- Email: [email protected]
On planning research training in the social sciences
62
On Planning Research Training in the Social Sciences
ON P L A N N I N G RESEARCH T R A I N I N G IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES Jack Tizard
The two most important questions facing the long-term planning of the social sciences concern the overall numbers of social scientists that should be being trained for research, and the institutions in which research and research training should be carried out. The unprecedented growth of research over the last two decades has meant that these questions must be answered if universities as they are known today are to survive.
"ORGANISATION of research is an urgent subject, because it is so long-term; the lead time in institution building (or adapting) is even longer than that for training future researchers. Will the best setting for research in the future be in universities--or in institutes, or other centres ? Even now it is possible to see some gaps in the structure; there is no framework for Action-Research. For i n s t a n c e . . , is the present disciplinary structure suited to the sort of research that will be done in twenty or thirty years' time ? Will there be an exodus from universities--into industry or government . . . ? H o w far will social science research become a self-justifying activity? . . . and would that necessarily be desirable ?" This quotation, from an unpublished paper prepared by the Secretariat for the Next Thirty Years Committee of the Social Science Research Council, sets out some of the problems confronting those concerned with long-term planning of the social sciences. The dilemma which it presents is one common to all forecasting studies. O n the one hand it is clear that decisions not taken consciously will be taken by default. O n the other hand however it is equally clear that completely rational decision taking is impossible because there are far too many unknowns. H o w then can we proceed ? Jack Tizard is Professor of Child Development in the University of London Institute of Education, UK.
FUTURES
March t97t
On Planning Research Training in the 8odal 8dences This article is concerned with issues affecting the training and preparation of social scientists for research: how far can we examine the organisation of post-graduate training without considering the nature of society; what specific aspects of training need to be considered for planning purposes; how should post-graduate research training be organised ? The social context
Scientific research takes place in a social context. At any point in time, particular constellations of material and social factors provide the setting in which all h u m a n activity takes place. A few of the determinants can be predicted to some extent in advance (eg population changes, growth of GNP, some technological developments) ; speculation about others forms the basis for 'futurism' and also, incidentally, of science fiction with which futurism shares an ill-defined boundary; but most of the important determinants of our future are u n k n o w n - - a n d I believe unknowable--in advance. One's views about the future of research training in the social sciences are bound to be greatly influenced by one's attitude to forecasting studies 'as a whole' and my own view is that it is not likely to be profitable to try to forecast in any detail what society will be like in, say, the year 2000. To try to plan our route to it, as though we were mountaineers planning an assault on Everest, is misguided since we may not be climbing Everest at all but Snowdon or Mount Cook. The 'scenario' approach, if taken seriously, would involve us in making contingency plans for every mist-shrouded peak in the world, suspecting all the time that we might instead be in for a journey which will require us to pitch camp on Salisbury Plain or to find a flat in Central Manhattan or live on the Moon. Irrespective of one's personal belief or scepticism about the grand strategy of forecasting studies, the question is worth asking how far it is necessary to try to forecast what society will look like in general in 20 or 30 years' time, before one can begin to plan a particular type of education. Can it not be argued that to tackle any particular problem requiring long-range planning we are obliged to look at the world as it is today and as it is developing--making certain assumptions about the long-term future of course--but concentrating chiefly on those rather specific, relevant elements which seem to be under some sort of control which we ourselves can exercise ? In general it is obvious that we have to proceed in this way: what is not obvious is the minimal relevant and necessary assumptions which we need to make about contextual variables in order to plan and shape the intellectual environment within which people will be working. It seems that one can think intelligently about the planning of social science research training if one starts, not only with very general and indeed banal assumptions about what society will look like in the future, but also with equally banal assumptions about social science itself. It is obvious for example that in the future a much higher proportion of young people will go on to tertiary education, the best of which will be highly streamed and competitive. Large numbers of graduates will have the curiosity, drive and ability to undertake research, and large research training programmes will be required. Do we FUTURES
M a r c h 19"/t
63
64
On Planning Research Training in the Social Sciences need any further information about what society will look like in the future in order to plan this training--and if so, in what detail can we know it ?
