000 06250nam a22011055i 4500
001 194098
003 IT-RoAPU
005 20221214232744.0
006 m|||||o||d||||||||
007 cr || ||||||||
008 210729t20192019nju fo d z eng d
020 _a9780691181219
_qprint
020 _a9780691184906
_qPDF
024 7 _a10.1515/9780691184906
_2doi
035 _a(DE-B1597)9780691184906
035 _a(DE-B1597)502962
035 _a(OCoLC)1061819127
040 _aDE-B1597
_beng
_cDE-B1597
_erda
050 4 _aH97
072 7 _aPOL012000
_2bisacsh
082 0 4 _a320.6
_223
084 _aonline - DeGruyter
100 1 _aDesch, Michael C.
_eautore
245 1 0 _aCult of the Irrelevant :
_bThe Waning Influence of Social Science on National Security /
_cMichael C. Desch.
264 1 _aPrinceton, NJ :
_bPrinceton University Press,
_c[2019]
264 4 _c©2019
300 _a1 online resource (368 p.) :
_b8 b/w illus., 14 tables
336 _atext
_btxt
_2rdacontent
337 _acomputer
_bc
_2rdamedia
338 _aonline resource
_bcr
_2rdacarrier
347 _atext file
_bPDF
_2rda
490 0 _aPrinceton Studies in International History and Politics ;
_v169
505 0 0 _tFrontmatter --
_tCONTENTS --
_tACKNOWLEDGMENTS --
_t1. The Relevance Question: Professional Social Science and the Fate of Security Studies --
_t2. How War Opened the Door to the Ivory Tower during the First World War and Peace Closed It Again --
_t3. World War II: Social Scientists in the Physicists' War --
_t4. Social Science's Cold War: The Behavioral Revolution's Quixotic Effort to Construct a "Policy Science" --
_t5. Summer Studies, Centers, and a Governmentwide Clearinghouse: Federal Efforts to Mobilize Social Science for the Cold War --
_t6. The Scientific Strategists Follow the Economists to an Intellectual Dead End --
_t7. Strategic Modernization Theory Bogs Down in the Vietnam Quagmire --
_t8. The "Renaissance of Security" Languished until the Owl of Minerva Flew after 9/11 --
_t9. Conclusions, Responses to Objections, and Scholarly Recommendations --
_tNotes --
_tIndex
506 0 _arestricted access
_uhttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_16ec
_fonline access with authorization
_2star
520 _aHow professionalization and scholarly "rigor" made social scientists increasingly irrelevant to US national security policyTo mobilize America's intellectual resources to meet the security challenges of the post-9/11 world, US Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates observed that "we must again embrace eggheads and ideas." But the gap between national security policymakers and international relations scholars has become a chasm.In Cult of the Irrelevant, Michael Desch traces the history of the relationship between the Beltway and the Ivory Tower from World War I to the present day. Recounting key "Golden Age" academic strategists such as Thomas Schelling and Walt Rostow, Desch's narrative shows that social science research became most oriented toward practical problem-solving during times of war and that scholars returned to less relevant work during peacetime. Social science disciplines like political science rewarded work that was methodologically sophisticated over scholarship that engaged with the messy realities of national security policy, and academic culture increasingly turned away from the job of solving real-world problems.In the name of scientific objectivity, academics today frequently engage only in basic research that they hope will somehow trickle down to policymakers. Drawing on the lessons of this history as well as a unique survey of current and former national security policymakers, Desch offers concrete recommendations for scholars who want to shape government work. The result is a rich intellectual history and an essential wake-up call to a field that has lost its way.
530 _aIssued also in print.
538 _aMode of access: Internet via World Wide Web.
546 _aIn English.
588 0 _aDescription based on online resource; title from PDF title page (publisher's Web site, viewed 29. Jul 2021)
650 0 _aNational security.
650 0 _aSocial sciences and state.
650 7 _aPOLITICAL SCIENCE / Security (National & International).
_2bisacsh
653 _aCold War.
653 _aOffice of Strategic Services.
653 _aSecond World War.
653 _aThomas Schelling.
653 _aU.S. policymakers.
653 _aVietnam.
653 _aWalt W. Rostow.
653 _aWorld War II.
653 _aacademic security specialists.
653 _aacademic social science.
653 _aacademic strategists.
653 _aapplied research.
653 _abasic research.
653 _adevelopment strategists.
653 _adisciplinary professionalism.
653 _aeconomic development.
653 _aintellectual culture.
653 _aintellectual frameworks.
653 _ainternational relations.
653 _ainternational security.
653 _anational security policymakers.
653 _anational security policymaking.
653 _anational security studies.
653 _anational security.
653 _anatural sciences.
653 _anuclear states.
653 _anuclear strategy.
653 _anuclear weapons.
653 _apolicy decisions.
653 _apolicy issues.
653 _apolicy problems.
653 _apolicy relevance.
653 _apolicymakers.
653 _apolicymaking.
653 _apolitical development.
653 _apolitical science.
653 _apolitical scientists.
653 _apractical relevance.
653 _aprofessionalization.
653 _ascientific objectivity.
653 _ascientific strategists.
653 _asocial science disciplines.
653 _asocial science methods.
653 _asocial science.
653 _asocial sciences.
653 _asocial scientists.
653 _astrategic modernization theory.
850 _aIT-RoAPU
856 4 0 _uhttps://doi.org/10.1515/9780691184906?locatt=mode:legacy
856 4 0 _uhttps://www.degruyter.com/isbn/9780691184906
856 4 2 _3Cover
_uhttps://www.degruyter.com/cover/covers/9780691184906.jpg
942 _cEB
999 _c194098
_d194098