SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

VOLUME 19 . NUMBER 1 . MARCH 1965 230 PARK AVENUE· NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017

DIRECTIONS IN SOCIOLINGUISTICS: REPORT ON AN INTERDISCIPLINARY SEMINAR

EVERY interdisciplinary encounter by its nature involves tensions related to the differing values and expectations of the groups represented. The research seminar on sociolinguistics held in the summer of 1964 at Indiana University 1 showed many evidences of such tensions. The participants in the seminar agreed, however, by the end of the summer that in their own thinking at least the fields of sociology and linguistics had profited from the encounter and new areas of mutual concern had been uncovered.

At the beginning of the summer the linguists in the seminar had some definite psychological advantages: They were surrounded by several hundred fellow lin­guists teaching or studying at the summer Linguistic Institute to which the seminar was attached. Also, all of them had done a considerable amount of research on

• The author is Visiting Professor of Linguistics at the University of Washington for the year 1964-65. He is on a year's leave from the Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C., of which he is the Director. He has served as chairman of the Council's Committee on Sociolinguistics since its appointment in 1963, and was the chairman of the seminar he reports on here.

1 See Items, December 1963, p. 52, and June 1964, p. 22. In addition to the participants named there, the regular participants in the seminar included Ranier Lang and Leonard Lieberman, Ph.D. candidates in anthropology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Michi­gan State University, respectively. John Useem, Michigan State Uni­versity, participated during half of the session. Three consultants spent about a week each with the seminar: Susan M. Ervin, University of California, Berkeley; Joseph H. Greenberg, Stanford University; Wallace E. Lambert, McGill University. Special presentations to the seminar were made by Allen D. Grimshaw, Indiana University; Michael A. K. Halliday, University of London; Dell Hymes, University of Cali­fornia, Berkeley; Stephan P. Wurm, Australian National University. C. F. Voegelin, Indiana University, was a regular visitor to the seminar.

by Charles A. Ferguson·

sociolinguistic phenomena and had acquired some fairly definite notions about the theoretical bases of their work. Finally, they all had the conviction-generally well-hidden but sometimes coming to the surface-that only linguists really understand how language works and consequently sociologists would have to master many of the concepts and techniques of linguistic sci­ence in order to do any fruitful work at all on socio­linguistic questions.

The sociologists were in a different state: They recog­nized the need for a deeper understanding of language behavior, but they were doubtful about the social sci­ence sophistication of the linguists. On the other hand, the sociologists were perhaps too easily impressed by the linguists' apparent familiarity with the facts of dozens of languages. During the summer, however, they came to appreciate the insights and knowledge of the lin­guists and even to acknowledge the importance of study of linguistics by sociologists; at the same time they real­ized that as sociologists they had important contribu­tions to make in theory and method as well as in the choice of problems to be investigated.

Fairly early in the seminar it became clear that the sociologists could ask embarrassing questions which pointed up weaknesses in the current theory and prac­tice of linguistics. They asked, for example, for some kind of measure, no matter how crude, of the degree of structural difference between any two languages, since they would find this useful for many kinds of analysis. They were quite baffied to discover that lin­guists had no such measure and that linguists on the whole had not been interested in devising one. Simi-

1

larly the sociologists asked for guidance on defining the limits between language and dialect or between one language and another, only to find that the linguists regarded this question as a troublesome problem for which they had no ready solution.

One of the greatest obstacles to effective communica­tion between the two groups was the simple fact that the term "data" meant very different things to sociolo­gists and linguists. It is not too strong to say that some of the sociologists were shocked by the linguists' meth­ods of data collection. They found it hard to believe that most linguists seem to rely on casually chosen in­formants and poorly controlled introspection for ex­tensive generalizations about the language behavior of large, diversified populations. The linguists, in defend­ing their favorite kinds of data (heard or recorded utterances and documentary attestation of forms), came to see the need for increased sophistication in sampling techniques and generally in statistical treatment of data. On the other hand, the linguists tended to be suspicious of some of the masses of quantified data which the sociologists were accustomed to handle, and were able to demonstrate pitfalls in the use of statistical data on language by showing that even such simple census ques­tions as "What language do you speak?" involve com­plex attitudinal factors as well as problems of language identification and the evaluation of proficiency.2

Another source of tension in the discussion was the difference in methods of analysis and argumentation customary in the two groups. The sociologists found quite foreign to their experience what one of them called the linguists' "anecdotal approach" in argumen­tation, by which a linguist offering a generalization would agree that it was demolished if another linguist present could think of a counter example from some exotic language which only he knew about. Most of the linguists, on the other hand, were quite unfamiliar with the intricate analysis of covariance or the setting up of alternative conceptual frameworks which the sociologists found congenial.

The first several weeks of the seminar were devoted to exchange of information, attitudes, and justifications of interest, at first warily and defensively but with in­creasing mutual respect and acceptance. The procedure was chiefly the presentation of the individual partici­pants' research findings either in oral reports or by cir­culation of reprints and manuscripts, and then fairly unstructured discussion of some of the issues raised. Also, the first two outside consultants, both experimen­tal psychologists interested in sociolinguistic phenome­na, served to focus the attention of the whole group on

2 One of the products of the seminar was a paper by Stanley Lieber­son, "Language Questions in Censuses."

2

useful approaches to the field which were neither lin­guistic nor sociological in emphasis.

At the end of the third week three working groups were set up to meet outside the daily seminar sessions and report back to the whole seminar, respectively on language and social theory, multilingualism, and lan­guage standardization (these reflect some of the major common interests of the participants). Each working group had a sociologist as chairman, and each group produced draft documents for consideration by the seminar. A number of the papers started in these groups during the summer are now being revised and expanded by their authors.s

LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

One point on which there was immediate communi­cation between sociologists and linguists was the lan­guage aspect of social stratification. The long-standing interest of American sociologists in social stratification has included many dimensions of the subject, but has never been focused in a serious way on its language aspect. Sociologists and other social scientists have been content to observe occasionally that linguistic phenome­na seem to be correlated with other social data, coin­ciding with lines of communication in a community or in effect marking group membership, but they have not investigated these phenomena in a systematic way. On the other hand, scholars in linguistic science have long maintained the importance of social dialects and the social matrix of linguistic differentiation, but the work of the linguists in this field has been characterized by lack of sophistication in techniques of social analysis other than those commonly used in anthropological field work.

William Labov reported to the seminar in some de­tail on a series of studies, undertaken in New York City during the past several years, which combined the ex­pert knowledge and insights of linguists and sociolo­gists. Working with a population which had previously been surveyed in detail by a team of social scientists, Labov, using appropriate sampling procedures and in­genious modifications of linguistic field methods, showed a strikingly high agreement between linguistic perform­ance on five small phonological points and the socio­economic ratings, based on occupation, education, and income, made by the social scientists. In fact, for this population the agreement was so high as to suggest that a linguistically trained observer in possession of Labov's results would be able to locate an individual on the socioeconomic scale much faster with linguistic indices

S An example of such a paper is the lengthy study by William Labov, "The Aims of Sociolinguistic Research."

than would an interviewer using the nonlinguistic information.

The significance of this kind of research for social scientists was quite clear. A study of social stratification in America-and presumably in other societies as well -that ignores language phenomena is missing one of the most sensitive and accessible indicators of com­munity ranking. Since analysis of the kind of phonologi­cal variation that is so important in American social dialectology often requires considerable technical com­petence in linguistics, a linguist may often be a useful member of a team of social scientists. In many cases, however, once the linguist has found a useful diagnostic feature, it may often be possible for an interviewer or field worker with little specialized linguistic training to employ it. For example, in the analysis of the speech of sales personnel in department stores catering to differ­ent socioeconomic strata, it was possible to achieve im­pressive results simply by eliciting under natural work­ing conditions the pronunciation of the word "fourth" as in "fourth floor" and recording whether the "r" was pronounced.

Anthropologists have been interested in the relation between languages and the cultures in which they are or of which they form a part, and courses on "Language and Culture" are regularly offered at universities. Strangely enough, however, ethnographers have shown little interest in the variation in language use from one society to another or in the sets of beliefs or attitudes toward it which are current in the different societies. Dell Hymes has called this new field of research the "ethnography of communication" and has stimulated a number of linguists and anthropologists to work in the field. As a result, sociologists concerned with the analysis of census data about language or linguists concerned with linguistic analysis in situations of language contact now find their work related to this larger field.

