Contentious Situations Research Articles

The family rule: a framework for obtaining ethical consent for medical interventions from children.

Children's consent to treatment remains a contentious topic, with confusing legal precepts and advice. This paper proposes that informed consent in children should be regarded as shared between children and...

Reciprocity in Recurring Crises

AbstractReciprocal behavior is understood as responses in kind and magnitude to both positive and/or negative actions. Four propositions that attempt to explain the presence of reciprocal behavior in interstate conflict are examined: (1) adherence by states to a norm of reciprocity, (2) Dupréel's theorem that as rivalries mature, states are more and more likely to imitate each other's behavior, (3) locking-in to escalating conflictual actions in a conflict spiral, and (4) the use of Reciprocating influence strategies, based on tit-for-tat, to elicit cooperation. The propositions are examined in 12 recurring militarized crises within the post-World War II rivalries of the United States and Soviet Union, India and Pakistan, and Israel and Egypt. The analysis employs events data from the BCOW data set, along with qualitative analyses of individual crises. The findings provide indirect support for the influence of the reciprocity norm, even within highly contentious situations. No evidence is found to support Dupréel's proposition. The presence of a true conflict spiral appears in only one of the 12 crises. The effectiveness of Reciprocating influence strategies receives support consistent with that found in other studies of influence strategies in militarized crises.

Archaeological protection, historic preservation and trust responsibility on Indian reservations in the northwest plains

As defined by federal laws, the United States government has an obligation to ensure archaeological and historic resources on Indian trust lands are given appropriate consideration during planning processes. Treaties and court decisions also define the trust responsibilities of the U.S. government to Indian people. These federal and trust responsibilities can create contentious situations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs as it initiates or approves actions on Indian trust lands. Three case studies illustrate the difficulty in reconciling complex Indian land issues with historic preservation.

China Takes Off: Technology Transfer and Modernization by E. E. Bauer

180 Book Reviews TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE seen as the representatives of employers; the tendency of engineers to avoid involvement in potentially contentious situations; and the re­ lationship between trade unions and professional associations. On this last point, the author accepts too readily the traditional interpre­ tation of professional engineering institutions as interest groups, without appreciating their important historical role as means of selfimprovement and education. The author’s judgment on most of the issues that he discusses is generally sound. But it derives only incidental and anecdotaljustifica­ tion from the survey of two anonymous British engineering firms that is the core of the book. Thejudgment about engineers and scien­ tists quoted above, for instance, reflects an appraisal from a much wider basis of evidence than that contained in the answers to Whalley’s questionnaire submitted to engineers in the firms of his choice. The book, in short, succeeds in stimulating reflection on some important aspects of modern industrial relations and the role of engineers in society, despite a largely irrelevant methodology. R. Angus Buchanan Dr. Buchanan is director of the Centre for the History of Technology, Science and Society at the University of Bath. He is currently working on a history of the engi­ neering professional institutions. China Takes Off: Technology Transfer and Modernization. By E. E. Bauer. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1986. Pp. xvi+227; illustrations, notes. $20.00. This is an interesting book with a misleading title. It is not a gen­ eral account of technology transfer to China; rather, it is a personal account of Boeing’s customer support manager in China. From Janu­ ary 1980 to December 1984, E. E. Bauer played an important role in the modernization of China’s commercial air fleet, putting him in a prime position to observe the actual process of technological modernization. This on-the-spot experience gives an immediacy to the narrative that is not often found in more abstract accounts of tech­ nology transfer. Here the myriad problems of bringing advanced technology to a poor nation become painfully apparent. Hydraulic pumps fail prematurely because inferior Chinese-made seals and gas­ kets do not meet specifications. Non-reusable filter cartridges are su­ perficially cleaned and reused, leading to more failures. The translation of technical manuals takes months, and, when they fi­ nally appear, the mechanics generally ignore them. The complexity ofjet aircraft coupled with a severe shortage of in­ digenous skills and infrastructure made problems of this sort inevita­ ble. But they were exacerbated by the system of economic organization that prevailed in China for much of the author’s stay. Rigid centralization and an overwhelming emphasis on hierarchy re­ sulted in the stifling of initiative, an unwillingness to take responsibil­ TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE Book Reviews 181 ity, and an agonizingly slow response to problems as they arose. Bauer recites these shortcomings over and over, interspersing them with continual complaints about living accommodations, travel ar­ rangements, and the harshness of the climate. This endless carping becomes tedious, especially when it is mixed with patronizing state­ ments about his hosts, for example, “The Chinese are a happy, gen­ tle people. Artistry is their finest talent” (p. 102). Is it possible that Bauer is completely ignorant of China’s historic scientific and techno­ logical legacy? I also grew impatient with Bauer’s narratives of his junkets to vari­ ous parts of China. They are familiar travelers’ tales, and they add nothing to the substance of the book. Of equally dubious value are his rehashes of stories that originally appeared in Western maga­ zines and newspapers. Many of them are tangential, and in any event they have been covered with greater insight and thorough­ ness elsewhere. The narrative is also occasionally marred by factual errors, as when Machimpex, China’s machine-importing agency, is identified as the agency responsible for machine building (p. 120). After recounting his frustrations over China’s slow rate of technol­ ogy absorption, Bauer curiously ends on an optimistic note. Signs of progress had become evident, as when Chinese mechanics did a first-rate repair job on a damaged wing section. More generally, after years of Maoist misrule, the policies initiated by Deng Xiaoping have given China...

