1. J. S. Coleman et al, Equality of Educational Opportunity ( Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1966 ).
2. G. Sjoberg, “Politics, Ethics, and Evaluation Research,” in Handbook of Evaluation, ed. by E. Struening and M. Gutentag ( Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications, 1975 ). p. 29.
3. I. L. Horowitz, “Life and Death of Project Camelot,” Trans-Action, 3 (November—December, 1965 ) 3–7, 44–47.
4. For an especially thorough critique of the entire KAP approach, see A. Marino, “KAP Surveys and the Politics of Family Planning,” Concerned Demography, 3 (1971), 36–75.
5. Of course, the physical sciences vary considerably among themselves on these matters. Occasionally, publicized cases arise that resemble social science controversies. Consider seismology and the sweeping earthquake predictions of Brian Brady, a mathematician with the U.S. Bureau of Mines. With unusual specificity, Brady predicted that a quake of 8.0 Richter magnitude would hit near Lima, Peru, on or about June 28, 1981, followed by a 9.2 quake on or about August 10 and culminating in a massive 9.9 disaster on September 16. This third earthquake would be the largest ever recorded by modern instruments. At first, these forecasts were supported by William Spence, a geophysicist of the U.S. Geological Survey. But as understandable concern arose in Peru and a special Evaluation Council rejected the predictions, Spence and others withdrew their support and sharp controversy ensued. “Quake Prediction Rattles Peru, Scientists Disagree,” San Francisco Chronicle, June 29, 1981, p. 10.