MULTILINGUALISM

On the major topic of multilingualism, the seminar discussed on a number of occasions the new approach of John Gumperz, based on studies he had carried out in Norway and India. This approach takes as its starting point a sociolinguistic community as defined by the amount of communicative interaction and delineates the total verbal repertoire of the community, which may include several distinct dialects or styles of the same language or of two or more distinct languages. On the basis of description of the constituent "varieties" of the repertoire and the situational and other factors which bring the respective varieties into play, Gumperz hopes to clarify our understanding of the dynamics of

3

communication and sociolinguistic behavior in the community and to develop a general theory of socio­linguistics.

An example of this approach dealt with a large com­munity of bilingual Hindi-Panjabi speakers in Delhi. The members of this community use both languages with full competence and in a wide variety of situations within the community and outside it. Gumperz' careful study of this community in terms of the forms of each language and the occasions of use casts light not only on technical questions of linguistic interference but also on the present values and social structure of the com­munity and its historical development. The participants in the seminar generally agreed on the value of this approach in study of relatively small communities and explored its applicability to larger societies and nations.

A large part of the seminar was spent in broadening the participants' knowledge of the range of possible kinds of multilingual communities. This came partly from the theoretical interest of some and partly from the very varied personal experiences of the participant's, which included work in the Philippines, India, Arab countries, Mexico, the Caribbean, Canada, Switzerland, Scandinavia, and Africa. The discussions of the second working group and a number of the seminar sessions as well were devoted to the general problem of language maintenance and language shift in a society and the classification of multilingual societies in terms of the "types" and "functions" of languages in them.

Joshua Fishman, in studying the language retention of ethnic groups in the United States, had focused his attention on the notion of the "domains" of use of a language in a society and the classifications and basic principles related to this. Heinz Kloss, in tracing the emergence of a number of new Germanic literary lan­guages in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, pro­vided concepts such as Abstand languages (independent by virtue of linguistic distance from others) and Ausbau languages (independent by virtue of the level of use in writing), which hold promise of general validity. Wil­liam Stewart outlined a sociolinguistic typology for describing national multilingualism which incorporates work of Kloss, Ferguson, and others and offers fresh insights for political scientists and sociologists.

In discussion of multilingualism the seminar partici­pants were wrestling with the problem of developing a frame of reference or set of basic concepts in terms of which they could deal with such questions as these: How does it happen that one language is used as a lingua franca, another not? Why does one immigrant group or submerged indigenous minority retain its language, an­other not? How many official languages can be supported in a nation of a given size? What are the nonlinguistic

correlates of intergroup bilingualism where each sub­group speaks its own language and communication is through a few bilinguals versus intragroup bilingualism where the whole community uses two languages in com­munication? Does the use of a foreign language in a nation's official life interfere with the economic, politi­cal, and social development of the country?

LANGUAGE STANDARDIZATION

With the proliferation of nationalism after World War I and again after World War II with its generation of new nations, scholars of various disciplines have been led to examine the factors involved in the development of a standard language (Le., the form of a language serv­ing as a special kind of norm beyond regional and social dialects, often associated with a feeling of nationhood) and the role of language in the development of national­ism. Such men as the French linguists Antoine Meillet and J. Vendryes in the earlier period and more recently the political scientist and sociologist Karl Deutsch made important contributions in this area, but they have not been followed by any appreciable number of workers. Einar Haugen's study of the language con­troversy in Norway provided the seminar with a detailed case study in language standardization, where the lan­guage question has been a highly charged political issue and where the situation for many years seemed to move toward greater disruption and confusion. In contrast with this case where much of the change was brought about consciously and through written media, Ferguson summarized the early standardization of Classical Arabic which was apparently accomplished largely uncon­sciously, for the limited purposes of poetry and oratory, and with little use of writing. The working group on standardization was able to agree on a number of useful concepts ("homogeneity," "adequacy") and on certain general principles of description, but the chief conclu­sion was a call for research in areas almost untouched. How do language academies work? How does homoge­nization take place in a nonliterate society? What are the causal factors in the great variation of routes to standardization?

This listing of highlights connected with the three main areas of discussion at the seminar leaves out some of the most exciting moments of the summer, such as Savitz' account of the speech of juvenile gangs and

Friedrich's elaborate analysis of nineteenth-century Rus­sian patterns of address, as well as the presentations by consultants and other special visitors, but it may give a sense of the range of subject matter and the variety of approaches employed.

4

The success of the sociolinguistic seminar was another evidence of the strength of a growing trend toward the analysis of language as it functions in society. Earlier evidences of the trend include the series of symposia held at annual meetings of the American Anthropo­logical Association, the sociolinguistic articles appearing frequently in the journal Anthropological Linguistics, courses on sociolinguistics offered by linguists in sum­mer programs,4 the University of California, Los An­geles, Conference on Sociolinguistics in May 1964, and the sociolinguistic session held at the Eastern Sociologi­cal Society's annual meeting in April 1964. Even greater evidence of the strength of this trend is found in the publication of volumes of selected readings. Hymes's Language in Culture and Society (Harper & Row, 1964), Fishman's Readings in . the Sociology of Language, and the volume of papers from the UCLA Conference, edited by William Bright, (both in press, to be pub­lished by Mouton & Co.) are all appearing within a twelve-month period, in addition to two special issues of the A merican A nthropologist devoted to topics in this field.

Two unique features of the summer seminar in rela­tion to all the activity in the field were the full involve­ment of sociologists and the strong concern with social processes at the national level. The small but growing body of workers in this field have mostly been "anthro­pological" linguists, and the focus has been on smaller societies. Members of the seminar repeatedly expressed the hope that sociologists would see the importance of the field for their own discipline and would include sociolinguistics in their teaching, research, and other activities. A unique feature on the linguistic side of the seminar was the insistence by several of the linguists that work in this field is fundamental to the develop­ment of linguistic theory, since it throws new light on the little understood processes of language change.

4 Courses have been offered by linguists for the past three summers (Edgar Polome at the University of Texas, Ferguson at the University of Washington, and Gumperz at Indiana University) and will be offered next summer at the University of Michigan by Robbins Burling.

EDUCATION AND THE POLITICAL SCIENTIST*

SCHOLARLY concern with the relationship between edu­cation and the polity is not new. Since Plato and Aris­totle, political philosophers have affirmed principles em­bodied in the phrases, "As is the state, so is the school," or "What you want in the state, you must put into the school." 1 A prominent strand in democratic theory is the assumption that education is a correlate, if not a requisite, of a democratic order. The relationship be­tween education and authoritarian and ethnocentric at­titudes has commanded increased attention by political scientists. -There is a sizeable body of literature on the role of education in the growth of modem nationalism, and on its instrumental use by revolutionary totalitarian regimes. The politics of the church-state struggle over education have been a significant feature of the political history of the Western world. Studies of the political objectives and consequences of postwar educational re­organization in occupied Germany and Japan are also noteworthy. Finally, educational issues have bulked large in studies of politics at the local level. Yet, as David Easton observed a few years ago, "In political science as a whole, attention to problems of education has all but disappeared." 2 The fact is that despite certain notable exceptions, and the recent and current work that is be­ginning to fill the void, political scientists in general have paid very little attention to the over-all character of the education-polity nexus, and very few empirical studies have been made which focus explicitly upon the specific ways in which educational systems affect the functioning of political systems.

This neglect of what today seems so manifestly critical a relationship is not a peculiarity of political science. Only recently have educators and other social scientists concerned themselves with the links between education, on the one hand, and the economy, polity, society, or cul-

• The content of this article is reprinted (without the full text of footnotes) by permission of its author and the publisher from the "Introduction," pp. 6-13, in Education and Political Development, Studies in Political Development 4 (copyright by Princeton University Press, 1965, and to be published in April; c. 635 pages, $10.00). The volume, edited by Mr. Coleman, is based on the papers and pro­ceedings of a conference held by the Council's Committee on Com­parative Politics at Lake Arrowhead, California, June 24-29, 1962 (d. Items, September 1962, pp. 30-31). Mr. Coleman, Professor of Political Science and Director of the African Studies Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, has been a member of the Committee on Comparative Politics since 1955, and was a member of the Council's board of directors, 1962-64.

