SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

VOLUME 16 . NUMBER 1 . MARCH 1962 230 PARK AVENUE . NEW YORK 17, N. Y.

FOREIGN AREA TRAINING FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM TRANSFERRED FROM THE FORD FOUNDATION TO JOINT SPONSORSHIP

BY THE AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LEARNED SOCIETIES AND THE SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

The Ford Foundation has granted $4,600,000 to the Social Science Research Council to enable it jointly with the American Council of Learned Societies to ad­minister the Foreign Area Training Fellowship Program which has been operated directly by the Foundation since 1952. This grant is for fellowships to be awarded for the academic years 1963-64, 1964-65, and 1965-66.

_ The administration of current fellowships and all unex­pended funds from the Foundation's own appropriations for the Foreign Area Training Fellowship Program will be transferred to the Councils' auspices.

Schuyler C. Wallace, Ruggles Professor of Public Law and Government and Dean of the School of Inter­national Affairs at Columbia University, will serve as di­rector of the program. Mr. Wallace will assume his new duties on April 1, 1962. His long and distinguished di­rection of the School of International Affairs at Colum­bia University and his close association with the Foreign Area Training Fellowship Program of the Foundation provide a unique background of experience. He was a member of the board of directors of the Social Science Research Council and of its Executive Committee from 1952 to 1958 and served as chairman of the Executive Committee, 1954-58.

A joint committee of the two Councils has been ap­pointed to serve as the governing board for the program. The members include Frederick Burkhardt and Pendle­ton Herring, the Presidents of the Councils; Chauncy D. Harris, Professor of Geography, University of Chicago; Schuyler C. Wallace; and T. Cuyler Young, Professor

• of Persian Language and History, Princeton University. ., During the decade since 1952 the Foundation has pro­

vided fellowships to enable qualified citizens of the

United States and Canada to acquire special training in the history, current problems, and cultures of other areas of the world. Nearly a thousand young men and women have been granted awards from a total ap­propriation of over $9,000,000. In terms of the scholarly disciplines represented by the 790 fellows appointed during 1952-59, 91 received their previous training in anthropology, 82 in economics, 25 in geography, 193 in history, 43 in international relations, 155 in political science, and 30 in sociology. Since the establishment of the program over 100 specialists have served on the screening committees that have reviewed applications for fellowships for study in Asia and the Near East, the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Africa south of the Sahara, and Latin America. The majority of these per­sons have been members of the faculties of 40 academic institutions.

Placing administration of the foreign area training fel­lowships under joint Council sponsorship came from the conviction of the Foundation's officers that the program should be more closely related to the academic com­munity rather than from any thought that the needs that gave rise to the program had become less pressing. As­sumption of responsibility for a program of this magni­tude by the two Councils indicates their confidence in the importance of the program for the development of knowledge in their fields and for the strengthening of international intellectual relationships. The change in administration will mean no break in the continuity of the program, which is expected to maintain essentially the present procedures and staff. Until new quarters are ready for occupancy, the staff will remain at the Ford Foundation, 477 Madison Avenue, New York 22.

1

ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW OF TORTS: THE 1961 SUMMER RESEARCH TRAINING INSTITUTE ON INTERRELATIONS

OF LAW AND OTHER SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS_

LAST summer's research training institute on administra­tion of the law of torts was the fourth in a series of sum­mer sessions concerned with probing the interdiscipli­nary ground between law and the social sciences. A brief review of the series will provide needed background for a description of the most recent institute, which was held at Dartmouth College from June 26 to August 11, 1961, under the auspices of the Council's Committee on Politi­cal Behavior.l

The organization of the four institutes has been essen­tially the same, although the first two were part of the program of the former Committee on Research Train­ing.2 Each institute has been co-directed by a law pro­fessor with special interest in the social sciences and a social scientist committed to the study of legal phe­nomena. The directors of each institute were given re­sponsibility for mapping its program of study. The 12 to 15 participants were selected in each case, from among applicants to the Council, by subcommittees whose members included the directors of the particular insti­tute. The majority of the participants have come from the fields of law, political science, and sociology; but anthropology, economics, history, philosophy, and psy­chology have been represented also.s

In content the institute programs have covered a wide range, depending not only on the special interests of the directors but also on cumulative experience gained in preceding institutes. The first two were devoted largely to rather general exploration of the legal process.

The first institute, on law and social relations, which was conducted by Harold J. Berman and E. Adamson Hoebel at Harvard University in 1956, was focused on

• The authors were co-directors of the 1961 institute. Mr. Kalven is Professor of Law, University of Chicago, and Mr. Schwartz is Associate Professor of Sociology, Northwestern University.

1 The members of the committee are David B. Truman, Columbia University (chairman); William M. Beaney, Princeton University; Rob­ert A. Dahl, Yale University; Oliver Garceau, East Boothbay, Maine; V. O. Key, Jr., Harvard University; Avery Leiserson, Vanderbilt Uni­versity; Edward H_ Levi, University of Chicago; staff, Bryce Wood.

2 The institutes under the program developed by the committee were held in 1954-58 with support from the Ford Foundation. They were designed to offer small groups of persons actively engaged in research intensive training in research methods or subjects not generally available because of their recent development.

8 The participants in the 1961 institute were listed in Items, March 1961, p. 10.

2

by Harry KalvenJ Jr. and Richard D. Schwartz ""

the development of legal doctrine and legal institutions.4

Materials studied permitted a detailed analysis of ex­amples of the evolution of common law, such as the process that has brought about the extension of liability for injuries caused by defectively made products to cases in which the injured party did not contract directly with the manufacturer of the product. Also examined were variations in primitive legal systems, ranging from the rudimentary controls of the Eskimo to elaborate in­digenous systems (in West Africa and India) studied in isolation or under the impact of cultural contact.

The second institute, on the judicial process, con­ducted by Carl A. Auerbach and William M. Beaney at the University of Wisconsin in 1958, also was concerned with a general treatment of its subject. Emphasis was placed on legislative action as an alternative and supple­ment to judge-made law. Considerable attention was paid to a specific body of law, workmen's compensa­tion, whose development in the state of Wisconsin was I viewed as a response to public opinion and functional requirements. Thus both the 1956 and 1958 institutes concentrated to some extent on a delimited area of law and, more particularly, on the operation and conse­quences of that law in action. This tendency toward specificity became more apparent in the later institutes.

The institute on the administration of criminal jus­tice, conducted by Frank J. Remington and Victor G. Rosenblum at the University of Wisconsin in 1960, ex­amined the process of criminal justice in several juris­dictions. Using extensive American Bar Foundation ma­terials as an empirical base, the institute conceptualized the process as a series of interrelated decisions made by public officials as to the disposition of the accused. The formal trial was seen as a point in a sequence that begins with discretion of the police to detain or arrest and ends with discretion of the probation or prison official.

