SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

VOLUME 19 . NUMBER 4 • DECEMBER 1965 230 PARK AVENUE· NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017

I'THE STUDY OF URBANIZATION": REPORT OF A COUNCIL COMMITTEE

URBANIZATION, of course, represents a phenomenon that is not the property of any single discipline. In May 1958 the Social Science Research Council brought together an interdisciplinary group of social scientists to explore the need for a committee on urban research. The con­ference participants concluded that such a committee could perform two useful functions: It could review critically the extant assumptions and generalizations re­garding the phenomenon of urbanization, its determi­nants, concomitants, and consequences, including their cross-cultural and historical applicability; and survey the situations where urbanization is rapidly getting under way, giving attention to the consolidation of existing knowledge and an inventory of possibilities for research in these situations. A committee was appointed in Sep­tember 1958 and, with a few changes in membership,! devoted the ensuing five years to carrying out these two principal missions. A brief progress report by Philip M.

• The author is Professor of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin and a member of the board of directors of the Social Science Research Council. At its annual meeting in September he presented this sum­mary of the volume produced under the auspices of its former Com­mittee on Urbanization (1958-64). The substance of this report was also presented by its author at a joint session of the American Political Sci­ence Association and the American Society for Public Administration, Washington, D.C., September 11, 1965.

1 The Committee on Urbanization originally consisted of Philip M. Hauser, University of Chicago (chairman); Norton Ginsburg, University of Chicago; Eric E. Lampard, now of the University of Wisconsin; Oscar Lewis, University of Dlinois; Wallace S. Sayre, Columbia Uni­versity; Leo F. Schnore; Gideon Sjoberg, University of Texas; Raymond Vernon, now of Harvard University; and Beverly Duncan, secretary. The pressure of other activities forced Raymond Vernon and Beverly Duncan to resign in 1961, and subsequently Edgar M. Hoover, Uni­versity of Pittsburgh; Nathan Keyfitz, University of Chicago; and Wilbur R. Thompson, Wayne State University, were added to the committee.

by Leo F. Schnore·

Hauser, chairman of the committee, was printed in Items) December 1959, and its final report, The Study of Urbanization) edited by the chairman and the writer, was published by John Wiley & Sons in July 1965.

This volume consists of three main sections: Part One, The Study of Urbanization in the Social Sciences, reviews existing disciplinary perspectives. Part Two, focused on Comparative Urban Research, deals with both geographic and substantive areas of interest. Part Three, Selected Research Problems, points to certain new directions in urban research.

In the introductory chapter Hauser considers the original bases of urbanization, or the rise of the city as a form of human settlement, goes on to provide a capsule history of subsequent developments, and then considers some of the more important consequences of urbaniza­tion. The city is first viewed as a physical construct, a large, permanent settlement of relatively high density, the emergence of which produced a "social-morphologi­cal revolution" that has brought about "in the social realm a major transformation the equivalent of genetic mutation in the biological realm." 2

The city is then regarded as an economic mechanism and as a setting for human behavior, for patterns of social organization are stressed. Political relations are given special emphasis:

Urbanization ... has profoundly affected government as one form of social organization. It has greatly increased government interventionism, challenged traditional ideologies with respect to the role of government, modified the nature of representative gov­ernment, introduced new substantive political issues, changed the character of public administration, altered central, regional, and local intergovernmental relationships, and made obsolete many

3 The Study of UTbanization, p. 12.

45

local governmental structures. Rapid urbanization has also in­creasingly affected the political power position of urban and rural population groupings, respectively.

Finally, the impact of urbanization on the role of government is by no means restricted to national boundaries. Worldwide urbanization has produced increasing international interdepend­ence which in turn is modifying the traditional concepts of 'sovereignty' and 'nationalism.' ... The ever-shrinking world and manifestations of international order may also be viewed as con­stituting, in some measure, a consequence of world urbanization.s

The balance of the chapter is given over to a broad con­sideration of contrasts in urbanization in advanced and developing nations.

Part One is then devoted to five disciplinary state­ments-in history, geography, political science, sociology, and economics. In a chapter devoted to historical analy­sis, Charles N. Glaab (University of Wisconsin) discusses "The Historian and the American City." The American historian, owing to his long-standing concern with the influence of the frontier and of economic forces on American development, came late to the study of cities and the processes that created them. American urban history is largely an outgrowth of a descriptive type of social history which developed in the late 1920's and early 1930's; Arthur M. Schlesinger's The Rise of the City, 1878-1898, published in 1927, was particularly influential in generating interest in the field. Urban history also bears a close relationship to a narrow, anti­quarian type of local history of much older vintage, and Glaab contends that it is often difficult to distinguish between the work of the gifted amateur local historian and the professional urban historian.

Although in the last twenty years a great many studies that can be called "urban history" have been produced, these have tended to be imprecise in method and have focused especially on the history of the individual city, yielding an "urban biography." They include studies of urban rivalry, particularly trade and transportation rivalry in the nineteenth century, the reforms of the Progressive Era, the boss and machine politics, housing and tenement life, and the immigrant-all considered within an urban setting. In recent years theoretical examination of the bases of urban history has emphasized the need for the urban historian to broaden his horizons -to pay closer attention to historical demography, to the history of urbanization as a process, and to the find­ings of the related social sciences.· In spite of a con­siderable expansion of interest in American urban history both as a subject for teaching and as a field for research, this line of criticism has yet to have much effect

8 Ibid., pp. w...-Sl. • See Eric E. Lampard. "American Historians and the Study of

Urbanization," American Historical Review, October 1961, pp. 4~1.

on the topics urban historians choose or on the way they treat them.

"A Survey of Urban Geography," by Harold M. Mayer (University of Chicago), is a bibliographic essay covering a large part of the geographic literature on the city. From a geographic standpoint cities are viewed as key elements in the "settlement fabric" of regions. Urban geography, of course, is not concerned with all the com­plexes of activities which constitute cities. Its prime focus is on those phenomena that vary from place to

place, and its main concern is to understand the areal variation within and among communities, including the vital relationships between urban and non-urban areas, and the forces of development and change that are constantly reshaping the urban landscape. Reviewing geographic contributions to the understanding of urban functions, the "economic base," functional classification, spatial interaction, the internal structure of cities, and "the hierarchy of central places," Mayer documents the fact that urban geography is becoming progressively less descriptive in orientation and is turning more and more to the development and testing of rigorous models.