Research training The particular problems of training research workers raise at least four sets of questions: how many research workers will we need to train ? What will we be training them for ? How will we train them ? And where will we train them ? The first question is the most straightforward, if only because an authoritative statement is likely to become in part a self-fulfilling prophecy. Thus the Robbins Committee estimates on the demand for higher education in the U K both drew attention to future needs, and in doing so helped to make the satisfaction of these needs possible. In this sense they were a model of good forecasting. The Report jolted the British public into the first serious consideration of the implications of its avowed educational policy, and led directly to the establishment of research units which have continued to study higher education and the factors which have a bearing on it. Unfortunately Robbins, 1 and The Impact of Robbins ~ which describes post-Robbins developments in demands for higher education, devoted rather little attention to post-graduate study. However some forecasts have been made, and in principle it should be possible to continue similar inquiries. An obvious difficulty in attempting to undertake such forecasts arises from the uncertainty as to the likely future demands for economists, psychologists, sociologists, etc. It can be argued that before we make estimates of the aggregate demand for post-graduate training at any point in time, we require some idea of what we will be training our graduates for. Presumably, problems of control and of communication will loom large---control of the physical environment, social control both of organisations and of the wild breeding species homo sapiens, and individual control of development and behaviour; problems of communication among organisations, groups and individuals, and of 'mass communication' in an age in which this will be on a scale quite different from anything that exists today. It may be that only optimists will think all this to be welcomed, and that only pessimists believe it will be fairly successful but it seems a likely development which will absorb much research time. One can speculate indefinitely about the implications of reflections such as these about the future. However it seems that for long-range as opposed to short-term forecasting, it is not necessary to attempt either to specify the numbers of students being recruited into specific social science disciplines, or to write in advance the syllabuses they will be required to cover during their research training. If in the future econometrics and environmental studies largely replace economics as we know it today, if psychology becomes divided into several very different disciplines, and if quite new subjects largely take the place of existing ones, the changes will have far reaching implications on what is taught, but they may be of much less importance in regard to where it is taught or how. Finally, the numbers undertaking research training, and the probable social costs of such training, are likely to be able to be predicted with more accuracy than the numbers reading social science at an undergraduate level. FUTURES
MMchl~t
On Planning Research Training in the 8odal Sdences
65
Institutional requirements of research tr~;=;ng We can say quite confidently that more large scale research organisations and programmes will come into being and that potential research workers would be well advised to study mathematics. But it is the problems of how research workers will be trained, and where, over which we have a good deal more control, that on the face of it seem to require immediate answers. My own limited experience suggests that there are two sets of factors which need to be examined, one psychological and educational, the other organisational. Among the educational requirements of a good research training are those which involve giving to research students a mastery of research techniques, an understanding of relevant theory, and a basis for making judgements about what is important in a field. In addition a research worker must have what Polanyi has called 'scientific passion'. 8 It is this 'passion' for science and for research which must be nurtured in our research training programmes. Because research is a h u m a n activity, one which involves a shared experience, research students and scientists alike benefit from close intellectual contacts between teachers, colleagues and pupils. It is the shared experience and the intellectual competition involved in it which provide the tension and the satisfaction which research brings. How one can make it possible to introduce these subjective and personal values into research training raises a number of questions relating to institutional size. There are, for example, some straight factual questions: how much contact do students have with supervisors and with fellow students today? How do institutions differ in this respect? What sort of contacts do students value or feel they need? Are there forms of institutional organisation which facilitate such contacts, or are inter-changes dependent upon idiosyncratic factors---or perhaps the existence of a common room ? How would changes in communication affects these needs ? How small can a Department be in order to provide them (a problem research councils are facing today, incidentally, in assigning quota places for studentships)? In a big department (how big is big 1) can one specify a range for the optimal size of a working group ? How can one assure communication between groups, and is it true that the larger the group and the larger the organisation, in general, the less communication there is between groups ? If so, what if anything can be done about this--apart from the usual fatuous prescriptions for 'inter-disciplinary' seminars ? In general, as research becomes more highly organised and 'team based', a critical problem will be how to reduce the size of working units, and how to facilitate non-time-wasting communication among groups. Have sociologists and social psychologists any useful information on these matters? An allied problem concerns the apprenticeship nature of a good research training. Can one be trained for research-in-general, or is the best preparation for research a training on a particular job ? Criticisms made by industry about the futility of much PhD training for scientists who go into industry would be echoed by many research workers themselves. To train post-graduate students by giving them a series of formal and trivial exercises to go through is to insult their intelligence and blunt their creative faculties. The best research training must FUTURES
March t97t $
66
On Planning Research Training in the Social 8dences
surely have an apprenticeship quality about it--it is here that medicine scores heavily over most of the social sciences--and this means that the teaching and research functions of universities cannot be divorced, at least at post-graduate level. What these considerations add up to is the need to define good and bad in research training, to find criteria by which to measure good and bad, and to look at institutional factors which facilitate good as opposed to bad practice, in order to promote good practice. These are matters which could be expressed in operational terms, and investigated.