The institute on administration of the law of torts, conducted by the writers, was focused on an even more narrowly defined area of law and concentrated largely on the law of defamation, that is, the law of libel and slander. It was concerned, like the institute on criminal

<I Cf. E. Adamson Hoebel, "Law and Social Relations: A Report on • the Summer Research Training Institute, 1956," Items, March 1957, pp. W 4-5; and Harold J. Berman, "An Institute on Law and Social Relations," Harvard Law School Bulletin, December 1956, pp. 5-6, 21.

I

justice, with the characteristics of decision makers and sought to specify those aspects of the social context that appear to be most relevant in appraising the functioning of a particular body of law. This report is concerned principally with the plans and activities of the fourth institute. Toward the end, we shall indicate some conclu­sions which we think can be drawn from the series of institutes and particularly from the fourth.

ORIGINAL AGENDA

Our initial plan was to interlace legal doctrine with relevant social science theory and research findings. The original agenda envisaged several steps:

(1) We intended to begin with a week's study of defa­mation law, using Cases and Materials on Torts, by Gregory and Kalven.5 This material was selected both for the human interest of its subject matter and the rich complexity of its legal doctrine.

(2) We proposed to go on to a consideration of judicial decision-making at the common law level, starting with Karl Llewellyn's The Common Law Tradition.s

(3) Close examination of a second body of legal doc­trine, liability for personal injury, would follow, giving special attention to the doctrine of negligence, under which liability is tied to careless action or the taking of undue or unreasonable risks. This area of doctrine was chosen for examination for several reasons: First, it must be mastered in order to understand judicial treatment of automobile accident claims-the civil cases most fre­quently heard in American courts. As enunciated and administered, negligence doctrine permits a large num­ber of cases to reach the jury and gives the jury a wide range of discretion in arriving at verdicts. Second, the preoccupation of this body of doctrine with the standard of "reasonable care" provides fascinating insights into the values of American society. In this sense, negligence doctrine lends itself to historical and cross-cultural com­parisons which might clarify the relations between cul­tural values and formal norms, testing the extent to which law can be relied on as an indicator of more diffuse aspects of culture. Finally, negligence doctrine presents a striking contrast with the principle of liability developed in defamation law. Examination of this con­trast was expected to show the variability possible even within the general field of tort law and to raise questions as to the reasons for the differences. At first glance, the extreme divergence suggests that no simple relationship exists between values and legal doctrine, since the two

5 Charles Gregory and Harry M. Kalven, Jr., Cases and Materials on Torts (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1959).

6 Karl N. Llewellyn, The Common Law Tradition (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1960).

sets of doctrine have been produced and followed by men of the same culture. The divergence might prove explicable, however, if analyzed in terms of the historical backgrounds and the diverse purposes that each body of law was intended to serve. Or the two sets of doctrine might be viewed as functional alternatives. Although defamation law does not require the plaintiff to establish an initial showing of carelessness on the part of the de­fendant, it has alternative criteria-e.g., "publication" to a third party-which serve as a hurdle that the plain­tiff must cross before getting to the jury. Judicial opin­ions defining publication suggest that in determining whether a given statement constitutes publication, the courts may take into account the state of mind of the defendant. Not only do these diverse doctrines permit judges to accomplish the same general procedural results -of controlling the flow of cases to the jury-but also may be interpreted as having a common tendency to preclude from liability those claims that are least likely to cause disturbance to the society as a whole. (It is also interesting to note doctrinal convergences. For instance, even though the "mental element" plays no explicit part at the broadest level of defamation doctrine, a showing of malice or bad faith does in many instances help to defeat a claim of privilege.)

(4) After a body of legal doctrine had been mastered, we intended to look at its operation in existing legal institutions. We proposed to view the legal process against the model of a large-scale organization, using particularly the conceptual tools provided by Simon in Administrative Behavior and by March and Simon in Organizations.7 The informational input available to the legal system concerning the effectiveness of law in action was of special interest. We were intrigued by the fact that legal decisions are often explicitly made on the basis of partial information, that the rules of evidence frequently contribute to the limiting of information that courts can consider, and that in general the law has been reluctant to capitalize on new and seemingly relevant sources of information such as might be supplied by the social sciences. We were tempted to attribute this atti­tude to the tendency of legal decision-makers to "satis­fice," that is, to make a decision sufficient to meet criteria of satisfactoriness rather than to strive for the most satis­factory of all possible decisions.

(5) Before any such inference could be seriously enter­tained, however, it seemed necessary to demonstrate that valid information on the legal process was available but was not being appropriately utilized in legal decision-

1 Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior (2nd ed.; New York: Macmillan Company, 1957); James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959).

making. Accordingly we planned to examine the findings of relevant empirical studies: the University of Chicago Jury Project and the studies of court congestion that are being made at the Chicago and Columbia Law Schools.

(6) Finally, we intended to consider a specific policy issue, the reform of automobile accident law, to see how it is now being approached, to ascertain the relevance of existing information to the current thinking, to iden­tify areas for research which could yield more useful information, and to appraise the reasons for resistance of legal decision-makers to greater use of existing and potential social information on this subject.

THE ACTUAL PROGRAM

In practice this outline turned out to be too ambitious. Some of the departures from plan warrant discussion, for the light they may throw on the interrelations of law and social science and on the advantages and disadvantages of the case method of law teaching.

We had available a seven-week term and we agreed to meet for two hours each morning for five days each week. The two hours expanded quickly into three hours, and toward the end of the term we held some afternoon sessions as well. There were in all, therefore, approxi­mately 80-90 hours of group discussion.

Our actual schedule, in contrast with the original agenda, ran about as follows: (1) defamation and related dignitary torts, 35 hours; (2) Llewellyn, Common Law Tradition, and judicial process, 12 hours; (3) negligence law, 14 hours; (4) Simon, Administrative Behavior, 7 hours; (5) jury and court congestion studies, 4 hours. (6) The reform of personal injury law was never reached.

In addition, approximately 15 hours was devoted to individual reports by participants in the institute on re­search on which they were currently engaged and which related in a general way to the concerns of the institute. By deliberate choice we made relatively less use of guests than had the previous institutes but were fortunate in having brief visits from three distinguished and helpful visitors: Herbert Kaufman, Associate Professor of Politi­cal Science at Yale University, who discussed organiza­tion theory; Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Professor of Sociology at Columbia University, who discussed the concept of meas­urement; and Hans Zeisel, Professor of Law and Soci­ology at the University of Chicago, who reported on Jury Project data. Finally, we had a robust last session at which we attempted to frame some general questions that had run through our deliberations.

