Taxonomy of Cooperation and Reciprocity: Beyond Interdisciplinary Social Science Imperialism

Political science and other closely related social science disciplines could certainly benefit from the creation of a Directorate for the Social and Behavioral Sciences within the National Science Foundation. I present the case for such organizational restructuring on behalf of the American Political Science Association and the Western Political Science Association, and as a charter member and former President of the Social Science History Association. That a benefit would accrue from a reorganization would seem likely in the face of two organizational imperatives. First, political science and its sister disciplines need direct representation by senior officers of their own directorate in the policy making and resource allocation of at least three additional existing directorates: the Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering, the Directorate for Education and Human Resources, and the Directorate for Scientific, Technological and International Affairs. The needs of political science in these three domains are similar to those of the other social sciences and are distinctly different from the needs of either the life sciences, the geosciences or the mathematical and physical sciences. Social science needs will not, and most likely cannot, be articulated by Foundation officers whose organizational responsibilities are overwhelmingly defined by the needs -and current resources-of the biosciences and whose professional backgrounds lie in one of the biosciences. We believe that the manifold resources of the Foundationprofessional and technical as well as budgetary-have not successfully addressed the needs of the social sciences in large part because the social sciences are not directly represented at the appropriate organizational level within the Foundation. The second organizational imperative stems from the need for greater organizational differentiation within the social sciences. Even though few of the social and behavioral science disciplines are as diverse as the array of subfields in chemistry or its sister disciplines, the full panoply of research specialties across the several social sciences is on a par with the diversity represented in the other substantive directorates. Many of the existing activities of the present Division of Social and Economic Science could be relocated as divisions of the new directorate. For example, without attempting to provide an organizational blueprint for the future, it may be suggested that, as with the other substantive directorates, each of the present disciplinary programs in S.E.S. might well be a division within a Social and Behavioral Science Directorate. They might be joined by a Division of Methods, Measurement and Instrumentation needed to address those problems of data generation and analysis that the disciplinary divisions have in common. Similarly, there should also be a separate division for large-scale multi-purpose data collection and resource development. A quite new division might also be established for activities centered on increasing the scientific usefulness of data generated by governmental agencies. Finally, and still illustratively, a separate division might be created for multi-disciplinary or multi-institutional projects or programs. To give greater clarity to the foregoing prescriptions, consider the following. First, with regard to representing social science needs in other directorates, the computer has become as central-and totally indispensable-to the work ways of social science as to the other sciences. And yet the central tasks for the computer are somewhat different. Certainly in contrast to mathematics, social science does much more data management of numeric data, more archiving and retrieval of non-quantitative materials, and much less sheer computation. On a quite different dimension, social science has its own version of the adaptation of the computer to data generation. In the harnessing of the computer in Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing, in improving methods of textual analysis, and in the use of the lap top computer for data collection in the field (and quite apart from use in simulation exercises), we are only beginning to exploit fully this technological wonder. As a third illustration, it can be noted that in the absence of large laboratories or research centers which bring together scientists working on common problems, the computer network is becoming an essential feature of the social scientist's life. Both the transmission of data by computer nets and inter-personal exchanges among scientists are probably more crucial for the maturing social sciences than for the more developed disciplines. Many of these and other needs of the social scientist are served indirectly and inadvertently by computer developments in other realms. However, without a new directorate in the Foundation, it seems unrealistic if not unreasonable to expect strong and direct representation of social science computing needs that should affect future Foundation policy and resource allocation. A separate Directorate for the Social and Behavioral Sciences is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition to have an impact on Foundation decisions concerning the development of computer and information science.

Policy increasingly requires societally relevant and interdisciplinary science, which prompts questions about science’s orientation to diverse academic and non-academic actors. This paper examines how relevance is practised and negotiated in two evolving interdisciplinary social science fields: marine social sciences and forest policy research. Both fields investigate human relations with specific environments: how people use, manage and govern, live with and value seas and forests. Diverse social and political actors have stakes in the knowledge these fields generate. To whose matters and stakes do researchers respond and orient their research? Are such orientations reflexively discussed and contested? To operationalise relevance, we employ the notion of ‘epistemic commitments’ while adopting a Bourdieusian perspective on scientific fields. Our analysis draws on conference observation, interviews and document analysis. We find diverse epistemic commitments in both fields, but see noticeable differences in their prevalence, reflexivity and contestation. Examining the fields’ socio-historical trajectories, we theorise that these differences are due to field-specific properties: their relative autonomy to negotiate relevance independently from other disciplines and external forces; and the field-specific habitus that impacts the degree to which relevance is a reflexive commitment, or an unconscious practice. The comparative analysis suggests that interdisciplinary scientific fields’ specific institutional histories and relations with societal and policy actors shape relevance practices and the extent to which these are internally contested.

