Везде
Политики тестирования: об истории и предпосылках «социального экспериментирования» (перевод с англ. И. Е. Сироткиной)
Оглавление
Аннотация Оценить Содержание публикации
Библиография Комментарии
Поделиться
QR
Метрика
Политики тестирования: об истории и предпосылках «социального экспериментирования» (перевод с англ. И. Е. Сироткиной)
Аннотация
Код статьи
S0205-96060000622-1-
Тип публикации
Статья
Статус публикации
Опубликовано
Авторы
Дехью Т.  
Выпуск
Том 22 №4
Страницы
37-45
Аннотация

According to this article, the contemporary definition of a “true” experiment in social sciences as a random group experiment is not derived from an alleged transcendental logic of science. Neither does it stem from any research lab. The author argues that social experimentation, and particularly the random group experiment, epitomizes the values of 20th-century Western bureaucracies and takes them to their extreme. Originally the word “experiment” was introduced into social thought as a natural science metaphor, but the central meaning of the word in contemporary social science exemplifies the 20th-century administrative aspiration of ruling by technique rather than tradition, of replacing the individuality of both the governors and the governed by impersonality.

This point is illustarted by a recent Dutch social experiment with heroin addicts. In spring 1997, the Dutch minister of Health wanted to establish the effects of handing out free heroin to incurable abusers. More specifically, she wanted to find out whether the bad condition and social misbehavior of severe heroin addicts is caused primarily by the heroin itself or by its high price on the illegal market. She argued before parliament that, for statistical reasons, at least 750 severely addicted participants would be needed. Moreover, she explained that the project should be conducted according to the exemplary experimental design in which experimental groups are compared to control groups. In order to ensure comparability and valid statistical inference the 750 participants should be assigned randomly to either the experimental group that would receive free heroin or the control group that would only get the unpopular substitute drug methadone.” During half a year both the experimental group and the control group would be extensively screened as to differences in their health and behavior.The minister finally succeeded. But the currently running project has already taught something quite unexpected. Rather than letting themselves be willingly monitored in exchange of free heroin (as the minister expected), rather than besieging the heroin post (as the conservatives anticipated), quite some junkies quit at an early stage, for, as they explained, “this heroin does not taste good.” The failure of the experiment shows that understanding addiction demands more than measuring physical and psychological characteristics. And, most importantly, it reveals the arbitrariness of the core assumption of social experimentation which is the taken for granted supposition that regulated society is everybody's best of all possible worlds.
Классификатор
Дата публикации
01.12.2001
Всего подписок
0
Всего просмотров
61
Оценка читателей
0.0 (0 голосов)
Другие версии
S0205-96060000622-1-1 Дата внесения исправлений в статью - 04.11.2022
Цитировать   Скачать pdf

Библиография



Дополнительные библиографические источники и материалы

  1. Bulmer М. Evaluation research and social experimentation // M. Bulmcr, K. G. Banting,nS. Blume, M. Carley, & C. H. Weiss. Social science and social policy. London: Allen & Unwin, 1986. P. 155-179.
  2. Campbell D. T. Reforms as experiments // American Psychologist. 1969. V. 24. P. 409-429.
  3. Campbell D. Т. The social scientist as methodological servant of the experimenting society // Policy studies journal. 1973. V. 2. P. 72-75.
  4. Brown R. Artificial experiments on society: Comte, G. C. Lewis and Mill//Journal of Histori cal Sociology. 1997. V. 10. P. 74-97.
  5. Lewis G. C. .A treatise on the methods of observation and reasoning in politics. New York: Arno Press. 1974 (Первое издание 1852).
  6. Haskell T. The emergence of professional social science: The American Social Science Association and the 19th-century, crisis of authority. Urbana, IL: Univ. of Illinois Press. 1977.
  7. Porter T. M. The rise of statistical thinking, 1820-1900. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. 1986.
  8. Desrosiewes A. The politics of large numbers. A history of statistical reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. 1998.
  9. Kalberg S. Max Weber’s types of rationality: Cornerstones for the analysis of rationalization processes in history И American Journal of Sociology. 1980. V. 85. P. 1145-1179.
  10. Porter T. M. Trust in numbers; The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press. 1995.
  11. Ross D. The origins of American social science. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. 1991.
  12. Chapin F. S. The experimental method and sociology I. The theory and practice of the experimental method // Scientific Monthly. 1917. V. 4. P. 133-144.
  13. Chapin F. S. The experimental method and sociology II. Social legislation is social experimentation // Scientific Monthly. 1917. V. 4. P. 238-247.
  14. Danziger K. Constructing the subject. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. 1990.
  15. Benschop RJ.& Draais/na D. In pursuit of precision. The calibration of minds and machines in late 19th-century psychology // Annals of Science. 2000. V. 57. P. 1-25.
  16. Dehue T. Deception, efficiency, and random groups// Isis. 1997. V. 88. P. 653-673.
  17. Dehue T. From deception-trials to control-reagents: The introduction of the control group about a century ago // American Psychologist. 2000. V. 55. P. 264-268.
  18. Boring E. G. The nature and history ofexperimental control // American Journal of Psychology. 1954. V. 67. P. 573-589.
  19. Callahan R. E. Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. 1962.
  20. McCall W. A. How to experiment in education. New York: McMillan, 1923.
  21. Testing treatments, managing life//History of the Human Sciences. 1999. V. 12. P. 131-140.
  22. Van cle Port P. «Voor orientalcn ecu stimulant». Een antropologische kritick op het mcdischverslavingsparadigma [«For orientals a stimulant». An anthropological critique on the medical addiction paradigm] //Psychologic & Maatschappij [Psychology & Society]. 1998. V. 22. N. 4. P. 364-372.

Комментарии

Сообщения не найдены

Написать отзыв
Перевести