It is thus apparent that we spent the majority of the time on law school casebook law. Our plan misfired in the undue emphasis given defamation over negligence, in the failure to reach the issue of reform of accident

4

law, and in the failure to do more than nod briefly to

the data from the jury and court congestion studies.

REASONS FOR DIVERGENCE FROM SCHEDULE I Several observations are suggested by our departures

from schedule, apart from the obvious one that we did not plan very well!

First, there is the familiar point that interdisciplinary study, if it is at all serious, takes time, and the apparently generous seven weeks at our disposal proved to be a shockingly short period. The very strength of such dis­cussion "across disciplines" is also a weakness when viewed simply from the standpoint of efficiency. The group stimulated so much discussion and such lively dis­cussion as to defeat any expectation of conformance with a short-term schedule. It is not clear what the solution of this problem may be. We wish to report only that the time costs of such ventures are formidable.

Second, if "students" as mature and professional as the participants in the 196.1 institute are to be recruited, it is highly desirable to compromise with the student­teacher arrangement and give each participant a class hour or two in which to present his own research. The individual reports made at the 1961 institute were uni­formly of high quality and greatly broadened the range of material available to the group. There is, however, an unresolved problem here. Insofar as mastery of subject I matter is the objective, use of the teacher-student device seems more efficient. Insofar as the sharing of diverse professional experience, perspective, and insight is the objective, use of the individual seminar report is more effective. Both objectives seem highly desirable for insti­tutes of this sort, and we cannot claim to have struck an altogether happy balance between them.

Third, the institute proved to be an interesting but puzzling experiment with the case method of teaching. The participants were quickly persuaded that the study and discussion of cases was the best method of looking at law. Their behavior was like that of a very bright law school class. The discussions were endlessly exciting and lively. Thus the case method came off very well as a stimulating and realistic teaching device. These quali-ties are, of course, its familiar virtues, and it is perhaps impressive that the method was so congenial to a group containing so few law students. There is, however, the other side of the story, which is also familiar to the law school world. The method is not economical of time. The reason we spent so much time on defamation may have been simply that we began with the cases on it, and there was so much to talk about. Again, we see no easy • solution to the problem and wish only to report that the • time costs of the case method, which are recognized as a

serious problem in legal education, are aggravated in interdisciplinary groups.

Fourth, it is difficult to anticipate the interdisciplinary significance of a particular area of law without consider­able analysis. We had chosen the law of defamation more for its interest and breadth than from an expectation that it would be a promising area for sustained interdis­ciplinary collaboration. We were startled to find it so fundamentally related to basic concepts in the social sciences. Reputation, the interest which the law of defamation seeks to protect, is remarkably close to the dependent variables analyzed in sociological research on stratification and in social psychological research on the perception of persons. Recognition of this link led us to formulate some questions of importance which have been largely ignored by some or all of the fields they involve. A few of these questions were:

1. How is reputation conceptualized-popularly, le­gally, sociologically?

2. What kinds of communication-to whom, by whom, and about whom-are most likely to pro­duce damage to reputation?

3. In what ways is the maintenance of reputation functional for given societies as well as for the individual?

4. What consequences for the individual's "life chances" result from loss of reputation? It 5. In what ways does legal policy-existing or pos­sible-deter or encourage defamatory acts and re­pair the damage that they cause?

Fifth, consensus on the interest of particular problems for research is more readily obtained in a group like the participants in the 1961 institute than is agreement as to the utility of any general scheme of analysis. We were all intrigued by the question whether the Princess You­soupoff's reputation was likely to be damaged by a film showing her the victim of a rape by the monk Rasputin. But we disagreed over the utility of various decision­making theories which were advanced as means for predicting the judge'S decision in such cases. Llewel­lyn's analysis was resisted on the ground that it was too poetic; Simon's, because it was not poetic enough. Our nearest approach to general agreement came from ex­amining relatively specific issues which we all found im­portant. As the following examples indicate, these issues covered a wide range: dismissal from governmental serv­ice for disloyalty as grounds for an action in defamation; the use of defamation law as an instrument of political struggle by the Nazis; the influence of the quality of legal representation on the exercise of discretion by It judges and juries in criminal and civil cases.

From such examples we tried to extract common ele­ments which might lead inductively to a generalization

5

about the areas of interest common to legal scholars and social scientists. The closest approximations we could make were the following:

(1) Any process that leads official decision-makers to deviate in their decisions from the limits of dis­cretion formally imposed on them by law;

(2) Any process that permits or encourages use of the law by claimants other than those for whom the law is intended and prevents or discourages its use by those for whom it is intended;

(3) Any process that punishes or deters actors who are not the targets of law, or frees from liability those whom the law seeks to regulate.

It is hoped that formulations such as the foregoing, if avowedly not exhaustive, will prove to be useful points of departure for future appraisals of areas of mutual in­terest for research in social sciences and law.

Our constant struggle with schedule perhaps suggests a larger point. We came away from the institute greatly impressed with the potential of interdisciplinary semi­nars for research and study. But the excitement about the potential should not blunt the fact that it is difficult to devise an appropriate organization and equally diffi­cult to find an appropriate way of assuring some perma­nent record of what was accomplished. Being free from any requirement of a final written report or memo­randum has great advantages in liberating the energies of the participants and inviting uninhibited discussion. But it means also that nothing more concrete can emerge than the acquisition of knowledge and ideas by individ­uals and their stimulation by discussion, which may later bear fruit in their research or in pervasive changes of emphasis in teaching. Here again we can only report a difficulty and not a solution.

In brief, the institute completely persuaded us that such ventures are of high promise, but that we by no means know how to tap their potential effectively. Our thumbnail summary of the institute was that it had worked so well, it was a pity it had not worked better.

CONCLUSIONS

From our experiences and those of the preceding insti­tutes, we suggest the following conclusions:

1. Mastery of a specific body of law is highly useful as a starting point for interdisciplinary efforts.

2. Virtually any body of law can be used to demon­strate the basic elements in legal reasoning.

3. Consensus is not easily obtained on a general theory of the legal process.

4. The communication barriers between disciplines are overrated as an obstacle.

5. The distinctive perspectives of representatives of

the various disciplines do not readily emerge when they discuss a common problem. This is something of a puzzle and perhaps reflects the current unsatisfactory defini­tions of subject matter in the social sciences.

ri. There is more of a gap within the social sciences LOday !Jetween those oriented toward empirical research with statistical techniques and those oriented to a more humanistic normative conceptual approach to the study of human behavior than there is between any of the social sciences, on the one hand, and law, on the other.

7. The central problem in interdisciplinary research is to locate those common points of professional excite­ment that have comparable significance for legal schol-

ars, sociologists, political scientists, anthropologists, et al. The summer institute offered fascinating examples of such points, and is a fruitful way of exploring the com­mon ground among various approaches to research on I human behavior.