INTRODUCTION. This article discusses how such principle of international law as principle of cooperation develops within the BRICS. The choice of this topic is based on the fact that today we are facing crisis of classical international organizations, such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization on the one hand and on the other hand active and effective development of international cooperation within the BRICS. However, BRICS does not possess international legal capacity. This means that, it does not possess international rights and obligations; it cannot act as subject of international law. From the first sight these facts should be regarded as obvious weakness of such form of international cooperation as BRICS. However, this form of cooperation as will be shown in this article have demonstrated its effectiveness in development of international cooperation in various spheres. Alongside with that, BRICS attracted very little attention in the international legal scholarship and was predominantly assessed by political science and political economy. This article is aimed at filling this gap, assessing BRICS from international legal perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS. General scientific methods of cognition (analysis, synthesis, induction, and deduction), special legal methods (formal-legal, technical-legal, method of legal analogy), comparative legal and case study method were used in the presented research. RESEARCH METHODS. This article elaborates on new landscape of international legal principle of international cooperation through soft law-making and informality addressing the question whether such form of international cooperation as BRICS may provide an alternate or a complementary forum to cooperate and agree to mutually acceptable decisions on matters relating to international rulemaking. The author proposes conceptual discussion on whether duty to cooperate, to be indeed effective, should be based on the principles enshrined in the BRICS instruments such as multipolarity, inclusiveness and mutual benefit and whether these instruments reflect progressive development of principle of international cooperation. The author continues with a discussion on whether “soft” nature of BRICS and its approach to the principle of cooperation could provide a way to overcome today’s crisis that classic international organizations are facing. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The author of this paper argues that considering BRICS phenomena, international law should evolve focusing on progressive development of principle of international cooperation. This will increase efficiency of international law under today’s crisis of classical international organizations. BRICS could be regarded as a soft institution (by analogy with so called “soft law”) which at least supplement classical international organizations or at most may substitute them. National interests, multipolarity, inclusiveness and mutual benefit as main pillars reflecting development of cooperation withing the BRICS should be taken as basis for progressive development of international legal principle of international cooperation.

Founding Years of Discipline and Association Dutch political science claims early roots. In 1613 Daniel Heinsius became Professor of Politices at Leiden University. The various sciences bearing a relation to the state were then regarded as one body of ‘scientia politica’. During the 19th century, however, the juridical-legalistic point of view began to predominate in the theory of the state, and between roughly 1840 and the end of World War II Dutch universities practically neglected the existence of political science proper. Immediately after the war, the University of Amsterdam established a new Faculty of Political and Social Sciences. Its two founding fathers were both historians but as early as the 1930s one of them, Jan Romein, had become well acquainted with American political science. The holders of the first three chairs in political science in the Netherlands, established between 1948 and 1953, had themselves studied law. It was only in 1963, with the appointment of Hans Daudt in Amsterdam, that the first professor of political science was appointed who had himself studied political science. The appointment of other political scientists, Hans Daalder in Leiden and Andries Hoogerwerf in Nijmegen, soon followed. This new generation of professors signalled the beginning of the development of political science as a separate discipline, with its own subject matter and research methods. At that time, most Dutch political scientists followed the example of their American and English colleagues by embracing behaviouralism and focusing on electoral studies. The Dutch Political Science Association itself was founded in 1950 as the ‘Nederlandse Kring voor Wetenschap der Politiek’ (literally the ‘Dutch Circle for the Science of Politics’). Only a part of its members was made up of political science teachers. Others were constitutional lawyers, economists, historians and sociologists, as well as journalists and politicians. The members met a few times a year to read and discuss papers on subjects related to political science. Papers on public administration and international relations were discussed in two other bodies, the ‘Instituut voor Bestuurswetenschappen’ (‘Institute for Administrative Sciences’), established in 1939, and the ‘Genootschap voor Internationale Zaken’ (‘Society for International Affairs’), which had begun in 1947 to publish the monthly journal Internationale Spectator. This situation was and is rather typical for Dutch political science. Where in many other countries international relations and public administration are part of political science, in the same way that comparative politics and electoral studies are, in the Netherlands they stand more or less apart. In the founding years of the discipline, this had much to do on the one hand with the left-wing origins of the Amsterdam Faculty of Political and Social Sciences (which was called the ‘red Faculty’), and on the other hand with the fact that at that time the great majority of diplomats and public administrators (who had often worked in the Dutch East Indies) had studied law in Leiden. The latter could not easily identify with the new discipline and its ambitions and kept aloof.

