A general cycle of relations between the Department of Defense (DoD) and the university is described with particular reference to the social sciences and international studies: a general decline in amity since World War II, decreased support for DoD objectives, a concern for the effect of DoD priorities on the general research profile, the growth of in-house and nonacademic vendors in research and training, and the enclaving of the military-connected research community within the university. The pattern of DoD support for strategic studies, linguistics, and language and area studies is examined.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. For an excellent analysis of the role of influential social scientists in the military during World War II, see Peter Buck, “Adjusting to Military Life: Social Scientists Go to War, 1941-1950,” in Military Enterprise and Technological Change, ed. Merritt Roe Smith (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985), pp. 203-252.
2.
2. Recently there has been a revival of interest in this period. For instance, an unpublished manuscript by Talcott Parsons on the relation of social science to national policy has just appeared. See Samuel Klausner, The Nationalization of the Social Sciences (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987).
3.
See also David MacIsaac, The Story of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey (New York: Garland Press, 1976).
4.
4. Correspondence with Colonel David M. Beckman, director of the Education Directorate, DoD.
5.
5. For an account of this transformation, see Christopher J. Deering, “Congress, the President, and Military Policy,”The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Sept. 1988, vol. 499.
6.
6. U.S. Department of Defense, Report on the University Role in Defense Research and Development, prepared for U.S. Congress, Committees on Appropriations, Apr. 1987, tabs. 1 and 3.
7.
7. Ibid.
8.
8. See, for instance, U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Science and Technology, Hearings on Science and the Mission Agencies, “Testimony of Rodney Nichols before the Task Force on Science Policy,” 23 Oct. 1985.
9.
9. For the Department's viewpoint, see U.S. Department of Defense, The Department of Defense Report on the Merit Review Process for Competitive Selection of University Research Projects and an Analysis of the Potential of Expanding the Geographical Distribution of Research, prepared for U.S. Congress, Committees on Appropriations, Apr. 1987.
10.
10. U.S. National Science Foundation, Federal Funds of Research and Development: Fiscal Years 1986, 1987, 1988, NSF 87-314, vol. 36, 1987.
11.
11. Department of Defense, University Role in Defense Research, p. 7.
12.
12. National Science Foundation, Federal Funds for Research and Development, tab. C-92.
13.
13. U.S. National Science Foundation, Federal Support to Universities, Colleges and Selected Non-Profit Institutions: Fiscal Year 1986, NSF 87-318, tab. B-14.
14.
14. For one report on the difficulties an academic felt in dealing with DoD's research support in the 1960s in Southeast Asia and elsewhere, see Seymour Dietchman, The Best Laid Plans (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1976).
15.
Irving Louis Horowitz, “The Life and Death of Project Camelot,”Transactions, 3:3-7, 44-47 (1965).
16.
16. See Fred M. Kaplan, The Wizards of Armageddon (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983).
17.
17. For a review of this history, see Robert O'Neill, “A Historical Perspective on International Security Analysis,”Items, June 1988, p. 42.
18.
18. For a list of some of these grantees, see National Science Foundation, Federal Support to Universities, tab. B-33.
19.
19. It is interesting to note that when the Rand Corporation broadened its research focus, its style of research with its emphasis on quantitative analysis and rigorous research design served as a prototype of academic public policy research in general.
20.
20. “Defense” was later dropped from the title when this section was transferred into the Higher Education Act.
21.
21. For one of the many general examinations of this issue, see Sheldon Hackney, “Academia and Espionage,”Almanac (University of Pennsylvania), 22 Sept. 1987, pp. 4-5.
22.
22. For an extensive review of this situation, see Defense Intelligence: Foreign Area/Language Needs and Academe (Washington, DC: SRI International, 1983).
23.
23. Richard D. Lambertet al., Beyond Growth: The Next Stage in Language and Area Studies (Washington, DC: Association of American Universities, 1984).
