Onderzoek - beleidstheorie - levensbeschouwing

Samenvatting

Several times the editors of this journal have tried to set into motion a discussion of verzuiling: splitting up of sociological research along religious lines since there are Dutch Reformed, Roman-Cath., Calvinist, Humanist and Christian-Social Institutes for social research without success. A recent PhD dissertation on that subject was not attacked. The matter seems to be hushed up. There is always some tension between policy makers who assign a task and the social scientists who carry it out. The theoretical background of policy is more and more being influenced by sociology. On the one side, this is apt to lead to a better specification of the task itself, and on the other side, however, there is a tendency among social researchers to become victims of a bureaucratic mentality. In general, the boards of the religious institutes for social research are firm believers in objective factual research. They are, however, of the opinion that only scientists of the same denomination are able to understand the specific approach to a social problem and to advise on policy. From this it is clear that there is not a verzuiling of the research proper but of the form of organization. What then is the task of these religious social research institutes? In the first place it is to be found in analyzing social problems that have a direct bearing on the policy of a particular denomination. If, however, these institutes do research on behalf of a general policy (for the state), it might be better to appoint researchers of various beliefs to the staff of general University institutes. In fact there is such a shortage of personnel now, that on one occasion a religious institute deputized a sci'st of quite another denomination to do general research. To have research on a general problem done by one religious institute only, seems to be inconsistent in all respects. In general, social researchers have to analyze critically the task set them by policy makers. This is still more the case with those that are attached to religious institutes since their policy makers tend to view social problems through their religious conceptions. Now, when the social researcher has the same religious views as his directors, this is apt to bias his research, especially when the object is the analysis of a general social problem. In studying the means for social therapy there may be a real danger when one religious institute does research in an area in which various denominations have a stake. L. Turksma.