Wallace S. Sayre and Nelson W. Polsby (Wesleyan University) begin their survey of "American Political Science and the Study of Urbanization" with publica­tion of Bryce's The American Commonwealth in 1888. They identify a long period, ending only with the onset of World War I, in which political analysis of the city was more prescriptive than descriptive. The keynote was struck in Bryce's famous indictment: "There is no denying that the government of cities is the one con­spicuous failure of the United States." The main themes of the period were a profound pessimism concerning urbanism and the institutions of urban society, a sharp hostility toward political parties as instruments for the governing of cities, an indictment of immigrant groups as sources of urban political pathology, and a conviction that state legislatures regularly violated the urbanite's right to self-government. Between 1915 and 1950, how­ever, certain new themes in political analysis emerged. An era of "social engineering" brought a sharp counter­point of dissent with respect to earlier themes.

46

Subsequent work has been even more strongly char­acterized by a questioning attitude toward reformist doctrine, and the political scientist is increasinglyadopt­ing the posture of the clinical observer and analyst of urban political and governmental systems. At the same time political science is increasingly behavioral in ap­proach, adopting field research as a method, and con­cerned to find the conditions and consequences of decision making in various concrete situations. Sayre and Polsby conclude with "a research agenda for the 1960's" that includes such topics as the comparative

analysis of community power, examination of the ju­dicial process in cities, study of emerging metropolitan systems, and consideration of urbanization and democ­racy in developing nations.

Gideon Sjoberg was faced with a particularly difficult task in his assignment-to review "Theory and Research in Urban Sociology." Surveys of urban sociology already had been published. Rather than to present another review of empirical research, Sjoberg chose to delineate a number of schools of thought within urban sociology, based on the particular variable (or variables) to which each gives priority. Thus Wirth and Redfield and their followers are seen as making up an urbanization school, while Park and Burgess and the Chicago school gave emphasis to "subsocial" factors. Another and more recent branch of ecological thinking is labeled the sustenance school. Shevky and Bell, along with the Marxists, are treated as members of an economic school, while Mumford is regarded as an environmentalist. Hawley and Ogburn are seen as representatives of a technological school of thought. As to the value orientation school, Fireyand Kolb are viewed as carrying on the Weberian tradition. Finally, a school devoted to social power is seen as stemming from the work of Form.

The format of "Economic Aspects of Urban Re­search," by Raymond Vernon and Edgar M. Hoover, differs from that employed in earlier chapters, and for good reason: urban economics is probably the least well established of the specialties considered in the volume, even though the prior existence of urban land eco­nomics, real estate research, and location economics might suggest otherwise. Indeed, the first text devoted to the subject 15 appeared only this year. The chapter by Vernon and Hoover is one of the first efforts to delineate the field in a self-conscious and explicit way, and it is therefore more an evaluation of the potential of urban economics than it is a review of a fragmentary literature. It begins with an attempt to identify just what is distinc­tive about the economist's approach to the urban scene, comments on some broad methodological issues that are only now being subjected to serious debate, and estab­lishes some priorities for economic research in different settings, such as advanced and developing nations.

Part Two is devoted to the committee's interest in cross-cultural analysis, and comprises four essays.

A second contribution by Sjoberg, "Cities in Devel­oping and in Industrial Societies: A Cross-Cultural Analysis," in a sense follows up his monograph, The Pre­industrial City.6 The essay represents an attempt to

5 'Wilbur R. Thompson, A Preface to Urban Economics, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1965.

8 Gideon Sjoberg, The Preindustrial City: Past and Present, New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1960.

47

isolate the structural correlates of industrial cities and the societies in which they are found. A sketch of the preindustrial city serves as a backdrop against which we can view (1) "cities in transition," or those urban com­munities now undergoing industrialization around the world, and (2) true industrial cities. The aim is not to summarize existing research but to focus on certain critical theoretical issues and to delineate problem areas that merit intensive study. Special attention is devoted to social integration, the division of labor, and the role of "mediators" in modern urban-industrial systems.

The next chapter, "Political-Economic Aspects of Ur­banization in South and Southeast Asia," may be ex­pected to be of particular interest to political scientists and economists, even though it is contributed by a sociologist, Nathan Keyfitz. In his words, "The prob­lem concerns ecology in the fundamental, indeed primi­tive, sense of relating concentrations of population to the sources of their food: how will the city people eat as their numbers and the numbers of those in the country­side increase?" 7 His central hypothesis is that an im­balance in the exchange of goods between city and countryside is made up by the exercise of power on the part of the city, and that the decline in the food surplus available in the countryside (owing to the rapid growth of its population) attenuates the base which the cities had in colonial and precolonial times.

"Urban Geography and 'Non-Western' Areas," by Norton Ginsburg, is concerned with the city in Africa and Asia, and particularly in India and Japan. As Gins­burg observes, there is reason to ask whether the urbani­zation process is unidimensional or multidimensional and whether it is culturally as well as temporally differ­entiated: "To what extent are basic differences in culture, even given the spread of 'modern Western' tech­nology and values, likely to give rise to different urbani­zation processes and the creation of cities as artifacts that differ from culture to culture?" 8 Although he provides no sweeping conclusions, Ginsburg presents convincing evidence as to the varieties of urban forms and functions in other parts of the world. It is clear that a narrowly Western view of the city is likely to be incomplete.

"On the Spatial Structure of Cities in the Two Ameri­cas," by Schnore, consists of an examination of the resi­dential distribution of social classes in Anglo- and Latin-American cities. A number of scholars have ob­served that the pattern so familiar to us-with the lower strata heavily concentrated near the center of the city and the higher classes at the periphery and in the suburbs-is exactly reversed in the "classical" Latin American city, where the elite were clustered near the

T The Study of Urbanization, p. 269. 8 Ibid., p. 319.

central plaza and the lower classes were found at the edge of the city. This chapter is a systematic search for the factors that account for these differences, and for the growing similarity of cities south of the Rio Grande to those lying to the north. It complements the author's research dealing with the United States.9

The first chapter in Part Three is an account of "Re­search Frontiers in Urban Geography," by Brian J. L. Berry (University of Chicago). It deals with some of the more advanced theories and techniques of research that have come to be known as "regional science," a special­ty which makes extensive use of mathematical models and electronic computers. The major substantive topics considered by the geographic frontiersmen have been: (1) systems of cities; (2) correlates of city size and urbani­zation, including models of city-size distributions; (3) relations between urban patterns and transportation sys­tems; (4) the spatial structure of land uses within cities; and (5) simulation models as the means of conducting "laboratory experiments" in urban areas.