1 I. L. Kandel, "The Methodology of Comparative Education," International Review of Education, Vol. 5, 1959, p. 274.

2 David Easton, "The Function of Formal Education in a Political System," School Review, Vol. 65, 1957, p. 304.

5

by James S. Coleman

ture on the other. Educators, Fred Eggan notes, have been so busy keeping educational operations under way that they have had "little time or opportunity to step outside their educational institutions and see them as a system in the society as a whole." Eggan graciously adds that he and his fellow anthropologists have been equally inattentive, mainly because in their quest to study and comprehend societies as wholes they have been "reluc­tant students of our society and culture," tending, quite understandably, to gravitate to simpler, smaller-scale preliterate societies.s

When educators turned to comparative cross-cultural studies, their main initial concern was what C. Arnold Anderson has called "intra-educational analysis"; that is, they confined their attention exclusively to educa­tional data, "treating education as if it were an autono­mous social system." 4 The primary motivation of educators was not to seek generalization, but rather to discover practices and experiences that could be bor­rowed and adapted to advance reforms in their own edu­cational systems. Here the earlier focus of political sci­entists upon the formal political institutions of foreign governments provides an interesting parallel. Only re­cently have some educators developed an explicit schol­arly concern with the extra-educational determinants of educational systems and the broader relationships be­tween education and other functions and institutional sectors of society.5

This expansion in the horizon of the educator is the end product of a period of intense self-criticism. The most striking aspect of the development is that the pat­tern of initial stocktaking, the poaching on the insights

S Fred Eggan, "Social Anthropology and the Educational System," School Review, Vol. 65, 1957, p. 247. The presumptive link between anthropology and education is that both disciplines are "concerned with the transmission of the social heritage from one generation to the next and with the processes by which that transmission is achieved" (p. 247). The extent to which anthropology can contribute to the field of education has been discussed in several conferences (see George D. Spindler, ed., Education and Anthropology, Stanford: Stanford Uni­versity Press, 1955).

4 C. Arnold Anderson, "Methodology of Comparative Education," InteTllational Review of Education, Vol. 7, 1961, p. 2. For a recent bibliographical review of the literature on comparative education useful to the political scientist see William W. Brickman, "Compara­tive Education," in Review of Educational Research, Vol. 34, 1964, pp. 44-61.

5 Educators have long had, of course, a consuming practical concern with the political system. Indeed, because "education must compete with other governmental functions for limited resources," educators and civic groups in Western democratic societies have had to exert powerful pressure in support of the educational component of public expenditures.

of other disciplines, the conceptual and methodological innovations, and the enlargement of the universe of dis­course, polemic, and inquiry have closely paralleled the self-appraisal undertaken by students of comparative politics during the past tempestuous decade.

The traditional parochialism of educators has been under attack by pioneering self-critics within their pro­fession and, as well, by an increasing number of educa­tional sociologists. Similar shortcomings in political sci­ence have been subjected to critical examination by a group of restless practitioners in the field, stimulated in no small degree by the fresh approaches and the intel­lectual vigor of political sociologists. The influence of sociology, as well as of psychology, has sensitized both educators and political scientists to the relevance of the socialization process, the stratification system, and the nature of formal organizations. Although the central focus of educators will continue to be the educational system and its determinants, and that of political scien­tists the political system and the factors affecting it, there is now a vastly broadened basis for a fruitful dialogue regarding the education-polity relationship on such questions as the role of education in the formation of attitudes, values, and personality; in the recruitment of elites; and in sociopolitical change.6

The lack of scholarly attention to the polity by educa­tors is somewhat easier to explain than is the neglect of education by political scientists. David Easton has sug­gested that a minor contributory reason for such neglect is that somehow, in the increasing specialization of schol­arly disciplines and research (and, impliedly, in the even more pronounced differentiation in the autonomy of educational institutions), the study of the role of educa­tion was relegated, by default, to educators. This indiffer­ence might also be explained by the low intellectual and professional status of education. Easton's main point, however, concerns the way in which political sci­ence came to be conceptualized as a discipline: empirical political scientists have been concerned primarily with the use of education in the competition for power both within and between states, whereas political philosophy has sought to discover the type of educational system "best calculated to promote the philospher's conception of the good political society or the right social order." 7

6 The "Great Debate" among comparative educators was launched by a conference on comparative education at the UNESCO Institute for Education in Hamburg in 1955. Its main themes and issues may be traced through the issues of the Comparative Education Review, organ of the Comparative Education Society, inaugurated in 1957. Early issues reflected a single-system, less explicitly comparative, orientation. More recent issues, however, demonstrate a marked shift toward the comparative study of the relationships between education and other variables, including those of a clearly political character.

7 op. cit., pp. 304-306.

6

In short, our notion of the political relevance of educa­tion has been too constricted because of our overriding concern either with power or with normative political theory-or with "Americanization."

Another explanation concerns the structure and the role of education in American society. The late V. O. Key, Jr. in his study on public opinion provides us with a clue: "Usually the schools are regarded as apart from politics. They are thought of as agencies to equip young persons with those basic skills of literacy essential for the practice of even the simplest vocations of an industrial society. Or at the upper levels the schools transmit the skills and information necessary to practice the profes­sions or provide a grounding for young men who, prop­erly trained on the job, may become junior executives and, perhaps eventually, useful citizens." 8 Because the educational system in the United States is one of the most highly decentralized in the world, American schools "are not so obviously seen as arms of governance." 9 This consideration acquires added significance in the light of both the heavy preoccupation of political scientists with the study of the formal institutions of government, and the determination to "keep politics, as well as religion, out of the schools." True, educational issues frequently bulk large in political controversy at the local govern­ment level, having activated both enlightened and "luna­tic fringe" groups of political significance, but political scientists have tended primarily to focus their intel­lectual endeavors upon politics at the national level. The same macro-political orientation has characterized most American political scientists concerned with the comparison of foreign political systems.

These several aspects of the American scene-the de­centralization of the educational system, the resultant absence of a highly visible link between that system and the national power structure or formal institutions of government, and the tendency of political scientists in the past to concentrate on the latter-all help to explain the limited attention given by American students of government to the role of education in political systems.

8 Key, Public Opinion and American Democracy, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961, p. 315.

9 Ibid., p. 316. Paradoxically, the education-polity relationship either is considered insignificant or irrelevant because the link is seemingly so remote, as in America, or it cannot be brought effectively into sharp focus because the relationship is so close as to be extinguished, as in France, where the educational system is viewed as part of the governmental system. Kandel (op. cit., p. 272) has noted that the famous Langevin Commission, which planned the postwar reform of education in France, listed all the factors educational planners must take into account (sociological, economic, technological, status of women, changing social stratification), but explicitly excluded political factors. Since the commission was a government body, the omission is understandable, but it underscores the different ways in which the polity is ignored as a variable.

Because political science as a specialized academic disci­pline has been most highly developed in the United States, the definition of its scope has reflected, to an un­balanced degree, an American imprimatur. Thus, in seeking to explain past indifference to the education­polity relationship, we should not overlook the fact that the changing fashions and focuses of academic inquiry usually reflect the situational or cultural conditioning, as well as the ethnocentrism, of the inquirers.

But this discussion merely explains the past. We have already noted that massive changes in human societies everywhere have greatly heightened the sensitivity of all persons concerned (educators, economists, sociologists, government leaders, as well as political scientists) to the crucial role of education in economic, social, and po­litical development. Moreover, the magnitude of the changes that are occurring in all institutional spheres has served to illuminate their interrelatedness and mutual dependence.

Increased awareness of this functional interdepend­ence has stimulated social scientists and educators to con-

cern themselves with a more comprehensive array of variables. Such broadening is essential if we are fully to understand and interpret the particular facet of the multidimensional development complex which engages our specialized training. As holists, conscious of this interdependence and interested in the maintenance, integration, and transformation of total societies, politi­cal scientists are particularly affected by this new chal­lenge. It is the holistic imperative that enjoins political scientists to search for what has been termed "a more complete and systematic conception of the political process as a whole." 10 The same imperative directs our attention to the study of the role of education in the political process and in political change.

10 Gabriel A. Almond, "A Comparative Study of Interest Groups and the Political Process," American Political Science Review, Vol. 52, March 1958, p. 270. Almond is here arguing for the importance of studying interest groups and public opinion systematically and com­paratively, but his thesis is equally valid for the study of education, communications, or any other processes or parametric variables which might be fruitful for political analysis.

COMMITTEE BRIEFS

CONFERENCE BOARD OF ASSOCIATED RESEARCH COUNCILS

(Joint with the American Council on Education, Ameri­can Council of Learned Societies, and National Research Council)

Frederick Burkhardt (chairman), Logan Wilson (vice­chairman), Wilson Elkins, Pendleton Herring, Albert H. Marckwardt, Frederick Seitz, M. H. Trytten, John Useem; Secretary, Francis A. Young.

