Howard Center for the Social Sciences

The purpose of this questionnaire is to solicit the values, qualities and impressions of the faculty, staff and students in the Social Sciences. We are interested in making the architecture of the Building express something about teaching and learning in the Social Sciences.

1. How would you describe the basic spirit of the Social Sciences?

* Critical thought, use of diverse methods (qualitative and quantitative), politically engaged (Bruce Podobnik, Assistant Professor, SOAN)?

* Cramped and disunited. The social sciences here always been an illegitimate agglomeration. Looking for "the basic spirit" in this case will produce a reified product. There are indeed the ghosts of positivism and the pretensions of policy directives. There are also the ghosts of the Enlightenment - a commitment to progressive, humanitarian change (Goldman, Professor, SOAN).

* Bringing together people with ideas and with the means of meshing those ideas into intellectual discussions and research (Sharon Barnes, Administrative Specialist, Social Sciences).

* Diverse (Bob Mandel, Chair and Professor, International Affairs).

* Lively and full of creative energy (Linda Angst, Assistant Professor, SOAN).

* The social sciences span the distance between the natural sciences and the humanities, approaching humanity with both analytical and interpretive approaches. We are interested both in opportunities for direct observation and in the productive results of engagement with others. Furthermore, we are attentive to different models of presenting our findings, ranging form various written genres to electronic and multimedia formats (Deborah Heath, Associate Professor of Anthropology, SOAN).

* The study of human behavior, both individual and group behavior, prevails throughout. Students are offered opportunities for activities that complement and support the formal academic curriculum. These include Public Advocacy, KLC Radio, and the Pio Log in the Communication Department; internships in Psychology, Sociology/Anthropology, Economics and Political Science and International Affairs departments, and the student-run International Affairs Symposium, Model United Nations and journal Meridian in International Affairs (Nancy Curran, Administrative Coordinator, International Affairs and Political Science).

* There is none. Indeed, the term, social science, may be regarded as an oxymoron - unless one just accepts the word science in its modest (and archaic) meaning of systematic study. Perhaps no construction in academia is more the creature of positivist hyperbole than social science. If there were a "spirit," it would be manifest in active conversation across the terrain of the division. And though we have virtually no such conversation, we are prisoners of an obsolete notion of discrete compartments of orderly Germanic classification. Furtively, secretly, a few of us violate this culture through discourse across disciplines, departments and divisions. If our druthers were fulfilled, we would maximally break down the barriers among us - intellectually and socially - and encourage a SPIRIT of inquiry that reached freely across all interests related to human intercourse. Obviously that would collapse most of the conventional social science orthodoxies and substantially reduce the barriers between the humanities and the social sciences into our midst (and ourselves into the natural sciences).

THIS spirit might be fostered architecturally by deliberately intermixing offices so as to avoid current departmental groupings (even while perhaps maintaining administratively certain of the departmental distinctions). Secondly, a central entrance and common foyer could encourage faculty and students to break down spatial compartmentalization and to associate intellectually in shared space. Subsets of congenial common space might further promote the development of intellectual cross-fertilization. A small "library" of periodicals in the middle of, or adjacent to, a main conversation/sitting area also might be designed to span disciplines and invite broader appreciations than we now allow. (Repeated below in Question 2a)

In my own thinking most of these issues are inextricably tied to large questions of curriculum construction and planning, so it is hard to imagine moving beyond the most conventional matters of wedging present social sciences into new larger space, and managing, with minimum bloodshed, the politics of divvying up the pie. Miller can be seen as a model of incremental change - or as a grievously missed opportunity.

From my perspective, right now as LC, history is much more a social science curriculum (and faculty) than a "humanities" program. Anthropology is more a humanities program than a social science program. Political Science and International Affairs operate - despite some efforts to the contrary - as if they were at opposite ends of the campus. Economics (esp. with Business now in virtual pariah status) postures closer to natural sciences than to superficially allied disciplines down the hall. And Communications, though enjoying high student interest, seems to inhabit a different universe altogether. Sociology and Anthro, while a single department in most students' minds, reflect radically separate disciplinary languages from a faculty point of view, (Repeated below in answer to Question 3)

 

AND WE HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT CONVERSATION ON THIS CAMPUS ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS. (I acknowledge that my own perspective may differ substantially from colleagues', but about the state of disarray I have no doubt.)

 

I have in the past had occasion deliberately to examine the relationship between architecture and educational environment, so I see this new building as a creative opportunity for LC. However, precedent does not give me confidence that meaningful discussion will happen?

Good luck (Roger Paget, Institutional Professor of Political Economy)!!

