, deve10ped, and settled into some form of dynamic equilibrium characterized by continuity in values, goals, and progressive growth. But the institutionalization of scientific activity beginning in sixteenth century Western Europe made possible not only the relatively auto- nomous development of science but carried with it the 127 potential for the emergence and deve10pment of an ideology. Even the recognition of that potential, let alone its analysis, has been obstructed by the failure to view science processually, changing in response to socio-cultural conditions as well as its own "internal" dialectic. To conceive an "ideology of science" implies dogmati- zation in support of science as a style of life, and the collective cultivation of a "false consciousness" (which, following Mannheim, can take "the form of an incorrect interpretation of one's own self and one's role" (1936: 96)) which conceals from scientists the socio-cultural foundations of their role and the social consequences of their daily activities. My research suggests that the norms of science are part of the ideology of science; the norms have been incorporated into a system for defining, maintaining, and defending the boundaries of science and the perquisites of the scientific role.29 Disinterestedness as Ideology "Science for its own sake," or disinterestedness, is, in a sense, the core of the norms of science. The signifi- cance of disinterestedness is that the norms are rooted in the idea of a "basic" or "pure" science. It is this norm that underlies our respondents' overwhelming commitment to basic science (Tables l6, 18, 19, and 20: pp. 63-68). This 128 commitment is continuous with their pre-U.S. experience: more than half of our respondents described their research abroad (i.e., in their home country) as "basic." Other manifestations of this commitment, or orientation, are (l) the high proportion of respondents whose work is "definitely" or "somewhat" characterized by theory con- struction, and the small proportion whose work is char- acterized as "definitely" or "somewhat" clinical, or tech- nological (Table 13: S7). The manifestation of disinter- estedness is not, however consistent. For example, 98 (73.7%) of the 133 scientists who answered the questionnaire item, "How important are the problems facing mankind in determining your choice of a research problem" indicated 1' "yeryfwgrmgsgmewhatflmimportant; 95 (72.0%) of 132 respond- jg,: w- ‘jgghs noted that problems facing their home countries were important; but approximately two and one-half times as many rated ”scientific considerations" very important as rated "problems facing mankind" and "home country problems" very important (Table 19: 67). Thus, while some rated all three items very important, the high proportion rating scientific considerations very important can be interpreted as a mani- festation of the force of the norm disinterestedness. The force of the norm can also be interpreted as the explana- tion for the distribution of responses in the "not at all" category; about one-quarter of the scientists indicated that problems of mankind and of home country are not at all 129 important in determining their research choices, but only about four percent said that scientific considerations were not at all important. There is, even so, a substan- tial non-normative pattern; this pattern is further re- flected in answers to questions on determinants of job location choices (Table 33). Nearly 70 percent of respond- ents to Our questionnaire rated the opinions of their wives and/or children ("family opinion") as "very" or "somewhat" important determinants of such choices. Salary and country are also considered important. Here too, though, disinter- estedness appears to be operative: nearly 90 percent rated "quality of facilities" and "quality of scientists" as important determinants of job location choices. It appears, then, that my data to some extent mani- fests the operation of disinterestedness. There is, how- ever, considerable deviation from the norm: our respondents give evidence of being oriented to and directed by norms other than "science for its own sake." There is, in addition, a further reflection of deviation from this norm in our respondents' expressed sense of social responsibility for the possible social consequences of their research (Table 34). But the questions which elicited the responses I have been discussing were generally "abstract" and "im- personal." Disinterestedness is much more in evidence when respondents discuss their present research activities. And it is this that provides the clue concerning the function 130 .m.ne u >OH :moz “mofihomoumo pamunomefi :umnzoaom: was :xpo>: mnfimmmaaoo co pommm n .EOHfl SUMO do fifiommmh OH ®0HMNW mudmflfiOQmmh Hmh®>®m .OVH fl Zm m.Hm a.aa m.ae o.mm m.m~ cfiav>mH o.ooa emH o.ooa HNH o.ooa mmH o.ooa NmH o.OOH cmH aflaooe o.o NH m.aa Hm a.w NH w.m m N.m a ocaosooaa ooz N.HH ma a.mH ma s.oa 4H m.m HH a.m w ocooaoaefi hawsmm o.mm om o.mm ma o.os am H.Hm H4 4.HN aw ocaoaoaaa amazofiom N.ON AN e.Hm mm a.os mm w.om ma m.ao Na ccaoaooEa xho> a z a z a z a z a z oocaouoosH woumm thamm :o.:.mo Nhucsoo mumwucofiom, mowpwawowm mo xufiamno oonofium mo soAHooo msOpomm maficfianopoo mZOHHm90uqfi econ .opo: oudoapomxo OHoE whee» 03¢ so one new Op muses pan :.:s:uo» zanmnopm: Hafiz on wwmm hepwmfi> Ono cam nose: pm How Ohmo op Honpoe kHHOwHO cw mm: on wasp panamaaxo ome 6:-1msomm0h OHEOGOOO How one: zmum ow Oxfia vases on was .cmmmh :fi Ea: Mom mcfiuwmz :OHuHmom m mm: Ono “mamuflhoe< :uwz >H0>wuoommo mace oumoa::EEOo fiasco on ma one: xmwm vane: on wwmm Ono ”houuwm a me mGOapOAAHmOH mmfl> ufionu voaofiucoa mam:0fimmomopmnoson cthomv xhomoumo wasp :H mooon>Houafi xflwm o.OOH m o.OOH w o.OOH m o.oo~ mm oHoooe -- d -- H -- M o.mH Ml :Hmuuoo poz -- - -- - -- - m.o a sHooacaeoeca .m.: oco ca aaom o.OOH m c.00H cw o.ooa m o.ma was oaoc caooom a z a z a z a z ocofia cohoomflfico coaoamAHco Hmpzpaso Hmauomuucou Hugo: Hmcowmmomoum macamfioom mnfiuoomw< whouumm monmHumm mHmmH ozHBommm< mmOHummHzH mo ZOHHDmHmeHQ mv mqm