The following statement concerning a current interest of the Conference Board is reprinted from the January 1965 issue of the News Report of the National Academy of Sci­ences - National Research Council:

Plans under Way for American Studies Center. In recent months a series of events has brought closer to realization an American Studies Research Center at Hyderabad, India. The Center is emerging as a by-product of the lectureships and advanced research portion of the Fulbright Program, administered by the National Academy of Sciences under a contract with the U.S. Department of State, with policy guidance from the Committee on the International Ex­change of Persons, appointed by the Conference Board.

In India, where the program has been operating for a decade, a number of Indian scholars in American Studies have developed with interests in language, literature, his­tory, and other aspects of American culture. Many of them have done research in the United States and hold advanced degrees from American universities.

7

Now their need is for library resources with which to pur­sue their fields of interest. In order to meet the need, Indian scholars together with Americans stationed in India have established the American Studies Research Center, regis­tered under Indian law as a nonprofit organization. Os­mania University at Hyderabad has donated a site for the proposed library building.

The Asia Foundation has awarded a grant of approxi­mately $7,000 for the purchase of books, and the Depart­ment of State has made a grant to the Conference Board of $25,000 for the purchase of books and periodicals for the Center.

Now that a beginning has been made, a series of major steps are being contemplated looking to the expansion of the bookholdings and the provision of a library building to house the collections and to serve as a center for con­ferences, seminars, and for research. The Conference Board is expected to take substantial initiative in the eventual erection of a building adequate to house such an activity and assist as well in the channeling of scholarly assistance and advice from the American academic community.

Although the initial thrust of the Center will be in fields of literature and history and other humanities, interest is growing in the social sciences as well as in the considerable literature in the United States dealing with the interface between science and its economic, political, and social environment.

The cost of an appropriate library building together with such adjunct buildings as living quarters for staff and visit-

ing scholars is expected to approximate one million dollars. It is hoped these funds will be made available out of the several hundred million dollars in rupees in counterpart funds now held to the credit of the United States in India.

CONTEMPORARY CHINA (Joint with the American Council of Learned Societies)

John M. H. Lindbeck (chairman), Alexander Eckstein, John K. Fairbank, Walter Galenson, Robert A. Scalal?ino, G. William Skinner, George E. Taylor, Mary C. Wnght; staff, Bryce Wood.

With the guidance of a Subcommittee on Materials­Mrs. Wright (chairman), Mr. Lindbeck, Peter Schran of Yale University, and James Townsend of the University of Cali­fornia, Berkeley-a survey and appraisal of problems in the acquisition and distribution of research materials on con­temporary China has been undertaken by Eugene Wu of the Hoover Institution. The survey is particularly concerned with ascertaining the needs of scholars and librarians and suggesting ways of improving the availability of materials. Mr. Wu will visit universities and other institutions in the United States, Europe, Hong Kong, Japan, and other coun­tries in which there are library resources and centers of re­search on China. On the basis of his findings the subcommit­tee expects to make a report to the committee in the autumn of 1965.

ECONOMIC GROWTH

Simon Kuznets (chairman), Richard A. Easterlin, Bert F. Hoselitz, Wilbert E. Moore, Neil J. Smelser, Joseph J. Spengler.

The committee is examining the feasibility of planning a program of comparative studies of the interrelations in eco­nomically developed countries between population growth, changes in the occupational and industrial structure of the labor force, internal migration, and urbanization, and of similar studies in less developed countries in which at least two comprehensive censuses have been taken. The com­mittee's planning is still in a very preliminary stage, but it would like to have suggestions regarding persons in this country and abroad who might be interested in participat­ing in such studies.

Education and Economic Development, edited by C. Ar­nold Anderson and Mary Jean Bowman and based on pa­pers prepared for a conference sponsored jointly by the committee and the University of Chicago Comparative Edu­cation Center in April 1963, is expected to be issued by the Aldine Publishing Company in April. Postwar Economic Growth: Four Lectures, by Mr. Kuznets, was published in December, as listed on page 15 infra.

EXCHANGES WITH ASIAN INSTITUTIONS

John K. Fairbank (chairman), George E. Taylor, Edward W. Wagner, C. Martin Wilbur, Mary C. Wright; staff, Bryce Wood.

8

The committee at its meeting on October 24, 1964, made three new appointments under its program of facilitating participation of American social scientists in research at cer­tain Asian institutions, and stimulating communication be­tween scholars there and in this country: Samuel C. Chu, Associate Professor of History, University of Pittsburgh, for research at the Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica, Taipei, on the nature and importance of foreign affairs under the imperial government of China, 1875-1908; Kwang-Ching Liu, Associate Professor of History, Uni­versity of California, Davis, for research at the Institute of Modem History on foreign and domestic policies of Li Hung-chang, Governor-General of Chihli, 1870-94; Franz Michael, Professor of International Affairs, George Washing­ton University, for research at the Institute of Modem His­tory, and the Toyo Bunko (Oriental Library), Tokyo, for research on law in the late Ch'ing period and on Sino-Soviet relations since 1949.

The committee is also concerned with the development of research at the Asiatic Research Center, Korea University, Seoul. In response to its request, the committee has allocated funds for travel grants for 11 North American scholars in­vited by the Center to participate in its International Con­ference on the Problems of Modernization in Asia, to be held in Seoul in July 1965: Stuart C. Dodd, Professor of Sociology, University of Washington; William E. Henthorn, Assistant Professor of East Asian Languages and Literatures, W. R. Hoskins, Assistant Professor of International Business Administration, and Fred W. Riggs, Professor of Govern­ment, Indiana University; Marius Jansen, Professor of His­tory, Marion J. Levy, Jr., Professor of Sociology, and Glenn D. Paige, Assistant Professor of Politics, Princeton Univer­sity; Herbert Passin, Professor of Sociology, Columbia Uni­versity; Lucian W. Pye, Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Robert A. Scalapino, Professor of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley; and Ezra F. Vogel, Research Associate in Chinese Sociological Studies, Harvard University.

FOREIGN AREA FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM (Joint with the American Council of Learned Societies)

Pendleton Herring (chairman), Schuyler C. Wallace (di­rector), Frederick Burkhardt, Chauncy D. Harris, T. Cuyler Young; staff, Dorothy Soderlund, James L. Gould.

Continuation of the Foreign Area Fellowship Program during the academic years 1966-69 has been assured by a grant of $4,250,000 from the Ford Foundation to the Social Science Research Council. Brochures describing the fellow­ships for graduate training in the social sciences and hu­manities relating to Africa, Asia and the Near East, Latin America, the Soviet Union and East Europe, and Western Europe may be obtained from the office of the Foreign Area Fellowship Program, 444 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022.

GOVERNMENTAL AND LEGAL PROCESSES

Austin Ranney (chairman), Philip E. Converse, Richard F. Fenno, Jr., Samuel P. Huntington, Victor G. Rosenblum, John C. Wahlke; staff, Bryce Wood.

This new committee, successor to the former Committee on Political Behavior, held its first meeting on December 22. In addition to making awards (see page 12 infra) under the continuing program of grants for research by indi­viduals, it provided financial assistance for programming electoral data for analysis in connection with a seminar on the application of behavioral research methods to historical materials. The seminar is part of a program planned by the American Historical Association's ad hoc Committee to Col­lect the Basic Quantitative Data of American Political His­tory and the Inter-University Consortium for Political Re­search and will be held at the University of Michigan in the summer of 1965.

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND ADVANCED EDUCATION

(Appointed by the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils)

Dael WoHle (chairman), M. H. Trytten (vice~chairman), Robert D. Calkins, Allan Cartter, Henry Chauncey, Kenneth Pitzer, Gordon N. Ray, John W. Riley, Jr., Richard Schlat­ter, Elbridge Sibley, Gordon B. Turner, Frederick T. Wall; staff, John K. Folger, Director.

On January 7 the commission met to make plans for work to be carried on during the next two and one-half years. Mr. Folger, the director, will establish headquarters in Washing­ton, D.C. in April, taking leave from Florida State Univer­sity. He presented a memorandum suggesting that the com­mission's studies should be designed to be of use to academic, business, industrial, and governmental leaders who must make decisions affecting the development and use in Ameri­can society of talent requiring education beyond the bacca­laureate level.

It was the commission's consensus that the first necessary step will be an assessment of the current status of knowledge in the major relevant areas of research: What conclusions can be accepted as established with reference to the relation of supply and demand for persons possessing highly de­veloped talents of various kinds? How do social institutions, particularly those of the educational system, operate to identify and develop capacities for scholarly, scientific, technical, and other socially needed functions? How do prevailing patterns of communication, rewards, and sanc­tions affect the distribution of highly educated persons among different fields of work? To what extent and how do forecasts of future needs bias the processes of recruitment and education?