* "Basic Spirit": Increasingly international, intercultural and outward looking. In the Pacific Northwest and on the Pacific Rim facing Asia (Stephen A. Lambo, Ph. D,. Assistant Professor, International Affairs).

 

2. Are there specific architectural qualities that could make the new building especially suited to:

 

a. The study of the Social Sciences:

* Need a couple of larger lecture rooms with full video and computer resources for statistical courses (Podobnik).

* Needs to stress multiple forms/ways of knowing. New ways of seeing. We cannot continue to pretend that there is only the written word (and the corollary of numbers), we have also become a culture of seeing (Goldman).

* Lots of small cozy areas where students, students and faculty, faculty and staff, students and staff, and faculty can come together for formal or informal gatherings to discuss intellectual topics and business at hand (Barnes).

* A wide variety of traditional classrooms and electronically enhanced ones (Mandel).

* Room for good student/teacher and colleague/colleague interaction - round tables, space, good air ventilation and naturallight (Angst).

* Flexible classrooms with an emphasis on seminar discussion format with moveable seating. Adequate computer and multimedia facilities, including quality transcription machines and video production facilities, quality networking. Lounging space and spacious offices to facilitate small group work (Heath).

* Windows, light, technologically advanced, book space. Students not hanging outside office door areas. Perhaps room for a small library of newspapers and journals (Robert Eisinger, Assistant Professor, Political Science).

* THIS spirit might be fostered architecturally by deliberately intermixing offices so as to avoid current departmental groupings (even while perhaps maintaining administratively certain of the departmental distinctions). Secondly, a central entrance and common foyer could encourage faculty and students to break down spatial compartmentalization and to associate intellectually in shared space. Subsets of congenial common space might further promote the development of intellectual cross-fertilization. A small "library" of periodicals in the middle of, or adjacent to, a main conversation/sitting area also might be designed to span disciplines and invite broader appreciations than we now allow. (Roger Paget, Institutional Professor of Political Economy)!!

* "Architectural qualities": 1) Architectural beauty and architectural detail. We often think about solutions to human problems in de-humanized space. A space that is rich in nuances and detail, natural materials and human scale can inspire us to be humane. 2) Architectural scale: height, space, depth, distance - we are thinking about big questions of war/peace, poverty/prosperity - the building should have lines and vistas that are great and make us look up. How about a small window-ringed rotunda like Faniel Hall in Boston? 3) Bare concrete should be kept to a minimum, with a greater use of cultured stone facing, wood, brick, exposed wood beams, clear and opaque glass. The Southwest Community Center did this nicely. Why? The social science research gave us Levittown, cement high-rise blocks and much of the de-humanized landscape of the second half of the twentieth century. Thus we need to emphasis humanity at least as much as raw Bauhaus functionality (Lambo).

 

b. The culture of the faculty and students:

* Need lounge for undergrad students. Need computer lab for undergrads to be used for quantitative analysis and thesis writing (Podobnik).

* Informality. A strange combination of cosmopolitan and provincial. Our students and faculty prefer the smaller groups, the non-formulaic (e.g., no ?? textbooks) (Goldman).

* Most faculty are very open and inviting to students with an "open door" policy. All Social Sciences faculty are concerned with teaching the students and with the sense of a community/colleagual spirit where people can gather to discussintellectual ideas and socialize - students, faculty and staff alike. The first floor of the building definitely will be the key to this objective (Barnes).

* Lots of places to facilitate close student-teacher interaction (Mandel).

* Actively political and informal; lots of interaction (Angst).

* A premium on spaces for social interaction, including common lounge space and kitchen facilities. Attention to traffic flow facilitating social engagement: atrium or courtyard space, open hallways with seating. Avoid the sort of physical barriers between hallways that plague the Miller building. For some departments, there is a strong commitment to egalitarian practices (Heath).

* Energy efficient, as much natural light exposure as possible. Individual work spaces for work study students and students taking makeup exams; waiting areas for students meeting with faculty; individual work space for International Affairs Symposium committee and chairs. Conference room for meetings and adequate kitchen facilities are needed (Curran).

* See above. Kitchen? Shower, perhaps (Eisinger)?