Where should research training be carried out? The choice is by and large between universities, research institutions and 'firms' (including public authorities, government, etc). The case for university based research has been argued most strongly by people in universities themselves--who are losing out and know it. The arguments in favour of university based research need examination: some are specious--such as the argument that no good teaching can occur without research, which is always trotted out by university lecturers but not by schoolmasters. For all that, it can hardly be disputed that teaching at post-graduate level which is divorced from research leads to a lowering of university standards. What questions which are investigable arise from this ? We need to know what kinds of research are or should be carried out in units which are not university based. (Can we for example enquire into the reasons why independent research institutes are set up in the first place, and try to gauge the need for and the consequences of their independence ?) How much affiliation do independent research institutes have with universities ? If these affiliations are as tenuous as they seem, how is it possible for them to be strengthened ? How much liaison is there between research units in universities (Social Science Research Council groups and Medical Research Council units) and teaching and teaching staff? How seriously do researchers take their research training function, and what facilitates or impedes this ? How much training can professional research workers carry out anyhow without themselves becoming university teachers with a part-time commitment to research ? How is the situation changing--what are the effects of greater specialisation likely to be (eg, how do large and/or more specialised units differ from smaller and/or less specialised units today ?).
Conclusions The practical aim of long-term forecasting is to direct attention to problems of the future which must be anticipated and prepared for. To ensure an adequate, and an adequately trained, number of social scientists is a continuing need, requiring continuing review. Yet the extraordinarily rapid growth of social science since World War II has been largely unplanned; and each development that occurs influences subsequent ones. Hence the need to take stock. A good deal of the discussion about the future of the social sciences has centred on wider issues concerned with the nature of society in the year 2000 or so, FUTURES
March 1971
On Planning Research Training in the Social •ciences
and roles which social science will play in it. If planning decisions depended upon finding answers to such questions, it is doubtful whether there are many we could make. I have argued instead that the most important problems of immediate concern are those relating first to the overall numbers of social scientists we should be training for research (irrespective of discipline), secondly to the institutions in which research and research training are carried out. It is the latter questions which require most attention because upon the answers we give to them will depend the future of the universities. These are among the oldest, and are perhaps the greatest, institutions of contemporary society; yet there is a danger that the universities as we know them today, and as they have developed over centuries, may not survive. If this should happen, it is likely to be not because of the Yippies or the radical student movement, but because of the unprecedented growth of the one activity which for hundreds of years was the special province of the universities, namely research. Today, for the first time in history, society is investing very large sums of money and resources in research. The best way of getting quick results often seems to be through the establishment of new types of institution designed to carry out research under direction. This argument is unconvincing; and its consequences for universities as centres of advanced study seem likely to be disastrous. But to reverse current trends will require a re-thinking of the role of the university, and a new relationship between the university and its funding bodies. It is to this problem, above all others, that scientific planners should be devoting their attention. References
1. Robbins Report, Higher Education: Report of the committee under the chairmanship of Lord Robbins, 1961--63 (London, t-IMSO, Cmd 2154) 2. P. R. G Layard, J. King, C. Moser, The Impact of Robbins (Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1969) 3. M. Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul)
FUTURES
March t9/t
67
On Planning Research Training in the Social Sciences
ON P L A N N I N G RESEARCH T R A I N I N G IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES Jack Tizard
The two most important questions facing the long-term planning of the social sciences concern the overall numbers of social scientists that should be being trained for research, and the institutions in which research and research training should be carried out. The unprecedented growth of research over the last two decades has meant that these questions must be answered if universities as they are known today are to survive.
