The following paper outlines the nature of the empirical data I was to gather while working as a NAVF stipendiat on a 3-year project in the sociology of knowledge. I amined to obtain a comprehensive overvciew as possible of all Norwegian social research in a def\initive period of time prior to the research interviews. The comprehensive open-ended questionnaire used in intervierwing all those who were able and/or willing to cooperate was employed. A minority of those asked rejected the investigation on the grounds that the motives and other information about their work's eventual application to social and academic life was a private matter. In those days researchers were considerably 'freer' and thus less accountable to the funding authorities, such as the universities or rsearch councils. The resultant information was examined partly statistically, partly through general analysis, not least based on insights from the prominent researchers I interviewed. A general non-technical overview of the results is given in a lecture and subsequent question session at the Institute of Sociology with the moderation and cooperation of Professor Per Otnes. (See here) Note: NAVF = Norges Almenvitenskapelig Forskningsråd)

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

A summary statement of one of the original guiding conceptions of the present research attempt seems to be a suitable way to introduce it. In a phrase, the question that seems important was 'how does a society such as the Norwegian one carry out investigation of itself?'
The variety of questions and problems that arise in connection with the theme of societal self-investigation is virtually interminable.... all the more so if the long term aim be to provide a basis of a well-founded and rational view as to how any particular society could best be investigated in the common interest. One such question which must straight away be dealt with is what correctly to regard as being research by society into itself.

A considerable range of activities that any modern Western society makes possible or which it does not generally hinder may be regarded as going to make up that society's total self-investigatory effort, many such activities being arguably necessary to it continued existence or 'functioning’. Not only would the activities of professional and academic social researchers have to be included, but also those of other investigators commissioned by public or governmental agencies as well as the work of many a journalist, writer, historian, politician, educator, employee of various social agencies and so on. Or, to go a step further in this direction of thought, practically every form of activity that has to do with the social self-orientation of individuals and groups, whatever the level, may in principle be regarded as a factor in any society’s successive self-discovery.

Thus stated, the field appears too broad and heterogeneous for systematic investigation into the whole institution of self-investigation… at least within the limits of the present research. Boundaries of a principle and a practical nature require to be drawn so as to make any systematic study practicable. The problem of where to begin and what to start on soon reduces itself to the - question as to what one wishes to know and why so. Before attempting to state such aims at all precisely the question as to which sector of the entire field of societal self-investigation to select can effectively be discussed.

Selection of a sector of societal self-investigaton It seems reasonable to commence with that type of research which is most positively institutionalised, in being directly financed and supported, by established organs of society. That a society, as reflected, in its governing organs, manifestly recognises the desirability and even necessity of certain forms of social investigation and research by maintaining organisations for its furtherance and allotting part of the national income to such purposes, makes these activities the natural first choice for systematic investigation. Further or future studies of other modes of societal self-investigation may take their departure from such a study of the most manifest and overtly institutionalised foras.

This area itself includes two general sectors or categories of social investigation. Firstly, we find what is generally termed 'social research' and which includes investigations of a professional-academic kind. Secondly, there are a variety of kinds of publicly or governmentally commissioned investigations, which often include social investigations.

The practical limitations of the present research, however, exclude the possibility of detailed investigation of both of these sub-sectors such that a further selection is unavoidable. Fortunately there is a fairly distinct principal difference between these two, it being' found in the type of mandate given in either case* Where investigations by publicly-appointed committees and official governmental commissions are concerned, the mandate is invariably specified in such a way as to limit the scope of the investigation, keeping it within a stated frame of reference and thereby tying it down to the answering of fairly specified questions or problems in the form of proposals towards future policies in the specified sector. In other words, the investigators concerned are not free to choose the problem themselves, its being stipulated by official requirements, nor are they generally free to determine the manner in which the problem is to be articulated, since their mandate gives directions as to what general factors or sectors of interest are to be included and which are to be excluded.

