Starr goes on to stress the cross--disciplinary nature of his book, which he says integrates history, economics, and polities under the framework of sociology. This diversity dovetails with a point be returns to several times during the course of a 45-minutes discussion--the advantages he sees in the fractious nature of sociology.

While others have lamented what he acknowledges to be the "extreme disorganization of his field--with specialists divided over questions of methodology and appropriate research topics--Starr considers it a great advantage that offers unrivaled academe freedom.

Sociology Department Chairman William Alonso says that Starr has avoided the current tendency in the field to follow a strictly statistical approach or to fit research into a rigorous structural approach. "He's more of a general social scientist than fitting a narrow label or discipline," he explains.

In keeping with this breadth, Starr, while retaining an interest in medical policy questions, is moving onto other research questions. One of the two main topics on the burner are general questions conceding the growth of information technology and the implications it has, for the organization of work.

Another concern for Starr is the fate of public institutions--an interest that seems to have grown out of his abiding belief in a non-ideological liberalism. Liberals, he says, recognize the usefulness of both public and private institutions; but Starr expresses concern that currently, "the enthusiasm for the private sector is obscuring a lot of the ways in which public institution create a sense of civic life."

Here too, Starr's views reflect his underlying sense of moderation. As Starr explains: "I've always considered myself a liberal who took liberalism seriously. Never having been a radical. I was never disillusioned. I cannot recall a point at which I said, 'Oh my goodness. I was so innocent.'

"This is perhaps nothing to be proud of," he continues, "but there is scarcely anything I've written that I would want to take back. Even the stuff I wrote when I was editor of the Spectator, I am completely happy with.