Class notes
Required reading:
Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management
Gould, The Mismeasure of Man
Required viewing:
Capital and Labor, TR and Wilson
Written assessment:
Quiz 7
Written assignment due:
web response paragraph
Essay 2
Web response prompt
Both the primary and secondary readings for this week (Taylor and Gould) describe themselves as "scientific." What makes them both scientific? What differences do you see in the meaning of "science" for both writers?
9 comments:
Taylor and Gould are both scientists, but they write in a very different way. Taylor´s Principles of Scientific Management were trying to show the way to increasing industrial efficiency. This book is mostly for a specific group of people like engineers or managers from industrial and manufacturing spheres. It must be hard to read it for someone who does not know much about economics and its terms, because he uses a lot of them. Taylor asks many questions and then tries to answer them, giving possibilities how to change the management and reasons why the old system did not work. One of his concerns was laziness of a working man. Taylor’s idea was that he should be paid by the quantity made, not by an hour. On the other hand Gould’s Mismeasure of Man is using a lot of psychology and anthropology books and books about development of intelligence as sources. His concern was the abstraction of intelligence. He looks at different scientists and tries to explain their theory of measuring IQ based on different requirements. Like Binet’s theories based firstly on craniometry and later he developed a new kind of testing. He uses a lot of citations and examples. One of the main differences between them is that Gould is more of a popular science historian. Taylor is presenting his own ideas, but Gould is just putting together ideas of other psychologists and scientists.
What makes Gould, the writer of “The Mismeasure of Man” in 1981, scientific is that he used science to discover how different groups of people were born with different social attributes that make them individual from everyone else. To accurately prove this theory he observed the Biological determinism of many different people and their biological background using various techniques, such as: Psychological testing and measurement of human skulls. Through this testing, Gould wants to understand where and why intelligence differs with people and where intelligence comes from and then how he can change these “stupid” people or eliminate them. Frederick Winslow Taylor was also considered to be scientific through his theory of scientific management in “The Principles of Scientific Management” (1911). With this theory, Taylor started to analyze and manufacture a better workflow process and there by, improve work efficiency for most businesses in need. Taylor concentrated on scientific management and observed the workers needs and motivation. He studied the workers tasks and jobs to understand how he could expand and increase their efficiency in the work place. Why Taylor and Gould are different when it comes to the meaning of science is that Gould wanted to change or eliminate the unintelligent people by using and observing the history of their genetics and Biological determinism and Taylor wanted to improve the people to become more sufficient and proficient in the work place using observation skills and scientific management. Gould’s approach to science seems to have a more negative connection to people than Taylor’s positive proficiency method.
Taylor and Gould are considered as scientists because of their approach, when discovering answers for their questions. Both use scientific research. Taylor apart from Gould is more practical and cpncentrates himself on economics and economic problems, as my colleague Aneta already mentioned he uses economic terms that are hard to understand by average readers. On the other hand Gould is easier to read, but the topic he writes about is more abstract. He concentrates on human intelligance and how to improve it or measure it. For Taylor science is something practical that when used in proper way mixed with own ideas can be high efficient. However for Gould science is way how to discover things, but he does not input his own ideas, therefore he is combining already existing ideas.
Both Gould and Taylor ascribed as scientists for the reason that they used scientific methods to gather data, use empirical data analysis, experimenting, testing, observing, etc. The authors not only explain the results of their studies but also carefully explain methods and why they choose particular ones. For example, Gould tells how he started his research with measuring human skulls and how it is relates to intelligence. He wanted to find out any measurable factors that correlate to intelligence, assuming that there is a biological determinism. Taylor on the other hand was analyzing capitalistic system in order to find out the forces that drives it in to different directions. He was gathering the information from bottom to the top of the corporate hierarchy by simply finding out what are desires and expectations of each level of this hierarchy. There are significant differences in objectives of the studies. In case of Gould there was an attempt to distinguish “stupid” people and “separate” (eliminate) them. Taylor on the other hand was looking to find methods to increase productivity and efficiency by accommodating different interests into to one prospective. He argues that “…the best management is a true science, resting upon clearly defined laws, rules, and principles, as a foundation” (p.7). It is seems that the core difference of these two scientists could be expressed in these words “…the remedy for this inefficiency lies in systematic management, rather than in searching for some unusual or extraordinary man” (p.7). Gould conversely was searching for the evidence that will support the idea that “extraordinary man” would be “organized by itself” without any assistance.
