919 



34 



On the level of the individual researcher, a number of U.S. social sci- 

 entists interviewed indicated that the level of U.S. participation was 

 "embarrassingly low." Among the reasons suggested were: (1) insistence 

 within UNESCO upon country-specific "microprojects" as defined by the 

 social science community within the country in question, (2) resistance 

 to the global project approach, (3) inability of the U.S. National Com- 

 mission for UNESCO to involve U.S. researchers, and (4) inability of 

 official U.S. representatives in Paris to communicate with the U.S. 

 social science community. On the other hand, there are issues under 

 debate within the UNESCO context that are of major concern to the U.S. 

 social science community. 



Perhaps the most frequently cited example is the methodological 

 debate that has been ongoing since the mid-1970s about the "indigeni- 

 zation" of social science, which is the contention of some developing 

 countries that social science as it has developed in the West has pre- 

 dominantly served the interests of Western countries. It is argued on 

 this basis that social science research in a developing country should 

 be undertaken only by nationals of that country (or only with limited 

 access by foreign researchers) and from a point of view that promotes 

 their national interest. Here, according to some, lies the danger, 

 because they believe that such a methodological prescription is not 

 value free and "veers dangerously toward ideology." Clearly, if the 

 United States is absent from this debate within UNESCO, it will be able 

 to do very little to prevent this view from prevailing, with all of its 

 implications for the direction, vitality, and legitimacy of interna- 

 tional research in such fields as anthropology, sociology, and political 

 science. 



While U.S. researchers do not participate in UNESCO programs in a 

 major way, withdrawal would cause the United States, as the single 

 largest country contributor, to lose its ability to influence the sub- 

 stantive content of the organization's programs. U.S. social scientists 

 undoubtedly would still be able to obtain UNESCO publications and possi- 

 bly might even be able to participate in research projects, colloquia, 

 and symposia on an individual basis. But, given the fact that the U.S. 

 social science community is the largest and one of the most highly 

 developed in the world, there would be no direct means of representing 

 its interests in the design or development of programs. Similarly, the 

 United States would lose even its present limited ability to influence 

 the direction of ongoing UNESCO programs, particularly those in current 

 "sensitive" areas, such as arms control and human rights. 



Most of the social scientists interviewed were in agreement that 

 withdrawal would have a negligible impact on current research projects 

 ongoing within the U.S. academic community. However, there was also a 

 good deal of speculation that future access by U.S. researchers to 

 field sites in some Third World countries might well be constrained, 

 either in direct retribution for the U.S. withdrawal or because the 

 work was being conducted under UNESCO auspices. Some also suggested 

 that U.S. researchers might find it more difficult to gain access to 

 social science networks in the East European countries, since UNESCO is 

 the principal forum for such contacts. 