In "Urban Economic Growth and Development in a National System of Cities," Wilbur R. Thompson deals, as the title suggests, with a set of problems in macro­economics concerning the aggregate performance of the urban area as a whole rather than the internal arrange­ment of its parts. The city is viewed as a local labor market-a cluster of workplaces surrounded by work­ers' homes. Focusing on economic growth, the author considers such questions as the determinants and con­sequences of the level, distribution, and stability of local income and employment. At the same time the city is seen as a dependent, vulnerable subeconomy, interlocked in a broad national system of cities-a sub economy whose fate rests only partly in its own hands.

The penultimate chapter offers two perspectives upon a broad theoretical issue: the folk-urban ideal types. It includes essays by two scholars. In "Further Observa­tions on the Folk-Urban Continuum and Urbanization with Special Reference to Mexico City," Oscar Lewis returns to some of the themes first developed in his re­study of Tepoztlan, the Mexican village that served as the basis of Redfield's thinking about the folk-urban continuum.1o Lewis suggests that "we may learn more about the processes of change by studying relatively short-run sequential modifications in particular aspects of institutions in both the so-called folk and urban societies, than by global comparisons between folk and urban." 11 He concludes that in place of the latter we

9 Leo F. Schnore, The Urban Scene: Human Ecology and Demog· raphy, New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1965.

10 Oscar Lewis, Life in a Mexican Village: Tepoztlan Restudied, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1951.

11 The Study of Urbanization, p. 494.

48

need a large number of ·subtypes based upon better­defined variables and perhaps the addition of new ones. In "Observations on the Urban-Folk and Urban-Rural Dichotomies as Forms of Western Ethnocentrism," Hauser criticizes the manner in which these polar con­cepts have been received and utilized by the social science community. His central theme is that these ideal­type constructs have been widely accepted more as re­search findings than as instruments designed to further research. The inapplicability of the folk-urban and rural-urban typologies to the developing areas is in­dicated, and the need for more empirical investigation is urged.

In the final chapter, "Historical Aspects of Urbaniza­tion," Eric E. Lampard presents a study of societal dif­ferentiation (or division of labor) within a framework of human ecology. What he calls "primordial" urbaniza­tion is viewed as a process of collective adaptation which first allowed populations in half a dozen areas of the Old and New Worlds to organize and utilize a produc­tive surplus. By means of "definitive" urban organiza­tion, certain populations formed into more productive social systems in a growing variety of physical and social environments. At no time before the industrial revolu­tion, however, did any population achieve the capacity to support more than a small fraction of its total num­bers in urban centers. Throughout most of its 6,OOO-year history, the process of urbanization was checked by its dependence on a relatively undifferentiated agrarian base. Only when certain populations had achieved the technological capacity to convert and the organization­al capacity to control high per capita levels of inani­mate heat-energy did a truly urbanized society become possible.

The Study of Urbanization, then, represents a con­scious effort to consider in depth the four main needs initially identified by the committee: (1) There is need to differentiate the study of the city as a dependent variable and as an independent variable. Much of the apparent conflict in the literature on urbanization lies in the failure to make this distinction clear. (2) Con­sideration should be given to the advancement of multi­disciplinary research on the problems of urbanization. (3) More comparative and historical studies, both of the process and consequences of urbanization, should be undertaken. (4) There is great opportunity in the under­developed areas of the world for comparative urban studies. Through such studies better perspective could be achieved on the generalizations that have been made about urbanization, most of which have been derived from consideration of a relatively small number of Western cities over relatively limited periods of time.12

12 Cf. Items, December 1959, p. 43.

THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON liTHE STUDY OF URBANIZATION"

THE work of the Committee on Urbanization culmi­nated in an international conference, held at the Uni­versity of Chicago, July 7-10, 1965 and cosponsored by the International Social Science Council and the Social Science Research Council, with financial aid from the Joint ACLS - SSRC Committee on International Con­gresses in the United States. The program of the conference was based on the volume, The Study of Urbanization, described in the preceding repott by Leo F. Schnore. Participants in the conference, 33 in num­ber, included the members of the Committee on Urbani­zation, the other contributors to the volume who were not members of the committee itself, a few American guests, and 13 scholars from outside the United States: Jacqueline Beaujeu-Garnier, Professor of Regional Geography, University of Paris; Asa Briggs, Pro-Vice­Chancellor, University of Sussex; Edmundo Flores, Pro­fessor of Agricultural Economics, National University of Mexico; Gino Germani, Center of Comparative Soci­ology, Di Tella Institute, Buenos Aires; Sven Godlund, Professor of Human and Social Geography, University of Gothenburg; Sj. Groenman, Director, Sociological Institute, State University of Utrecht, and President of the International Social Science Council; N. R. Kar, Professor of Geography, Presidency College, University of Calcutta; Wolfgang Kollmann, Professor of Social and Economic History, University of Bochum; Shigemi Kono, Institute of Population Problems, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Tokyo; A. L. Mabogunje, Senior Lecturer in Geography, University of Ibadan; Stefan Nowakowski, Professor of Sociology, University of War­saw; Colin Rosser, Ford Foundation Advisory Planning Group, Calcutta; and Peter J. O. Self, Professor of Public Administration, London School of Economics and Political Science. Although it was planned to have at least three participants from Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, only one was able to attend.

The foreign participants, for the most part, were asked to prepare critiques of individual chapters in the com­mittee's volume. Presentation of these critiques was followed by spirited discussion of the issues raised in the chapters and in the critiques themselves.