S. The time may have arrived for a serious attempt to develop a comprehensive strategy of sociolegal research, with the hope of turning existing differences in points of view into mutually compatible and supportive efforts. While we may have made little concrete progress toward such a research strategy, we were tantalized by the pros­pect, and hope to see further efforts along these lines in the near future.

COMMITTEE BRIEFS

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Herman M. Southworth (chairman), Kenneth L. Bach­man, George K. Brinegar, Robert L. Clodius, Marc Nerlove, William H. Nicholls, Philip M. Raup, Vernon W. Ruttan, George S. Tolley.

A fourth research paper prepared for the committee, "The Study of Interactions between Agriculture and the Nonfarm Economy: Local, Regional and National," by Karl A. Fox, Iowa State University, was published in the February issue of the Journal of Farm Economics. A limited number of reprints will be available upon request to the Councilor to Mr. Fox.

COMPARATIVE POLITICS

Gabriel A. Almond (chairman), R. Taylor Cole, James S. Coleman, Herbert Hyman, Joseph LaPalombara, Sigmund Neumann, Lucian W. Pye, Robert E. Ward; staff, Bryce Wood.

A seminar on research on bureaucracy and political development, the second in a series initiated by the com­mittee in September 1961, was held at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, J an­uary 29 - February 1, 1962, under the co-chairmanship of Messrs. Cole and LaPalombara. The titles and authors of papers discussed at the seminar were: "Bureaucracy and Political Development," S. N. Eisenstadt, Hebrew Univer­sity, Jerusalem; "Bureaucracy and Political Development: Notes, Queries and Dilemmas," Mr. LaPalombara; "The Higher Civil Service as an Action Group in Political Devel­opment," F. Morstein Marx, Hunter College; "Bureaucrats and Political Development: A Paradoxical View," Fred W. Riggs, Indiana University; "The Public Bureaucracy and Judiciary of Pakistan in Transition," Ralph Braibanti, Duke University; "Bureaucracy and Modernization-The Russian and Soviet Case," Merle Fainsod, Harvard University; "Bu­reaucracy and Political Development in Eastern Europe," Carl Beck, University of Pittsburgh; "Bureaucracy and Po­litical Development with Particular Reference to Nigeria,"

6

J. Donald Kingsley, Ford Foundation; "The Bureaucracy and Political Development in Viet Nam," John T. Dorsey, Jr., Vanderbilt University; "Military Development in the New Countries," Mr. Pye; "The Role of the Military in Indonesia," Guy J. Pauker, University of California, Berke­ley; "Levels of Economic Performance and Bureaucratic Structures," Bert F. Hoselitz, University of Chicago; "Bu­reaucracy and Economic Development," Joseph J. Spengler, Duke University; "International Bureaucracies and Politi-cal Development," Walter R. Sharp, Yale University. I Publication of the revised papers is planned, under the editorship of Messrs. Cole and LaPalombara.

The participants, in addition to authors of papers, other members of the committee, and staff, were: George I. Blanksten, Northwestern University; James W. Fesler, Yale University; Bertram M. Gross, Syracuse University; H. Field Haviland, Jr., Brookings Institution; Ferrel Heady and Takeshi Ishida, University of Michigan; James J. Heaphey and Victor Jones, University of California, Berkeley; Robert O. Tilman, Duke University; and Edward W'o Weidner, Michigan State University.

CONTEMPORARY CHINA: SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH ON CHINESE SOCIETY

John C. Pelzel (chairman), Morton H. Fried, G. William Skinner; staff, Bryce Wood.

A seminar on field research on contemporary Chinese so­ciety, the first in a series planned by the subcommittee, was held at the Windsor Hotel, Montreal, on January 19-20, 1962. Papers prepared and circulated to the participants in advance of the seminar were in the nature of bibliographical surveys: "Field Studies of Overseas Chinese and the Study of China," by Maurice Freedman, London School of Eco­nomics and Political Science; "Field Studies in China," by • Mr. Fried; "Japanese Field Work on China," by Mr. Pelzel; • "Field Work in Mainland China: Supplementary Mate­rials," by Mr. Skinner; "A Selection of Works and Documents

I

Relating to the Study of Chinese Society in Hong Kong," by Barbara E. Ward, Birkbeck College, University of London; "Preliminary Bibliography of Field Research Conducted in Taiwan," by Arthur P. Wolf, Cornell University.

The participants in the seminar, in addition to the authors of papers, were: Bernard Gallin, Harpur College; Robert Grey, Carnegie Corporation of New York; Marion J. Levy, Jr., Princeton University; Robert M. Marsh, Cornell University; Richard U. Moench, Harvard University; Edward J. Ryan, Center for Community Studies, Boston; Irene B. Taeuber, Princeton University; Tan Fay Tjhion, State University College of Education, Albany, New York; Ezra F. Vogel, Harvard University; Donald E. Willmott, University of Saskatchewan; W. E. Willmott, University of British Columbia; Bryce Wood; and C. K. Yang, Univer­sity of Pittsburgh.

On behalf of the subcommittee, Mr. Marsh is compiling a directory of social scientists interested in research on con­temporary Chinese society; he is circulating a questionnaire to obtain information on publications and research in progress.

The second seminar planned by the subcommittee, on documentary research on Chinese society, is scheduled to be held in Cambridge, Mass. on March 30-31, and April 1.

POPULATION CENSUS MONOGRAPHS

Dudley Kirk (chairman), Robert W. Burgess, John D. Durand, Ronald Freedman, Daniel O. Price, John W. Riley, Jr., George J. Stolnitz.

The committee met at the Bureau of the Census on Jan­uary 25 to review with the authors of the monographs already planned the status of their work, possible overlaps between the studies, and arrangements for access to census and other relevant data. Preliminary ordering of data and analysis of historical materials are under way in most of the studies, and intensive work on the others will begin within a few months. It is expected that the majority of the studies will be substantially completed by the end of 1963. The seven stud~es definitely scheduled comprise analyses of fami-

ly and personal incomes, with particular attention to data on low incomes, by Herman P. Miller and Selma F. Gold­smith; of the growth of metropolitan areas since 1900 by Amos Hawley and David Goldberg; of rural America by J. Allan Beegle and Dale E. Hathaway; of trends in the educa­tion of the American population by John K. Folger and Charles Nam; of the changing American family by Alice M. Rivlin and John C. Beresford; of trends concerning the place of the Negro in the American population by Daniel O. Price; and of significant population changes in the decade since 1950 by Conrad and Irene B. Taeuber. At a separate meeting the committee agreed on plans to initiate studies dealing with occupational and industrial changes in the American labor force, with migration and economic op­portunity, and with the interrelations of population changes and housing problems-in the hope that specific arrange­ments for these studies can be negotiated within the next few months. The committee continues to be receptive to proposals for a few further projects.