This is not the case, however, with professional social researches of the sort financed by the Norwegian research councils (such as N.A.V.F.) or practiced

by those whose researches are carried out with some form of university aid. In these cases the mandate is considerably more flexible, it being a coveted principle that research be "free". True, the notion of "free" research is misleading, since the practicing researcher seldom if ever finds himself with a complete carte blanche. Not only do practical limitations impose themselves upon him, but doubtless also normative pressures of both public and professional type such that what a researcher way choose to regard as a self-imposed mandate may in fact be strongly influenced by impersonal factors virtually beyond his control or even outside his awareness. There nevertheless remains a considerable difference between these types of research and those where an explicit problem and frame of reference is imposed by official instances. For example, a social researcher can occasionally alter his entire problem and frame of reference or even abandon the research project for which he originally received official support in favour of an altogether different one. Again, those with university positions (i.e. professors etc.) which allow of research work are seldom under any obligation to specify in advance what they choose to investigate or how.

The selection in this study, of the sector of academic or professional social research is also made on the basis of other considerations. Apart from the practical grounds influencing choice of sector, such as what sort of information one can expect to obtain and which hypotheses or theses are likely to be at all testable (considering the present state of knowledge in the field in general, where systematic data is sparse), there are reasons of principle for this selection. This brings one to the general question of what sort of knowledge is to be sought and why.

Why investigate social research? One reason which makes the study of professional social research seem potentially fruitful is that, as a form of socially-instituted activity directed at the study of society itself, it is of quite recent origin. It is fairly safe to presume that its rapid rise and spread if conditioned by historical tendencies — various pressures of economic, political and social sorts — operating within the modern industrialised society, A systematic study, therefore, of its forms, distribution and relative integration within any society will serve as a lead in grasping the prevailing general direction of developments at other levels In that society. Such a study, if successful, may improve both 'the general diagnosis of modern Western society as well as form part of the basis for prognoses or warnings as to likely future developments.

In short particularly professional social research may be regarded as a largely unprecedented and ‘advanced’ type of an industrial society's attempts at self-knowledge, with the possible implication of self-regulation.

The above is in accordance with a guiding methodical principle which has become fairly common since Marx first employed it to effect, namely that one take as a guide the most developed or advanced sociological phenomena in the attempt to grasp the historical movement of society as a whole. Ideally, one should perhaps attempt to study the rise of social research in that industrially most advanced Western nation, the U.S.A., where it first arose on a large scale, increased rapidly in volume and has already assumed such importance for the social process as a whole as to be virtually indispensable in matters ranging from industrial development to marketing, from political campaigning and public relations to governmental planning and so on.

The present study, however, is limited to Norwegian social research. The field of American social research lies well beyond the capacity of one investigator, while a fairly representative study of Norwegian social research is still feasible without a complete research team. Nevertheless, this relatively limited field will be studied with an eye to forerunners and developments elsewhere.

Still speaking generally, it is worthwhile pointing out that an economic historian of the advanced industrial nations, J.K. Galbraith, has even advanced the thesis that 'knowledge' (i.e. the end-product of research) has become more important as a productive force than money which, at least in Galbraith’s view, had previously been the chief productive force in capitalistic societies. This thesis is doubtless not without some foundation and, in this view, it would not be at all surprising that research policy generally is rapidly becoming a subject of controversy and even of violence, such as at certain U.S. universities. Contemporary public controversy in the West has so far centered largely upon research with technical or military applications. Nowadays it is almost a platitude to assert that research can be both a constructive and a destructive force for society. Nor is there any good reason to suppose that social research, as a special case of scientific research in general, is exempt from the same dilemma. Depending upon the sort of future society one envisages as desirable, one can argue that U.S. social research is already a largely constructive undertaking or, conversely, that it is mostly detrimental to democracy. Whatever the validity of such opposed arguments, it is certainly conceivable that, given continued expansion of Norwegian social research at the present rate and given that its main development goes along certain lines that are discernable (if not dominant) today, social research could well become a powerful instrument of control, manipulation and power to existing or future elites. Other conceivable lines of its development, however, which would make social research into a 'populist' instrument rather than a 'technocratic' one, may prove, in the long run, to be beneficial to society in furthering democratisation. With these notions in mind, the present study will be directed at examining the manner and degree in which social research has become integrated in Norwegian society. The projected study is conceived in two main phases which may be entitled (i) a sociological analysis of social knowledge and (ii) a parascientifie study or critique of social research.