The research program is expected to involve mainly syn­thesis and interpretation of the data and findings of other organizations, rather than collection of masses of data. As the inquiry proceeds, however, gaps in information may be found, which will need to be filled by basic research. In such

9

cases appropriate agencies may be encouraged to undertake basic studies or to obtain data not otherwise available.

The commission does not envisage a final report that will offer long-range solutions to major problems in its field. Rather, it considers this a highly dynamic field where con­tinual reappraisal is necessary, and that its own mandate, as a group disinterestedly representative of scholarship and science, is to ensure the continuing utilization of the best available relevant knowledge.

INTERNATIONAL CONGRESSES IN THE UNITED STATES

(Joint with the American Council of Learned Societies)

Frederick Burkhardt (chairman), Charles Frankel, Pendle­ton Herring, Ben T. Moore, Donald Young; staff, Charles Blitzer.

The committee has authorized grants toward support of the following international conferences: International Association of University Professors of English, triennial meeting, at the Universities of Chicago and of Wisconsin in 1968; International Social Science Council and Social Sci­ence Research Council, conference on research on urbaniza­tion, at the University of Chicago in July 1965. The latter grant was requested in order to defray the travel expenses of the foreign scholars who have been invited to participate in appraisal of the assumptions and findings presented in The Study of U1"banization, the forthcoming report of the SSRC's former Committee on Urbanization. Edited by Philip M. Hauser and Leo F. Schnore, the volume is soon to be pub­lished by John Wiley & Sons.

LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES (Joint with the American Council of Learned Societies)

Robert N. Burr (chairman), Charles W. Anderson, David E. Apter, John P. Augelli, Fred P. Ellison, Orlando Fals Borda, Joseph Grunwald, Allan R. Holmberg, Alex Inkeles, Charles Wagley; staff, Bryce Wood.

Arrangements have been completed for a next step in the committee's program to evaluate and plan for the advance­ment of social science research on Latin America: With the cooperation of the Latin American Center for Research in the Social Sciences, a conference on "the social sciences in Latin America" will be held in Rio de Janeiro on March 29-31, 1965. The program of the conference provides both for critical discussion of the contents of Social Science Re­search on Latin America, the report of the committee's 1963 summer seminar, which was focused on research by United States scholars (d. Items, December 1964, pages 49-54) and of the development of particular social sciences in Latin America.

There will be four sessions of the conference-on econom­ics, on history and geography, on sociology and anthropolo­gy, and on political science and law. At the first session, to be chaired by Mr. Wagley, editor of Social Science Research on Latin America, Luis Escobar of the International Mone-

tary Fund will discuss the current development of the so­dal sciences in Latin America with special reference to eco­nomics; and Victor L. Urquidi of the Bank of Mexico will present a commentary on Carlos Massad's chapter (in the seminar report) on economic research in Latin" America. The second session will discuss a paper by Daniel Cosio Villegas of the College of Mexico on the social sciences in Latin America as viewed by a historian; comments by Jose Hon6-rio Rodrigues, National Archives, Brazil, on Stanley J. Stein's chapter on Latin American historiography; and a review, by Ary Fran~a of the University of Sao Paulo, of James J. Parsons' chapter on the contribution of geography to Latin American studies. For the third session Florestan Fernandes of the University of Sao Paulo has prepared a general paper on Latin American sociology; Fernando Camara of the National Museum of Anthropology, Mexico, a critique of Rex Hopper's chapter on sociological research on Latin America; and Octavio Ianni of the University of Sao Paulo, a review of Arnold Strickon's chapter on anthro­pology in Latin America. The fourth session will discuss political science and law. Jose Nun of the University of Buenos Aires has prepared a paper on the development of the former in Latin America; Victor Flores Olea of the National University of Mexico, a critique of Merle Kling's chapter on the state of political science research on Latin America; and JO&e Marfa Franco of the University of Wis­consin, a critique of Kenneth L. Karst's chapter on the study of Latin American law and legal institutions. The authors of chapters in Social Science Research on Latin Amel"ica were invited to the conference, and Messrs. Hopper, Karst, Massad, Stein, and Strickon will participate. Other partici­pants are expected to include Messrs. Augelli and Grun­wald, George L. Bach of Carnegie Institute of Technology, Reynold E. Carlson of the Ford Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Manuel Diegues Junior, Jean Casimir, Bertram Hutchin­son, and Rodol£o Stavenhagen of the Latin American Cen­ter for Research in the Social Sciences, Gino Germani of Columbia University, Enrique Oteiza of the Di Tella Insti­tute, Robert E. Scott of the University of Illinois, and Bryce Wood.

Grants awarded by the committee at its meeting on Febru­ary 6 are listed on page 13 infra.

LEARNING AND THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS

Lee J. Cronbach (chairman), Richard C. Atkinson, Eleanor J. Gibson, Evan R. Keislar, George A. Miller, Lloyd N. Morrisett; staff, Ben Willerman.

The conference on "learning by discovery," which was planned by a subcommittee consisting of Mr. Keislar (chair­man), Robert M. Gagne of the American Institute for Re­search, and Jerome Kagan of Harvard University, was held in New York under the auspices of Stanford University and the committee on January 28-29. Funds for the conference were granted to the University by the U.S. Office of Educa­tion. At the first session David Hawkins of the University of Colorado and Robert Glaser of the University of Pitts-

10

burgh examined the question: Is "learning by discovery" a valuable principle in curriculum development? The sec­ond session first considered a paper, "The Learning by Dis­covery Hypothesis," by M. C. Wittrock of the University of California, Los Angeles. This paper included reviews of relevant research in several areas and discussion of impli­cations for further research on learning by discovery. A critical evaluation of past and current research on the sub­ject was next presented by Mr. Cronbach. At the third ses­sion Robert B. Davis of Webster College and Jerome Bruner of Harvard University discussed contributions made by various projects in curriculum reform to understanding of learning by discovery. The fourth session was devoted to consideration of papers by Mr. Gagne on varieties of learn­ing and the concept of discovery, and by Mr. Kagan on such learning in relation to personality development. The final session was concerned with the implications of the confer­ence, which were summarized by Mr. Morrisett and Howard H. Kendler, University of California, Santa Barbara.

In addition to participants in the program and members of the committee, the conf{Xence was attended by the fol­lowing persons: Robert Karplus, University of California, Berkeley; Bert Y. Kersh, Center for Teaching Research, Oregon State System of Higher Learning; Wallace E. Lam­bert, McGill University; Rowland L. Mitchell, Jr., Social Science Research Council; Sonia Osler, Johns Hopkins Uni­versity; Walter R. Reitman, Carnegie Institute of Tech­nology; Lee Shulman, Michigan State University, who served as rapporteur for the conference; J. Richard Such­man, U.S. Office of Education; Michael Wallach, Duke Uni­versity; Sheldon H. White, University of Chicago; David E. Wiley, University of California, Los Angeles; and Charles Whitmer, National Science Foundation.

SIMULATION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL PROCESSES

Bert F. Green, Jr. (chairman), Robert P. Abelson, James S. Coleman, Robert K. Lindsay, Philip J. Stone; staff, Ben Willerman.

Under the program of grants for intensive study of com­puter simulation programs which was announced in the September issue of Items, two awards have been made, to Harry F. Gollob, Ph.D. candidate in psychology at Yale University, and to J. David Jackson, Instructor in Human Development, University of Chicago. Mr. Gollob, whose current research relates to simulation of certain cognitive processes, will spend two weeks at the Stanford University Computation Center with Kenneth M. Colby, Associate Professor of Psychology, to study the applicability to his own work of the latter's model for simulation of a neurotic process. Mr. Jackson is engaged in a study involving simu­lation of the effects upon learning by young children of their interaction with their mothers and teachers. He pro­poses to visit Richard C. Atkinson, Associate Professor of Psychology at Stanford University, to familiarize himself with Mr. Atkinson's use of stochastic learning models.

Numerous inquiries are being received from prospective applicants for grants under this program. Applications will be accepted through May 1.

At a meeting on January 22 the committee explored a variety of proposed means to stimulate and assist the further development of computer simulation as a method of re­search in sociology and psychology. Improvement of com­munication among workers in the field was considered to be crucially needed, and the committee will give further atten­tion to possible ways of bringing this about.

