Knowledge and the Public Weal

Commentary: KNOWLEDGE AND THE PUBLIC WEAL LLOYD STANFORD In his contribution to Agenda 1970,<:t Professor Hodgetts makes an eloquent plea for countermeasures designed to ensure that governments "will not be viewed, or view themselves, as the ultimate repositories of all knowledge". To this end he advocates establishment of an academic source of knowledge to serve as countervailing power to the accumulated knowledge of the bureaucracy. In Professor Hodgetts' judgment "democracies require countervailing knowledge centres that will provide full and intelligent discussion, without detracting from the ultimate authority of our responsible governing organs to make the ultimate choices". He asserts that public power centres are growing, that their needs for knowledge have undergone a dramatic expansion and that the traditional policy of "buying" such knowledge by direct recruitment will not meet these needs. He observes that in a democratic society knowledge should not in any event be monopolized by the bureaucracy. Professor Hodgetts is careful to indicate the usefulness of the advisory body as an instrumentality for establishing communication links between the public served by public servants and the actual or potential centres of knowledge existing outside public agencies. However, he warns against the danger of such advisory bodies becoming overly cosy clubs, "restricted to an inner circle of establishment or near-establishment participants ...". Dr. Hodgetts also cites the royal commission as a transmitter of knowledge and points to the weaknesses, especially, of the "new-model" commission in particular as an apparatus for applied research. Yet he does concede that these latter- '°'T. Lloyd and J. McLeod, Agenda 1970: Proposals for a creative politics, The University League for Social Reform, U. of T. Press, 1968. Journal of Canadian Studies day commissions have come to grips with two important realities: a) the need for multi-disciplinary team effort in applied policy research; and b) the value of overcoming the problem of the isolation of our scholarly community, scattered in pockets across a continental domain. Finally Professor Hodgetts explores other ways of facilitating development of "independent centres of countervailing knowledge on policy issues", and suggests as possible methods government endowment of a number of applied policy research institutes attached to universities and (alternatively) endowment of a single, privately governed Foundation for Applied Policy Research which would allocate funds to task forces prepared and equipped to undertake long-term research. If one accepts Dr. Hodgetts' premise of the need for "countervailing knowledge" then the argument presented in his paper is most persuasive . However, the problem of knowledge and the public interest can, I believe, be viewed in a somewhat different perspective. H is possible to argue that the key requirement in these times of rapid change and increasing complexity of social organization, is to make sure that the political elite and the bureaucracy at all levels of government possess the knowledge needed to cope with policy problems. In other words the "systems" model which would inspire such a line of thinking is the dynamic , cybernetic type advocated by Karl Deutsch in The Nerves of Government and elsewhere rather than the more limited input-output model of David Easton. We need an "information system " which enhances the chances of the political system being adaptive and capable of innovation . One does not need to be terribly perceptive to recognize that knowledge and techniques are apt to become obsolete very quickly nowadays and that we therefore need in the country at large, but in the bureaucracy in particular, an 39 awareness of the necessity for constant renewal; and what is perhaps more important, a predisposition for innovation. Viewed in that perspective one might say that the case for countervailing centres of knowledge is weak. Given the pressing need for the optimum generation and application of new, creative ideas, a stronger case could be made for complementary sources of knowledge. (By this I do not mean that academic research endeavour should necessarily be guided by matters of immediate social and political concern. ) Professor Hodgetts' case rests essentially on a combination of the Baconian dictum that knowledge is power and the Actonian notion that power tends to corrupt. One could say that there is no need for countervailing centres of knowledge (and therefore power) because politicians and bureaucrats do not have enough knowledge in their own centres to become overwhelming on account of such knowledge. (Knowledge is not the well-spring of political power and bureaucracy can still survive when relatively ignorant.) One could also suggest that it is more in the public interest that politicians and public servants be "with it" than that the stage be set for possible power struggles within the "knowledge industry". In my humble opinion the case for substantial support of university-based research is better made in the traditional vein of the value and virtues of free and independent enquiry as well as the generally conceded advantages of the investment in human resources. To plead for the establishment of direct government endowment of applied policy research at university institutes, for example, is, at worst, to invite the kind of abridgement of academic freedom against which scholars have always legitimately fought and, at best, to channel an unwarranted amount of intellectual energy into what would amount to little more than steady contract work for "research entrepreneurs". By this I do not mean to imply, as Professor Hodgetts seems to, that a distinction should be made in the social sciences between pure and applied research. Such a distinction would be 40 hard to maintain and even if such a line could be drawn the attempt to do so might prove to be basically "unscientific" and wasteful. After all much of the scholarly enquiry and speculation in the humanities and social sciences (the term "moral philosophy" used to cover most of this) which has stood the test of time was "mission oriented" and had applied policy implications. The work of Aristotle, Locke, Bodin, Comte and Marx are cases in point. Nor do I want to suggest that academic researchers should keep away from public dialogue about policy issues. There is no reason why academic people should be "political eunuchs'', as it were. Researchers should be as "engages" as they like; there is no such thing as "value-free" research in the social sciences. The important thing in my view is whether such