Search

Science is usually justified in terms of its utilitarian attributes. Modern professional astronomy has no obvious utilitarian rationale, yet it receives considerable resources to carry on its work. Concepts from the sociology of science and political sociology can be used to help explain this apparent puzzle. The means by which astronomy succeeds in procuring resources can be seen in terms of a process of legitimation. Professional astronomy justifies and explains itself to specific audiences, ensuring that funding agencies will see astronomy as worthy of support. Several activities are suggested as legitimation practices. The mechanics of funding are discussed, followed by a description of modern professional astronomy as a 'big science'. Boundary work and popularisation are examined as important legitimation practices. Boundary work constructs a path for astronomy that legitimises it by allying the field to successful sciences such as physics, and distancing it from other activities such as ufology and astrology. Astronomy is popular with the public, and this popularity gives rise to a groundswell of support, and is used to promote astronomy as educating a public that will support science in general. The professional structures of astronomy serve to mark out astronomers as an elite scientific group, with an esoteric knowledge that includes high levels of mathematics. Astronomers' specialist technical skills can be of use in a variety of situations, but the scientific and mathematical knowledge itself also contributes to successful legitimation. It is concluded that the primary rationale for the funding of astronomy is humanistic rather than utilitarian.

Science is usually justified in terms of its utilitarian attributes. Modern professional astronomy has no obvious utilitarian rationale, yet it receives considerable resources to carry on its work. Concepts from the sociology of science and political sociology can be used to help explain this apparent puzzle. The means by which astronomy succeeds in procuring resources can be seen in terms of a process of legitimation. Professional astronomy justifies and explains itself to specific audiences, ensuring that funding agencies will see astronomy as worthy of support. Several activities are suggested as legitimation practices. The mechanics of funding are discussed, followed by a description of modern professional astronomy as a 'big science'. Boundary work and popularisation are examined as important legitimation practices. Boundary work constructs a path for astronomy that legitimises it by allying the field to successful sciences such as physics, and distancing it from other activities such as ufology and astrology. Astronomy is popular with the public, and this popularity gives rise to a groundswell of support, and is used to promote astronomy as educating a public that will support science in general. The professional structures of astronomy serve to mark out astronomers as an elite scientific group, with an esoteric knowledge that includes high levels of mathematics. Astronomers' specialist technical skills can be of use in a variety of situations, but the scientific and mathematical knowledge itself also contributes to successful legitimation. It is concluded that the primary rationale for the funding of astronomy is humanistic rather than utilitarian.

Science is usually justified in terms of its utilitarian attributes. Modern professional astronomy has no obvious utilitarian rationale, yet it receives considerable resources to carry on its work. Concepts from the sociology of science and political sociology can be used to help explain this apparent puzzle. The means by which astronomy succeeds in procuring resources can be seen in terms of a process of legitimation. Professional astronomy justifies and explains itself to specific audiences, ensuring that funding agencies will see astronomy as worthy of support. Several activities are suggested as legitimation practices. The mechanics of funding are discussed, followed by a description of modern professional astronomy as a 'big science'. Boundary work and popularisation are examined as important legitimation practices. Boundary work constructs a path for astronomy that legitimises it by allying the field to successful sciences such as physics, and distancing it from other activities such as ufology and astrology. Astronomy is popular with the public, and this popularity gives rise to a groundswell of support, and is used to promote astronomy as educating a public that will support science in general. The professional structures of astronomy serve to mark out astronomers as an elite scientific group, with an esoteric knowledge that includes high levels of mathematics. Astronomers' specialist technical skills can be of use in a variety of situations, but the scientific and mathematical knowledge itself also contributes to successful legitimation. It is concluded that the primary rationale for the funding of astronomy is humanistic rather than utilitarian.

The focus of this study was on visitor satisfac­tion in a natural area, as opposed to alternative use such as preservation of the area, with little or no visitor access. Visitor satisfaction can be approached through studies in environmental perception. Such studies integrate work in psychology, philosophy, and geography. This author sought to determine whether or not more precise information about the perceptual basis for visitor satisfaction in a natural area could be obtained through survey research. Bandelier National Monument served as a useful laboratory for carrying out this research. Data collection was by a survey technique. A detailed questionnaire was constructed using priori categories of questions dealing with large numbers of perceptual variables, as well as many questions inves­tigating personal predispositions which might influence perception. Certain questions were adapted from previous studies to serve as index variables. Efforts were made to randomize the categories of questions among different formats (forced choice, scaling, etc.) to eliminate possible artifacts in the questionnaire. Twenty-one test questionnaires were administered in March and April of 1975. Questions which created confusion in the respondents, or were seriously redundant, were eliminated or modified. A portion of the test questionnaire was factor analyzed using BMD (UCLA Bio­medical Computer Package) on the IBM-360. The analysis of the test questionnaire confirmed that the instrument would yield results appropriate to this project's goals. Three hundred seven Final questionnaires were administered at various locations in Bandelier National Monument during the period of April 1975 through February 1976. The data were analyzed using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) on an IBM-360. Factor analysis was performed to extract the most significant groups of variables (questions). Crosstabulations were then run on the variables within each of th