The members of the committee were invited by the chair-

man, who is also a member of the Mathematical Social Sci­ence Board, to serve as an ad hoc committee to advise the Board on activities relating to simulation. The Board's plans for research seminars and training institutes were discussed. Robert L. Hall, Program Director for Sociology and Social Psychology of the National Science Foundation, attended a session of the meeting, seeking counsel on prob­lems of concern to the Foundation, with particular refer­ence to needs for better liaison between social scientists and computer technologists in institutions that do not possess large computation facilities and staffs.

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 1965-67:

Dell Hymes, University of California, Berkeley, by the American Anthropological Association

Karl A. Fox, Iowa State University, by the American Eco­nomic Association

William O. Aydelotte, University of Iowa, by the Ameri­can Historical Association

Robert E. Ward, University of Michigan, by the Ameri­can Political Science Association

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

John Useem, Michigan State University, by the American Sociological Association

Frederick Mosteller, Harvard University, 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 26-27, 1965.

FACULTY RESEARCH GRANTS

The new Committee on Faculty Research Grants-Guy E. Swanson (chairman), Bernard Bailyn, Victor Jones, Irv­ing B. Kravis, Arno J. Mayer, MeI£ord E. Spiro, and John Thibaut-at its first meeting on December 17-18 made 16 grants under the program that replaces the former faculty research fellowship and grant-in-aid programs:

Robert E. Agger, Professor of Political Science, University of Oregon, for research in England on a comparison of American and English community political systems.

Allan G. Bogue, Professor of American History, Univer­sity of Wisconsin, for research on economic ideas and legislative behavior, with specific reference to the eco­nomic legislation of the 37th U.S. Congress.

11

Woodrow Borah, Professor of History, University of Cali­fornia, Berkeley, for research in Mexico, Peru, and the United States on the General Indian Court of Colonial Mexico.

Richard E. Caves, Professor of Economics, Harvard Uni­versity, for research in Europe on the influence of pat­terns of foreign trade on economic growth.

C. E. Ferguson, Professor of Economics, Duke University, for a theoretical and empirical study of production functions-substitution, technological progress, and re­turns to scale.

Lloyd C. Gardner, Associate Professor of History, Rutgers - The State University, for research on the economic aspects of diplomacy in the Progressive period, 1900-1921.

Frederick G. Heymann, Professor of History, University of Alberta, Calgary, for research in Europe and Canada on the German Peasant War, 1524-26, with particular reference to connections with religious movements, and the role of the towns.

Donald R. Hodgman, Professor of Economics, University of Illinois, for a comparative international study in Europe of the instruments and processes of monetary policy.

Robert T. Holt, Professor of Political Science, University of Minnesota, for research on determinants of the func­tions of government in primitive societies.

Ronald W. Jones, Associate Professor of Economics, Uni­versity of Rochester, for research in the United States and England on the theory of international trade, with particular emphasis on interrelations with theories of economic growth.

Lawrence W. Levine, Assistant Professor of History, University of California, Berkeley, for research on the patterns of Negro protest in the United States since Reconstruction.

Edmund S. Phelps, Associate Professor of Economics, Yale University, for research in England on treatment of efficient and "optimal" economic growth in theoretical models.

David H. Pinkney, Professor of History, University of Missouri, for research in France on the origins, course, and significance for France and Europe of the French Revolution of 1830.

Robert A. Pollak, Assistant Professor of Economics, Uni­versity of Pennsylvania, for research on consistent plan­ning over time.

Theodore K. Rabb, Assistant Professor of History, Har­vard University, for research on the organization of English expansion overseas, 1550-1630, based on com­puter analysis of the membership of trading and colo­nizing companies.

Jerome L. Stein, Professor of Economics, Brown Univer­sity, for research in Israel on the interaction of real and monetary variables in the growth process.

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON GOVERNMENTAL AND LEGAL PROCESSES

The new Committee on Governmental and Legal Proc­esses-Austin Ranney (chairman), Philip E. Converse, Richard F. Fenno, Jr., Samuel P. Huntington, Victor G. Rosenblum, and John C. Wahlke-held its first meeting on December 22. It made the following 7 awards under the program initiated by the former Committee on Political Behavior:

Lee Benson, Professor of American History, University of Pennsylvania, for a pilot study for a comprehensive collective biography of American Congressmen since 1789.

Edward Green, Professor of Sociology, Eastern Michigan University, for research on the influence of the judg­ment of preceding cases on judicial sentencing in con­secutive criminal cases.

Fred Kort, Professor of Political Science, University of Connecticut, for an analysis of judicial decisions as mathematical functions.

Jack Ladinsky, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Univer­sity of Wisconsin, for research on popular democracy and judicial independence: a study of the 1964 and 1965 elections of Justices of the Supreme Court in Wis­consin (joint with Allan Silver).

O. Ruth McQuown, Assistant Professor of Political Sci­ence, University of Florida, for research on components in the emergence of a local political community.

Allan Silver, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Columbia University, for research on popular democracy and ju­dicial independence: a study of the 1964 and 1965 elections of Justices of the Supreme Court in Wisconsin (joint with Jack Ladinsky).

Peter Woll, Visiting Associate Professor of Politics, Bran­deis University, for research on administrative law and the politics of decision making.

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

The Committee on International Organization-Inis L. Claude, Jr. (chairman), Lincoln P. Bloomfield, William Diebold, Jr., Leland M. Goodrich, Ernst B. Haas, H. Field Haviland, Jr., Stanley Hoffmann, Walter R. Sharp, and Richard C. Snyder-at its meeting on February 12-13 made 7 grants for research:

Edward H. Buehrig, Professor of Government, Indiana University, for research in the United States and Leb-

12

anon on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency: a study in extraterritorial administration.

Robert W. Cox, Chief, Research and Planning Depart­ment, International Labor Office, for research in Wash­ington, D.C. and Geneva on relations between the United States and the ILO.

Ernst-Otto Czempiel, Dozent of Political Science, Tech­nische Hochschule Darmstadt, for research in the United States and Geneva on the development of the German Federal Republic's relations with the United Nations.

Ellen Frey-Wouters, Assistant Professor of Political Sci­ence, Brooklyn College, for research in Europe on the European Economic Community and the trade union movement.

Lawrence Scheinman, Assistant Professor of Political Sci­ence, University of California, Los Angeles, for research in Europe on roles and relationships of international and national bureaucracies in the development of poli­cies of the European Economic Commumty.

Saadia Touval, Teaching and Research Associate in Po­litical Science, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for research in Africa on attitudes on international bor­ders in Africa, and the treatment of border and terri­torial disputes between African states by African organizations.

I. William Zartman, Associate Professor of International Studies, University of South Carolina, for research in Europe and Africa on Africa and the Common Market: multilateral diplomacy and development.

GRANTS FOR AFRICAN STUDIES

The Joint Committee on African Studies, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies-Alan P. Mer­riam (chairman), L. Gray Cowan, Philip D. Curtin, William O. Jones, Horace Miner, Roy Sieber, and Benjamin E. Thomas-at its meeting on January 7 made 9 grants for re­search relating to Africa south of the Sahara:

Elizabeth Colson, Professor of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, for research in Zambia on eco­nomic and political change among the Valley Tonga of Gwembe District.

St. Clair Drake, Professor of Sociology, Roosevelt Univer­sity, for research in the United States and Ghana on urbanization in the latter country.

James W. Fernandez, Associate Professor of Anthro­pology, Dartmouth College, for comparative research in South Africa, Liberia, and Ivory Coast on logical and aesthetic integration in the cult life of four con­temporary African religious movements.

Robert Heussler, research scholar, St. Antony's College, Oxford University, for research in England and Africa on British colonial government in the period preceding independence.

Philip E. Leis, Assistant Professor of Anthropolo/IT, Brown University, for research in the Federal Repubhc of Cameroon on political values and accommodation in a West African chiefdom.

Herbert S. Lewis, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, for research in Ethiopia on leadership and community organization among the Galla.

Louis R. Molet, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Montreal, for research in the Malagasy Republic on religious phenomena in the "Friday Year" (1965).

Jan Vansina, Prof~ssor ?f History and .of Ant!tropology, University of WISCOnSin, for research In Belgmm on the history of the Lower Kasai states.

Hans Wolff Professor of African Languages and Lin­guistics Northwestern University, for research in Ni­geria o~ the Abua-Odual-Ogbia language group of the eastern Niger Delta.

