Relation of the Federal Government to Research 



carried on by organizational units separable from the 

 collecting, tabulating, editing, and ijublishing units, 

 the research involved in planning the survey, altering 

 its scope, improving the techniques used, and editing 

 the questionnaires and preliminary results is usually 

 done on a part-time or spare-time basis by persons 

 primarily concerned with the more routine processes 

 of collection and compilation. 



Inseparability of "Research" and 

 "Administration" 



"There are * * * a great many activities which, 

 even though partially of an administrative character, 

 nevertheless specifically contribute to research work," 

 wrote one agency in commenting on its estimate of re- 

 search expenditures. Another agency commented, "We 

 find it difficult * * * to know where (medical) 

 treatment leaves off and study begins." Still another 

 office, generally considered an excellent example of a 

 Governmental organization engaged in analytical re- 

 search work, states that its "product is action rather 

 than information" and its researches are to determine 

 policies, not to disseminate knowledge. 



Research in the Federal Govermnent is usually an 

 auxiliary part of an activity that is authorized and 

 carried on for an immediate objective quite distinct 

 from the increase in the store of human knowledge. 

 Such immediate objectives may be, for example, pro- 

 motion of the welfare of a category of producers, regu- 

 lation of certain types of corporations, collection of 

 taxes, preservation of Government records, conserva- 

 tion of recognized natural resources, or printing of 

 Government documents. 



The differences in organizational breakdowns as 

 found in the respective agencies also give rise to diffi- 

 culties. Unless the budget officers in the individual 

 agencies ai-e to be burdened with the time-consmning 

 task of splitting functions and allocating time of per- 

 sonnel, rough approximations must often be accepted, 

 calculated either on the basis of an estimated percent- 

 age or by including or excluding from the categories 

 of "research" the entire activities of an organizational 

 sub-unit, such as a section, branch, or division. 



For these functional and organizational reasons, it 

 is sometimes unusually difficult for budget officers to 

 draw the line between research and administration, and 

 it is only with Avarnings of the arbitrary nature of 

 their estimates that definite figures have been sent to 

 the Committee. Nevertheless, such data have been 

 carefully prepared, usually after lengthy discussion of 

 the definition of "research," and the results are believed 

 significant, at least for compilation into totals for the 

 Goverimient as a whole, if not for detailed inter-agency 

 comparisons. 



63 



Differences in Terminology and 

 Tradition 



Some incomparability in estimates from different 

 agencies is undoubtedly due to discrepancies in terms 

 used for similar types of investigations, and to the 

 scientific tradition of the agency and its directing per- 

 soiniel. For example, the representative of a bureau 

 dominated by an engineering tradition was almost in- 

 credulous at the suggestion that the bureau's incidental 

 .social surveys should be called "research." Again, 

 there was a marked divei-gence of opinion in the map- 

 ping agencies as to where the line should be drawn be- 

 tween mapping that might be called "research," if any, 

 and mapping that should certainly be excluded. Even 

 the customary terms used within an agency for clas- 

 sifying its inquiries may affect the amount of research 

 expenditures reported, when the words "investiga- 

 tions,"' "surveys," "tests," etc., are used for some in- 

 quii'ies in contrast with "research" or "experiments'" 

 applied to othei's. 



"Window Dressing" 



The data on research expenditures are based largely 

 on reports from the respective Governmental agencies 

 to the Bureau of the Budget prepared almost solely to 

 justify requests for appropriations of the amounts de- 

 sired for the coming year. Hence the data are pre- 

 sented in the form which is supposed by the agencies' 

 budget officers to be most conducive to favorable action 

 by the Bureau of the Budget and congressional appro- 

 priation committees. Such "window dressing" may 

 result in either an increase or a decrease in the amount 

 reported for research activities. Wliere the agency is 

 authorized only to perform certain specified adminis- 

 trative functions, research items are likely to be mini- 

 mized or concealed under captions denoting these func- 

 tions, a practice which cannot be criticized because the 

 research activities are planned and carried on for the 

 purpose of efficient performance of these very func- 

 tions. In some cases, research seems to be purposely 

 hidden through fear of adverse criticism from particu- 

 lar outside groups. On the other hand, in agencies 

 where research is well established and commendation 

 has been received from groups of influential citizens 

 directly benefited by the results of investigations, the 

 research expenditures become a source of pride and, 

 in informational budgetary presentations, may also 

 include amounts for somewhat distantly related ex- 

 penditures. The contrasting methods of reporting re- 

 search in these two types of agencies are likely to ac- 

 centuate the differences in amounts shown for research 

 between internal service and external service agencies, 

 as explained above. In extreme cases, the differences 

 may be pronounced enough to result in "touchiness" 