Phase (i) A sociological study of social knowledge The chief intention of this phase will be to gather and systematise information on various types of research problem and knowledge systems and at the same time to discover some substantial indicators as to how these are related to various social groupings and agencies in Norway. Some such fundament is a prerequisite to the rational critique of social research and should be of some interest to those planning specific researches in the future.

Certain general suppositions upon which this first phase builds may be stated straightaway. Every piece of social research, every investigation of the social reality, is necessarily itself also a part of the social reality. The activities of social researchers and their products constitute one form of social activity and one part of a society's products in general, whether or not any piece of research directly influence the specific sector of society with which it concerns itself most directly.

In other words, all researches are 'situated', which is to say that they all occur within - and thus variously modify - some socio-historical situation. Researches and studies which deal directly and more or less explicitly with various orders of human interaction are those to be considered, here. Some projects which would fall under this heading include some of those typified as psychological, sociological, criminological, pedagogical, and social anthropological. A cross-section of these, as representative as possible, will be investigated in some detail so as to obtain some substantial insight into the ways in which social researches are situated and thus either fail to or factually do influence Norwegian society as was intended. It may be discovered that certain types of research tend not to fulfil expectations or to operate in ways and to degrees that either were not intended or otherwise may be regarded as undesirable. This leads on into the second phase*

Phase (ii) A parascientific critique or study of social research: As the term 'parascientific' suggests, this phase would go further than sociological investigation and analysis, where the concern would be with considering the overall rationale of various sorts of social research. By the 'rationale' of any piece of research is meant not so much or not primarily the logic of the thought operations, methods or theories that are 'internal' to that research, but the extra-scientific logic representing metalogical interests according to which any research is motivated and guided. These considerations are very often, if not always, treated, as being external to the research itself. This may frequently be partly due to a common and misleading ideal of 'objectivity' according to which mention of research-guiding interests are banned as irrelevant or unscientific. Where such research-guiding interests are discussed in connection with any given research, such considerations seldom figure in the knowledge system produced. In the second phase, then, attention would be concentrated upon the rationale lying around or beyond the frame of any specific sort of research. These parascientific considerations, on the basis of which any research is Instigated and guided, can be expected to be partly of a sociological nature (a social researcher will most probably have views on the possible consequences of his own researchers in the wider social context) and partly also of a political nature (i.e. one chooses to carry out researches which do not conflict with one's political convictions and, at heat, could, be hoped to further realisation of what one may regard, as a better society).

This second phase would be based upon and be a continuation of the preceding sociological analysis, where it is hoped that any predispositions of certain types of social research and knowledge system towards varying social groups and agencies will be demonstrable.


A Sociological Study of Norwegian Social Knowledge

A good deal has been said and written about the varieties and characteristics of Norwegian social research, not least by well-informed persons active in the general milieu since it developed upon any appreciable scale. Without trying to recapitulate interesting views that have "been aired and without, at the present stage» in any way attempting to question such views, it can be noted that social research in Norway has itself not really been subjected to any systematic empirically-based study. The knowledge researchers and others have about the distribution and concentration of social research, or about the nature and origins of prevailing research traditions, has not been ordered under any common headings. Neither has information spread among researchers, about the extent of effective communication and application of research results or about various sorts of resistance to social research been examined in orderly or categorical terms.

