Wilson Defends Social Science After Busing Data Controversy

James Q. Wilson, chairman of the Government Department, reaffirmed the value of social science evaluation in public policy, in the winter 1973 issue of The Public Interest.

Wilson wrote the article to justify the discrepancy between the conclusions of two reports about busing printed in the same issue of The Public Interest, Wilson's article explained.

Social science evaluations can often produce conflicting conclusions which may be contrary to public supposition, Wilson's article said.

In the same issue, Thomas F. Pettigrew, professor Social Psychology, criticized the anti-busing conclusions of an article printed last summer in The Public Interest by David J. Armor, professor of Sociology.

Pettigrew's article said that Armor's evidence was "biased and incomplete," and that his conclusions were based on unrealistic standards. Armor founded his conclusions from a "weak METCO study"--a study of busing in Boston--and on the assumption that integration is a technical rather than a constitutional matter, the article said.

Armor's rebuttal to Pettigrew's criticism, included in the winter 1973 issue, said that Pettigrew presented a distorted and incomplete review of the subject, and the Pettigrew and his associates missed the entire point of the study.

Armor said that he only dealt with what happened, not what might happen under other conditions or what should have happened, and that social science must show facts no matter how painful they might be.

Defending the different interpretations of the busing data, Wilson said that different social science evaluations can expose the complexities of a problematic situation and increase awareness of the unintended as well as intended outcome of any policy intervention.

Both articles make a strong case for their point of view, Wilson said yesterday. He added that he could not support one over the other.

In his article Wilson cited three major steps in social science analysis: defining and precisely measuring the factors under consideration, studying or manipulating them without changing them, and isolating them experimentally or statistically from the influence of other factors.

Wilson said that all analyses of research on policy interventions would show favorable results if they were carried out by those implementing the policy.