SIMULATION OF COGNITIVE PROCESSES

Herbert A. Simon (chairman), John W. Carr, III, Bert F. Green, Jr., George A. Miller; staff, Francis H. Palmer.

To increase the accessibility of techniques of using elec­tronic computers for simulation of human thinking, the committee is aiding in the development of information proc­essing language interpreters for high-speed computers. Un­der the direction of Robert K. Lindsay, Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Texas, an Information Processing Language V translator is being developed for the Control Data Corporation 1604 computer; and under the direction of the chairman of the committee, at Carnegie In­stitute of Technology, an interpreter for the Bendix G - 20. The committee is considering plans for a summer research training institute in the summer of 1963. The institute, which would be similar to that sponsored in 1958, would be concerned with practical problems of initiating and im­plementing research and instruction involving simulation techniques on university campuses.

PERSONNEL

DIRECTORS OF THE COUNCIL

The following persons have been designated by the seven national social science organizations associated with the Council to serve as directors of the Council for the three­year term 1962-64:

Charles Wagley, Columbia University, by the American Anthropological Association

Gardner Ackley, University of Michigan, by the American Economic Association

Thomas C. Cochran, University of Pennsylvania, by the American Historical Association

7

James S. Coleman, University of California, Los Angeles, by the American Political Science Association

Dorwin Cartwright, University of Michigan, by the Ameri­can Psychological Association

Guy E. Swanson, University of Michigan, by the American Sociological Association

Nathan Keyfitz, University of Toronto, by the American Statistical Association.

Their credentials as members are scheduled for acceptance by the board of directors of the Council at its spring meeting in New York on March 23-24, 1962.

FACULTY RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS

The Committee on Faculty Research Fellowships-John Useem (chairman), Lawrence E. Fouraker, John D. Lewis, Gardner Lindzey, Joseph J. Mathews, and George E. Mowry -held the first of its two meetings scheduled for 1961-62 on December 10-11. It voted to award 22 fellowships, as follows:

Gerald S. Blum, Professor of Psychology, University of Michigan, for a cross-cultural investigation in France, Norway, Austria, and Israel of preferences for psycho­logical defense mechanisms.

Walter F. Cannon, Durham, North Carolina, Ph.D. in history, Harvard University, for research in England on the English scientific community, 1820-60.

James B. Christoph, Assistant Professor of Political Sci­ence, Ohio State University, for research in England on governmental publicity and secrecy in Great Britain and the United States: a comparative study.

Natalie Zemon Davis, Assistant Professor of History, Brown University, for research in France, England, and Switzerland on a cultural and social analysis of sixteenth-century French mathematics.

Frederica de Laguna, Professor of Anthropology, Bryn Mawr College, for research in Canada and the United States on the history and culture of the Tlingit Indians of Alaska.

Wayne Dennis, Professor of Psychology, Brooklyn College, for research in Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru on changing values in Latin America.

Richard M. Douglas, Associate Professor of History, Amherst College, for research in Europe on the idea and pursuit of vocation among the "Erasmian" humanists of the sixteenth century.

Joseph W. Eaton, Professor of Social Work Research and Sociology, University of Pittsburgh, for a comparative study in England and Israel of the reorganization of prison systems.

Robert Forster, Associate Professor of History, University of Nebraska, for a social and economic study in France of its provincial nobility in the eighteenth century.

Theodore S. Hamerow, Professor of History, University of Wisconsin, for research in Germany on the economic foundations of German unification, 1858-71.

Dale W. Jorgenson, Associate Professor of Economics, University of California, Berkeley, for research in the Netherlands on a unified theory of estimation of simultaneous equations for econometric models based on the method of minimum chi-squared.

Raymond W. Mack, Associate Professor of Sociology, Northwestern University, for research in England and Norway on race and nationalism: an analysis of tech­niques of conflict resolution.

Richard D. Mann, Jr., Assistant Professor of Social Psy­chology, Harvard University, for research on depend­ency relations in small groups.

Donald B. Meyer, Associate Professor of History, Univer­sity of California, Los Angeles, for research in England on Anglican social philosophy after 1828 in comparison with Protestant philosophy in America.

Edmund S. Morgan, Professor of History, Yale Univer­sity, for research in Europe on the history of the Protestant Ethic in America.

8

Otis Pease, Associate Professor of History and American Studies, Stanford University, for research on the rela­tionship between urbanization and Progressivism in the United States.

Jacob M. Price, Associate Professor of History, Univer- • sity of Michigan, for research in Europe and the United • States on effects of the world tobacco market on the economic growth of Virginia and Maryland, 1674-1775.

Richard Rudner, Professor of Philosophy, Michigan State University, for research in England on inductive logic and its relation to partially formalized social science theories.

Howard A. Scarrow, Assistant Professor of Political Sci­ence, Michigan State University, for research in Canada on Canadian politics.

James W. Silver, Professor of History, University of Mississippi, for a study of Southern leadership, 1820-65.

Carl M. Stevens, Professor of Economics, Reed College, for research in Switzerland on cultural differences in the use and interpretation of institutions and techniques of collective bargaining.

R. B. Stevens, Associate Professor of Law, Yale University, for research in England on the House of Lords as a judicial body since 1875, in comparison with the U. S. Supreme Court.

GRANTS-IN-AID

The Committee on Grants-in-Aid-Vincent H. Whitney (chairman), Paul J. Bohannan, Alfred D. Chandler, Holland Hunter, William H. Riker, and Gordon Wright-held the first of its two meetings scheduled for 1961-62 on December I 14-15. It voted to award the following 16 grants-in-aid:

Lee Benson, Associate Professor of History, Wayne State University, for research on public opinion in New York in relation to causal explanation of the Civil War.

Deane Carson, Associate Professor of Economics, Brown University, for research on the economics of the legit­imate theatre (joint project with Philip Taft).

W. Frederick Cottrell, Professor of Government and of Sociology and Anthropology, Miami University, for re­search on the unified rules movemen t and the railroads.

Mervin B. Freedman, Senior Fulbright Research Scholar, Institute of Educational Research, University of Oslo, Norway, for research in Europe on personality develop­ment in European university students.

Herbert J. Gans, Research Associate Professor of City Planning, University of Pennsylvania, for research on the role of aspirations and effects in the origin and development of a new suburban community.

Michael M. Horowitz, Assistant Professor of Anthropol­ogy, Harpur College, for field study in Martinique of the cult of Maldevidan, syncretic religion of the East Indians of Martinique.

Val R. Lorwin, Professor of History, University of Oregon, for research in Belgium and the Netherlands on the Belgian political system.

Peter H. Merkl, Assistant Professor of Political Science, • University of California, Santa Barbara, for research • in the United States on West German parties, interest groups, and policy formation in historical perspective.