Here, in what may be termed an empirical investigation and analysis, effort is directed chiefly at obtaining and organising information on the social research phenomenon in Norway. The following three sorts of question are to be posed concerning its

i) Questions concerning distribution and concentration Means are to be found to form a coherent picture of the types of social phenomena that are problematised and upon which problems investigatory efforts mostly are and have been concentrated. In connection with this, information is to be sought about the genesis and development of various types of social research tradition, method and knowledge system and their relative concentration in different social scientific problem areas*

ii) Questions concerning researchers’ background and orientation The sort of data sought here includes some general assessment of the intellectual and conceptual orientations and the theoretical leanings that researchers consider to have played some part in the research project in question in each case. As far as circumstances allow, some common measure will be made of general premises and 'foreknowledge' of researchers, their general intentions and aims in choosing and carrying out any particular research.

This information would be derived by means of questionnaire-cum-interview, applied to a sample of social researchers active in Norway in the post-War era. The chief purpose of these questions will be to serve as an orientation and general supplement or check on subsequent analyses of research projects in terms of theoretical, conceptual and methodological types. The more loosely-structured parts of the questionnaire-interview should provide stimulation and correction in the further development and orientation of the investigation generally.

iii) Questions concerning the integration of social research in society at large Such questions will be designed in the interest of charting or obtaining some gauge of the actual communication, consumption and application of various sorts of research knowledge to date and to gain some substantial information on pressures operating both within and upon the research milieu either to increase or limit its operations or to canalise its activities in particular directions.

The information sought here would largely be obtained by means of the same questionnaire-interview as above* It is assumed that, in the case of any specific research, it is the researcher himself who is most likely to know best what has actually become of his research products generally...• to whom they have been communicated, by which social instances they have or have not been referred to or otherwise employed, and what other consequences or repercussions they might have had. By putting researchers factual questions about their research processes and eventual consequences of their activities it would be possible, upon analysis to of the collected data, to show/which interessee groupings different sorts of research are most available, actually communicated or employed in policy making and planning.

Sampling the field of Norwegian social research

After considering several common methods of sampling, it has been found that the problems peculiar to sampling such a heterogeneous field as social research projects combined, with the practical limitations of this study, speak in favour of a time sample rather than a qualitative or/purely "chance' one.

Having previewed, the historical development of social research in Norway in a general way, it seems best to select certain key periods for detailed study, The first period chosen is the turn of the decade 1959-60. This is to say that all researches commenced or underway during the year centered upon the date Jan. lst 1960 are to be included in the investigation. This period is chosen because at that time the volume of social research was not yet so large as to bee unmanageable, yet not so small as to be insignificant. During this period the main lines of research that came to dominate the decade generally were first arrived at, and at the same time a number of researches got under way which were almost exclusively concerned with Norwegian social phenomena. Previous to this, however, a milieu was in development, but was mainly preoccupied with the social research problems of American brand, or the future Norwegian social researchers were under training, many of them in the U.S.A. The researches underway at this time are precursors that form the basis of social research in Norway generally.

The Institute of Social Research in Oslo, though started as early as 1948, had by then gradually become a centre of a more specifically Norwegian tradition. A further reason for choice of this period is that enough time — about 10 years — has elapsed since then as to make a follow-up study of the influences of that research practical and meaningful, and one may generally expect that these studies can now be seen in a fairly clear historical perspective.

The second period selected is half a decade later. An identical study of social researches underway or commenced within the one year period centered upon the date Jan. lst 1965 will be made. Taking; the 1960-study as a starting point of reference, it should be possible to get some measure of the various development as regards distribution and concentration.

Introduction of new theory and methods and eventual new intellectual influences

The volume of social research was, by 1965 considerably increased.... new researchers had become active while most of those active in 1960 were still also full-time researchers. The 1965-study would also allow of follow-up studies so as to get a general measure of the degree of social integration.

A third period - chosen so as to bring this study as up-to-date as possible - is the year 1970, which falls in the middle of the period, that the present research is expected to last. Clearly, it will not be possible to study this period, in the same manner as the others. Firstly, the volume of research is so increased at the present as to make interviewing of all active social researchers impracticable. Further, no follow-up studies — no study of the influences of research can be made. However, it is intended to make a categorical examination of all research projects applied for to start on Jan. lst 1970 in order to gauge current changes in the direction and distribution of research and in types of research with particular attention to any basically new features or tendencies that are distinguishable. A follow-up study of these researches could, of course, be made when enough years have elapsed, if it seems fruitful.