There was widespread consensus among the partici­pants on the need for systematic, comparative inquiry

• The author, Professor of Geography at the University of Chicago and a member of the Committee on Urbanization throughout its exist­ence, was in charge of arrangements for the international conference on The Study of Urbani%tltion. He presented this report informally at the annual meeting of the Council's board of directors in September.

by Norton Ginsburg­

into the problems of urbanization. It generally was agreed that The Study of Urbanization itself represents a somewhat parochial and ethnocentric view of research on urbanization and the problems of cities, although it was recognized that the original charge to the committee was to survey the state of the field, particularly in the United States. It also was agreed that there exists a major need for interdisciplinary inquiry on urban prob­lems among the social sciences and that the volume is a major contribution in this direction. Members of the committee underscored the value to them of continuing contact over a period of years with their colleagues in related disciplines, and all recognized the noteworthy extent to which their views have been modified by this association. It also was agreed that within certain dis­ciplines--for example, history--considerable need exists for intradisciplinary integration and research, as well as an emphasis on the comparative aspects of urban evolu­tion within and among countries.

Despite a considerable variance of views at the begin­ning of the conference, the participants arrived at a marked consensus concerning certain major topics or problems that urgently need further examination and study. One of these involves what Self called the "politics of the urbanizing process," a topic of concern not only to political scientists but also to historians and other social scientists. In more general terms this topic might be subsumed under the heading "the role of government in urban development," and there was general agreement as to the importance of the distinction between urban development in free market economies as contrasted with planned economies.

Dissatisfaction was widely expressed concerning the failure to distinguish between the city as a dependent variable and as an independent variable in urban re­search, and it was agreed that steps are urgently needed to bridge the gap that exists between studies of the city as an artifact and those of the city as an environment within which social change takes place.

~9

The desirability of examining the role of commer­cialization and commercial activities as a major element in urban development was recognized, especially because of the widespread tendency to associate modem urbani­zation primarily with industrialization. This issue has particular relevance to the rapid urbanization taking place in some of the less developed regions in which industrialization itself differs markedly from that in cer­tain Western countries and where a tradition of urbani-

zation, distinct from that which is commonly recognized in the West, exists.

There was sympathetic response to Groenman's recom­mendation that a research project be undertaken on the international literature in the field of urbanization, as a basic step toward fulfilling the objective of further comparative inquiry; and the possibility of holding an­other conference at which American scholars would criticize work done elsewhere was favorably discussed.

Finally, foreign scholars in particular expressed their strong preference for relating current research on urbani­zation to the analysis of action-oriented programs and policies, and the desirability of another conference with a strong action or planning orientation was approved in principle by the group.

Several conclusions, other than those leading to recom­mendations for further research and activity, developed out of the conference:

(1) It was clear that an international conference of this sort is most useful as a means for bringing people from diverse disciplines, as well as from different coun­tries, face to face for frank and open discussion of re­search progress and orientations. The simple act of "confrontation" leads to an intensification and clarifica­tion of issues and to later exchanges of enormous value.

(2) As a corollary, the participants agreed to the value of the conference in broadening their views concerning possibilities for both comparative and interdisciplinary effort.

(3) The difficulties of discussing a huge topic of this

sort at a short conference tend to make intensive ex­ploration of some issues impossible, and it was agreed that focus on a real case, within which such varied ingredients as ecological patterning, spatial systems, and power structure could be discussed, would have great advantages.

(4) From the American point of view, a meeting be­tween American scholars and those from one additional country, rather than many, again with a view toward greater exploration in depth of problems of mutual concern, would provide benefits above those of a broader-based conference.

(5) All agreed, moreover, that the value of conferences of this kind is particularly great for scholars in the less developed countries, where the scholarly community is relatively small and interaction less intense, and where scholars may experience a certain estrangement from their own society, a condition which invariably is both discouraging and desiccating.

The desirability exists, therefore, for a number of further conferences oriented toward more intensive ex­ploration of particular problems; toward the applied aspects of scholarly research on the city; toward the more intensive examination of issues on a comparative basis as revealed in one or several countries, in contrast to a world view; and toward the expansion of intra­disciplinary communication particularly in those fields characterized by a marked cultural bias, on one hand, or by lack of communication among regional special­ists within it, on the other.

THE FIRST EUROPEAN SUMMER SCHOOL ON SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, THE HAGUE, JULY IS-AUGUST I I, 1965

IN RECENT years various plans have been made to im­prove communication among European social psycholo­gists. In the development of these plans, the suggestion that they should include summer schools for younger research workers came from several sides. It was believed

• The authors, members of the staH of the Netherlands Institute for Preventive Medicine, Leiden, served respectively as Secretary and Director of the Summer School on Social-psychological Problems in Organizations, a training institute planned in cooperation with the Council's Committee on Transnational Social Psychology and financed in part by funds granted to the Council by the National Science Founda­tion. The members of the committee are: Leon Festinger, Stanford Uni­versity (chairman); Jaap Koekebakker; John T. Lanzetta, Dartmouth College; Serge Moscovici, University of Paris; Ithiel de Sola Pool, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Ragnar Rommetveit, University of Oslo; Stanley Schachter, Columbia University; and Henri Tajfel, University of Oxford.

50

by Maarten R. van Gils and Jaap Koekebakker ""

that such schools would playa decisive role in the devel­opment of European social psychology in the next decades. Bringing together a group of participants who had recently completed their academic training could foster the following aims: confrontation with advanced theories and methodologies in the field of social psychology; promotion of a communication network be­tween social psychologists in European countries; stimu­lation of the study of social psychology in countries where the discipline is not yet well-accepted.

The Foundation for European Summer &hools in Social Psychology, which had been constituted in the summer of 1964, appointed a planning committee and explored with several organizations the possibilities for financial support of a summer school. In December

1964 tentative plans were discussed at the conference of European social psychologists held in Frascati, Italy, by the Committee on Transnational Social Psychology of the Social Science Research Council. There it was decided to make the first summer school a joint venture of that committee and the Foundation in collaboration with the Netherlands Universities Foundation for Inter­national Cooperation. The planning committee was ac­cordingly enlarged. Its members were: Fred E. Emery, Tavistock Institute of Human Relations; Jaap Koeke­bakker, Netherlands Institute for Preventive Medicine; Serge Moscovici, University of Paris; Stanley Schachter, Columbia University; and Henri Tajfel, University of Oxford.