"ORGANISATION of research is an urgent subject, because it is so long-term; the lead time in institution building (or adapting) is even longer than that for training future researchers. Will the best setting for research in the future be in universities--or in institutes, or other centres ? Even now it is possible to see some gaps in the structure; there is no framework for Action-Research. For i n s t a n c e . . , is the present disciplinary structure suited to the sort of research that will be done in twenty or thirty years' time ? Will there be an exodus from universities--into industry or government . . . ? H o w far will social science research become a self-justifying activity? . . . and would that necessarily be desirable ?" This quotation, from an unpublished paper prepared by the Secretariat for the Next Thirty Years Committee of the Social Science Research Council, sets out some of the problems confronting those concerned with long-term planning of the social sciences. The dilemma which it presents is one common to all forecasting studies. O n the one hand it is clear that decisions not taken consciously will be taken by default. O n the other hand however it is equally clear that completely rational decision taking is impossible because there are far too many unknowns. H o w then can we proceed ? Jack Tizard is Professor of Child Development in the University of London Institute of Education, UK.
FUTURES
March t97t
On Planning Research Training in the 8odal 8dences This article is concerned with issues affecting the training and preparation of social scientists for research: how far can we examine the organisation of post-graduate training without considering the nature of society; what specific aspects of training need to be considered for planning purposes; how should post-graduate research training be organised ? The social context
Scientific research takes place in a social context. At any point in time, particular constellations of material and social factors provide the setting in which all h u m a n activity takes place. A few of the determinants can be predicted to some extent in advance (eg population changes, growth of GNP, some technological developments) ; speculation about others forms the basis for 'futurism' and also, incidentally, of science fiction with which futurism shares an ill-defined boundary; but most of the important determinants of our future are u n k n o w n - - a n d I believe unknowable--in advance. One's views about the future of research training in the social sciences are bound to be greatly influenced by one's attitude to forecasting studies 'as a whole' and my own view is that it is not likely to be profitable to try to forecast in any detail what society will be like in, say, the year 2000. To try to plan our route to it, as though we were mountaineers planning an assault on Everest, is misguided since we may not be climbing Everest at all but Snowdon or Mount Cook. The 'scenario' approach, if taken seriously, would involve us in making contingency plans for every mist-shrouded peak in the world, suspecting all the time that we might instead be in for a journey which will require us to pitch camp on Salisbury Plain or to find a flat in Central Manhattan or live on the Moon. Irrespective of one's personal belief or scepticism about the grand strategy of forecasting studies, the question is worth asking how far it is necessary to try to forecast what society will look like in general in 20 or 30 years' time, before one can begin to plan a particular type of education. Can it not be argued that to tackle any particular problem requiring long-range planning we are obliged to look at the world as it is today and as it is developing--making certain assumptions about the long-term future of course--but concentrating chiefly on those rather specific, relevant elements which seem to be under some sort of control which we ourselves can exercise ? In general it is obvious that we have to proceed in this way: what is not obvious is the minimal relevant and necessary assumptions which we need to make about contextual variables in order to plan and shape the intellectual environment within which people will be working. It seems that one can think intelligently about the planning of social science research training if one starts, not only with very general and indeed banal assumptions about what society will look like in the future, but also with equally banal assumptions about social science itself. It is obvious for example that in the future a much higher proportion of young people will go on to tertiary education, the best of which will be highly streamed and competitive. Large numbers of graduates will have the curiosity, drive and ability to undertake research, and large research training programmes will be required. Do we FUTURES
M a r c h 19"/t
63
64
On Planning Research Training in the Social Sciences need any further information about what society will look like in the future in order to plan this training--and if so, in what detail can we know it ?
