Search

This case study of an inter-university controversy over the publication of research from an interdisciplinary social science project on the forced migration and long- term internment of West Coast Japanese-Americans during World War II shows some of the difficulties of maintaining ownership of research materials. In this particular instance the junior employee was able to override his seniors' demand for control of the dissemination of research results by playing on the concerns about even appearing to suppress work for political reasons. The paper discusses conflicting norms of science and rhetorics of justification ranging from proprietary self-interest through "good science" to "the national interest" and onto "the needs of a free society." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nevitt Sanford reminisces about his development as a social scientist, civil libertarian, and humanist through interview and personal papers.
The use of developmental terms and concepts has become so commonplace among student services professionals that it may be difficult for many people to either recall or imagine a time when "student development" was not a predominant theme. Nonetheless, only 25 years ago, the prevailing wisdom among student services professionals was that college probably does not change students in any significant way. Jacob (1957) had conducted an exhaustive review of the research literature and concluded that little in or out of the classroom seemed to alter students as persons--some academic or career skills might be acquired, but personality change could not be demonstrated.
The title of this article refers to Nevitt Sanford as a "gentle prophet" and "Jeffersonian rebel." At one level, the nouns and their modifiers may seem mildly contradictory. Prophets are rarely gentle and rebels infrequently reflect the patrician breadth and depth of a Jefferson; however, Nevitt Sanford seems to be all of the above. He is gentle in his dealings with people and generous in acknowledging their worth as individuals. His gentleness makes him no less prophetic in his insistence on the freedom to inquire and to utter the outrageous truth, even when that utterance or inquiry leads to the loss of a livelihood, as it did for him during the Loyalty Oath controversies at Berkeley in the 1940s. Similarly, Sanford has listened to his own drummer, marching to a mode of research, that is out of step with the more conventional standards of psychological research respectability, while calling into play a civility and degree of certitude that few resources other than a rootedness in family and his Virginia culture might provide. As can be seen in the interview to follow, those apparent contradictions have been placed in the service of the profession. The... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]