This committee selected "social-psychological aspects of organizations" as the theme of the first summer school because organizations are of primary importance in modern life and also present a variety of social psy­chological problems. Four topics were selected for study: (a) power and conflict in organizational settings; (b) the development and testing of models of interactions within experimental and natural groups; (c) the results of re­search on the formation and maintenance of norms; (d) collective behaviors emerging within organized groups. A program was developed to make the summer school as much as possible a research practicum in social psy­chology. In addition to formal teaching and study, much time was to be spent on the design and pretesting of research projects. Mr. Koekebakker was appointed Direc­tor of the summer school and the following were invited to serve on its faculty: Morton Deutsch, Teachers Col­lege, Columbia University; Fred E. Emery; Claude Faucheux, University of Paris; Claude Flament, Univer­sity of Aix-Marseilles, Aix-en-Provence; Philip Herbst, Technical University of Norway; and Robert B. Zajonc, University of Michigan.

ORGANIZATION OF THE SUMMER SCHOOL

Close cooperation with the Netherlands Universities Foundation for International Cooperation was of par­ticular benefit in the organization of the summer school, making it possible to hold the sessions at "Het Oude Hof," former palace of the Queen in The Hague, now used as a conference center. That Foundation agreed to take care of administration of the summer school. The Foundation for Summer Schools in Social Psychology remained responsible for the realization of the goals of the program. From the beginning it undertook to assure the financing of the project. A first contribution was made by the Fondation Europeenne de la Culture. Later, financial assistance was provided by the Social Science Research Council, and contributions were re-

51

ceived from Dutch industrial enterprises and from the European Community for Coal and Steel, particularly for travel grants to the participants.

It was clearly envisaged that one of the main strengths of the summer school should be the flexibility of its program; it was intended that enough time would be available for pursuit of specific interests and activities to meet the needs of the participants themselves. In principle, part of each morning was reserved for lectures and two hours each afternoon for the projects of working groups. The members of the faculty were invited to lec­ture for 5 or 6 consecutive mornings on specific aspects of "social-psychological problems in organizations," al­though no strict adherence to this schedule was required. A broad range of theories was covered by the lecturers, since the planning committee thought it would be more worthwhile to expose the participants to many different theories than to deal with only a few subjects intensively. It was expected that participants interested in a specific subject would take the initiative in exploring it further. The projects of work groups were to give the participants opportunity to develop a specific research design and at the same time to receive some training in research methodology. It was expected that two or three labora­tory work groups, one or two survey work groups, and a work group for field experiments would match the interests of the participants. Work group leaders and assistants were accordingly invited. The planning com­mittee explicitly arranged that participants should have the opportunity to consult the different faculty members on problems concerning their own projects.

With regard to the selection of participants, the plan­ning committee was of the opinion that approximately 40 applicants could be admitted, that they should repre­sent as far as possible different European countries, and that they should be promising young social psychologists who could be expected to advance social psychology as a science in their own countries. A rather extensive ap­plication form was sent to persons who asked for further information about the summer school after the first an­nouncements were made (by distribution of brochures and in periodicals). About 75 applications were received. The 38 psychologists who accepted invitations to par­ticipate came from the following countries:

Belgium 4 Ireland 2 Czechoslovakia 2 Italy 1 France 4 Netherlands 5 Germany !J Poland !J Great Britain 7 Yugoslavia 6 Greece 1

In addition to six lecturers the faculty consisted of five leaders of work groups, their six assistants, the Director, and the Secretary. The lecturers generally were present

about ten days; the other faculty members, for the whole period. With the planning committee the faculty played an active role in the organization of the program.

Prior to the opening of the summer school several meetings were held by the planning committee and by some of the faculty members. At the meetings of the latter special attention was given to problems concern­ing the integration of the morning and afternoon pro­grams and the ways in which specific wishes and interests of the participants could be met. Through the coopera­tion of several industrial, governmental, and scientific organizations, enough experimental "subjects" were secured for the laboratory work groups, and the other work groups were assured of the possibility of launching projects without losing time in finding a field for their research. The cooperation of all these organizations was essential to the ul~imate success of the program.

LECTURES

Lectures were given on the following subjects: co­operation, competition, and bargaining, by Morton Deutsch; the nature of behavioral laws, generalized behavior theory and quantitative case study techniques, by Philip Herbst; models of interaction in experimental and natural groups and applications of graph theory, by Claude Flament; social facilitation, and attitudinal effects of mere exposure and the learning of hypothetical social structures, by Robert B. Zajonc; emotional proc­esses in group behavior and socio-technical theory, by Fred E. Emery; main sources of organizational develop­ment and the process of development of a "T-group," by Claude Faucheux.

Attendance at the lectures, although optional, re­mained at a high level. The participants clearly shared a keen desire to be confronted with new ideas and theories. All lectures were given in English. Not all participants had a good command of this language, and especially during the first week some of them had dif­ficulties in understanding. This problem was partly solved by providing ample opportunities for clarification in discussion groups. One or two lectures generally were followed by a short plenary discussion period, after which the participants were divided into two or three groups. Each group then examined with the lecturer or another faculty member the substance of the lecture in greater detail. The composition of these groups was sometimes based on communality of language.

WORK GROUPS

On the first day the work group leaders gave short expositions of their ideas about the projects they were

52

to direct. The participants were then requested to in­dicate their first, second, and third choices of groups they would like to join, and as far as possible were assigned accordingly to the following project groups:

Field experiment on the effect of knowledge of group attitudes on the attitudes of the individual, led by Derk Pugh, Indus­trial Administration Research Unit, College of Advanced Technology, Birmingham

Competition, negotiation, and bargaining (laboratory experi­ments), led by Dean Pruitt, University of Delaware

Creativity in scientific teams (survey), led by Alexander Matejko, University of Warsaw

Laboratory experiment on power distance theories, led by Wim Brinkman, University of Amsterdam

Experimental study of the conditions under which in- and out­group feelings tend to develop and a field study of inter­group phenomena during the summer school, led by J aap Rabbie, University of Utrecht.