Ray M. Northam, Assistant Professor of Geography, Uni­versity of Georgia, for research on declining central places (for the dispensing of goods and services) in the United States, 1940-60.

Thomas F. Pettigrew, Assistant Professor of Social Psy­chology, Harvard University, for research on the influence of regional origin on Negro adult personality.

John L. Phelan, Associate Professor of History, University of Wisconsin, for research in Colombia and Ecuador on the decision-making machinery in the Spanish imperial bureaucracy, with special focus on the Audiencia of Quito, 1590-1636.

Leopold Pospisil, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Yale University, for research in Netherlands New Guinea on legally induced culture change among the Kapauku Papuans.

John L. Shover, Assistant Professor of History, San . Francisco State College, for study of the Farmers Holi­

day Association, 1930-35, as an agrarian protest movement.

Philip Taft, Professor of Economics, Brown University, for research on the economics of the legitimate theatre (joint project with Deane Carson).

Eric R. Wolf, Professor of Anthropology, University of Michigan, for research in Austria and Italy on national identification among German-speaking Tyrolese in the Italian province of Alto Adige.

Frank W. Young, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, for a cross-cultural study of initiation ceremonies.

SENIOR AWARDS FOR RESEARCH ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

The Committee on Grants for Research on Governmental Affairs-Robert E. Cushman (chairman), Alexander Heard, Dean E. McHenry, Elmer B. Staats, and Benjamin F. Wright -has made the following 6 senior awards for research in 1962-63 or later:

Harry Alpert, Professor of Sociology and Dean of the Graduate School, University of Oregon, for analysis of the interrelations of science and government, with special emphasis on the role of federal agencies in the utilization and development of social sciences.

William N. Chambers, Professor of Political Science, Washington University, for a developmental analysis of a party in action-the Democrats, 1789-196l.

Avery Leiserson, Professor of Political Science, Vanderbilt University, for research on the relations of the Execu­tive Office of the President with scientific, professional, and other expert groups.

Donald R. Matthews, Associate Professor of Political Sci­ence, University of North Carolina, for research on the political participation of the Negro.

Robert C. Wood, Professor of Political Science, Massa­chusetts Institute of Technology, for research on sci­ence and government, with particular focus on the political participation of scientists who are members of academic faculties.

Roland Young, Professor of Political Science, Northwest­ern University, for research on the formation and con­trol of public policy, with particular reference to the relations between the Executive and Congress.

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON AMERICAN GOVERNMENTAL AND LEGAL PROCESSES

The Committee on Political Behavior-David B. Truman (chairman), William M. Beaney, Robert A. Dahl, Oliver Garceau, V. O. Key, Jr., Avery Leiserson, and Edward H. Levi-at its meeting on January 23-24 awarded 10 grants for research under its program:

Rondal G. Downing, Assistant Professor of Political Sci­ence, University of Missouri, for research on the politics of judicial selection under the Missouri plan (joint with Frederick C. Spiegel and Richard A. Watson).

Richard F. Fenno, Jr., Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Rochester, for research on legisla­tive behavior and interaction of the legislative and executive branches in the appropriations process (re­newal of grant made in 1959-60).

Edward Green, Professor of Sociology, Beaver College, for an experimental study of the perception of legal lia­bility for conduct involving risk.

Abraham Holtzman, Associate Professor of Political Sci­ence, North Carolina State College, for research on the roles and behavior of legislative liaison agents of the executive branch of the national government.

Donald G. Morgan, Professor of Political Science, Mount Holyoke College, for research on the responsibility of Congress for considering constitutional questions and the manner of its exercise (renewal).

Walter F. Murphy, Associate Professor of Politics, Prince­ton University, for research on judicial power and strategy.

Hugh Douglas Price, Assistant Professor of Government, Columbia University, for research on the political socialization of new members of the House of Repre­sentatives.

Jerome H. Skolnick, Assistant Professor of Sociology and Law, Yale University, for research on informal social processes in criminal procedure, with special reference to the plea of guilty.

Frederick C. Spiegel, Associate Professor of Political Sci­ence, University of Missouri, for research with Rondal G. Downing and Richard A. Watson.

Richard A. Watson, Associate Professor of Political Sci­ence, University of Missouri, for research with Rondal G. Downing and Frederick C. Spiegel.

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY

The Committee on National Security Policy Research­William T. R. Fox (chairman), Morris Janowitz, Klaus Knorr, G. A. Lincoln, John W. Masland, Robert E. Osgood, Arthur Smithies, Robert C. Wood-at its meeting on Feb­ruary 21 awarded 4 grants for research in its field:

Alfred Goldberg, Chief, Current History Branch, U. S. Air Force Historical Division Liaison Office, for re­search in England on the evolution and operation of the national security policy-making machinery of the United Kingdom since 1945, in comparison with ex­perience in the United States.

Lewis J. Edinger, Associate Professor of Political Science, Michigan State University, for a comparative analysis of the role of military leaders in the formulation of foreign policy.

Herbert P. Secher, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Western Reserve University, for research in Germany on the role of certain parliamentary bodies in the de­termination of policies affecting military security in the Federal Republic of Germany.

Paul P. Van Riper, Professor of Administration, Cornell University, for research on the education, socioeco­nomic backgrounds, training, and careers of high mili­tary officers in the United States.

GRANTS FOR AFRICAN STUDIES

The Joint Committee on African Studies, of the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council-William A. Hance (chairman), Elizabeth Colson, William O. Jones, Vernon McKay, Alan P. Merriam, William E. Welmers, and Roland Young-on December 16 made the following 11 grants for research relating to Africa south of the Sahara:

Douglas G. Anglin, Associate Professor of Political Sci­ence, Carleton University (Ottawa), for research mainly in Nigeria on Nigerian foreign policy.

Alphonso A. Castagno, Jr., Associate Professor of Political Science, Queens College, for research in Europe and the Somali Republic on the Somali political system.

Walter W. Deshler, Associate Professor of Geography, University of Maryland, for research in England, Kenya, Uganda, and Tanganyika on patterns of agricultural cultivation among the major tribes of eastern Africa.

James E. Duffy, Professor of Spanish, Brandeis Uni­versity, for research in Europe and Africa on the his­tory of the Portuguese in Africa and Portuguese Afri­can nationalism.

David E. Gardinier, Instructor in History, Bowling Green State University, for research in Europe, Lagos, and the Cameroonian Republic, on independence and re­unification of the Cameroons.

Mozell C. Hill, Professor of Sociology of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, for research in Nigeria on the thought patterns of freshman students in Nigerian universities.

Bruce F. Johnston, Professor of Economics, Food Research Institute, Stanford University, for research in Africa on the food economies of East Africa.