Reflecting on his wartime government service, Walter Lippmann (1922) developed a theory of policy formulation and error. Introducing the constructs of stereotype, mental model, blind spots, and the process of manufacturing consent, his theory prescribed interdisciplinary social science as a tool for enhancing policy making in business and government. Lippmann used his influence with the Rockefeller foundations, business leaders, Harvard and the University of Chicago to gain support for this program. Citation analysis of references to "stereotype" and Lippmann reveals the rapid spread of the concept across the social sciences and in public discourse paralleled by obliteration by incorporation of the wider theory in behavioral science. "Stereotype" is increasingly invoked in anthropology, economics, and sociology though Lippmann and his wider theory ceased being cited decades ago. In psychology, citations are increasing but content analysis revealed blind spots and misconceptions about the theory and prescription. Studies of heuristics, biases, and organizational decision substantiate Lippmann's theory of judgment and choice. But his model for social science failed to consider the bounded rationality and blind spots of its practitioners. Policy formulation today is supported by research from narrow disciplinary silos not interdisciplinary science that reflects an awareness of history.

Political scientists have increasingly operationalised ‘Discourse’ as a means through which actors promote their interests. Building on Plehwe (2011, 2014) and Hajer’s (1995, 2006) concept of discourse coalition theory, I explore how actors promote their interests via discourse. I do this through the case of constitutional originalism: the interpretation of the US Constitution in according to its historical provisions, viewing citizens’ rights as determined at the point of its drafting, irrespective of revisions appropriate to modern society. Such a view has become a mainstream philosophy. I show constitutional originalism’s strategic utility for conservatives, as a study of shared ‘flexible discourse’ through which multiple actors pursue differing objectives. In short, actors us the same idea differently and this ‘quid pro quo’ entrenches both the narrative and establishes actors’ goals. This question is the notion that ideology is a coherent thing: rather, it is a convenience that is strategically deployed by different members of the coalition. I develop the framework of Flexible Discourse Theory to this end. ‘Discourse’ is a strategic tool allowing for strength in number, fortifying individual groups’ pursuit of their political ends and the political vehicle which allows differing value sets to be pursued. It is also a means through which diverse coalitions can be built, in which mediating discourses are compatible with diverse values and do not fall between blocs’ ideological faultlines. Flexible discourses’ strategic utility is an important story of political bloc and coalition formation. It elucidates the role of ideation as a deployable tool, through which coalitions are maintained. I explore this theory by analysing constitutional originalism’s political uses for the American right, in the victory case for originalism, D.C. v. Heller (2008) on Second Amendment rights, and how this strategy is deployed towards a variety of other political stances. In brief, this is a study of how actors use ideology strategically and instrumentally to realise their interests.

Can regulation and governance make a difference?

Public administration and political science: From monogamous marriage to professional partnership