The Social Production of Technical Work: The Case of British Engineers by Peter Whalley

technology and culture Book Reviews 179 tory was semiassembly in nature, whereas many of the more skilled pottery workers produced individual crafts. Sons of the Machine stands as an important study, however, be­ cause of the fundamental questions posed by Savage in the course of his research. By postulating that the worker represented an essen­ tial social component in the factory as well as the community, Sav­ age broke ground for new and meaningful studies about the workplace in the modern world and how work values affect changes in the larger social ethos. William L. Cumiford Mr. Cumiford is curator of business and industrial history at the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History. He has just completed several articles on the trade union movement in the Caribbean. The Social Production of Technical Work: The Case of British Engineers. By Peter Whalley. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986. Pp. xiv+237; tables, notes, appendix, bibliography, index. $29.50. Despite its somewhat opaque title, this book is about the role of en­ gineers in modern industry, and particularly the social conscious­ ness of British engineers. The subtitle recognizes that it is a “case” study but does not acknowledge the very narrow basis of the empiri­ cal evidence. In fact, only two firms are studied in the text, and, as these are hidden by a shroud of anonymity, the reader is obliged to depend on Peter Whalley’s own assessment of their representative character. Like much contemporary sociology on the margins of the history of technology, the book is long onjargon and short on his­ torical analysis. It is noteworthy that the author is dismissive of “largely anecdotal” treatments of industrial relations, even though his own method involves a measure of selectivity which is essentially anecdotal. The sociological analysis presented in these pages is no less selective in its choice of relevant evidence than any other method, but insofar as it purports to be objective and scientific it is po­ tentially more misleading. The level of valid generalization which may be inferred from such an examination is in reality disappoint­ ingly low. Having established these caveats about the methodology of the book, we can observe that Whalley raises some interesting questions and that he deals with them cautiously and constructively. Among the important themes that he tackles are the relationship between sci­ ence and engineering, where he reaches the conclusion that “there is little evidence that engineers are becoming scientists” (p. 65); the role of engineers in British industry as experts rather than as manag­ ers, so that they normally exercise little responsibility in line manage­ ment but acquire the status of “trusted workers” and are frequently 180 Book Reviews TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE seen as the representatives of employers; the tendency of engineers to avoid involvement in potentially contentious situations; and the re­ lationship between trade unions and professional associations. On this last point, the author accepts too readily the traditional interpre­ tation of professional engineering institutions as interest groups, without appreciating their important historical role as means of selfimprovement and education. The author’s judgment on most of the issues that he discusses is generally sound. But it derives only incidental and anecdotaljustifica­ tion from the survey of two anonymous British engineering firms that is the core of the book. Thejudgment about engineers and scien­ tists quoted above, for instance, reflects an appraisal from a much wider basis of evidence than that contained in the answers to Whalley’s questionnaire submitted to engineers in the firms of his choice. The book, in short, succeeds in stimulating reflection on some important aspects of modern industrial relations and the role of engineers in society, despite a largely irrelevant methodology. R. Angus Buchanan Dr. Buchanan is director of the Centre for the History of Technology, Science and Society at the University of Bath. He is currently working on a history of the engi­ neering professional institutions. China Takes Off: Technology Transfer and Modernization. By E. E. Bauer. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1986. Pp. xvi+227; illustrations, notes. $20.00. This is an interesting book with a misleading title. It is not a gen­ eral account of technology transfer to China; rather...

Everyday Disputes and Mediation in the United States: A Reply to Professor Felstiner

In a recent article in these pages Professor W.L.F. Felstiner (1974) made a substantial contribution to the literature on dispute processing by analyzing the role of avoidance as a means of ending disputes, and by correlating the ubiquity of this technique with differing forms of societal organization. In brief, his insight—richly developed in the article—is that the tendency to walk away from contentious situations is greater in “technologically complex, rich societies” than in “technologically simple, poor societies.” This is because the organization of richer societies minimizes the importance and the intertwining (multiplexity) of family and other group ties and maximizes social, occupational and geographic mobility. In contrast, citizens of poorer societies are bound closely to the individuals in their communities and thus have a greater need and capacity for resolving—rather than walking away from—disputes with those individuals.