When social science knowledge is passed from the frame of reference of social scientist to the frame of reference of the problem-solving professional, a transformation in meaning of the knowledge occurs. The specific instance this article investigates involves the attempt to communicate social science knowledge, in the form of expert witness testimony, between a social scientist on the one hand, and the different attorneys and presiding examiner on the other, in the setting of an administrative hearing. To explain the transformation in meaning that is observed to take place, the article applies Schutz's analysis of Don Quixote: How a social scientist and an attorney attempt to communicate is no different from how Don Quixote and Sancho Panza attempt to communicate. Actions that can be taken to prevent Quixotic communication are recommended, and implications for the utilization of social science knowledge in other applied settings are examined.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ARGYRIS, C.
and D. SCHON (1974) Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2.
AUBERT, V.
(1979) “Understanding legal thinking,” pp. 144-148 in C. Campbell and P. Wiles (eds.) Law and Society. Oxford, England: Martin Robinson.
3.
BATESON, G.
(1972a) “The logical categories of learning and communication,” pp. 279-308 in Steps to an Ecology of Mind. San Francisco: Chandler.
4.
BATESON, G.
(1972b) “Social planning and the concept of deutero-learning,” pp. 159-176 in Steps to an Ecology of Mind. San Francisco: Chandler.
5.
BERGER, P.
and T. LUCKMANN (1967) The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Anchor.
6.
CAMPBELL, D.
and J. STANLEY (1963) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
7.
CAPLAN, N.
(1977) “A minimal set of conditions necessary for the utilization of social science knowledge in policy formulation at the national level,” pp. 183-197 in C. Weiss (ed.) Using Social Research in Public Policy Making. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
8.
CAPLAN, N.
, A. MORRISON, and R. STAMBAUGH (1975) The Use of Social Science Knowledge in Policy Decisions at the National Level. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge.
9.
COOK, T.
and D. CAMPBELL (1979) “Causal inference and the language of experimentation,” pp. 1-36 in T. Cook and D. Campbell (eds.) Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
10.
COPI, I.
(1982) Introduction to Logic. New York: Macmillan.
11.
DEWEY, J.
(1924) “Logical method and law.”The Cornell Law Q.10: 17-27.
12.
DUNN, W.
(1982) “Reforms as arguments.”Knowledge3: 293-326.
13.
DUNN, W.
(1980) “The two-communities metaphor and models of knowledge use.”Knowledge4: 515-536.
14.
DUNN, W.
, A. CAHILL, M. DUKES, and A. GINSBERG (1986) “The policy grid: a cognitive methodology for assessing policy dynamics,” pp. 355-375 in Policy Analysis: Perspectives, Concepts, and Methods. New York: JAI.
15.
GARFINKEL, H.
(1967) “Some rules of correct decision making that jurors respect,” pp. 104-114 in Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
16.
HAZARD, G.
(1967) “Limitations on the uses of behavioral science in the law.”Case Western Reserve Law Rev.19: 71-77.
17.
HOLZNER, B.
and E. FISHER (1979) “Knowledge in use.”Knowledge2: 219-244.
18.
KANTER, R. M.
(1977) Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic.
19.
KAPLAN, A.
(1964) The Conduct of Inquiry. New York: Chandler.
20.
LARGE, D.
and P. MICHIE (1981) “Proving that the strength of the British Navy depends on the number of old maids in England: a comparison of scientific proof with legal proof.”Environmental Law11: 555-638.
21.
LEE, A. S. (1982) “Cross cultural communication between scientists and lawyers in judicial policy-making.” Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
22.
MARTIN, J.
(1979) “Procedures for decisionmaking under conditions of scientific uncertainty: the science court proposal.”Harvard J. on Legislation16: 443-511.
23.
POPPER, K. R.
(1965) Conjectures and Refutations. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
24.
POPPER, K. R.
(1968) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
25.
REIN, M.
and D. SCHON (1977) “Problem setting in policy research,” pp. 235-251 in C. Weiss (ed.) Using Social Research in Public Policy Making. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
26.
SCHUTZ, A.
(1964) “Don Quixote and the Problem of Reality,” pp. 135-158 in Alfred Schutz, Collected Papers, Vol. 2. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
27.
SCHUTZ, A.
(1973a) “Common-sense and scientific interpretation of human action,” pp. 3-47 in Alfred Schutz, Collected Papers, Vol. 1. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
28.
SCHUTZ, A.
(1973b) “Concept and theory formation in the social sciences,” pp. 48-66 in Alfred Schutz, Collected Papers, Vol. 1. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
29.
SCHUTZ, A.
(1973c) “On multiple realities,” pp. 207-259 in Alfred Schutz, Collected Papers, Vol. 1. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
30.
SCHUTZ, A.
(1973d) “Symbol, reality, and society,” pp. 287-356 in Alfred Schutz, Collected Papers, Vol. 1. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
31.
TICE, T.
and T. SLAVENS (1983) Research Guide to Philosophy. Chicago: American Library Association.
32.
WALLACE, P. A.
(1976a) “Introduction,” in Phyllis A. Wallace (ed.) Equal Employment Opportunity and the AT&T Case. Cambridge: MIT Press.
33.
WALLACE, P. A.
(1976b) “Appendix A,” in P. A. Wallace (ed.) Equal Employment Opportunity and the AT&T Case. Cambridge: MIT Press.
34.
WEISS, C.
[ed.] (1977) Using Social Research in Public Policy Making. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
35.
WEISS, C.
and M. BUCUVALAS (1977) “The challenge of social research to decision making,” pp. 213-233 in C. Weiss (ed.) Using Social Research in Public Policy Making. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
36.
WOLFGANG, M.
(1974) “The social scientist in court.”The J. of Criminal Law and Criminology65: 239-247.