* 1) There should be no intermixing of office space. Department identities should be distinct spatially. Design elements might even change depending on the department occupying the space. 2) The indoor space should interact with the outdoors more. Skylights, outdoor balconies, glassed-in stairwells, rooftop observation deck, articulation of the building in ways that provide for window views and cross-ventilation. 3) Subtle incorporation of international and local design elements to imply what we do is related to the region and the world. The Native-American bas reliefs on the Library are nice. The campus lanterns and round symbols carved into stones on the Frank grounds were loose quotations of Japanese designs. Lewis & Clark has a long history of relations with Japan, especially in the social sciences, so that would be a particularly appropriate architectural detail to pick up on. I previously suggested the use of panes of Kalwal opaque glass for natural lighting, and the suggestion of Japanese shoji paper windows. This would be wonderful in public spaces and as additional diffuse lighting for office space. I again saw this used nicely above the swimming pool at the Southwest Community Center. 4) Privacy and quiet. Though this is not a library, faculty do need library-like conditions for sustained concentration. Traffic flows should not be routed by faculty offices. Students should not be able to look to see if a faculty member is in their office through any hall window. Soundproofing and sound dampening of human movement, human conversation and heating systems is crucial in classrooms for discussion and offices for concentration and focus (Lambo).

 

3. How are the Social Sciences distinguished from other academic departments:

* A mix of methodologies. Positivism still dominates overall. But also ethnographic approaches. Dialectical approaches. Our disciplines represent highly differentiated intellectual division of labor - hence we deal on detailed analysis of culture, society, economy and politics to a degree that no one else on campus does (though there are real links to history and philosophy) (Goldman).

* The social sciences draw upon the other divisions' disciplines to a degree. The social sciences are concerned with people and the various forces that guide them, surround them and sustain them, weather in political science, economics, sociology/anthropology, international affairs, communication or in psychology (Barnes).

* Far more diversity of needs than either the Humanities or Sciences Divisions (Mandel).

* We in SOAN are viewed as less rigid, more accessible and friendly (Angst).

* The social sciences actually cover a broad range, with some departments resembling the natural sciences, and other more closely resembling the humanities in their philosophic and methodological orientation. Some will prefer auditorium seating in classrooms, while others will require flexible seminar seating for seminars. Nearly all the social science departments have large numbers of students, making adequate meeting and lounge space essential in maintaining good communication and esprit de corps (Heath).

* Intellectual superiority (humor, smile) (Eisinger)?

* From my perspective, right now as LC, history is much more a social science curriculum (and faculty) than a "humanities" program. Anthropology is more a humanities program than a social science program. Political Science and International Affairs operate - despite some efforts to the contrary - as if they were at opposite ends of the campus. Economics (esp. with Business now in virtual pariah status) postures closer to natural sciences than to superficially allied disciplines down the hall. And Communications, though enjoying high student interest, seems to inhabit a different universe altogether. Sociology and Anthro, while a single department in most students' minds, reflect radically separate disciplinary languages from a faculty point of view. (Roger Paget, Institutional Professor of Political Economy)!!

 

4. How do the Social Sciences relate to other academic departments and resources within the College?

* Important lines between Sociology/Anthropology and gender studies. Environmental studies (Podobnik).

* The social sciences draw upon the hard sciences, especially in economics and in statistics and research methodology and quantitative research. They draw upon the humanities in writing, reading, historical significances and others (Barnes).

* The division as a whole is the most heavily dependent on PCs (rather than MACs) and has most of the largest majors at the College (Mandel).

* Not sure (Angst).

* There are strong connections with several interdisciplinary programs: East Asian Studies, Latin American Studies, Gender Studies, Environmental Studies. Extensive use is made of existing media facilities. There is particularly strong participation in Oversees Programs (Heath).

* International Affairs is a discipline that integrates information and the strategies and techniques of a variety of disciplines, including political science, sociology, economics, history, communication and psychology, in order to study andunderstand complex relations among nations. Political Science integrates with International Affairs, and for students planning a career in politics, public policy or urban planning: courses in Accounting, Statistics, Communication, Economics and Psychology (Curran).

 

5. Which departments within the Social Sciences would most benefit through collaboration and cross-fertilization?

* Sociology - Anthropology - Economics (Podobnik).

* International Affairs and Economics. Sociology - Anthropology and Economics. Soc - Anthro and Communication (Goldman).

* Economics with Political Science and International Affairs. All of the departments in the research methodology. Various departments collaborate with others and other departments in other divisions in interdisciplinary programs such as Environmental Studies and East Asian studies (Barnes).

* Sociology with Communication. International Affairs with Economics. NOT International Affairs with Political Science (Mandel).

* Communications, Sociology, Anthropology, Economics (Angst).

* There are shared facilities and methodological links between SOAN and Communications, mutual international interests between SOAN and International Affairs, intellectual connections linking SOAN with Economics and Political Science, mutual investments in information technologies linking all the departments in the division (Heath).

* International Affairs, Political Science, Economics, Communication, and Psychology (Curran).

* Economics and Political Science, Political Science and International Affairs, Political Science and Psychology (if Psychology is considered a social science) (Eisinger).