Book reviews

Publishing Research Quarterly -     

The Russians Are Not Coming! The Soviet Withdrawal from the Games of the XXIII Olympiad

At the time, the Western press described the Soviet decision not to take part in the Los Angeles Olympic Games as revenge for the boycott of Moscow-1980. Even today, the ‘revenge thesis’ is still the default explanation for those who would cite the events of 1984. Since the collapse of the USSR, Soviet-era archives have opened, giving an inside look at their decision-making. An examination of the reports reveals that the Politburo voted to expend vast resources to preparing Soviet athletes for the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles. The best revenge among their politicians, athletes, coaches, officials and journalists was to smash the Americans on American soil. Along the way the Soviets signed contracts and negotiated conditions as if they intended to take part. Then two things changed: party leader Yuri Andropov, a proponent of participation, was replaced in February 1984 by the aging and ill Konstantin Chernemko, an Olympic sceptic; and Soviet pilots on September 1, 1983, shot down a Korean airliner that had strayed into Soviet airspace, killing 269 innocents. These events energised conservative opinion in the USA. Elements on the far right called for the Soviets to be banned from the Games. The leading group, the Ban the Soviet Coalition, later threatened Soviet athletes and announced they would try to get them to defect. This was a small group deemed unimportant by the Los Angeles Olympic Organising Committee and the White House. Yet, the Soviets somehow contrived to actually believe this small collection of right-wing politicians and businesspeople were a real threat. Ultimately, it was fear of this less than fearsome group and State Department resistance that led the Politburo to keep their athletes home.     

Methodological problems in estimating dropout rates and the implications for studying dropouts from special education

Abstract

Variability in reported estimates of dropout rates are, in part, due to factors that operate independently of true differences that have been demonstrated for student characteristics as well as home and school features. We examine differences in definitions of dropouts, computational methods, and the complexities in defining cohorts. Finally, we explore the importance of sample attrition. We argue that reliable and valid dropout rate estimates are essential before it is possible to establish reasons/causes for dropping out or to design prevention programs.     

The role of history in teaching science — A case study

One of the most interesting aspects of late-nineteenth-century France was the extraordinary interest the public expressed in science. Its adulation of Pasteur was only one of the many manifestations of this interest. It was also expressed in the widespread popularity of scientists as public figures and in the increasing public and private financial support of science. While popularity of science was created in the general public by fiction and by the various international world fairs held in Paris, it was strongest and most important in the middle classes.This paper examines one of the key methods used to stimulate bourgeois interest in science in France during the Second Empire and early Third Republic (1852–1895): the campaign to create ascience vulgarisée, a popularized science. While a number of different approaches used by these popularizers are examined, the article concentrates on the science writings of Jules Michelet and Jules Verne, both of whom were immensely successful in creating a favorable climate of opinion for French science. The article concludes by suggesting how such an approach could be modernized and utilized in order to create greater scientific literacy and a similar acceptance by the public today.     

Excerpts from Barriers to Excellence: Our Children at Risk

The following excepts from Barriers to Excellence are reprinted by permission of the National Coalition of Advocates for Students. In this issues's Reviews, Sonia Nieto comments on this book, which, technically speaking, is authored by the Board of Inquiry. Howe and Edelman were the Board's co‐chairs and wrote part of the book.     

Co-Teaching and Cognitive Spaces: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Teaching Science to Nonmajors

This paper describes a course, Science, Technology and the Public in the Nineteenth Century, which is both interdisciplinary and co-taught by a biologist and an historian. The rationale for including social history in such a course is to make nonscience majors more aware of both the process of science and its relationship to society. An example of the social history component of the course is offered in a discussion of Louis Pasteur and his adulation by the French public. Since Pasteur's popularity was based as much on nonscientific as on scientific factors, we use his career to illustrate concepts about science in its cultural context that we want our students to understand. The course's content is then presented with reference to objectives we hope to achieve. Finally we indicate how, with our varied backgrounds, co-teaching this course led to a sharing of our cognitive spaces and how this was a positive experience for both ourselves and our students.