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON CONTEMPORARY CHINA

The Joint Committee on Contemporary China, spon­sored with the American Council of Learned Societies­John M. H. Lindbeck (chairman), Alexander Eckstein, John K. Fairbank, Walter Galenson, Robert A. Scalapino, G. William Skinner, George E. Taylor, and Mary C. Wright -at its meeting on January 1-3 awarded 7 grants for re­search, as follows:

Baruch Boxer, Assistant Professor of Geography, Indiana University, for comp~etio.n of research o~ th.e mecha­nism of urban expanSlOn In the New Terntones, Hong Kong (renewal of grant made in 1962-63).

Joseph Chen, Assistant Professor of History, San Fer­nando Valley State College, for research in East As!a and the United States on the May 4th Movement In

Shanghai. Jerome B. Grieder, Assistant Professor of History, Ohio

State University, for completion of research on liberal­ism and the Chinese Renaissance with special reference to the influence of Hu Shih.

Chalmers A. Johnson, Assistant Professor of Political Sci­ence, University of California, Berkeley, for resear.ch in Hong Kong and Japan on ~he th~ry a!1d prac~lce of the "mass line" in Communist China, with particu­lar reference to the guerrilla heritage of the Maoist leadership.

Donald J. Munro, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Uni­versity of Michigan, for research in Hong Kong and Japan on Chinese Communist ideology.

James R. Shirley~ Ass!stant Professor of His~ory,. NO.rth­em Illinois UniVersIty, for research on the lmphc<l:t~ons of military strategies in the Northern Expedltlon, 1926-28.

Robert M. Worth, Professor of Public Health, University of Hawaii, for research in Hong Kong. on aspects of fertility among refugees from CommUnist China.

GRANTS FOR LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES

The Joint Committee on Latin American Studies, spon­sored with the American Council of Learned Societies­Robert N. Burr (chairman), Charles W. Anderson, David E. Apter, John P. Augelli, Fred P. Ellison, Orlando Fals Borda, Joseph Grunwald, Allan R. Holmberg, Alex Inkeles, and Charles Wagley-at its meeting on February 6 awarded 18 grants for research:

13

Werner Baer, Assistant Professor of Economics, Yale Uni­versity, for research in Brazil on its steel industry.

David G. Basile, Associate Professor of Geography, Uni­versity of North Carolina, for field research in high­land Ecuador on changes in rural land use.

Russell H. Bastert, Associate Professor of History, Wil­liams College, for research on the history of the Pan American movement, 1881-95.

Craig L. Dozier, Associate Professor of Geography, Uni­versity of North Carolina at Greensboro, for research in South America on influences on the effectiveness of directed land development and settlement in two countries.

Roland H. Ebel, Visiting Assistant Professor of Political Science, Newcomb College, Tulane University, for re­search in Guatemala on processes of political moderni­zation in three Indian communities.

Merlin H. Forster, Assistant Professor of Spanish and Portuguese, University of Illinois, for research in Mexi­co and the United States on Xavier Villaurrutia (1903-50), Mexican poet and playwright.

Daniel Goldrich, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Oregon, for research in Chile on political behavior and urbanization.

Charles A. Hale, Assistant Professor of History, Amherst College, for research in Mexico and the United St.ates on Jose Maria Luis Mora and the structure of MexIcan liberalism (supplementary to grant made in 1961-62).

H. W. Hutchinson, Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Anthropology, University of Fl~rida, for a r.estudy in Brazil of a northeastern plantatlOn community.

Alan L. Madian, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Uni­versity of Rochester, for research in Brazil on urban political leadership.

Heitor Martins, Assistant Professor of Portuguese, Tu· lane University, for research in Portugal on Domingos Caldas Barbosa (1738-1800) and ideology in pre-inde­pendent Brazil.

Delbert C. Miller, Professor of Sociology and of Business Administration, Indiana University, for research in Lima on community decision-making as part of a cross­cultural study of urban centers.

Francis Myers, Professor of Philosophy, University of Denver, for research in Peru on the relations of values to political developments and social change.

Ronald C. Newton, Assistant Professor of History, Purdue University, for research in Argentina on university students as political interest groups (renewal).

Joseph Sommers, Assistant Professor of Spanish Lite;a­ture, University of Washington, for research in MeXICO on the Mexican novel since 1947.

Stanley J. Stein, Professor of History, Princeton Univer­sity, for research in Spain and England on the role of merchants in the Mexican independence movement, 1778-1828 (supplementary to grant made in 1959-60).

Earl W. Thomas, Professor of Spanish and Portuguese, Vanderbilt University, for research in Brazil on usages of the verb in spoken Brazilian Portuguese.

Arpad von Lazar, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Vanderbilt University, for research in Chile and Argen­tina on the roles of youth and the educated young elite in political development.

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON THE NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST

The Joint Committee on the Near and Middle East, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies -Herbert H. Paper (chairman), Robert M. Adams, Wil­liam M. Brinner, Charles Issawi, Bernard Lewis, and A. J. Meyer-at its meeting on January 8 awarded 12 grants for research:

Richard M. Brace, Professor of History, Northwestern University, for research in Europe and Algeria on po­litical evolution in Algeria, 1958-64.

Erica C. Dodd, Lecturer, Montreal Museum of Fine Art, for research in the Middle East, India, and Soviet Rus­sia on Islamic art.

Peter C. Dodd, Assistant Professor of Sociology, McGill University, for research in Egypt on social change in contemporary Egypt, with specific reference to youth, education, and the occupational structure.

Ben Halpern, Associate Professor of Near Eastern Studies, Brandeis University, for completion of a historical sociological study in Israel of its domestic problems and institutions.

Abraham Hirsch, Associate Professor of Economics, Brooklyn College, and Eva Hirsch, Brooklyn, New York (Ph.D. in economics, Columbia University), joint award for further research on changes in income and purchasing power of sectors of the Turkish population, 1927-60 (supplementary to grant made in 1962-63).

Eliyahu Kanovsky, Assistant Professor of Economics, State University of New York at Stony Brook, for re­search in Israel on its economy.

Robert G. Landen, Assistant Professor of History, Dart­mouth College, for research in England, Saudi Arabia,

and France on the modernization of the Persian Gulf area.

Sidney W. Mintz, Professor of Anthropology, Yale Uni­versity, for research in Iran on the internal market sys­tem in selected regions.

Moshe Perlmann, Professor of Arabic, University of Cali­fornia, Los Angeles, for research in Cairo and Beirut on medieval polemics.

Hisham Sharabi, Associate Professor of Middle East His­tory and Government, Georgetown University, for re­search in the Middle East on the Arab intellectuals of the Ottoman Empire, 1875-1925 (supplementary to grant made in 1962-63).

Frederic C. Shorter, Assistant Professor of Economics, Princeton University, for research in the United States on economic growth in Middle Eastern nations.

John Masson Smith, Jr., Assistant Professor of History, University of California, Berkeley, for research in Tur­key and Iran on the economic and political history of the Mongol Empire in Persia, 1300-1336.

APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES

Lester R. Frankel of Audits and Surveys Company and Donnell M. Pappenfort of New York University have been appointed members of the Committee on Areas for Social and Economic Statistics.

Wilson Elkins, President of the University of Maryland, has been designated by the American Council on Education as a member of the Conference Board of Associated Re­search Councils; and Albert H. Marckwardt of Princeton University has been so designated by the American Council of Learned Societies.

PUBLICA TIONS

The Acquisition of Language, edited by Ursula Bellugi and Roger Brown. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 29, No.1 (Serial No. 92), June 1964. Sponsored by the former Committee on Intellective Processes Research. Lafayette, Indiana: Child Develop­ment Publications. 191 pages. $3.50.

Attitudes and Social Relations of Foreign Students in the United States, by Claire Selltiz, June R. Christ, Joan Havel, and Stuart W. Cook. Sponsored by the former Committee on Cross-Cultural Education. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, May 1963.448 pages. $9.00.

Basic Cognitive Processes in Children, edited by John C. Wright and Jerome Kagan. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 28, No.2 (Serial No. 86), 1963. Sponsored by the former Committee on Intellective Processes Research. Lafayette, Indiana: Child Development Publications. 196 pages. $3.50.

Bureaucracy and' Political Development, edited by Joseph LaPalombara. Studies in Political Development 2, spon-

14

sored by the Committee on Comparative Politics. Prince­ton: Princeton University Press, August 1963. 501 pages. $8.50.

Communications and Political Development, edited by Lucian W. Pye. Studies in Political Development 1, spon­sored by the Committee on Comparative Politics. Pnnce­ton: Princeton University Press, April 1963. 395 pages. $6.50.