In general, then, the present method of cross-sectioning the field allows of a certain historical perspective which, if still somewhat sparse, can be filled in according to requirements by other less systematic measures. This selection, however, provides only a partial basis for developing a picture of the overall distribution and concentration of social research. This could perhaps only be conclusively righted by a thorough cataloging and fairly intimate study of every single project undertaken since the 2ndWW. It is questionable, however, whether such an undertaking would serve any good purpose. The field is not so heterogeneous as to make it impossible by other more common means to gain a fairly sound and full perspective of the chief lines of approach and areas or types of phenomena investigated in Norway. In other words, the partial basis the present selection provides would be detailed enough to serve as a sound pilot study for charting the overall distribution and concentration. This further task can be achieved with tolerable accuracy by the aid of general literature, publication lists, research 'summaries' and discussion with social researchers in general.

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE QUESTIONS IN THE OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONNAIRE – IN THE ORIGINAL NORWEGIAN


1) I hvilke fag hadde du tatt eksamen da du begynte dette forskningsopplegg?
[In which subjects had you exam results when you began this research project?]

2) Hvilket fag eller fagkombinasjon ble ditt hovedfag?
[Which subject or combination of subjects were your main thesis in?]

3) Hvilke evt. andre faglige interesser hadde du bortsett fra dem som du allerede har nevnt?
[Which other academic interests did you have apart from those you have already mentioned?]

4) Hvilke yrker, stillinger eller andre sysselsetninger hadde du før du begynte dette forskningsopplegg?

5) Før du begynte med dette opplegg, hadde du noen personlig erfaring fra det aosiale området som du evt. studerte?
Første variant på 5 - (Hvis yrkesroller ble studert) Hviike forkunnskaper eller tidligre erfaringer hadde du om dette yrke?
Annen variant på 5 - (Hvis sosialt system -gruppe/organisjon- ble studert) - Hvilke forkunnskaper eller tidligere erfaringer hadde du om dette sosiale systemet?
Tredje variant på 5 - (Hvis sosial rolle eller rollesett ble studert) - Hvilke forkunnakaper eller tidligere erfaringer hadde du om disse sosiale rollene?

6) I hvilke evt. andre land enn Norge hadde du studert eller forsket?

7) Hadde du mottatt støtte eller midler til forskningr fra. andre land enn Norge?

8) Hvilke tankeretninger eller tradisjoner mener du hadde betydning når det gjaldt valg av forskningsproblem?

9) Hvilke tankeretninger hadde betydning for valg av metode eller forskningsstrategi?
Evt. 8/9 - Hvilke bøker eller skrifter innen samfunnsvitenskap eller filosofi — eller hvilke tenkere — har hatt innflytelse på forskninesopplegget?

10 i) Ville du være så snill generellt å karakterisere målsettingen med dette forskningsprosjektet?
ii) Hvilke faktorer spilte en rolle i valg av problemstillingen?
iii) Hviike faktorer spilte en rolle i valg av forskningstype, metode etc.?

11 i) Spillte kunnskaps- eller informasjonsbehovet hos offisielle eller andre offentlige instanser noen rolle i utformingen av din forskning? Her sikter jeg til grupper utenfor den akademiske eller vitenskapelig miljø, såsom utredningskomiteer, offentlige institusjoner, planleggingsgrupper, administrative avdelinger etc., enten statlige, kommunale eller i det offentlige livet overhodet
ii) (Hvis 11 i) får affirmaiivt svar) Hvilken instans gjaldt det?
iii) (Hvis 11 iii) eller 11 i) får aff. svar) På hvilken måte ble opplegget påvirket av denne instans, f.eks ved oppdrag, ved uforpliktende forslag eller ved din egen oppfatning av kunnskapsbehovet hos instansen?