This chapter explains social, economic, psychological, political, and moral facets of fulfilling cooperation. It explains that the most fulfilling kind of cooperation is communal, collective cooperation. Cooperatives are offered specific suggestions for how to move toward this form of cooperation. This cooperation is akin to the social relations in a family. It is an organic relation of people in which they combine their individualities in an emergent social unit. In a family, individuals feel part of each other, they want to support each other because the other is really themselves. “She is my daughter, I would do anything for her to increase her happiness, I feel happy when she is happy, I feel sad when she feels sad.” Family members act so as to fulfill the desires of each other just to satisfy each other, without quid pro quo. This kind of cooperation provides maximal support, security, stimulation, fulfillment, democracy, and freedom for individuals. It draws upon precedents in the Owenite, Rochdale, Mondragon, and socialist forms of cooperation. It corrects the apolitical, market-oriented cooperative social philosophy. Communal, collective cooperation requires a material foundation and expression, namely the collective, communal ownership of resources, and the collective, communal distribution of benefits according to people’s needs. This collective, communal relation respects and fulfills individual needs, whereas market relations distribute benefits strictly according to whether an individual has money to buy them. Examples of communal, collective cooperation within capitalism are cited. Insurance is one example. A socialist village in China is also explored to elucidate its cooperative ownership, management, decision-making, and distribution of benefits. Collective, communal cooperation is shown to enhance respect for individuals, democracy, and freedom. Psychological aspects of this kind of cooperation are explored. In particular a collective self-concept is explained, in contrast to an individualistic self that dominates capitalist (and mixed capitalist) social relations. Cooperative responsibility is also explored. Cooperative morality is also discussed. Political aspects of collective, communal, organic cooperation are discussed. It is distinguished from liberalism that preserves an emphasis on individualism. The chapter offers suggestions about how cooperative organizations can move in the direction of collective, communal, organic cooperation. Suggestions for broad political action are enumerated along with suggestions for internal policies. Remuneration and punishment policies are discussed for enhancing cooperation. Collective, communal cooperation is also shown to be a viable possibility because it utilizes elements of the infrastructure that capitalism makes available which afford cooperation.

<p>Water is at the core of many current and future global challenges, which involve hydrological, technical and social processes. Therefore, successful interdisciplinary research on how water-related issues interact with human activities, actions and responses is increasingly important. Qualitative data and diverse perspectives provide much-needed information to improve our understanding and management of water-related issues. To collect this information, hydrologists are increasingly conducting fieldwork with human participants (e.g. individuals, policy-makers, community leaders, government representatives, etc.) themselves, and collaboratively with others. Although collaboration between hydrologists and social scientists in interdisciplinary projects is becoming more common, several barriers, including lack of understanding and experience, can result in hydrologists and social scientists remaining somewhat separate during research, leading to suboptimal research outcomes. Hydrologists who are planning and undertaking fieldwork involving human participants may be underprepared because they are unfamiliar with key social science approaches and concepts. Therefore, here, we help guide hydrologists to better understand some important issues to consider when working with human participants, to facilitate more collaborative research.</p><p>As a group of social, natural, and interdisciplinary scientists, we discuss a number of important elements of fieldwork involving human participants that hydrologists might be unfamiliar with, or might have different approaches to than social scientists. These elements include good ethical practice, research question frameworks, power dynamics, communication of science (e.g. participatory mapping, photovoice, videography, and interactive graphs), and post-fieldwork reflections. There are also issues to consider when working collaboratively with social scientists, such as vocabulary differences and different methodologies and data collection approaches (e.g. interviews, focus groups, questionnaires, workshops, ethnography).</p><p>We believe that by introducing hydrologists (and natural scientists in general) to some of the key considerations when working with human participants in the field, more holistic, ethical, and successful research outcomes can be achieved. We also want to stress that collaboration with social scientists stays important and research ethics, design, participant involvement, and results, may be compromised without the input and experience of social scientists themselves. Facilitating these collaborations between the natural and social sciences will improve interdisciplinary water research, resulting in a better understanding of the interactions between water and society.</p>

This article explores changing work patterns in the Skolt Sámi reindeer herding community of Sevettijärvi, northern Finland. As a result of the Second World War, Finland lost the original home territory of the Skolt Sámi to the Soviet Union. The Skolt Sámi of the old Suenjel village moved to the Sevettijärvi area in Finland. In this article I present major changes in three areas of this group’s work patterns: 1) combinations of livelihood; 2) forms of cooperation and reciprocity; 3) social constructions of work situations. The main causes of cultural change in the rein-deer herding community have been the mechanisation of reindeer herding and the centralisation of reindeer ownership. In anthropological studies, traditional forms of behaviour have at times been seen as obstacles to economic development. My argument is different: traditional forms of culture – in this case forms of reciprocity – can increase possibilities for economic development. The research data shows that the centralisation of reindeer ownership has decreased the possibilities for economic development in additional forms of livelihood among Skolt Sámi reindeer herders. The number of herders has decreased and the entrepreneurial collaboration is arranged so that there is less and less traditional reciprocity between separate households.