Although most of the work group leaders had a gen­eral idea of what they wanted to do, the direction in which each group would develop was completely open. The task of the group leader and his assistant was there­fore a difficult one: they not only had to be sensitive to the dynamics of the group, but also to keep in mind any language difficulties of members of the group and individual differences in methodological sophistication. As expected, most of the groups developed into highly cohesive, hard-working groups. The reports prepared by the different groups clearly show their creativity and the zeal with which they worked on their projects. (At the end of the summer school the reports were discussed in plenary sessions.) For most of the groups the scheduled two hours per day were not enough, and in general they worked from 2 until 6 p.m. Often one could find small groups working until late at night.

This time-consuming aspect of the work group proj­ects had disadvantages, some of which should be men­tioned here. As soon as work group members undertake a common task, they tend to want to finish it. As time goes on, they realize how much work still has to be done and more and more energy is put into it. This, however, can be detrimental to the other interests of the partici­pants, for less and less time is left for other activities, such as informal discussions. When the program is al­most over, participants discover how much more they would like to have done. Work group leaders should recognize that the "success" of a work group does not necessarily depend upon having finished a project. For the individual the value of participation in a work group can result from the influence of theoretical dis­cussions or from exploration of the ways in which a project might be best designed. Language problems also can put severe strains on a work group. Members fluent in English often determine the rapidity of the develop-

ment of a group project, and they are apt to forget that other members of the group may have difficulty in following the trend of its discussions. This may result in a feeling of being left out and of resentment toward the group.

Other features of the summer school were the reading of papers by the participants on the work they were carrying on in their home countries and the organization of discussions of specific social psychological problems. There was always great interest in both these activities. Some participants also organized sessions in which prob­lems of multivariate analysis were discussed. Very im­portant also were informal discussions in which ideas and information were exchanged.

EVALUATION

Before the summer school opened, the faculty dis­cussed at length the possibilities for systematic evalua­tion of its procedures and results, but concluded that time and staff were insufficient to prepare for such a systematic study. One of the work groups interested in problems of intergroup relations, however, decided to use the summer school itself as the subject of one of its two studies (the other was experimental). Much material on this aspect of the summer school was thus assembled and analyzed, and a separate report on the study is in preparation.

For the faculty the most striking feature of the sum­mer school was the eagerness of the participants to learn, to listen to what other people had to say, and to com­municate one's own ideas. Compared with doctoral stu­dents in their home settings, the staff found the attitudes of this group not at all "blase." Without doubt, the enthusiasm of the participants and their willingness to work made this first summer school a success. Intensive discussions both within and outside the formal sessions continued throughout the four-week period. In this respect the goals of the summer school as stated above were considered to be attained.

Keeping in mind this positive evaluation of the sum­mer school as a whole, staff and participants focused their critical remarks on aspects that could be improved in future summer schools. The staff hoped that the following could be achieved: more coordination be­tween the lectures; better integration of formal teach­ing and work group activities; a more nearly equal level of sophistication of all participants. With respect to the first two of these aims, it was the general opinion that the difficulties in 1965 were caused by geographical dis­tance between the future faculty members and perhaps the limited time available for preparation and planning. Planning should begin at least one and a half years in

53

advance, and the full staff should meet at least twice for several days before a summer school starts.

The faculty was in general much impressed by the level of training of this first sample of younger European social psychologists and by their strong motivation. One could not expect better results than were achieved by the selection procedures used, but the faculty recom­mended that future summer schools strive for a more equal level of sophistication of participants (which may be difficult as long as university training is so different in many countries).

The very frank and "non-European" way in which the participants communicated points of criticism to the faculty at the end of the summer school, in the authors' opinion, clearly indicated the high level of morale that characterized this first summer school. As some staff members remarked, a setting that develops such an atmosphere should not be called a school-a replication of a European university culture-but a seminar, as a much more cooperative effort between participants and staff. One of the complaints was that the time schedule was too demanding. The strong motivation of partici­pants and staff reinforced an achievement process, es­pecially in the working groups. Originally much time had been reserved for free communication among indi­viduals, but the summer school did not succeed in main­taining such a schedule. A second problem, mentioned by some, was the language issue. Compared with many other international meetings, the sensitivity to this bar­rier was rather high: English-speaking lecturers did their utmost to speak slowly and clearly; and several partici­pants avoided speaking their native language in order to familiarize themselves as quickly as possible with the conference language. Nevertheless, it was not possible to reduce all handicaps, and no suggestions were made for real improvements. A third point, repeatedly made, was that the aims of the program were not clear: it had been too heavily weighted in favor of an experimental approach, whereas real-life phenomena of organizations should have been given more emphasis. A multidiscipli­nary approach might have been a better way to stimulate thinking about problems in organizations. Most partici­pants, however, appreciated the opportunity to learn more about experimental approaches, since information about these is least accessible in their home countries.

Another suggestion was that more ad hoc groups be organized during a summer school for specialized teach­ing of a specific topic, as in Pruitt's lectures on complex experimental designs. Some practical suggestions were also made about organization, living conditions, and size of groups. These and many other suggestions are available in check-list form for future organizers of summer programs.

The report of the leaders of the work group on inter­group relations will present more systematic and objec­tive facts about the summer school, but we already know that future summer schools should have a more elabo­rate, planned program for self-evaluation, and that the future development of other kinds of postdoctoral train­ing also should be influenced by systematic analysis of actual experiences. In the meantime we have to answer the question, "Did this summer school reach its objec­tives?" on the basis of imprecise criteria. At the opening session the addresses of welcome mentioned the im­portance of the growth of the social sciences for Euro-

pean development, and stressed the necessity of more communication and cooperation among European social psychologists. The Director stated that the stimulation of self-propelling forces in the field of social psychology was one of the main reasons for this summer school. It is the strong, personal conviction of the writers, rein­forced by reactions from faculty members and partici­pants, that these objectives have been realized in a way very satisfactory for a first experiment. This endorses in full the plans now being made for a summer training institute to be held at the University of Louvain in the summer of 1966.

COMMITTEE BRIEFS ECONOMY OF CHINA

Simon Kuznets (chairman), Walter Galenson (director of research), Abram Bergson, Alexander Eckstein, Ta-Chung Liu; staff, Paul Webb ink.

