Book Reviews : Report of the Committee on Social Studies (Chairman Lord Heyworth, LL.D., D.C.L.) H.M.S.O. 7s. 6d
| Date | 01 September 1965 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455056501100316 |
| Published date | 01 September 1965 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
are,
however,
worth
reading.
No
longer
shall
we
try
in
vain
to
recall
references
of
worthwhile
articles.
I
view
this
book
as
a
useful
addition
to
Office
and
personal
libraries.
PATRICIA
BARRETT
Report
of
the
Committee
on
Social
Studies
(Chairman
Lord
Heyworth,
LL.D.,
D.C.L.)
H.M.S.O.
7s.
6d.
This
Committee
was
set
up
&dquo;To
review
the
research
at
present
being
done
in
the
field
of
social
studies
in
Government
departments,
universities
and
other
insti-
tutions
and
to
advise
whether
changes
are
needed
in
the
arrangements
for
sup-
porting
and
co-ordinating
this
research&dquo;.
Haphazard
financing
and
lack
of
co-
ordination
in
research
in
the
social
studies
were
found
by
the
members
of
this
Committee
yet
they
received
the
impression
&dquo;that
the
whole
field
of
social
enquiry
was
ready
to
be
moved
to
new
levels
of
performance&dquo;.
Since
1959
there
has
been
a
steady
increase
in
the
propor-
tion
of
students
reading
in
the
social
studies
(and
a
big
increase
in
registrations
for
external
degrees)
but
the
increase
has
been
uneven
between
disciplines.
Soci-
ology
has
grown
with
&dquo;explosive
force&dquo;
while
social
psychology
has
been
neglec-
ted
in this
country
by
comparison
with
the
U.S.A.
The
Committee
felt
that
more
able
students
were
now
opting
for
the
social sciences.
Research
has
increased
remarkably
at
some
points
(money
spent
by
&dquo;the
Tavi&dquo;
has
increased
more
than
fourfold
in
a
decade)
but
the
universities
are
not
accommodating
enough
post-graduate
students.
Awards
should
be
extended
to
the
holders
of
second-class
honours
degrees.
Advanced
courses
which
include
training
in
research
are
welcomed
and
special
provision
is
recommended
for
post-experience
research
awards.
Concern
is
expressed
that
&dquo;there
are
very
few
people
whose
functions
cor-
respond
to
the
engineering
or
develop-
ment
function
in
the
physical
sciences&dquo;.
Administrator
and
social
scientist
should
be
working
together
if
research
findings
are
to
be
applied
effectively
and
prob-
lems
for
research
identified.
Funds
for
research
are
needed
on
a
larger
scale
and
to
dispense
them
the
Committee
recommends
a
Social
Science
Research
Council
(thus
reversing
the
recommendation
of
the
Clapham
Com-
mittee,
1946).
The
Council
would
review
the
state
of
research,
advise
the
Govern-
ment
on
research
needs,
review
the
supply
of
research
workers
and
contri-
bute
to
their
training,
consider
the
appli-
cation
of
research
and
the
dissemination
of
information
and
give
advice
to
the
users
of
research.
The
Council
would,
with
special
provisions,
include
research
in
education
and
planning.
By
its
fourth
year
it
would
be
spending
an
estimated
£2im.
The
Report
does
not
reveal
the
sub-
jects
of
current
research.
It
does
not
propose
any
general
principle
about
the
desirability
of
including
research
units
in
Government
departments.
It
gives
various
pointers
but
the
nettle
is
not
grasped.
There
is
no
reference
to
the
inhibiting
of
publication
which
could
arise
when
findings
conflict
with
established
policy.
Might
we
have
seen
more
publications
by
Home
Office
Research
Unit
if
it
were
in
a
more
independent
setting?
The
Report
clearly
states
that
the
proposed
council
should
be
an
independent
body.
The
need
for
cohesion
in
research
may
well
be
met
by
the
council.
Is
it
too
much
to
hope
for
some
assessment
of
the
soundness
of
the
work
behind
some
&dquo;social
studies&dquo;-an
S.R.C.C.
seal
to
guide
gullible
readers.
GRAHAM
PARKER
To continue reading
Request your trial