12 i) Kunne du si om et ønske om å forbedre forholdene for noen bestemt sosial klasse, minoritet, eller andre sosiale grupperinger spilte noen rolle for ditt forskningopplegg?
ii) (Hvis 12i får aff. avar) Hvilken gruppering gjaldt det?
iii) (Hvis 12i får aff. svar) På hvilken måte virket en silk interesse hos deg inn pa forskningsopplegget?
13 i) Ville du si at en generell eller rent vitenskapelig interesse i å forbedre samfunnsvitenskapelig kunnskap eller teori spillte noen rolle for ditt opplegg?
ii) (Hvis 'ja) Hva innebærer begrepet ren vitenskapelig forskning for deg?
14 i) Spillte eventuelle tenkelige anvendelasmuligheter eller samfunnsmessige konsekvenser av undersøkelen noen rolle i utformingen av forskningaopplegget?
ii) (Hvis 14 i) får aff. svar) Hvilke anvendelsesmuligheter eller samfunnsmessige konsekvenser tok du med 1 dine betraktninger før eller under forsknings gang?
15 i) Hvilken evt. rolle spillte kunnakapebehovet innen det akademisk-vitenskapelige miljø — eller innen ditt fagområde — for forskningsopplegget?
ii) (Hvis 15 i) får aff. svar) På hvllken nåte ble din forskning påvirket av faglige behov?
iii) (Hvis 15 i) får aff. svar) Forelå det noen bestemt teori eller kunnskapssystem som det gjaldt å teste eller utfylle?
iv) I hvilken grad og hvordan ble din forskning evt. koordinert med annen forskning?
l6i) Spillte forskningspolitiske eller administrative behov noen rolle i utformingen av ditt forskningsprosjekt?
ii) Søkte du om et forskningsopplegg hvis hovedproblemstilling allerede var utforsket av bevilgende eller andre faglige instanser?
iii) Ble ditt forskningsopplegg utformet med særlig tanke på hva du visste eller antok lettere villa bli innvilget på det tidspunktet?
iv) Ville du ha søkt om andre og kanksje mere uvanlige, kontroversielle eller politisk-betonte forskningsopplegg om du hadde trodd at det var like stor sjanse for bevilgning til den?
v) (Hvis l6 iv) får affirm. svar) Vil du derfor antyde grunnene til at slike alternative opplegg ikke kom på tale, og hva de ville ha gått ut på?

17) Kan det sies at forskningsoppleg ditt innebar kontroll eller sjekking av andre forskerearbeid eller forskningsresultater?

18) Ville du si at dette forskningsprosjekt skaffet til veis data, fakta eller informasjon om norske sosiale fenomener (i videste forstand) som manglet før?

19) Kan det sies at det å belyse eksisterende data eller informasjon om norske sosiale forhold (i videste forstand) fra ett eller flere nye eller forsømte synsvinkler var et vesentlig moment i opplegget?

20) Var intensjonen eller resultatet av opplegget det å belyse et nytt eller forsømt sosialt område? f.eks. et prinsipielt nytt sosialt problemkompleks, en tidligere lite forsket eller uforsket sosialt område, samfunnsproblem eller sosiale skjevheter?

21) Kan del sies at forskningsproajektet ha skaffet til veis nye eller foranevnte problemstillinger eller teoretiske betraktninger av mer prinsipiell eller forskningsmessig interesse?