The common goal of both authors is to solve the problem in scientific way. They used exact number and statistics, special terms and other scientific area:psychology, anthropology, biology. Their way of solving the problem is different.
Gould wanted to refutate old theories and prejudices.His evidence is based on quotes of other authors.
Taylor made brand new theory based more on his personal reasoning.
I think the Gould was writing more for the general audience compared with Taylor who was more focused on economists.
While Taylor’s text is addressed to those who manage the workforce and those who own companies who are interested maximizing the output and production. So, the target audience is of higher social and probably even educational level and consequently, the text is also more difficult to read. His assumptions are supported with examples and analogies throughout the whole paper.
Both authors have scientific approaches to management, but while Taylor suggests to use hierarchal structure of companies, scientific selection of labor force, proper training; Gould advises to use psychological testing in order to derive labor with appropriate ‘abstract intelligence’. He thinks that psychological and physiological characters of individuals determine the status that those individuals deserve.
Taylor points out that it is necessary to make relationships between the workers impersonal in order to avoid collective “soldiering” - negative comparison between each other. This results in minimizing the work efficiency as much as possible.
Gould believes that people’s predispositions are given and absolute, thus, those with less intelligence should be eliminated. Unlike him, Taylor takes much positive approach toward people. He suggests training the labor, to strengthen their professional skills by educating.
Both Taylor and Gould were trying to scientifically explore and research the changing economic environment of the early and later halves of the 20th century and the onset of capitalism. The rising issue of classes, employment and new ideologies concerning this were forcing intellectuals of the western world to pedantically and scientifically analyze what kind of relationship is proper between various economic groups.
Taylor, for example, seems more pedantic in his decisions and ideas. He supports the idea that the employer and the employee need each other and supports this with facts and theories based on numbers and pedantic research. Taylor's approach seems to be more practical and scientific. Gould, on the other hand, argues on more abstract and psychological themes as people being born with certain traits and properties - linking his judgment to one of the ultimate questions of existence - the right to choose who one is.
On the other hand, what both readings have in common that they are based on solid research with least speculation and more scientific, academic approach involving coherent and solid facts
Taylor and Gould - both scientists, but they write absolutely in another way. Principles of Taylor´s Scientific Management is tried to demonstrate a way to rise in manufacturing competence. While Gould using a lot of psychology and anthropology books and books about progress of intellect. But both of them used a lot of statistics, and examples. And the language that they are using is specific, so not everyone will understand that language. The main of idea of Taylor is that he should be paid by amount of mode not by an hour. Gould main points was that a lot of scientist using different types of researching, and he explained that works. Authors also explained the method of how do they achieve that, and they preferred to choose that specific method, not other. And of course he explained the final result of this experience.
Both of the readings are about one topic, but written in a different way and digging to the different point. Taylor and his "Principles of Scientific Management" were purposed to show the way increasing industrial efficiency. The writer tries to discuss the reasons how the industry could be better and why it is not. His text is written in "high vocabulary" so a random reared should be using an economic dictionary to understand every word. He discusses the working class (the laziness of the working class) and the way they should be paid - not by hour of work, but of the result of the work. I would compare Taylor to Freud, who saw the people as the same and "nothing".
On the other hand, Gould in his text "Mismeasure of Man" also talks about industry and working class, but he points out different thoughts and conclusions then Taylor. The writer tries to prove, by using scientific examples (Psychological testing and measurement of human skulls)that each of use is different, with different minus, pluses, talents and level of intelligence. He believes everybody should be treated differently according to their abilities.
I, personally, agree with Gould because his point of view is more humanistic and democratic. I believe people should be treated according to their potential, and not according to the pattern society created for us.
Alessandra Glova
Post a Comment