Concentration in the Manufacturing Industries of the United States: A Midcentury Report, by Ralph L. Nelson. Economic Census Studies 2, sponsored by the former Committee on Analysis of Economic Census Data. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963. 302 pages. $7.50.

Continuity and Change in Latin America, edited by John J. Johnson. Product of the conference held by the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies, January 30 - Feb­ruary 2, 1963. Stanford: Stanford University Press, Sep­tember 1964.295 pages. $6.75.

Economic Transition in Africa, edited by Melville J. Hersko­vits and Mitchell Harwitz. Based on papers prepared for the conference on the economies of Sub-Saharan Africa, November 16-18, 1961, sponsored by the Committee on Economic Growth. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, August 1964. 462 pages. $7.95.

Economic Trends in the Soviet Union, edited by Abram Bergson and Simon Kuznets. Outgrowth of a conference, May 6-8, 1961, sponsored by the Committee on Economic Growth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, February 1963. 406 pages. $9.75.

The Education of Sociologists in the United States, by El­bridge Sibley. A study financed by the Russell Sa~e Foun­dation at the suggestion of the American SocIOlogical Association, for which the author was granted partial leave from the Council. New York: Russell Sage Founda­tion, December 1963. 218 pages. $3.50.

Generalization in the Writing of History, edited by Louis Gottschalk. Report of the former Committee on Historical Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, January 1963. 268 pages. $5.00.

The New Military: Changing Patterns of Organization, edited by Morris Janowitz. Includes 4 papers presented at the conference on the military in American society, June 20-21, 1963, sponsored by the former Committee on National Security Policy Research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, December 1964. 369 pages. $6.50.

New Perspectives on the House of Representatives, edited by Robert L. Peabody and Nelson W. Polsby. Prepared with the aid of the former Committee on Political Be­havior. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, November 1963. 392 pages. Cloth, $6.50; paper, $3.50.

Political Modernization in Japan and Turkey, edited by . Robert E. Ward and Dankwart A. Rustow. Studies in Political Development 3, sponsored by the Committee on Comparative Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, May 1964. 510 pages. $8.75.

The Political Systems of Empires, by S. N. Eisenstadt. Pre­pared with the aid of the Committee on Comparative Politics. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, June 1963.543 pages. $15.00.

Population Mobility within the United States, by Henry S. Shryock, Jr. Initiated under the program of the former Committee on Census Monographs. Chicago: University of Chicago Community and Family Study Center, 1964. 480 pages. $5.50.

Population T1"ends in the United States: 1900 to 1960, by Irene B. Taeuber. U.S. Bureau of the Census Technical Paper No. 10. Based on work done under the program of the Committee on Population Census Monographs in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census. Washmgton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1965.422 pages. $2.25.

Postwar Economic Growth: Four Lectures, by Simon Kuz­nets. Based in part on work initiated under the auspices of the CommIttee on Economic Growth. CambrIdge:

15

Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, December 1964. 148 pages. $4.25.

Problems in Measuring Change, edited by Chester W. Harris. Proceedings of a conference sponsored by the for­mer Committee on Personality Development in Youth. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, October 1963. 269 pages. $7.50.

Quantitative Planning of Economic Policy: A Conference of the Social Science Research Council Committee on Economic Stability, edited by Bert G. Hickman. Wash­ington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, March 1965. c. 300 pages. $7.95.

Scientists and National Policy Making, edited by Robert Gilpin and Christopher Wright. Product of a conference, October 4-5, 1962, sponsored by the former Committee on National Security Policy Research and the Columbia Uni­versity Council for Atomic Age Studies. New York: Co­lumbia University Press, February 1964. 316 pages. $7.50.

Social Science Research on Latin America: Report and Papen of a Seminar on Latin American Studies in the United States, Held at Stanford, California, July 8 - Au­gust 23, 1963, edited by Charles Wagley. New York: Co­lumbia University Press, November 1964. 352 pages. $4.00.

Studying Politics A broad: Field Research in the Developing Areas, by Robert E. Ward, with Frank Bonilla, James S. Coleman, Herbert H. Hyman, Lucian W. Pye, and Myron Weiner. Sponsored by the Committee on Comparative Politics. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, August 1964. 254 pages. $2.50.

Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook II: Affective Domain, by David R. Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia. Prepared with the aid of the former Committee on Personality Development in Youth. New York: David McKay Company, June 1964. 210 pages. $2.50.

"Transcultural Studies in Cognition," edited by A. Kimball Romney and Roy G. D'Andrade, American Anthropolo­gist (Special Publication), Vol. 66, No.3, Part 2, June 1964. Report of a conference held by the former Com­mittee on Intellective Processes Research. 253 pages. $2.75.

U.S. Census of Population: 1960, Occupation by Earnings and' Education, by Herman P. Miller. Bureau of the Cen­sus, Subject Reports, Final Report PC(2)-7B. Prepared primarily for use in a monograph under the program of the Committee on Population Census Monographs in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census. Washmgton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963. 318 pages. $2.00.

U.S. Census of Population: 1960, Type of Place: Demo­graphic, Social, and Economic Data for States, by Urban­Rural and Metropolitan-Nonmetropolitan Residence, by Irene B. Taeuber. Bureau of the Census, Selected Area Reports, Final Report PC(3)-IE. Prepared for use in a monograph under the program of the Committee on Population Census Monographs in cooperation with the' Bureau of the Census. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern­ment Printing Office, August 1964. 481 pages. $3.75.

A NOTE ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF HSHIBBOLETH"

Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him and slew him. . . Judges, 12:6

A MYTH appears to have gained credence in some quarters of the academic community, to the effect that failure to utter certain powerful words (without too much regard for their meaning) will be as fatal to an application for a Coun­cil fellowship as was failure to pronounce Shibboleth cor­rectly when challenged by the ancient men of Gilead.

The passwords by which aspirants seek to gain admission to the guild of social scientists change from year to year. Among those currently in vogue are model (variously used to refer to a system of equations, a paradigm, a taxonomy, something else, or nothing in particular), multiva1'iate analy­sis (connoting almost anything except monistic determin­ism), parameter (by which the user mayor may not mean a statistical datum), interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary approach (too often connoting a general lack of discipline), and computer (for wbich read usually computer, but some­times tabulating machine or even desk calculator).

When pressed to explain what he meant by his statement that he would use "a flexible configurational mode of analysis," a fellowship candidate avowed that his words

had no definite meaning. "But," he went on to say, "I put them in because, according to the folklore at this university, the Council wants that kind of language." His candor was refreshing to an interviewer who has talked with great numbers of less forthright applicants. But he was only ad­mitting explicitly what is self-evident in too many other applications.

Granted, that an applicant can hardly be censured for trying as best he can to impress the selection committee; and granted, that in some fields of endeavor the ritual use of language to persuade rather than to inform is appropriate; still an applicant addressing a jury of competent and re­sponsible social scientists ought to be aware that word drop­ping will not conceal an intellectual vacuum but may well make even a basically valid proposal look meretricious.

But let us not hastily lay more blame on the applicant and his mentors than they deserve. For perhaps there is here a more chastening lesson for the Council and its staff. Have we failed to communicate to the academic public a correct impression of what the Council is trying to do? Have we inadvertently encouraged our friends and their students to conjure with jargon? Have we failed to insist loudly enough that the advancement of social science must be brought about by giving meaning to some of the words just men­tioned, not by using them as mere shibboleths? E. S.

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

230 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017

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

Directors, 1965: WILLIAM O. AYDELOTI'E, BERNARD BAILYN, ABRAM BERGSON, JOHN R. BORCHERT, DORWIN CARTWRIGHT, JOSEPH B. CAsAGRANDE,

HAROLD C. CONKLIN, LEE J. CRONBACH, KARL A. Fox, WILLIAM J. GOODE, JR., MORRIS H. HANSEN, CHAUNCY D. HARRIS, PENDLETON HERRING, GEORGE

H. HILDEBRAND, DELL HYMES, THOMAS S. KUHN, STANLEY LEBERGOTT, GARDNER LINDZEY, QUINN McNEMAR, FRANCO MODIGLIANI, LOUIS MORTON,

FREDERICK MOSTELLER, J. ROLAND PENNOCK, DON K. PRICE, LEO F. SCHNORE, HERBERT A. SIMON, DAVID B. TRUMAN, RALPH H. TURNER, JOHN

USEEM, ROBERT E. WARD

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

C. ISBELL, ROWLAND L. MITCHELL, JR., BEN WILLERMAN, Staff Associates; CATHERINE V. RONNAN, Financial Secretary

16