22) Ville du si at forskningsprosjektet har bidratt til å utfylle, verifisere eller falsifisere et generellt hypotetisk-deduktivt kunnskapssystem, teoribygning eller 'data matrise'?
23) Jeg er interessert i å finne ut hvordan du har meddelt dine forskningsresultater og eventuelle tilknyttede oppfatninger. Derfor skal jeg ramse opp en rekke mulige måter slikt kan gjøres på og ber om svar i hver tilfelle -
i) ved maskinskrevne eller stensilerte skrifter med begrenset sirkulasjon til spesialister eller faginteresserte?
ii) som forskningsrapporter eller artikler 1 akademisk/vitenskapelige tidaskrifter (innbefattet essays i samllnger, arbaker etc.)?
iii) utgitt i bokfom for en faglig eller noe begrenset lesekrets
iv) utgitt i vanlig eller populær bokform for en videre lesekrets? (Hvis 'ja' - sirkulasjonstall gj.snitt. pr ar)
v) som artikler eller debattinnlegg skrevet av deg selv eller vitenskapelige kolleger i dags- eller ukepressen? (Hvis 'ja' hvor mange ganger?)
vi) gjennom fjernsyns- eller radio-programmer? (Hvis 'ja'- som konsulent/deltager/foredragsholder/intervju-objekt/kommentator/debattant etc?)
vii) gjennom offentliggjorte rapporter fra offisielle kommiisjoner eller utredningskomiteer der du har medvirket som medlem eller konsulent?
viii) ved muntlige foredrag, forelesninger eller seminarer for følgende grupperinger:-

— forskningsgrupper, vitenskapelige konferanser eller faglige seminarer for spesialister?

— studenter ved universitetene, lærerskoler eller andre høyskoler i Norge?
— studentforeninger som f.eks. studentersamfunn etc.?
— elever ved offentlige skoleverk eller yrkeskoler?
— voksenopplæringsgrupper?
— andre mindre formelle grupperinger som f,ks. husmorlag, ungdomslag, innflytterlag, klubber eller foreninger i alminnelighet?

— pressfolk ved konferanser eller intervjuer?
— yrkesgrupper eller faglige foreninger utenom del akademisk/vitenskapelig miljø?

— administrative eller departmentale avdelinger innen staten eller kommune?
— partipolitiske grupperinger? (Hvis 'ja' hvilken parti kom på tale og hvilken nivå i partihierakiet gjaldt det?)

FØLGENDE SPØRSMÅK SIKTER TIL VEDKOMMENDES FORSKNINGSVIRKSOMHET OVERHODET
(alltså, ikke bare til forskningsprosjekter innen året 1960 eller 1965)

24) Har du noen gang kommet over det du oppfatter som misbruk av dine forskningeresultater eller tilknyttede uttalelser? Ved 'misbruk' menes her både direkte forfalskninger eller tendensiøse fremstillinger av dine forskningsresultater eller oppfatninger og ensidige utvalg av tilgjengelige fakta og materiale?
(Hvis 'ja' - spesifikasjoner?)

25) Neste sporsmål dreier seg om du, eller eventuelle medarbeidere noensinne har fått henvendelser fra noen offentlige myndighet, f.eks. offisielle eller administrative komiteer, planleggings eller forvaltningsgrupper, av folgende grunner

i) for å få klarlagt dine forskningsresultater (Hvis 'ja' hvilken instans og hvilken opplysning gjaldt det?)
ii) for å få videre opplysning eller informasjon om ditt emne eller beslektede spørsmål? (Hvis 'ja' hvllken instans og hvilken emne gjaldt det?)
iii) for å få dine synspunkter, råd eller anbefalinger om noen pråktiske problemer innen sosial og planleggingspolitikk som din forskning kunne tenkes å berøre?
(Hvis 'ja' - hvilken instans og hvilken sak gjaldt det?)
26) Har du på eget initiativ oppsøkt eller kommunisert noen offentlig myndighet av følgende grunner -
i) for å skaffe dem informasjon som du mente de hadde bruk for ut fra sine forutsetninger (f.eks. i planleggingsarbeid, forvaltning eller når det gjaldt andre politiske eller administrative avgjørelsesprosesser)
(Hvis 'ja' - hvilken instans og hvilken informasjon gjaldt det?)
ii) for å komme med informasjon eller fremme synspunkter som innebar kritikk av deres avgjørelser eller forutsetninger?
(Hvis 'ja' hvilken instans og hva gjaldt det?)
27) Har du noen gang offentlig argumentert — uansett i hvilken forum - for forandringer 1 politiske retningslinjer eller praksis hos adminiatrative eller offisiella instanaer angående saksforhold som din forskning berører? (Hvis 'ja')- i) Hvilken instans gjaldt det?
ii) Hvilke saksforhold gjaldt det?
iii) Hvilken forskningsaprosjekt berørte saken?
iv) Hvordån ble dine synspunktcr bekjentgjort?
v) Svarte vedk. instans ved å ta del i en debatt?
vi) Hår vedk. instans siden forandret sin politikk i retningen du anbefalte?

