Search

The article discusses various issues related to welfare research. One of the biggest conceptual dilemmas in welfare research is the definitional problem. A few social scientists have stepped back from empirical data and have developed a panoramic view of the welfare system or have struggled to provide a conceptual framework for a field one might term the social science of welfare. These analysts have not been content with the everyday situation. Even among those who have made important contributions toward delineating a science of social welfare there is as yet no agreement on what should or should not be included in definitions, and by implication social science analyses, of social welfare. Despite definitional limitations, current welfare research has developed substantial information about public assistance programs and recipients. Several research papers, particularly that of economists, have zeroed in on the determinants of work-welfare choices. In spite of the growing literature on recipients little attention has been given to demographic or ecological analysis. Since public assessments have accentuated speculative propositions linking demographic change to welfare problems, it would be appropriate for more social scientists to undertake such analysis.

The article presents a discussion related to Jack P. Gibbs' work on analytical typologies in criminology. Gibbs treated as problematic an issue that has been closed for students in the field for sometime. The research was competent, its limitations clearly spelled out for the reader, and the results carefully tied to theory. Certainly, none of the others have attracted as much attention. Expectedly, the best scholarship was to be found among the papers on social theory. Unfortunately, most of these were agonizing efforts over where sociology has been and ineffectual attempts to redirect activity in a more promising direction. One has to constantly remind oneself that sociology began with three interests in mind, a distinctive subject matter, social reform, and the application of the scientific method to social behavior; that one is perilously close to forsaking the first two in mindless deference to the last in that important questions go unasked because one cannot attack them scientifically; that the questions one asks are becoming more and more scientific but more and more trivial, and, in so doing, one is, if not becoming psychologists, following psychology down the path to intellectual oblivion.