Research training The particular problems of training research workers raise at least four sets of questions: how many research workers will we need to train ? What will we be training them for ? How will we train them ? And where will we train them ? The first question is the most straightforward, if only because an authoritative statement is likely to become in part a self-fulfilling prophecy. Thus the Robbins Committee estimates on the demand for higher education in the U K both drew attention to future needs, and in doing so helped to make the satisfaction of these needs possible. In this sense they were a model of good forecasting. The Report jolted the British public into the first serious consideration of the implications of its avowed educational policy, and led directly to the establishment of research units which have continued to study higher education and the factors which have a bearing on it. Unfortunately Robbins, 1 and The Impact of Robbins ~ which describes post-Robbins developments in demands for higher education, devoted rather little attention to post-graduate study. However some forecasts have been made, and in principle it should be possible to continue similar inquiries. An obvious difficulty in attempting to undertake such forecasts arises from the uncertainty as to the likely future demands for economists, psychologists, sociologists, etc. It can be argued that before we make estimates of the aggregate demand for post-graduate training at any point in time, we require some idea of what we will be training our graduates for. Presumably, problems of control and of communication will loom large---control of the physical environment, social control both of organisations and of the wild breeding species homo sapiens, and individual control of development and behaviour; problems of communication among organisations, groups and individuals, and of 'mass communication' in an age in which this will be on a scale quite different from anything that exists today. It may be that only optimists will think all this to be welcomed, and that only pessimists believe it will be fairly successful but it seems a likely development which will absorb much research time. One can speculate indefinitely about the implications of reflections such as these about the future. However it seems that for long-range as opposed to short-term forecasting, it is not necessary to attempt either to specify the numbers of students being recruited into specific social science disciplines, or to write in advance the syllabuses they will be required to cover during their research training. If in the future econometrics and environmental studies largely replace economics as we know it today, if psychology becomes divided into several very different disciplines, and if quite new subjects largely take the place of existing ones, the changes will have far reaching implications on what is taught, but they may be of much less importance in regard to where it is taught or how. Finally, the numbers undertaking research training, and the probable social costs of such training, are likely to be able to be predicted with more accuracy than the numbers reading social science at an undergraduate level. FUTURES
MMchl~t
On Planning Research Training in the 8odal Sdences
65
Institutional requirements of research tr~;=;ng We can say quite confidently that more large scale research organisations and programmes will come into being and that potential research workers would be well advised to study mathematics. But it is the problems of how research workers will be trained, and where, over which we have a good deal more control, that on the face of it seem to require immediate answers. My own limited experience suggests that there are two sets of factors which need to be examined, one psychological and educational, the other organisational. Among the educational requirements of a good research training are those which involve giving to research students a mastery of research techniques, an understanding of relevant theory, and a basis for making judgements about what is important in a field. In addition a research worker must have what Polanyi has called 'scientific passion'. 8 It is this 'passion' for science and for research which must be nurtured in our research training programmes. Because research is a h u m a n activity, one which involves a shared experience, research students and scientists alike benefit from close intellectual contacts between teachers, colleagues and pupils. It is the shared experience and the intellectual competition involved in it which provide the tension and the satisfaction which research brings. How one can make it possible to introduce these subjective and personal values into research training raises a number of questions relating to institutional size. There are, for example, some straight factual questions: how much contact do students have with supervisors and with fellow students today? How do institutions differ in this respect? What sort of contacts do students value or feel they need? Are there forms of institutional organisation which facilitate such contacts, or are inter-changes dependent upon idiosyncratic factors---or perhaps the existence of a common room ? How would changes in communication affects these needs ? How small can a Department be in order to provide them (a problem research councils are facing today, incidentally, in assigning quota places for studentships)? In a big department (how big is big 1) can one specify a range for the optimal size of a working group ? How can one assure communication between groups, and is it true that the larger the group and the larger the organisation, in general, the less communication there is between groups ? If so, what if anything can be done about this--apart from the usual fatuous prescriptions for 'inter-disciplinary' seminars ? In general, as research becomes more highly organised and 'team based', a critical problem will be how to reduce the size of working units, and how to facilitate non-time-wasting communication among groups. Have sociologists and social psychologists any useful information on these matters? An allied problem concerns the apprenticeship nature of a good research training. Can one be trained for research-in-general, or is the best preparation for research a training on a particular job ? Criticisms made by industry about the futility of much PhD training for scientists who go into industry would be echoed by many research workers themselves. To train post-graduate students by giving them a series of formal and trivial exercises to go through is to insult their intelligence and blunt their creative faculties. The best research training must FUTURES
March t97t $
66
On Planning Research Training in the Social 8dences
surely have an apprenticeship quality about it--it is here that medicine scores heavily over most of the social sciences--and this means that the teaching and research functions of universities cannot be divorced, at least at post-graduate level. What these considerations add up to is the need to define good and bad in research training, to find criteria by which to measure good and bad, and to look at institutional factors which facilitate good as opposed to bad practice, in order to promote good practice. These are matters which could be expressed in operational terms, and investigated.