28) Jeg er interessert i å finne ut i hvilken grad samunnsindividene selv tar kontakt med samfunnsforskere. Derfor vil jeg gjerne vite om du noen gang er blitt oppsakt av talsmenn for eller individer fra noen sosial gruppering som opplever seg selv som avmektige eller innflytelsesløse nar det gjelder beslutninger som berører dem?

(Hvis 'ja' - hvilken gruppering/ hva var problemet etc.?)
29) Er du noen gang blitt bedt om å bruke enten din faglig innsikt eller din faglig sosiale innflytelse til å fremme interessene til minoriteter eller andre grupper som føler seg forsvaraløse i forhold til samfunnet?
(Hvis 'ja' hvilken gruppering og hvordan etc.)

30) Har du noen gang selv søkt kontakt med medlemmer av sosiale minoriteter eller lignende kategorier med tanke på å tilby din eventuell innflytelse og faglig støtte for a fremme deres sak eller forbedre deres situasjon? (Hvis 'ja' hvilken gruppering og hva gjaldt saken? Evt. resultater?)

31) Når del gjelder slike grupper som nettop nevnt, har du med hjelp av faglige betraktninger provd å øve innflytelse — uansett hvor og- hvordan — for å fremme interessene til noen minoritet eller underrepresentert del av folket? (Hvis 'ja' spesifikasjoner)

32) Mine neste spøramål dreier seg om forholdet mellom samfunnsforskning og partipolitikk. Først er det spørsrmål om noen politiske partier eller grupperinger i Norge har prinsipielle progresserklæringer eller generelle retningslinjer som berører den problemstilling eller sosial sektor som du har forsket omkring,

i) I så fall vil jeg gjerne vite hvilke partier har programmer som direkte går imot eller forsømmer dine faglige og tilknyttede sysnpunkter?

ii) Hvis del fins noen, hvilken parti har klart utformede programmer eller generelle retningslinjer som er hovedsaklige i overenstemmelse med dine faglige og tilknyttede synspunkter?

33) Har du noen gang erfart at dine forskningsresltater eller anbefalinger har spilt noen bestemt rolle i utforming eller forandring av et partiprogramm eller et partis generelle retingslinjer... f.eks, ved. komitéarbeid?
(Hvis 'j'1 -hvilket parti og hvordan etc.)

34) Har du noengang lagt opp en forskningsprosjekt eller mindre undersøkelse som du måtte gi opp, modifisere eller på noen måte begrense siden finansiell støtte eller nødvendige milder ble nektet av instansen som du hadde søkt om slik støtte?

(Hvis 'ja' hvllken instans/hva gjaldt prosjektet/undersøkelsen og hvorfor ble støtte nektet etc.)
35) Har del samme hendt p.g.a. mangel på kooperasjon eller markant mangel på samarbeid av parter hvis hjelp du ville ha i ditt forskningsarbeid?
36) Har du støtt på vanskeligheter i forskning p.g.a. det du oppfattet som motstand på politisk eller ideologisk grunnlag av parter som var 1 stand til å hindre eller på noen måte vanakeliggjør ditt arbeid?

37) Vet du om noen andre samfunnsforskere— uansett fag eller studieområdet — som kanksje kunne vare i stand til å svare affimativt på de tre forutgående spørsmål, enten når det gjaldt forskningsopplegg som de hadde ment å utføre eller faktisk har utført?