A conference on economic trends in Communist China was held by the committee on October 21-23 at Carmel, California, to review the status of the studies that the com­mittee has initiated and to consider their relation to other current research on the Chinese economy. Discussion was centered upon papers summarizing research completed thus far under the committee's auspices or giving an overview of work which other scholars have under way. The searching nature of the comments at the conference is expected to be of substantial aid in improving the content and quality of the final reports that are in preparation. The committee was encouraged both by the general intellectual level of the discussion, compared with the level attained at the similar conference held in 1963, and by the keen interest of several economists who attended the October conference but who have not been actively engaged in the study of Chinese eco­nomic problems. It is anticipated that many of the confer­ence papers will be revised for publication in 1966 in a volume to be edited by Messrs. Galenson, Eckstein, and Liu.

Participants in the conference, in addition to members and staff of the committee, were John S. Aird, Bureau of the Census; Joseph S. Berliner, Brandeis University; John Lossing Buck, Pleasant Valley, N.Y.; KangChao, Nai-Ruenn Chen, Gregory Grossman, H. Franz Schurmann, University of California, Berkeley; Chu-yuan Cheng, Albert Feuer­werker, Anthony Koo, University of Michigan; Shun-Hsin Chou, University of Pittsburgh; M. Gardner Clark, Cornell University; Robert F. Dernberger, University of Chicago; John D. Durand, University of Pennsylvania; George N. Ecklund, Robert M. Field, III, Edwin F. Jones, Washington, D.C.; Oleg Hoeffding, Richard Moorsteen, Kung-Chia Yeh, RAND Corporation; Charles Hoffmann, State University of

54

New York at Stony Brook; William Hollister, Queens Col­lege; Chi-ming Hou, Colgate University; Ronald Hsia, Uni­versity of Hong Kong; Norman M. Kaplan, Sho-Chieh Tsiang, University of Rochester; Ching-wen Kwang, State University of New York at Buffalo; Jung-Chao Liu, McGill University; Feng-hwa Mah, University of Washington; Dwight H. Perkins, Harvard University; Peter Schran, Uni­versity of Illinois; Anthony M. Tang, Vanderbilt University; Kenneth R. Walker, University of London; and Yuan-li Wu, University of San Francisco.

SIMULATION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL PROCESSES

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

The committee has made three additional grants for in­tensive study of computer simulation programs:

Martin Pfaff, Assistant Professor of International Busi­ness and Marketing, American University, for study with Burton R. Wolin, Decision Processes Staff, System Development Corporation, of computer simulation of organizational interactions

Max D. Richards, Professor of Management, Pennsylvania State University, for study with Sydney Rome [and Beatrice Rome], Decision Processes Staff, System Devel­opment Corporation, of computer simulation of organi­zational structures

Howard Rosenthal, Assistant Professor of Political Sci­ence, University of California, Irvine, for study with Ithiel de Sola Pool, Professor of Political Science, Massa­chusetts Institute of Technology, of the M.LT. Survey Analysis System

Applications for grants under this program, which pro­vide for spending up to 15 days at a computer installation for intensive training arranged with a particular investiga­tor, will be accepted at any time.

PERSONNEL FACULTY RESEARCH GRANTS

The Committee on Faculty Research Grants-John Thibaut (chairman), John M. Blum, Victor Jones, Irving B. Kravis, David S. Landes, Mel£ord E. Spiro, and Frank R. Westie-held the first of its two scheduled meetings on December 11. It made the following 33 grants:

William Bosworth, Assistant Professor of Political Sci­ence, Hunter College, for research in Paris and West Africa on Cartierisme and France's Central African policy since 1960

David Brody, Associate Professor of History, Ohio State University, for research on unionization of American labor in mass-production industries, 1933-45

Fredric L. Cheyette, Assistant Professor of History, Am­herst College, for res~arch in Fr~c~ on the con~titu­tional role of the Parhament of ParIS In the late MIddle Ages

Gerson D. Cohen, Associate Professor of History, Colum­bia University, for research in Europe on medieval Jewish Messianism from the rise of Islam to 1648

Willard F. Day, Associate Professor of Psychology, Uni­versity of Nevada, for research in England on contem­porary radical behaviorism

Jack D. Douglas, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Uni­versity of California, Los Angeles, for research on the "moral statisticians" and Durkheimian sociology

Edward P. Dozier, Professor of Anthropology and Lin­guistics, University of Arizona, for completion of ethno­botanical studies of the Tewa Pueblo Indians of New Mexico

Gerald D. Feldman, Assistant Professor of History, Uni­versity of California, Berkeley, for research in Germany on the coalition between industry and organized labor in the early Weimar Republic, 1918-24

Robert W. Fogel, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago, for research on land policy and economic development in Illinois, 1840-80

Paul W. Gates, Professor of American History, Cornell University, for research on disposal of the public lands and changing patterns of land ownership and use in California

Calvin S. Hall, Director, Institute of Dream Research, Inc., for research in Switzerland on Jungian and existential theories of dreams

Richard F. Hamilton, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Princeton University, for research in the German Fed­eral Republic on the politics of manual workers, 1953-65

F. G. Heymann, Professor of History, University of Alberta, Calgary, for research in Europe on the Ger­man Peasant War

Paul M. Hohenberg, Assistant Professor of Economics, Stanford University, for research in Paris and Kiel on interrelations of agricultural and industrial develop­ment in Western Europe, 1840-1914

Henry G. Horwitz, Assistant Professor of History, Uni­versity of Iowa, for research in England on the struc­ture of English politics in the reign of William III

Frederic C. Jaher, Assistant Professor of History, Uni-

55

versity of Chicago, for research on the development and decline of an urban elite

Winthrop D. Jordan, Assistant Professor of History, Uni­versity of California, Berkeley, for research on beliefs about docility of Negro slaves in America

Peter B. Kenen, Professor of Economics, Columbia Uni­versity, for research in Europe on the coordination of economic policies in the Atlantic Community

Seymour Leventman, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania, for research on class and ethnic tensions attending the social mobility of Negroes

H. Roy Merrens, Assistant Professor of Geography, San Fernando Valley State College, for research on the historical geography of colonial South Carolina

E. William Monter, Jr., Assistant Professor of History, Northwestern University, for research in Europe on emigration from the Republic of Geneva in the seven­teenth and eighteenth centuries

Allen Parducci, Associate Professor of Psychology, Uni­versity of California, Los Angeles, for research on value judgments and perceptual judgments

