Social Scientists and Public Policy from the 1920s through World War II

Social Scientists and Public Policy from the 1920s through World War II BARRY FERGUSON AND DOUG OWRAM Like the larger subject of the role of the university, the place of academics in Canadian society has not received much attention from Canadian historians. Perhaps because of this there has been a tendency in past years to assess the university in terms of the cliche of ivory tower aloofness. This tendency, moreover, has often been extended to assessments of academics' ideas about society and their role in it. Thus, for example, academics have been portrayed as disinterested in and detached from the public issues of their times.I More recently, however, works by S.E.D. Shortt and particularly Carl Berger have shown that selected academics have been both interested in and influenced by their concerns over public a'nd social questions.2 Their conclusions thus raise a number of questions about the actual role played by academics in society. For if older assumptions are incorrect then it is necessary to discover what roles they did, in fact, conceive for themselves in society. To what extent did they direct their work toward practical questions of policy? To what extent did their aims and ideas converge with society's expectations for thern? Only when these questions are answered will it be possible to assess the overall academic involvement in public issues, policy formation and social reforms that had an effect far beyond the confines of the ivory tower. An initial examination of some of these questions was recently made by Michiel Horn in his article, ''Academics and Canadian Social and Economic Policy in the Depression and War Years." In this work Horn expands upon his previous writings on the social-democratic League for Social Reconstruction (L.S.R.) to look at the more general but related issue of academic involvement in public policy matters. In so doing he Journal ofCanadian Studies Vol. 15, No. 4 (Hiver 1980-81 Winter) reaches a number of conclusions. First, he argues that while participation in public policy was increasing , it still involved a relatively small percentage of the academic community. Second, he shows that the controversy which swirled around the L.S.R. was part of a larger controversy surrounding the question of academic freedom as it applied to professorial involvement in public forums. Third, while noting the varied sources of academic involvement, Horn emphasizes the political aspects of the trend and, in particular, the role of the L.S.R.3 In focussing on this issue he has opened what may prove to be a very valuable line of enquiry and it is the purpose of this article to pursue some of the questions raised by him. At the same time, however, a modification of Horn's approach may prove fruitful. For if the focus is moved away from the political activities of particular academics and toward the actions of certain disciplines within the university, it is possible to refine further Horn's assessment of the extent and nature of academic involvement in public policy questions. It is our purpose to try to develop this new approach by examining the case of Canadian social scientists and their interests in public issues, particularly public policy questions, in the years from the 1920s to 1945. Only by examining both the degree of participation and their ideas about that participation is it possible to reach an understanding of the evolving role of social scientists. In looking at the development of academic participation in public issues it is necessary to take note of both the social and institutional environment in which the academic operated. First, it is important to remember the obvious. The depression, as historians have well shown, provoked a crisis of confidence in the nature of government in Canada and, for that matter, much of the industrialized world.4 The intractability and complexity of the problems facing Canada in the 1930s raised to a new level longstanding doubts as to the competence of advice on government policy from politicians, traditional interest groups and a civil service that, in spite of recent reforms, many still saw as determined more by patronage than ability. The government called upon new sources...