researchers are conducting the research they really want to do. Where research projects are conceived in a "free" context - that is where the researchers set out "to do their thing" then funds should be available from grantgiving agencies (within budgetary limits) for those proposals which can pass the acid test of endorsement by the scholarly peers of the applicants after objective assessment of the research planned. Applications for grants earmarked for "free" research cannot be turned down because the projects have potential policy implications. If it happens that the needs of a contracting agency or department and the genuine research interests of a university researcher coincide there is no reason to suppose that his work will necessarily be any less beneficial to the scholarly community. But I think it would be a mistake for university researchers to set out to create a sort of "shadow bureaucracy". To use some of the current social science jargon one might say that this could prove to be quite "dysfunctional". It might seriously cripple or distort scholarly endeavour and it might cause the bureaucracy to atrophy or at any rate it might influence public servants to consider themselves "doers" and the academics "thinkers". (Of course no serious public servant Revue d'etudes canadiennes would think it responsible to put himself entirely at the mercy of even the most brilliant of the university teachers and researchers.) In any event what we most need now from the universities is a greater output of well trained graduates, especially those taking advanced degrees , and perhaps university teachers should put quite a bit more emphasis on teaching. Otherwise there will not be enough well trained people around to replace them and to staff the other institutional orders. In saying this I fully realize that doing research is likely to make a professor a more inspiring teacher and that the presence of high quality research activity in a department usually helps to foster a stimulating atmosphere for students and faculty. I am also conscious of the fact that there is an enormous amount of research to be done on Canadian topics in particular. Indeed, in the case of Canadian Public Administration for example, despite the sterling work of Professor Hodgetts and a few others, there would be precious little that is fresh and up to date to teach if professors had not been associated with the Glassco or B&B Commissions or were not currently doing research. But research with a capital R is apparently becoming a status symbol and there is a danger that "grantsmanship" could become a serious pastime. No one would deny university men the prestige that should flow from high-quality research but it would clearly not be in the public interest to create structures which would divert their attention from university life and make them too keen on wanting to administer departments by remote control. What is of the essence is that the requisite knowledge be brought to bear on a particular problem or a range of problems at a specific point in time. If the channels between the public service, the universities, industry and of course the vast pool of international sources of knowledge are open the chances are that the public interest will be well served. I see little value in "countervailing knowledge". Indeed the probability is great that in many instances we do not have enough knowledge. It is the "cross-fertilization " of ideas from the various sources and the Journal of Canadian Studies "responsiveness" of the political system to the infusion of new ideas and new "definitions of the situation" that is essential. University men will get their credit when they have made the contributions which we all expect them to make, but it is not in the "hot house" atmosphere of applied policy research institutes that the most creative ideas are likely to be nurtured. (Incidentally university professors are not the sole "custodians " of knowledge outside government.) The place where high competence for taokling tough policy questions should be constantly developed is within the bureaucracy itself. Having worked for one of the "new-model" royal commissions I can easily agree with Professor Hodgetts about their weaknesses and strengths. But the conclusion I draw is that the public service of the 1970's should be so staffed that royal commissions could become obsolete or be reserved for really extraordinary probes. The public service should in my view "buy" by direct recruitment on a long-term or short-term basis almost all the expertise that it requires for the research and analysis which is an integral part of meaningful decision-making, "for where the course is not known the effect cannot be produced". We cannot continue to stumble from problem to problem by calling on royal commissions. In my judgment at least half of the royal commissions appointed in the last 10 years were asked to do work which a high-powered bureaucracy with enough "depth" (especially in terms of the absolute number of research personnel) in the various departments could have handled. The notable exceptions are the Glassco and Laurendeau -Dunton Commissions. The implication is not of course that there would be no need for outside advisers. On the contrary, I only mean that qualified staff should be in a better position to decide on what advice to seek and how to evaluate it. But contrary to what is being currently advocated in some quarters regarding the natural sciences, I strongly advocate predominantly "in-house" or at least "in-service" social science research connected with aspects of departmental programmes taken singly or in vari41 ous combinations. Groping around and waiting for wisdom to pour forth from the universities and other outside sources is really quite silly. (My remarks are not meant to apply to advisory bodies performing adjudicating functions regarding research grants etc. ) Advocacy of highpowered and sustained "in-house" research on the part of departments does not mean denial of the need for a comprehensive grasp by Parliament and the executive of the direction of government -sponsored and government-conducted applied policy research and the establishment of whatever priorities might be deemed necessary. Much of such research activity could be done in the framework of some kind of "science policy". But this is a different thing from telling the academic researchers what they ought to be doing research on. The part of Professor Hodgetts' analysis which I find closer to my bias is the suggestion that there should be an exchange of knowledge between public and private centres. The development of what Professor Hodgetts calls "a