Where should research training be carried out? The choice is by and large between universities, research institutions and 'firms' (including public authorities, government, etc). The case for university based research has been argued most strongly by people in universities themselves--who are losing out and know it. The arguments in favour of university based research need examination: some are specious--such as the argument that no good teaching can occur without research, which is always trotted out by university lecturers but not by schoolmasters. For all that, it can hardly be disputed that teaching at post-graduate level which is divorced from research leads to a lowering of university standards. What questions which are investigable arise from this ? We need to know what kinds of research are or should be carried out in units which are not university based. (Can we for example enquire into the reasons why independent research institutes are set up in the first place, and try to gauge the need for and the consequences of their independence ?) How much affiliation do independent research institutes have with universities ? If these affiliations are as tenuous as they seem, how is it possible for them to be strengthened ? How much liaison is there between research units in universities (Social Science Research Council groups and Medical Research Council units) and teaching and teaching staff? How seriously do researchers take their research training function, and what facilitates or impedes this ? How much training can professional research workers carry out anyhow without themselves becoming university teachers with a part-time commitment to research ? How is the situation changing--what are the effects of greater specialisation likely to be (eg, how do large and/or more specialised units differ from smaller and/or less specialised units today ?).
Conclusions The practical aim of long-term forecasting is to direct attention to problems of the future which must be anticipated and prepared for. To ensure an adequate, and an adequately trained, number of social scientists is a continuing need, requiring continuing review. Yet the extraordinarily rapid growth of social science since World War II has been largely unplanned; and each development that occurs influences subsequent ones. Hence the need to take stock. A good deal of the discussion about the future of the social sciences has centred on wider issues concerned with the nature of society in the year 2000 or so, FUTURES
March 1971
On Planning Research Training in the Social •ciences
and roles which social science will play in it. If planning decisions depended upon finding answers to such questions, it is doubtful whether there are many we could make. I have argued instead that the most important problems of immediate concern are those relating first to the overall numbers of social scientists we should be training for research (irrespective of discipline), secondly to the institutions in which research and research training are carried out. It is the latter questions which require most attention because upon the answers we give to them will depend the future of the universities. These are among the oldest, and are perhaps the greatest, institutions of contemporary society; yet there is a danger that the universities as we know them today, and as they have developed over centuries, may not survive. If this should happen, it is likely to be not because of the Yippies or the radical student movement, but because of the unprecedented growth of the one activity which for hundreds of years was the special province of the universities, namely research. Today, for the first time in history, society is investing very large sums of money and resources in research. The best way of getting quick results often seems to be through the establishment of new types of institution designed to carry out research under direction. This argument is unconvincing; and its consequences for universities as centres of advanced study seem likely to be disastrous. But to reverse current trends will require a re-thinking of the role of the university, and a new relationship between the university and its funding bodies. It is to this problem, above all others, that scientific planners should be devoting their attention. References
1. Robbins Report, Higher Education: Report of the committee under the chairmanship of Lord Robbins, 1961--63 (London, t-IMSO, Cmd 2154) 2. P. R. G Layard, J. King, C. Moser, The Impact of Robbins (Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1969) 3. M. Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul)
FUTURES
March t9/t
67