Marshall H. Segall, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Columbia University, for research in the United States on individual behavioral manifestations of accultura­tion among members of an East African tribe.

Roy Sieber, Associate Professor of Art, State University of Iowa, for research on African art in public and private collections in the United States.

Amry Vandenbosch, Professor of Political Science, Uni­versity of Kentucky, for research in the Union of South Africa on the development of its foreign policy.

Absolom Vilakazi, Associate Professor of Anthropology and African Studies, Hartford Seminary Foundation, for research in the Republic of Congo, on role reloca­tion in a new African society.

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON CONTEMPORARY CHINA

The Joint Committee on Contemporary China, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies-George a E. Taylor (chairman), Norton S. Ginsburg (secretary),. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Alexander Eckstein, John K. Fairbank, Walter Galenson, A. M. Halpern, John M. H. Lindbeck, and G. William Skinner- at its meeting on December 15-16 awarded 10 grants for research, as follows:

Wing-tsit Chan, Professor of Chinese Culture and Philos­ophy, Dartmouth College, for research in Hong Kong on the development and modification of traditional philosophy in Communist China.

Kuei-sheng Chang, Assistant Professor of Geography, Wayne State University, for research on the changing industrial geography of mainland China.

Sen-dou Chang, Research Associate in Geography, Uni­versity of Washington, for a geographic study of the cities of Communist China.

Robert Chin, Professor of Psychology, Boston University, and Ai-li S. Chin, Associate in Research, East Asian Research Center, Harvard University, for research in Taiwan and Hong Kong on the cultural identity and self-image of Chinese youth.

Donald G. Gillin, Assistant Professor of History, Duke University, for study of the dynamics of local and regional government in a Chinese province, 1930-55.

Robert M. Marsh, Assistant Professor of Sociology and Far Eastern Studies, Cornell University, for research in the United States on social stratification and deviant behavior in Communist China. I

Douglas H. Mendel, Jr., Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles, for re­search in Japan and Taiwan on contemporary relations between Japan and Taiwan.

Peter S. H. Tang, Professor Adjunct of Government and International Relations, Georgetown University, for research on the thought of Mao Tse-tung and its rela­tionship to the international communist movement.

Holmes H. Welch, M.A. in Regional Studies East Asia, Harvard University, for research in Hong Kong on Buddhist institutions in Communist China (renewal).

C. K. Yang, Professor of Sociology, University of Pitts­burgh, for a community analysis in Hong Kong of a traditional town, emphasizing its ecological structure and institutional system.

GRANTS FOR LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES

The Joint Committee on Latin American Studies, spon­sored with the American Council of Learned Societies­Robert N. Burr (chairman), Henry P. de Vries, Fred P. Ellison, Wendell C. Gordon, Stanley J. Stein, Charles Wagley, and Robert Wauchope-at a meeting on December 7-8 awarded 12 grants for research:

10

Charles W. Anderson, Assistant Professor of Political Sci­ence, University of Wisconsin, for research in Colombia and Venezuela on politics and development policy. •

Russell H. Bastert, Associate Professor of History, Wil- • Iiams College, for research in Argentina, Chile, and Mexico on the Pan American Movement, 1881-95.

Michael Belshaw, Assistant Professor of Economics, Hunter College, for research in Mexico on economic problems of an agricultural village.

Harry Bernstein, Professor of History, Brooklyn College, for research in Brazil on Brazilian history since 1917.

William V. D'Antonio, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Notre Dame, for research in Mexico on community structure and municipal elections.

Charles A. Hale, Assistant Professor of History, Lehigh University, for research in Mexico on Jose Maria Luis Mora and the Mexican liberal tradition.

Evelyn Uhrhan Irving, Washington, D.C., Ph.D. in Spanish, University of Illinois, for research in Guate­mala and other Central American countries on Ruben Dario in Guatemala.

John J. Johnson, Professor of History, Stanford Univer­sity, for a socioeconomic study of militarism in Latin America.

Alfredo R. Lozada, Instructor in Spanish, Northwestern University, for research in Chile on the influence of poetic movements in France after World War I on Residencia en la Tierra (1925-35) by Pablo Neruda.

David M. Pletcher, Associate Professor of History, Ham­line University, for research in Mexico and Europe on American and European rivalry for influence in Mexico, 1820-70.

Robert E. Scott, Professor of Political Science, University of Illinois, for research in Peru on political culture and socialization in Peru.

Morris Singer, Assistant Professor of Economics, Univer­sity of Connecticut, for research in Mexico on aspects of a democratic society consistent with economic growth.

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON THE I NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST

The Joint Committee on the Near and Middle East, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies -T. Cuyler Young (chairman), Hamilton A. R. Gibb, Majid Khadduri, Dankwart A. Rustow, William D. Schorger, Wilfred C. Smith, Gustave E. von Grunebaum, and John A. Wilson-at a meeting on December 13 awarded 10 grants:

Zvi Ankori, Assistant Professor of History, Columbia Uni­versity, for research in Turkey on a history of the Jews in the Ottoman Empire.

Arnold J. Band, Assistant Professor of Hebrew, University of California, Los Angeles, for a critical study in Israel of the contemporary literary works of S. J. Agnon.

S. D. Goitein, Professor of Arabic, University of Penn­sylvania, for research in Europe and Israel on Arabic documents in the Cairo Geniza (repository for discarded writings) significant for the history of the Near East.

Kemal H. Karpat, Associate Professor of Political Sci­ence, Montana State University, for research in Turkey on current political changes there, with special refer­ence to local party organizations, social groups, and values (renewal).

Marvin W. Mikesell, Assistant Professor of Geography, University of Chicago, for field research in Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey on land management practices in the Levantine highlands.

Helen Rivlin, Associate Professor of History, University of Maryland, for research in Egypt on Egypt and the West, 1798-1882.

Hisham B. Sharabi, Associate Professor of Middle East History and Government, Georgetown University, for

11

research in Syria and Iraq on the Arab intellectuals of the Ottoman Empire, c. 1875-1925.

James Stewart-Robmson, Assistant Professor of Turkish Studies, University of Michigan, for research in Turkey on sixteenth-century minor Ottoman poets.

Speros Vryonis, Jr., Assistant Professor of History, Uni­versity of California, Los Angeles, for research in Greece, Turkey, and the United States on the decline of medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the process of Islamization in the eleventh to fifteenth centuries.

John Alden Williams, Assistant Professor, Institute of Is­lamic Studies, McGill University, for research in Eng­land, Turkey, and Azerbaijan on Islamic art and archi­tecture.