working partnership" between such centres might be the best way to effect such an exchange. Whether there be very formal channels or not, it is clear that there has to be constant contact between specialists from government, university, business and other circles. One way to guarantee a workable minimum contact would be through a deliberate exchange programme or provision for easy movement on a "self-selection" basis, between these institutional orders. Here I am impressed by the findings and recommendations of the Fulton Committee on the British Civil Service (The Civil Service Vol. I, Report of the Committee 1966-68, Chairman Lord Fulton, HMSO Cmnd. 3638, 1968). I am also impressed by the role that Theodore White says the "action intellectuals" have been playing in several U.S. administrations . It might be that at certain points in their careers given academics might decide, in a statesmanlike gesture, to bring their knowledge to the direct service of the public even at the price of a compromise between their deep academic re42 search interests and a specific set of policy problems . Others might be prompted to join the public service for a short or long term out of a sense of commitment to a particular programme or policy orientation. Little things like portable pensions could provide incentives, but the "openness " of the various hierarchies would have to be influenced mostly by a state of mind. I find Professor Hodgetts' idea of a Foundation for Applied Policy Research attractive; but I wonder whether we might not rather give consideration to the Fulton Committee's notion of a Civil Service College which would include a powerful research component. (See paras 97114 on pp. 35-40 of the report.) The staff and students of such a college could be drawn from the public service, the universities and business; it would be an ideal place for the meeting of minds. Bureaucrats would also of course derive immense benefit from "sabbatical" stints as students , teachers or researchers in universities. In the course of such "retreading" any illusions about a monopoly of knowledge would be quickly dissipated. But that brings me back to Professor Hodgetts ' central argument which, although persuasive , is one that I am reluctant to accept as a given. It is a plausible hypothesis that the accretion of knowledge in the bureaucracy is at a point where counter-balancing measures have to be adopted to hold it in check. However, this is only a hypothesis. It would be interesting to see how many of the top specialists in various disciplines and professions are in the public service. It would also be instructive to learn, even on the basis of very impressionistic studies,· whether the public servants among such specialists really possess alarmingly superior knowledge , as distinct from departmental folklore, to that possessed by experts outside the public service. My guess is that as things now stand it would be more likely through ignorance than overwhelming knowledge that the "Jack-inoffice " might not realize he is being a little tyrant. In order to hold a potentially overweening bureaucracy in check and "monitor" the execuRevue d'etudes canadiennes tive and bureaucratic apparatus, what we require, I think, is adequate Parliamentary supervision of delegated legislation and ombudsman -type institutions. Such bodies would no doubt be all the more effective for the knowlCom ;,mentary: ANDRE BIELER'S DEEP RELIEF PRINTS W. B. THORNE Kingston multi-mediast Andre Bieler has invented a pneumatic press. And the results have surpassed even the artist's expectations. After an introduction to Bieler's deep relief prints, it may be difficult for many viewers to remain satisfied with the limiting discipline of the conventional print. For Bieler's press is a totally new conception that provides deep relief, reflectability, and differential gradation of plane relationships. There is simply more going on in a Bieler print, which is characteristic of the man himself. The effect of paint literally smashed by air pressure against hand-made French paper, the only kind strong enough to receive it, creates a new excitement unmatched in other types of printmaking. Several years ago, Andre Bieler began to speculate upon the possibility of introducing more plastic quality into printmaking. Looking at one of his conventional prints, he thought how forceful it would become if he could add the dimension of depth to some of the color planes on the flat surface of the paper. But the answer had to be something more dramatic than simple intaglio embossing. Accordingly, he undertook to create more unity in a relief print by fusing, with great pressure, all colors printed together. Because the usual roller press was incapable of exerting both an even pressure and a high relief, a new method had to be found. With Journal of Canadian Studies edgeable assistance of independent, wise and thoughtful people from the universities, business and other centres of knowledge and power outside the public service. But this is political machinery, not countervailing academic power. some timidity at first, then with greater confidence as the experimental models seemed to work, Bieler built his pneumatic press, which now functions with surprising precision. What Bieler ultimately added to the conventional press is an as yet unpatented device which, when six tons of air pressure are applied to it, can force stiff d'Arche paper into the mold of the heavily etched or even sculpted plates that he has invented for the pneumatic press. Plates for the Bieler Press are cast in concrete and so provide much more depth and flexibility than the usual copper plates, which may be only l/16th of an inch in thickness. With the pneumatic process, almost any thin object, material, or tool may be impressed into the plate to create an indentation into which the paper can be evenly forced by air pressure. When ink is applied to the cement plates, usually by a combination of hard and soft rollers, the resulting print is very much like the hybrid combination of a bas relief and an oil painting. The sculpted concrete plates of the Bieler press are capable of producing a heavily embossed print with differential gradation that is remarkably flexible. This means that large or very small areas can be controlled in depth to a surprisingly fine degree. Added to this precise control is the possibility of introduoing plane relationships, so that the embossing fades from 114" or more in the mountains to next to nothing in the valleys. And plane relationships may be juxtaposed so as to explore not only the variable embossing but also the reflectability of the heavily applied paint. 43 ...