Too many compromises: survey research and the spectre of communism
Author:
Schwarzkopf Stefan
Abstract
Purpose
– This paper aims to chart the influence of McCarthyism and of FBI surveillance practices on a number of prominent American social scientists, market researchers, opinion pollsters and survey research practitioners during the post-war years. Hitherto disparate sets of historical evidence on how Red Scare tactics influenced social researchers and marketing scientists are brought together and updated with evidence from original archival research.
Design/methodology/approach
– The paper draws on the existing secondary literature on how social research practitioners and social scientists reacted to the unusually high pressures on academic freedom during the McCarthy era. It supplements this review with evidence obtained from archival research, including declassified FBI files. The focus of this paper is set on prominent individuals, mainly Bernard Berelson, Samuel Stouffer, Hadley Cantril, Robert S. Lynd, Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Herta Herzog, Ernest Dichter, but also the Frankfurt School in exile.
Findings
– Although some of the historiography presents American social scientists and practitioners in the marketing research sector as victims of McCarthyism and FBI surveillance, it can also be shown that virtually all individuals in focus here also developed strategies of accommodation, compromise and even opportunism to benefit from the climate of suspicion brought about by the prevailing anti-Communism.
Social implications
– Anyone interested in questions about the morality of marketing, market research and opinion polling as part of the social sciences practiced in vivo will need to pay attention to the way these social-scientific practices became tarnished by the way prominent researchers accommodated and at times even abetted McCarthyism.
Originality/value
– Against the view of social scientists as harassed academic minority, evidence is presented in this paper which shows American social scientists who researched market-related phenomena, like media, voters choices and consumer behaviour, in a different light. Most importantly, this paper for the first time presents archival evidence on the scale of Paul F. Lazarsfeld’s surveillance by the FBI.
Reference65 articles.
1. Abbott, A.
and
Sparrow, J.
(2007), “Hot war, cold war: the structures of sociological action, 1940-1955”, in
Calhoun, G.
(Ed.),
Sociology in America: A History
, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 281-313. 2. Adorno, T.
(1969), “Wissenschaftliche Erfahrungen in Amerika”, in
Adorno, T.
(Ed.),
Stichworte: Kritische Modelle
, Teil 2, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main, pp. 113-148. 3. Almond, G.
,
Krugman, H.
,
Lewin, E.
and
Wriggins, H.
(1954),
The Appeals of Communism
, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 4. Bogart, L.
(1995),
Cool Words, Cold War: A New Look at USIA’s Premises for Propaganda
, American University Press, Washington, DC. 5. Carr, R.
(1959), “Book review of ‘the academic mind’”,
American Sociological Review
, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 573-576.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|