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE TRAVEL GRANTS

The Committee on International Conference Travel Grants-Leonard Krieger (chairman), Harold C. Conklin, Rowland A. Egger, George Garvy, Roger W. Russell, Irwin T. Sanders, and Harry Venneman-met on January 26. At this meeting and by mail vote it has made 39 awards to assist social scientists resident in the United States to attend the following international congresses and other meetings outside this country:

Congress of the International Economic Association, Vienna, August 30 - September 6, 1962

Yale Brozen, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago Walter Galenson, Professor of Business Administration

and of Economics, University of California, Berkeley Harvey Leibenstein, Professor of Economics, University

of California, Berkeley Edward Marcus, Associate Professor of Economics, Brook­

lyn College Gustav Ranis, Associate Professor of Economics, Yale

University Melvin W. Reder, Professor of Economics, Stanford Uni­

versity Edwin P. Reubens, Professor of Economics, City College,

New York Adolf F. Sturmthal, Professor of Labor and Industrial

Relations, University of Illinois Arnold Zellner, Associate Professor of Economics, Uni­

versity of Wisconsin

International Confe1-ence on Economic History, Aix-en­Provence, France, August 29 -September 4, 1962

T. Robert S. Broughton, Professor of Latin, Bryn Mawr College

Gerhard Bry, Professor of Economics, New York University Rondo E. Cameron, Professor of Economics and History,

University of Wisconsin Raymond de Roover, Professor of History, Brooklyn

College Evsey D. Domar, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology Herbert Heaton, Visiting Professor of Economic History,

University of Utah Edgar A. J. Johnson, Professor of Economic History,

Johns Hopkins University Frederic C. Lane, Professor of History, Johns Hopkins

University Douglass C. North, Professor of Economics, University

of Washington Carl A. Roebuck, Professor of Classical Languages, North­

western University

International Institute of Administrative Sciences. Vienna. July 16-21. 1962

Walter Gellhorn, Professor of Law, Columbia University Eric G. James, Senior Advisor in Public Administration,

United Nations, and Director, Institute of Public Administration, Republic of the Sudan

Congress of the International Regional Science Association. Zurich. September 3-6. 1962

Walter Isard, Professor of Economics and Regional Sci­ence, University of Pennsylvania

Benjamin H. Stevens, Associate Professor of Regional Sci­ence, University of Pennsylvania

Regional Conference of Southeast Asian Geographers. Kuala Lumpur. Malaya. April 2-23. 1962

John D. Eyre, Associate Professor of Geography, Univer­sity of North Carolina

A. W. Kuchler, Professor of Geography, University of Kansas

International Social Science Council Round-Table Con­ference on Uses of Sample Survey Data in Comparative Cross-National Research. Montreux. Switzerland. June 29 - July 3.1962

Philip E. Converse, Senior Study Director, Survey Re­search Center, University of Michigan

Karl W. Deutsch, Professor of Political Science, Yale University

Charles Y. Glock, Director, Survey Research Center, Uni­versity of California, Berkeley

Philip K. Hastings, Director, Roper Public Opinion Re­search Center, Williams College

Morris Janowitz, Professor of Sociology, University of Chicago

Seymour M. Lipset, Professor of Sociology and Social Institutions, University of California, Berkeley

Ithiel de Sola Pool, Professor of Political Science, Massa­chusetts Institute of Technology

Conference on Socialist Theories of Economic Growth, French National Commission for UNESCO and Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, April 16-20, 1962

Joseph S. Berliner, Associate Professor of Economics, Syracuse University

Bert F. Hoselitz, Professor of Economics and Social Sci­ence, University of Chicago

Other Meetings Abroad

Alvin L. Bertrand, Professor of Sociology and Rural Sociology, Louisiana State University; Congress of the

European Society for Rural Sociology, St. Wolfgang, Austria, September 25-29, 1962

John B. Carroll, Professor of Education, Harvard Uni­versity; Commission for Technical Cooperation in Africa South of the Sahara, International Colloquium I on Multilingualism in Africa, Brazzaville, July 17-21, 1962

William C. Jones, Associate Professor of Law, Washington University; Congress of Comparative Law, Hamburg, July 30 - August 4, 1962

Lawrence R. Klein, Professor of Economics, University of Pennsylvania; International Economics Association Conference on Theory of the Interest Rate, Royau­mont, France, March 29 - April 4, 1962

S. M. Miller, Professor of Sociology, Syracuse University; International Sociological Association Conference on Social Stratification and Social Mobility, Cologne, November 27 - December 2, 1961

ANNOUNCEMENT GRANTS UNDER THE FULBRIGHT-HAYS ACT

FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH AND UNIVERSITY LECTURERS IN THE PACIFIC AREA, SOUTH

AND SOUTHEAST ASIA, AND LATIN AMERICA

The Committee on International Exchange of Persons, of the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils, will issue early in March an announcement of United States Government grants under the Fulbright-Hays Act for advanced research and university lecturing during the academic year beginning in the spring of 1963 in the following countries of the Pacific, South and Southeast I Asia, and Latin America: Australia and New Zealand; Burma, Ceylon, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Thailand; Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay.

The closing date for making application will be April 15,1962.

These awards are intended for United States citizens who are well-established scholars, usually at the postdoctoral level. Grants will be effective in one country only, preferably for the full academic year in that country, and are payable in nonconvertible foreign currencies.

Detailed information and application forms may be obtained from the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils, Committee on International Exchange of Persons, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington 25, D.C.

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

230 PARK AVENUE. NEW YORK 17. N. Y.

Incorporated in the State of Illinois, December 27, 1924, for the purpose of advancing research in the social sciences

Directors,1962: GARDNER ACKLEY. ABRAM BERGSON. PAUL J. BOHANNAN. DORWIN CARTWRIGHT. JOHN A. CLAUSEN. THOMAS C. COCHRAN. JAMES S.

COLEMAN. HAROLD F. DORN. LoUIS GOTTSCHALK. CHAUNCY D. HARRIS. H. FIELD HAVILAND. JR •• PENDLETON HERRING. GEORGE H. HILDEBRAND.

WAYNE H. HOLTZMAN, NATHAN KEYFITZ. EDWARD H. LEVI, PHILIP J. McCARTHY. WILBERT E. MOORE, WILLIAM H. NICHOLLS, J. ROLAND PENNOCK,

DAVID M. POTTER, NEVITT SANFORD, HERBERT A. SIMON. MELFORD E. SPIRO, GUY E. SWANSON, DAVID B. TRUMAN. CHARLES WAGLEY, S. S. WILKS,

MALCOLM M. WILLEY. DONALD YOUNG

Officers and Staff: PENDLETON HERRING. President; PAUL WEBBINK, Vice·President; ELBRIDGE SIBLEY, Executive Associate; BRYCE WOOD. ELEANOR C.

IsBELL. FRANCIS H. PALMER, ROWLAND L. MITCHELL. JR., Staff Associates; CATHERINE V. RONNAN. Financial Secretary

12