Harold W. Pfautz, Professor of Sociology, Brown Uni­versity, for a comparative study of specific social movements

Robert E. T. Roberts, Associate Professor of Sociology and Anthropology, Roosevelt University, for a socio­logical analysis of Negro-white intermarriage in Chicago

Harold M. Rose, Assistant Professor of Geography, Uni­versity of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, for research on the impact of racial change on the retail structure of a changing urban area

Richard Rose, Lecturer in Government, University of Manchester, for a theoretical and empirical study in Northern Ireland and the United States of the proc­esses of legitimacy and legitimation in political systems, with special reference to Northern Ireland

Sheldon Rothblatt, Assistant Professor of History, Uni­versity of California, Berkeley, for research in England on the nature and function of education in an indus­trial society

Simon Rottenberg, Professor of Economics, Duke Uni­versity, for research on the allocation of medical and pharmaceutical research resources among diseases

Lloyd Ulman, Professor of Economics and Industrial Relations, University of California, Berkeley, for re­search in Europe on alternative economic policies and institutional flexibility under conditions of labor market tension

Richard T. Vann, Associate Professor of History, Wes­leyan University, for research on a demographic history of the English Quakers, 1655-1837

Thomas A. Wilson, Assistant Professor of Economics, Harvard University, for a comparative econometric study in Europe of wage-price problems in four coun­tries since World War II

Kurt H. Wolff, Professor of Sociology, Brandeis Univer­sity, for historical and analytical research on the soci­ology of knowledge

Deil S. Wright, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Iowa, for theoretical analysis of data on the social backgrounds, careers, and attitudes of American state administrators

DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE COUNCIL

At the annual meeting of the board of directors of the Council in September. Abram Bergson. Thomas S. Kuhn. Don K. Price. and Herbert A. Simon were re-elected direc­tors-at-large for the two-year term 1966-67. The other directors-at-large are John R. Borchert. Lee J. Cronbach. Chauncy D. Harris. and Ralph H. Turner.

Frederick Mosteller was elected chairman of the board of directors; Herbert A. Simon. vice-chairman; William O. Aydelotte. secretary; and Leo F. Schnore. treasurer. The following members of the board were elected as its Execu­tive Committee: David B. Truman (chairman). Dorwin Cartwright. George H. Hildebrand. Dell Hymes. and John U seem. Gardner Lindzey was named chairman of the Com­mittee on Problems and Policy; and Chauncy D. Harris. and Wilbert E. Moore were re-elected members of the com­mittee. Its other members are Gabriel A. Almond. Harold

C. Conklin. R. A. Gordon. and ex officio: Pendleton Her­ring. Frederick Mosteller. and Herbert A. Simon.

COUNCIL STAFF

Jerome E. Singer. Associate Professor of Psychology at Pennsylvania State University. on leave 1965-66 as a U. S. Public Health Service Visiting Scholar at Educational Test­ing Service. on October 15. 1965 joined the staff of the Coun­cil as part-time Consultant. A recipient of the Ph.D. in psy­chology from the University of Minnesota. Mr. Singer was previously a Research Assistant in its Social Relations Labo­ratory and a National Institute of Mental Health post­doctoral fellow in histochemistry at its Medical School. Mr. Singer serves as staff of the Committees on Genetics and Behavior, Simulation of Psychological and Social Processes, Socialization and Social Structure, and Transnational Social Psychology.

PUBLICA TIONS The Brookings Quarterly Econometric Model of the United

States, edited by James s. Duesenberry, Gary Fromm. Lawrence R. Klein, and Edwin Kuh. Sponsored by the Committee on Economic Stability. Chicago: Rand Mc­Nally & Company, and Amsterdam: North-Holland Pub­lishing Company, 1965. c. 800 pages. c. $9.00.

Education and Economic Development, edited by C. Arnold Anderson and Mary Jean Bowman. Outgrowth of a con­ference. April 4-6, 1963. jointly sponsored by the Com­mittee on Economic Growth and the University of Chi­cago Comparative Education Center. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, August 1965. 446 pages. $10.75.

Education and Political Development, edited by James S. Coleman. Studies in Political Development 4, sponsored by the Committee on Comparative Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, June 1965. 632 pages. $10.00.

European Research in Cognitive Development, edited by Paul H. Mussen. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 30. No.2 (Serial No. 100), September 1965. Report of a conference sponsored by the former Committee on Intellective Processes Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 124 pages. $3.00.

Learning and the Educational Process: Selected Papers from the Research Conference . .. held at Stanford University,

June 22 - July 31, 1964, edited by John D. Krumboltz. Chicago: Rand McNally &: Company, October 1965. 290 pages. $6.50.

Mathematical Learning, edited by Lloyd N. Morrisett and John Vinsonhaler. Monographs of the Society for Re­search in Child Development. Vol. 30, No.1 (Serial No. 99), July 1965. Report of a conference sponsored by the former Committee on Intellective Processes Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 150 pages. $3.00.

Political Culture and Political Development, edited by Lucian W. Pye and Sidney Verba. Studies in Political Development 5, sponsored by the Committee on Com­parative Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. July 1965.584 pages. $10.00.

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, April 1965. 292 pages. $7.95.

The Study of Urbanization, edited by Philip M. Hauser and Leo F. Schnore. Sponsored by the former Committee on Urbanization. New York: John Wiley &: Sons, July 1965. 562 pages. $9.75.

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

2110 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: WU.LIAM O . AYDELOTI'E, BERNAlUl 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, GAlUlNER UNDZEY, QUINN McNEMAR, FRANCO MODlGLlANI, LOUIS MORTON,

FilEDEIlICK MOSTELLER, J. ROLAND PENNOCK, DON K. PIlICE, LEO F. SCHNORE, HERBERT A. SIMON, DAVID B. TRUMAN, RALPH H. TUIlNER, JOHN

USEEM, ROBERT E. W AlUl

Officers and Staff: PENDLETON HERIlING, President; PAUL WEBBINK, Vice-President; ELBIlIDGE SmLEY, BRYCE WOOD, Executive Associates; ELEANoa

C. IsBELL, ROWLAND L. MITCHELL, JR., Staff Associates; JEROME E. SINGER, Consultant; CATHEIlINE V. RONNAN, Financial Secretary

56