As early as 1932, long before he joined any department of political science, Strauss wrote of the necessity of a radical criticism of the work of Max Weber; three years later, he wrote to his friend, Jacob Klein, that he has been reading a lot of Weber. His famous criticism of Weber in Natural Right and History was then the result of a twenty-year long reflection on that thinker. Indeed, he incorporated a criticism of present-day social science in a number of essays, and in small ways in every book he wrote in the United States other than his later Socratic books. He even organized a reading group with some of his students on the works of the leading scholars (Harold Lasswell, Arthur Bentley, Herbert Simon, and so on) around what he called the new science of politics, or what others have called the behavioral revolution in political science. This effort culminates in the publication of the Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics , the epilogue to which is written by Strauss himself. Why did this single-minded student of political philosophy devote so much of his time and energy to a critique of contemporary social science? This question assumes that political philosophy and social science are fundamentally different activities. However, Strauss questioned this assumption because he denied its underlying premise, namely, that modern natural science is the model for all scientific work. Accordingly, he can distinguish “present day social science” (social science positivism in its final form) from “classical social science” (the political science of Plato, Aristotle, and Xenophon) and “modern social science” (the political science of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu), categories that do not exist for adherents of present-day social science.

In an increasingly technology-dependent world, it is not surprising that STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) graduates are in high demand. This state of affairs, however, has made the public overlook the case that not only computing and artificial intelligence are naturally interdisciplinary, but that a huge portion of generated data comes from human–computer interactions, thus they are social in character and nature. Hence, social science practitioners should be in demand too, but this does not seem the case. One of the reasons for such a situation is that political and social science departments worldwide tend to remain in their “comfort zone” and see their disciplines quite traditionally, but by doing so they cut themselves off from many positions today. The authors believed that these conditions should and could be changed and thus in a few years created a specifically tailored course for students in Political Science. This paper examines the experience of the last year of such a program, which, after several tweaks and adjustments, is now fully operational. The results and students’ appreciation are quite remarkable. Hence the authors considered the experience was worth sharing, so that colleagues in social and political science departments may feel encouraged to follow and replicate such an example.

Guiding students step-by-step through the research process while simultaneously introducing a range of debates, challenges and tools that feminist scholars use, the second edition of this popular textbook provides a vital resource to those students and researchers approaching their studies from a feminist perspective. Interdisciplinary in its approach, the book covers everything from research design, analysis and presentation, to formulating research questions, data collection and publishing research. Offering the most comprehensive and practical guide to the subject available, the text is now also fully updated to take account of recent developments in the field, including participatory action research, new technologies and methods for working with big data and social media. Doing Feminist Research is required reading for undergraduate and postgraduate courses taking a feminist approach to social science methodology, research design and methods. It is the ideal guide for all students and scholars carrying out feminist research, whether in the fields of international relations, political science, interdisciplinary international and global studies, development studies or gender and women's studies. New to this Edition: - New discussions of contemporary research methods, including participatory action research, survey research and technology, and methods for big data and social media. - Updated to reflect recent developments in feminist and gender theory, with references to the latest research examples and new boxes considering recent shifts in the social and political sciences. - Brand new boxed examples throughout covering topics including collaborations, femicide, negotiating changing research environments and the pros and cons of feminist participatory action research. - The text is now written in the first (authors) and second (readers) person making the text clearer, more consistent and inclusive from the reader point of view.

This chapter examines the main international migrations of Vietnamese after 1975 and Afghans after 1978. The two population flows are similar in many respects. They resulted from the same type of social conflict, consisting of revolutionary struggle compounded by foreign intervention. Both conflicts, moreover, became closely tied to the globalized confrontation between the two superpowers, and the people leaving both Vietnam and Afghanistan have been widely recognized as refugees by intergovernmental and governmental agencies. A striking difference between the two movements, however, is that most of the Afghans outside their country have remained in Asia, whereas few of the Vietnamese have. Apart from forming an interesting pair in and of themselves, the two cases are theoretically significant. They reveal crucial relationships between the causes and the directions of movement in certain types of migrations that are formally recognized as consisting of refugees. The Vietnamese represent the classic resettlement case involving a largescale, organized movement of people from Asia to Western Europe and the United States. The Afghans provide the contrasting case. Millions are concentrated in refugee camps or have spontaneously settled in neighboring countries, while only a tiny proportion has been resettled elsewhere.